New York

Published on: November 24, 2012

People Move to Have Expert Testimony Precluded from Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant A.S.. The defendant has been charged with three robberies. He allegedly robbed a Gymboree store located on Third Avenue on the 18th of April, 2001 and again on the 15th of June, 2001. He is also charged with robbing the American Airlines office located on Broadway later on the same day of June 15th, 2001.

Case Background

On the 17th of June, an eyewitness a robbery at Gymboree picked the defendant’s picture out of a photo line up. A witness of the American Airlines robbery was shown the same group of pictures, but did not make identification.

Published on: November 23, 2012

Appellant appeals Rape Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is E.M. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Published on: November 22, 2012

Court Hears Mental Hygiene Proceeding

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Fourth Judicial Department. The case deals with the State of New York as the petitioner and respondent and N.W., who is also known as S.J., as the respondent and appellant.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent and appellant, S.J. is appealing a decision made in the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that denied the motion made by the respondent/appellant to dismiss the proceeding.

Case Background

Published on: November 21, 2012

Court Decides if Military Tribunal is Considered a Court of Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter involves H.B. and L.C as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court as the respondents. The appellant in the case is J.K. as the Jefferson County District Attorney. The other case involves the respondents L.B. and L.C. as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court and J.K. as the Jefferson County District Attorney as the appellant.

The District Attorney of Jefferson County is appealing two cases. He is seeking to overturn the grant of writs of prohibition that prevent his office from prosecuting serious crimes that were committed by two solders on military property. The soldiers were off duty at the time.

The petitioner soldiers were tried and convicted by a general court martial for identical conduct that they were indicted for in Jefferson County. The issue in each of the cases is whether a military tribunal is considered a court with any jurisdiction in the United States. If a military tribunal is considered a court with jurisdiction than the double jeopardy protection laws of the state of New York would bar the successive prosecution of the issues in these cases.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Key Witness Recants Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is currently serving a prison term of twenty-five years to life, having been convicted of Murder in the Second Degree for shooting and killing Cesar Vasquez on the evening of July 16, 1991. Defendant and his co-defendant were convicted after a jury trial based on identifications made by a single eye witness, P.D. D., a woman with a lengthy psychiatric history, the details of which were largely unknown to defendant at the time of trial, testified that she looked out her fourth floor window at midnight and saw defendant and two other men with guns approach her building. As she ran downstairs she heard five gunshots and saw the back of the men as they left the scene. Although her fourteen year old son, G, was out on the street and witnessed the shooting, he was never called as a witness at trial.A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the People did not present any physical evidence, motive evidence or any other evidence to corroborate Denor’s identification of defendant as one of the shooters.

D, a complete stranger to both defendants, has now recanted her trial testimony, claiming that she lied when she testified that she saw the faces of the shooters and identified them. A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, she now claims that she did not actually see and could not have seen the faces of the shooters and that she identified defendant based only on her observation of a photograph of him that she saw in the investigating detective’s car. Denor states that she falsely identified defendant out of a strong desire to protect her son, whom she believed was being threatened by detective Pezullo and whom she did not want to testify.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant moves to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL §440.10 based primarily on Denor’s recantation. He argues that her recantation is newly discovered evidence that is credible and reliable and that if known at trial would have created the probability of a more favorable verdict to defendant.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Discusses 5th Amendment Double Jeopardy Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

On the morning of December 15, 1971 two men and a woman were observed entering the New York residence of the husband and his wife carrying empty shopping bags or, in Grant’s case, with a collapse valise. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when they departed, the three left with their once empty receptacles, filled. They were then followed to different distribution points where they were arrested. Searches conducted incident to the arrests revealed that they each had over one pound of heroin possession (drug possession). A subsequent search of the couple’s residence produced large amounts of narcotics, money, weapons and drug packaging materials.

On December 28, 1971 the three were indicted by the Bronx County Grand Jury which, by five indictments, charged the three and the wife with criminal law violation through crack possession. The indictments also charged one of the three complainants with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of reckless endangerment and possession of a weapon; and the complainant couple with two counts each of possession of weapon and criminally using drug paraphernalia.

Thereafter, in November, 1972 the complainants and 14 others were indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute narcotic drugs. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the indictment set forth 18 overt acts that the complainants allegedly committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, the last of which stated that the three together with the husband did distribute and possess with intent to distribute a total of eight and one-half (8 1/2) kilograms of heroin hydrochloride, and, in addition, did obtain $70,000 income and resources from prior heroin distributions.

Published on: November 20, 2012

Court Discusses Whether Constitution Rights of Inmates has been Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent inmates brought this class action in Federal District Court challenging the constitutionality of numerous conditions of confinement and practices in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), a federally operated short-term custodial facility in New York City designed primarily to house pretrial detainees for federal criminal offense. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the District Court, on various constitutional grounds, enjoined, the practice of housing, primarily for sleeping purposes, two inmates in individual rooms originally intended for single occupancy (“double-bunking”); enforcement of the so-called “publisher-only” rule prohibiting inmates from receiving hard-cover books that are not mailed directly from publishers, book clubs, or bookstores; the prohibition against inmates’ receipt of packages of food and personal items from outside the institution; the practice of body-cavity searches of inmates following contact visits with person from outside institution; and the requirement that pretrial detainees remain outside their rooms during routine inspections by MCC officials. The Court of Appeals affirmed these rulings, holding with respect to the “double-bunking” practice that the MCC had failed to make a showing of “compelling necessity” sufficient to justify such practice.

