Drug Possesion

Published on: August 11, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Suffolk County Court. The case involves the People of the State of New York against the defendant Kenneth Murray. The defendant has been accused of acting in concert with another in commission of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Murray has moved for the charges against him to be dismissed on the account that the indictment is defective and that it was not found on legally sufficient evidence.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant argues that the indictment is deficient as it fails to conform to CPL section 200.30, subdivision 7. This section requires that a plain and concise factual statement of each count must be made. It further states that the defendant must be clearly apprised as to the matter of the accusation that is made against him.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Reverses Decision in Robbery Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk Drug Crime 23

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. Peter Wayne Orth is the appellant. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of March, 1977. The judgment convicted the defendant of robbery in the first degree upon a jury verdict. The defendant has two other orders from the same court, one from the 15th of October 1979 and the other from the 5th of January, 1982, both denying the motion for the judgment of conviction to be vacated and the indictment dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: August 10, 2012

Defendant Alleges Jury Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents and Zachary R. Gibian is the appellant in this case being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was issued on the 17th of January, 2007 and convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant identifies three grounds for this appeal to reverse his conviction. The first is for the preclusion on the grounds of hearsay of the statements that were made by the defendant’s mother. The second is juror misconduct during deliberations. The third is the summary curtailment of the closing statement made by the defense counsel.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Confirms Warrant for Arrest Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against Daphne Barber, Timothy Barber and Eric Jean as the defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, Timothy Barber, Daphne Barber, and Eric Jean have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant Daphne Barber has laso been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

The Barbers have motioned both orally and in writing for two search warrants that were issued on the 24th of June and the 2nd of July in 1981 to be removed and for all the evidence including the cocaine (cocaine possession) that was seized to be suppressed. Defendant Eric Jean did not move with respect to the indictments against him and is not a part of this hearing.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Defendants Contend Out of Court Identifications Should Be Supressed

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 11, 1977, in their Coral Gables home, a couple was robbed at gunpoint by two men, who took several items of jewelry and other valuables and then fled. The husband had had a recent eye operation and could make no identification. The wife, on the other hand, got a good look at and was able to describe them both. For a period immediately after the criminal act, however, the identity of the men who made the assault remained unknown.

On July 16, 1977, Suffolk County, New York police officers, serving a warrant on a totally unrelated charge, arrested one of the men who robbed the couple at a condominium in which he and his fellow robber were living in Long Island, New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in the course of that arrest, the officers seized pieces of jewelry from a bedroom in the apartment. The trial judge held and the state concedes, that the seizure was unlawful and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The effect of that determination is the focus of their appeals. This is so because the taking of the jewelry led directly to the identification of the two robbers as the perpetrators of the Coral Gables criminal acts of burglary and armed robbery.

Indisputably, the occurred is an entirely fortuitous fashion. As a matter of routine, the Suffolk County authorities sent descriptions of the jewelry they had seized across the police teletype to several, apparently randomly selected, cities throughout the country. The teletype information came to the attention of Coral Gables police officers investigating the criminal act. The police officer thought he recognized some of the described items as having been taken from the couple and requested the Suffolk County police to forward photographs of the jewelry and of the persons who had occupied the apartment from which it was taken. The New York authorities complied with the requests. On August 24, 1977, the Coral Gables police showed the wife first the written descriptions, and then the photographs of the jewelry seized from the condominium. She positively identified several items as having been taken from her home during the robbery assault. As a result, about two weeks thereafter, on September 13, 1977, the officers displayed to the wife a photographic lineup which contained the pictures of the two robber men obtained from Suffolk County. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the lower court specifically determined and no attack is made on the finding that the photo lineup itself was fairly conducted and was not improperly suggestive. Upon viewing the photo display, the wife quickly and with certainty identified the pictures of both men as those of the offenders in question.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Hears White Collar Crime Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

White collar crimes have long been considered the type of crime where appropriate punishment for the actions is not received. In many cases, deals are struck between the offender and the suspect that are designed to reduce the public exposure of the crime and there is no consideration for the actual punishment of the offender. While there have been many cases in which this has happened, one in particular stands out. It involved a man who was working as the assistant comptroller at Long Island College Hospital in the Prospect Heights Division. A New York Criminal Lawyer said while he was employed in this position, he received numerous checks that were made payable to the hospital, but that he endorsed and deposited into his own personal bank account.

