Drug Possesion

Published on: September 9, 2012

Defendant Claims his Right to a Speedy Trial was Denied

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was convicted after trial of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree and cocaine possession in the fourth degree (drug possession). He had been indicted on June 14, 1971 and his case was moved for trial fifteen months later, on September 11, 1972. In the interim he had been convicted of a drug crime in Puerto Rico and since November 26, 1971 had been serving his sentence in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. Prior to the voir dire on the trial herein, he moved orally to dismiss the indictment for failure to be accorded a speedy trial

The motion, having been made prior to the commencement of the trial, was timely. The defendant’s incarceration in Atlanta can serve neither as an explanation for the delay nor as an excuse .

The reason for the motion was that the defendant ‘feels one or more of his witnesses may now be unavailable to him’. The defendant’s counsel explained that a male and a female had been indicted with the defendant; that while the male was available as a witness for the defendant, the female had not appeared in court and that there was a bench warrant out for her. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court, stating that the male was available as a witness and that the female had disappeared before the defendant had demanded a trial, denied the motion.

Published on: September 8, 2012

Defendant Questions Sufficiency of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

An undercover police officer went to buy drugs. He stayed at a street corner waiting for someone to approach him. The accused approached the police officer and they talked for a while. The accused asked the police officer if he was looking to score some crack. The police officer said that he was looking for crack. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused told the police officer that he too was looking to buy some crack. They waited a bit more where they were but no one approached them.

The two decided to take a walk to a busier street corner. As they waited there another man (the co-accused) came up to them and asked them if they were looking for anything in particular. When the undercover police officer and the accused said they were, the co-accused gave them an address where they could go. The co-accused told the two men to wait inside the building.

The undercover police officer and the accused then walked all the way to the address given by the co-accused and when they got there, they went inside the building and waited. The co-accused later appeared and went up one flight of stairs, down the hall into the rear of the building.

Published on: September 8, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant Should Receive an Enhanced Sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a drug crime case where the Court denied the People’s appeal to consider a defendant’s perjury at trial in enhancing his service of sentence.

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial, at which he testified, of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fourth Degree (drug possession). In response to the defendant’s pre-sentence memorandum requesting leniency in sentencing, the District Attorney’s Office, citing United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. —-, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993), contends that the defendant should receive an “enhanced sentence”, i.e., a higher sentence than the Court would otherwise impose based upon his alleged perjury at trial. The People claim this perjury is established by the contradictions between defendant’s trial testimony concerning his cocaine possession and his statements about his addictions to the social workers of the Legal Aid Society in the pre-sentence memorandum submitted to the Court on his behalf.

The People argue that this falsehood, coupled with defendant’s false testimony claiming innocence of the charges for which he stood trial and was convicted, constitute willful and materially false statements, i.e., perjury, that may be considered by this Court in assessing the defendant’s history and character to determine an appropriate sentence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said defense counsel contends that this Court should find such consideration irrelevant. Defense concedes that the majority of reported state jurisdictions permit consideration of a defendant’s trial perjury as a factor in enhancing sentence on the ground that it evidences lack of potential for rehabilitation.

Published on: September 8, 2012

Court Discusses Immunity Offer Made by Grand Jury

by Stephen Bilkis

Television shows often idealize the criminal who turns states evidence and is given immunity from prosecution. Because of this, people who commit crimes sometimes think that they can just turn evidence on a co-defendant and get immunity for the crimes that they have committed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the reality is a little different. In order for a prosecutor to be interested in conferring immunity on a person who has committed a crime, the evidence that they are able to provide must be critical to the conviction of a criminal who is more valuable to the prosecutor than they are. That type of situation does not happen frequently. When it does, it is involving crimes that are serious in nature.

One 1980 case involved a man who had been a co-conspirator in a gasoline station conglomerate scam. He and his partner had purchased several gasoline stations in the 1970’s with the intention of having a thriving business. Unfortunately, they discovered that they were not very good at that business and within the first year, they were in serious financial trouble. They had gone into debt with several major oil companies and knew that if any one of them called in the debts that were owed, the company would fail. They devised a scheme to prevent the oil companies from finding out that they were in trouble. They began to falsify the company records. They created fraudulent profit numbers in order to get more credit from the oil companies and keep them from calling in the debts that the company already owed them. When they began to claim fraudulent profits, they had to maintain the scam with fraudulent information reported on tax returns and in the company business records. Like so many criminal schemes, what seemed like a one- time lie soon snowballed out of control. The lies grew and the fraudulent records increased. Before long, they were discovered and arrested. One of the men maintained that the other partner was the driving force behind the idea to defraud the oil companies. He approached the grand jury with the proposal that he would testify against his partner in return for immunity. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the grand jury agreed as far as one of the schemes was concerned. Later, when the prosecutor indicted him on one of the other charges, he claimed that he had been given immunity from prosecution by the grand jury if he had testified before them.