The issue in this case is whether the constitutional rights of the inmates has been violated because of the conditions of confinement and practices imposed by the MCC, a facility designed to house a pre-trial detainees who committed federal criminal offense.

The Court held that, “double-bunking” practice does not deprive pretrial detainees of their liberty without due process of law in contravention of the Fifth Amendment.

Published on: November 17, 2012

Court Discusses Search Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case is about the validity of a search warrant which authorized a search of the premises where defendant resided, and also of another residential unit distantly located. A New York Criminal Lawyer said whether the warrant itself is sufficient; and whether by collateral estoppel the infirmity of the warrant may be argued or applied to the other residence; has to be determined by the Court.

On September 10, 1985, a New York City Police officer applied by telephone to a Queens County Criminal Court Judge for a search warrant for two premises in Queens: 155-47 116th Avenue; and the second floor of a two family dwelling at 116-66 231st Street. The application was based on the information provided to the Police Officer by an unregistered and unidentified informant, who had provided information in the past. According to the informant, there were two black males who had been abducted, beaten and were near death from a ruined drug crime transaction (drug possession) at the 116th Avenue location. The informant also said to the Police Officer that he had just left the location twenty minutes earlier and that he had been in the company of three of the suspects who were going to the 231st Street location, at about 8:00 P.M., in order to cut and distribute drugs.

The judge authorized a “no-knock” search of both premises and authorized the arrest of all persons found therein, as well as the seizure of any contraband found. The search of the 116th Avenue location resulted in the arrest of seven people and the recovery of misdemeanor quantities of narcotics and several rifles. The search of the 231st Street location, which is defendant’s home, resulted in the arrest of defendant and five others, and the recovery of substantial amount of narcotics, handguns, cash, and drug paraphernalia.

Published on: November 16, 2012

Court Discusses Elements of a Criminal Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

The two accused men, charged with the crimes of Criminal Sale of a Dangerous Drug and Conspiracy (drug possession), move to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution puts them in jeopardy again for crimes of which they already have been convicted in another jurisdiction. They contend, in short, that their prosecution in Nassau County of the crime of Conspiracy included therein acts which are alleged in this indictment and thus fall within the proscriptions of the Criminal Procedure Law which prohibit such a second prosecution. The Court ordered a hearing on the contentions of the accused men and the facts and circumstances of the issues as testified to at the hearing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused men with others met the undercover Police Officer who was accompanied by an informer at a restaurant owned by one of the accused in Queens County Restaurant. There was a discussion concerning the buying and selling of cocaine and the accused men quoted prices to the undercover detective. An agreement was made the next day to meet at the same place for the purchase of 1/8 of a kilo and at the subsequent meeting the accused delivered the 1/8 of a kilo to the officer and received from him the sum of $4,000 as a payment. Having established a basis for doing business, the accused men and undercover officer, entered into another deal at a Restaurant for the sale of a kilo for $32,000. The actual sale for the kilo was made in Nassau County.

Subsequently,a Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said the accused men were indicted in Queens County charged with the crime of Criminal Sale in the First Degree, involving the $4,000 sale and the conspiracy which led up to that substantive crime. They were also indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury for crimes involving the $32,000 sale, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Conspiracy.

Published on: November 12, 2012

Appellant Seeks to Preclude Testimony of Lower Court

by Stephen Bilkis

On this proceeding, a real estate company and a man move for a relief, in which both of them seek inspection of the grand jury minutes, suppression of evidence, discovery and disclosure. The real estate company and the man are both charged under count one with attempted promoting prostitution in the third Degree.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the City of New York’s proof consisted of the testimony of two undercover police officers. The first undercover officer testified that when he entered in the real estate’s office with another undercover officer and spoke to a real estate agent, he indicated that he wanted to rent a house in the neighborhood. The real estate agent arranged to show a house to the undercover officer. While walking to the house, the real estate agent explained that the owner wanted the house to be used for commercial purposes. The undercover officer speaks with the agent in Spanish language explaining that it would not be a problem because he was in the people’s business and that the house would be the house of prostitution. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the real estate agent then allegedly explained to the undercover officer that the house they were going to see would not be suitable for that purpose because it had recently been used as a house of prostitution. It had been closed down by the police, with extensive media coverage. The real estate agent said that he would try to find another house that would be more suitable.

Afterwards, the undercover officer returned to the real estate’s office. On that occasion, the original real estate agent was assisted by the man who was introduced to the undercover officers as being a real estate agent who had some prior knowledge with that kind of business. The man suggested a house that was in a secluded area.