When the actions of this man became known to the hospital, the man was terminated and an audit was conducted to determine the extent of his embezzlement. They determined that between 1967 and 1972, the man embezzled $68,000. He admitted to the theft and he was arrested. He served five days in jail after his arraignment. During this time, he met with the insurance provider for the hospital. They decided between them that he would pay a little over $10,000 in restitution to the hospital. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the insurance company would provide the remainder of the money that he stole to the hospital. In return for his restitution, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor crime and that he would get three years of probation. They agreed with the court that everyone was satisfied with this arrangement. However, once the restitution was paid and the case went in front of the judge, the judge refused to accept the deal.

The judge determined that the man was currently living in Connecticut in a new house that was remodeled. The man had a new job working in Connecticut and there were rumors that he had stolen much more from the hospital than the $68,000 that he had been charged with. It seems that the hospital lost all of the records that it had prior to 1967 in a flood. The man had been an employee of the hospital for several years before 1967. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that some of the estimates placed the amount stolen well in excess of six digits. The judge determined that the defendant should serve one year in jail and three years on probation. The defendant and the prosecution objected to the change in the proposed arrangements. The prosecution stated that the hospital had received restitution of the entire amount that it lost and that the state should not be concerned that only $10,000 of that came from the defendant.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Court Discusses Fourth Article of Constitution

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action of trespass brought by a complainant man against another man and others for breaking and entering the complainant’s house. The opponents justify upon the ground that large numbers of men were assembled in different parts of the state for the purpose of overthrowing the government by military force and were actually levying war upon the state. Moreover, New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in order to defend itself from the said rebellion, the state was declared by competent authority to be under martial law. In that event the complainant was engaged in the rebellion and that the opponents being in the military service, by command of their superior officer, broke and entered the house and searched the rooms of the complainant, who was supposed to be there concealed, in order to arrest him, doing as little damage as possible. The complainant replied that the trespass was committed by the opponents with their own wrong. The parties then proceeded to trial.

The evidence offered by the complainant and the opponents stated at large in the record and the questions was decided by the circuit court. The evidence revealed that the opponents, in breaking into the complainant’s house and chasing to arrest him were acted under the authority of the government which was established and which is usually called the charter government.

The complainant contends that the charter government was displaced and ceased to have any lawful power, after the organization, of the government which he supported, and although that government never was able to exercise any authority in the state, nor to command obedience to its laws or to its officers, but he still insists that it was the lawful and established government, upon the ground that it was approved by a large majority of the male people of the state with the age of twenty-one and upwards, and also by a majority of those who were entitled to vote for general officers under the then existing laws of the state.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Identification Procedures by Police Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Stalking is a crime that affects everyone who is around the intended victim of the crime. Stalking is a crime that causes a pervasive level of fear that is intolerable for most people. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said people who have never seen this crime often have a difficult time understanding that the stalker is so focused on their victim that they often do not consider the penalty involved in their actions. The drive to possess that other person is so strong that they will often do anything within their power to have that person and to prevent anyone else from having that person.

In 2008, a woman was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend in New York. She had moved on with her life and was seeing a co-worker romantically. One day while they were at work, her ex-boyfriend showed up. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said he began insisting that the woman talk to him. The new boyfriend approached the pair and assessed the situation. He realized that the situation was about to get violent and had the man removed from the business. He thought that the incident was over, but the following day while they were driving to work, the ex-boyfriend drove up beside them on the roadway and brandished a knife in their direction. They refused to pull over and began driving toward the local police station. On their way to the police station, the stalker rammed their mini-van with his car.