The state was called upon to clarify what the intentions had been in the grand jury room when the offer of immunity was made. They needed to determine if the offer was made solely on that charge, or if the agreement had been made to provide immunity from prosecution on all related offenses for the man who agreed to testify against his business partner. In order to determine what the actual deal entailed, the Supreme Court needed to review all of the records from the grand jury testimony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the ability to interpret exactly what was intended soon became clear.

Published on: September 7, 2012

Court Looks at Jurisdiction Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

When people have contacts that are strong in other countries, they can sometimes become confused about how to handle family law situations so that they are in compliance with the laws of New York. New York is well known for being a hub for many different cultures. Many people from other countries use New York as a port of entry into the United States. However, a New York Drug Crime Lawyer said many people who immigrate to the United States to find work or a better life maintain the ties that they had in their home country. It can be easier for them in many cases to continue to rely on the legal system that they grew up with and understand in their home country. What they do not realize is that if they have become residents of New York, then they will have to comply with the laws of the state of New York in order to ensure that they are in compliance with the legal system here.

In 1901, a man from Havana, Cuba met and married a woman in New York. They established a home and a family in New York. On January 11, 1934, the pair decided to separate. The wife was granted custody of the children and she was awarded alimony and child support. The separation was conducted pursuant to the laws of New York. The case was handled by the Supreme Court of Bronx County in New York State. In 1955, the husband died and the wife discovered that in 1934, the husband had gone to Cuba and obtained a foreign divorce decree. She did not know then or at the time of his death that he had gotten a divorce. She was not served and she was not present in the court. She did not have any representative present in the court. After the divorce was obtained, she was never notified that the husband had gotten a divorce.

When he died, she discovered that he had obtained a divorce and she was not included as a person who was family in his estate. She filed an appeal in probate court to be given the status of his wife in the probate of his estate. A New York Criminal Lawyer he contends that she never knew that he had obtained a divorce. She further contends that the foreign divorce was not legal because they were both living in the Bronx in New York at the time that her husband had divorced her in Cuba. A Nassau Drug Possession Lawyer said she maintains that it was an illegal action for her husband to appeal to a court with no jurisdiction over the couple to obtain a divorce. She points out that they had lived in the Bronx for more than thirty years at the time that he obtained a divorce in Cuba. he filed a motion with the court for a summary judgment in her favor determining that for the purposes of inheritance in his estate, that she should be considered his widow with all of the legal privileges that widowhood would entail.

Published on: September 7, 2012

Defendant Moves to Have Sentence Set Aside

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant moves pursuant to Section 440.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law to set aside the sentence imposed upon the ground that it was unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the sole issue raised by the defendant is whether he could properly be sentenced under the Penal Law without first having been examined pursuant to Section 81.19 of the Mental Hygiene Law (formerly Section 207) where he was charged with a violation of Article 220 of the Penal Law.

Section 81.19(a) states:

Published on: September 7, 2012

Defendant Contends Evidence Should be Supressed

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 22, 1996, the police obtained a search warrant for 2130 East Tremont Avenue, Apartment 7E, in Bronx County. The warrant authorized seizure of cocaine possession and crack-cocaine possession and evidence tending to demonstrate that the premises are utilized for the unlawful possession, packaging and sale of crack-cocaine and cocaine, to wit: scales, plastic bags and other paraphernalia. The warrant was issued in conjunction with a long-term narcotics investigation, during which undercover officers had purchased large amounts of cocaine from occupants of the subject apartment on several prior occasions.

A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, on the same evening, a detective and several other officers executed the search warrant. Upon entering the apartment the detective saw four individuals, two of whom he recognized as subjects of the investigation. The police searched the apartment and recovered a large amount of currency, narcotics, a gun and several forms of drug paraphernalia from inside the apartment. Police officers stationed outside the building recovered drugs wrapped in a paper towel, which had been thrown out of a window by one of the occupants of the apartment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said about 20 to 30 minutes after the initial police entry, the apartment “buzzer” rang while the police were completing their search. The officers stationed outside the building informed the detective by radio that a Hispanic male was ringing the downstairs buzzer. The detective instructed them to allow the man to enter the building, and further instructed the officers in the hallway to stay out of sight.