Coincidentally, a patrol car was positioned at the street corner just up from the location of the assault with the motor vehicle. The officers heard the impact that they recognized in their experience to be the result of a motor vehicle accident. They immediately turned their patrol car onto the roadway in the direction of the impact sound. When they were on the road, they observed the mini-van and the couple inside the mini-van. The couple motioned to the officers that the car that was behind them needed to be stopped. The officers observed the stalker driving at a high rate of speed in reverse. He changed his direction and began to take evasive action. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers turned on their emergency lights and siren to indicate to the driver of the vehicle that he needed to pull over.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Pat Down Was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers are required to operate under strict adherence to the laws of the state. That means that every time that a police officer comes in contact with a citizen, they are required to operate under certain rules. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these rules are mandated in the United States Constitution, state laws, federal laws, local ordinances, and case law. In order to determine if the officers have overstepped their authority under the law, it is often critical that a defendant hire a good criminal attorney to represent their side.

The rules of search and seizure and admissibility of evidence can be very complicated and they are often argued in a court of law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said each case is different, and each case requires that the persons who are affected by the conduct of police officers on the street are well represented. One case that illustrates this issue occurred in New York on May 14, 1985.

Two patrol officers were patrolling the area of Eighth Avenue around 136th street. It was in the early morning hours of about 2:30 a.m. when they were flagged down by a well- dressed man who was standing beside the road. When they talked to him, he told them that he had been leaving a bar in the area when he noticed a man in front of the bar with a pistol tucked down the front of his pants. The man described the pistol as a small revolver that was commonly referred to as a snub nose. He stated that it was black in color and was in the front of the man’s pants. The complainant was especially concerned because he was afraid that the man was considering a hate crime against the homosexual population in the area. The bar that he had been in front of was a bar that catered to the homosexual population. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the complainant advised that he had followed the man and his companion as they left the area of the bar hoping to flag down a police officer to have him checked out. He described the man with the gun as a short black male in a white t-shirt and dark blue jeans. He stated that he was in the company of a man in a darker shirt with light blue jeans.

Published on: August 7, 2012

Defendant Contends Unlawful Stop and Frisk

by Stephen Bilkis

Police patrol officers encounter a wide variety of calls for service. Some of these calls are hazardous some are humorous. Some of these calls are somewhere in between the two. That was the case when two seasoned patrol officers in New York responded to a radio call in the early morning hours on August 4, 1979. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the radio operator advised the officers that an anonymous call had come in to the radio call center regarding an Hispanic male with an afro style haircut wearing light blue pants and a light shirt. The description involved his height which was listed as five foot ten inches tall. The caller advised that the subject was concealing a handgun inside a white shirt that he was carrying.

The officers responded to the location and observed several persons at that location, but none of them fit the description that was provided by the radio operator. They began to check the area and noticed the defendant walking on Amsterdam Avenue. He was wearing a light short sleeved shirt and was carrying a white shirt in his right hand. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the shirt that had been described in the radio transmission was a t-shirt, but this subject had on a banlon shirt. The officers determined that it would be accurate to assume that someone observing him from a distance would think that the shirt was a t-shirt. They observed the subject walk up 95th street and stop in front of a building. He walked up the first three steps and began to open the door with his left hand. He was having difficulty with the door, so he set down the white shirt that the informant had stated concealed the gun.

One of the police officers came up beside him and put his hand over the shirt on the ground so that the defendant would not be able to pick it up. He stated that as soon as he placed his hand on the shirt, he could feel that it concealed some type of handgun. The defendant began to struggle with the officer. Both officers were in uniform when the second officer approached with his firearm out. He ordered the man to stop fighting and not to move. The officers discovered that the white shirt contained a .22 caliber handgun. The subject was placed under arrest and was transported to the jail. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the gun.