Published on: September 6, 2012

Court Looks at Whether Key Evidence Should be Excluded

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a criminal case where the court excluded the evidence sought to be introduced in a prior, uncharged incident stating it was largely irrelevant from the alleged crime from which defendant is being indicted.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on September 20, 1985, police officers chased herein defendants who are driving a livery or gypsy cab for suspecting to have stolen the vehicle. The officers then chased the defendants from the footbridge toward a ramp of the Henry Hudson Parkway. Reaching the bottom of the bridge, and proceeding along the exit ramp, defendant allegedly turned around and once again fired at the officers; neither officer was struck by a bullet. This time police officers returned fire, but did not strike his target. The absconders then proceeded north, away from the footbridge, and disappeared. After sometime, they were apprehended and charged with attempted murder and gun possession.

The prosecution’s star witness testified that on September 11, 1985 while driving his gypsy livery cab, defendants put a gun on the back of his head. He claimed that defendants stole his car and his money with a gun.

Published on: September 4, 2012

Special Narcotics Court Reviews Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York City, there is a special Grand Jury that handles cases from the Special Narcotics Courts of the city. When they are called to review a case, it generally means that the persons who are in line to be indicted are the result of many months of undercover police work designed to apprehend the most dangerous drug dealers. This group is not interested in apprehending the lower level drug dealers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they are interested in making sure that the drug suppliers that provide narcotics to the street level dealers are put behind bars for good. To ensure that this happens, the narcotics officers are specially trained to be aware of all of the different search and seizure laws that apply to drug cases so that they do not make careless errors that will wind up costing them a conviction in court. Unfortunately, they occasionally do make mistakes.

It is commonly understood that people who are engaged in drug trafficking are often involved in other felony crimes. However, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said when an undercover officer is made aware of criminal wrongdoing through his position with the narcotics task force, they cannot simply ignore the fact that they are entrusted to enforce all of the laws of New York. In 2004, one narcotics officer was advised by an informant that there was a group of individuals who were forming a narcotics robbery gang. Their goal was to rob drug traffickers of their money and drugs and then sell the drugs themselves. They assumed that robbing drug dealers would be easy because the drug dealers are not likely to go to the police and tell them that they had robbed. The narcotics officer began working with another undercover officer to arrest this gang of thugs. They let it be known that they would be interested in joining the gang so that they could get close to the people involved and formulate a case.

One of the undercover officers was invited to join the robbery gang. He let the other one know about the intentions of the group so that they could maintain proper surveillance. Ultimately, on the evening that the robbery was planned, the group intended to rob some drug dealers of 60 kilos of cocaine (drug possession) and an unknown amount of cash. The undercover officer was picked up by his contact person and three other males. They loaded the cars with multiple guns and drove to the address that they intended to rob. The police were already there. The robbers were taken into custody and charged with multiple felony offenses. Once they were all indicted, their attorneys filed motions to dismiss the charges because they believed that the Special Grand Jury for the Narcotics Court did not have jurisdiction to handle the robbery and firearms charges. Their logic hinged on the fact that the subjects were not charged with even one narcotics charge.

Published on: September 3, 2012

Defendant Moves to be Resentenced Pursuant to Drug Law Reform Act of 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was convicted of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and on November 19, 2002 given an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a term of 2-6 years.

The People assert that the Defendant engaged in the sale of $350 of cocaine to an undercover police officer on two occasions and that on later date cocaine and drug paraphernalia were recovered from the apartment where the sales took place. In addition to the instant offense, Defendant was convicted of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (drug possession) and sentenced to time served in 2002, convicted of Invalid Use of a Credit Card with Intent to Defraud and sentenced to time served in 1999 and convicted of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree and sentenced to four days in jail in 1998.

The Defendant was initially released to parole supervision on the instant offense on July 17, 2003. Parole violation warrants were issued for the Defendant. In these warrants, it was alleged that the Defendant had used cocaine and marijuana, failed to report to his parole officer on multiple occasions, left his approved residence and failed to attend two programs required by the Division of Parole. A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the Defendant was re-incarcerated for a parole violation and continued to be in prison at the time the instant motion was filed. Defendant has been punished for one disciplinary infraction while in prison. That was a Tier 3 infraction on December 26, 2008 for violent conduct; fighting and disorderly conduct for which he received 30 days of keep lock time.