Drug Possesion

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Rules on Defendant’s Second DWI

by Stephen Bilkis

In this DWI case, the defendant has formerly entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving while intoxicated. The guilty plea of the defendant was found to be satisfactory for other charges like resisting arrest and the failure to undergo a sobriety test. Following the arraignment, the legal counsel of the defendant had filed several motions.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the motions filed were subsequently contested until a hearing to establish probable cause was scheduled. However, the hearing did not push through on that date. The matter was dismissed later on. On the same day, a conference before the trial was held in chambers with counsels also appearing. During the conference, the prosecution offered the defendant to make a guilty plea on his charges to reduce his sentence if convicted.

Before taking the plea offer of the prosecution, the court advised the defendant of his constitutional right to appear before the jury and stand on trial. The court also advised him that the prosecution had the burden of finding evidence against him. This means that the jury must be unanimous in convicting the defendant.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Drug Possession Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

Several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would “forget” about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour’ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court’s restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules in Husband and Wife DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This legal action is filed against a restaurant by a husband who seeks to recover damages for injuries he sustained in a vehicular accident. His wife was driving while intoxicated and lost control of the vehicle. He claimed that the restaurant violated a general obligation law because his wife’s intoxication resulted from the restaurant’s serving the alcoholic drink, according to a New York Criminal Lawyer.

The restaurant move for a legal action to terminate the complaint filed to them on the ground that the husband purchased the alcoholic beverages for his wife and thus has no cause of action against them based on a violation of the general obligation law. In support of their action, the restaurant relied on the statement and testimony of the couple.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, at around 10 to 10:30 p.m., the couple consumed a bottle of beer from another restaurant then went home. Afterwards, the couple then went to the restaurant which they summoned. The couple arrived at approximately 11:00 p.m. The husband bought beers for his wife and they both drank at least four to five bottles of it. They left the said restaurant at about 1:30 a.m. and the wife was the one driving the vehicle. As they were proceeding north, the car went out of control, crossed over to the opposite bound lane and jumped on a guard rail. The husband sustained serious injuries in the accident.

Published on: February 20, 2012

Bartender Held Liable in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Two couples went out on a group dinner date on February 2, 1960. According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, after dinner, they drove to a restaurant on Staten Island at around 9:00 p.m. In between the dance numbers, the two couples drank. One lady passed out from having taken too much alcohol. Her date steadily drank double bourbons straight. Her date became drunk and noisy. He fell to the floor and some bystanders told the bartender not to give the obviously drunk man anymore to drink.

The bartender kept giving the man more double bourbons reasoning that the man was just enjoying himself. Later, at 1:00 p.m., the two couples left the restaurant. The lady who passed out was asleep in the passenger seat in front. Her date, the man who passed out after imbibing several double bourbons insisted on driving.

When the car had travelled about nine miles from the restaurant, the lady’s date who was driving while intoxicated lost control of the car which veered off the road and crashed into a building. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the driver was killed and his date who was sleeping in the front seat was seriously injured.

Published on: February 19, 2012

Drug Possession Defendant Seeks Parole

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, a 59-year old man is currently serving an aggregate prison term of 21-1/2 years to life arising out of his 1982 convictions for various drug crimes, including marijuana possession, and attempted escape from prison. The prisoner challenged the denial of his application for parole before the Board of Parole. .

The court held that record demonstrates that the Board appropriately considered the statutory factors, including the seriousness of the prisoner’s crimes, his prior criminal history, positive program achievements while incarcerated and post-release plans.

While the dissent minimized the seriousness of the prisoner’s offenses, describing them as neither violent nor accompanied by a history of violent crimes, the record before the Board showed that the prisoner petitioner had been a drug dealer for 10 years and that his activities escalated to high-level cocaine trafficking that did, in fact, directly lead to the violent death of one police officer and the grievous wounding of another at the hands of his co-defendant brother. The court said that, contrary to the dissent’s view, the Board could reach its conclusion after weighing the prisoner’s accomplishments in prison against the level of violence associated with the drug trafficking and the drug crimes of which he was convicted without improperly considering matters outside the record

Published on: February 19, 2012

Defendant Contends Actions Under SORA are Unconstitutional

by Stephen Bilkis

In a lot of sex crimes these days, an expert New York Criminal Lawyer says that there are many accused who suffer from a certain kind of mental abnormalities. Such case lets the court decide that such accused undergo certain treatment like the SORA. But in this case, the alleged named as Elias McFarland. However, in this case he keeps on appealing that such program is unconstitutional and that he would fight for his right.

The court did not agree that the decision for the SORA is unconstitutional. It even scored him as a sex offender who is of high risk and falls as level 3 offender. But the defendant still continue to disagree and never stopped submitting written submissions to serve as additional support to what he is trying to prove. He contends here is no valid reason at all to have his level 3 designation to be lowered for he was certainly considered as a high risk offender which means he is of great harm to the society.

At one point, a New York Criminal Lawyer said it was questioned why the Attorney General’s office did not show up during the hearing. But as analyzed by a New York sex abuse lawyer who is well experienced, such decline to appear just meant that they are confident already of the way they assess the risk levels of such offenders. It just means that there is no need for them to even show up for all the proposition is already well settled. All the facts were all outlined well and complete sets of evidence were are presented without any chance of being argued by others.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Decides Drug Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Two adult men appealed from judgments of a state court convicting them after a joint trial of the drug crimes of sale of a dangerous drug and marijuana possession and sentencing each of them to seven years imprisonment.

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, one of the accused argued on appeal that the court had previously accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser crime of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug, a Class E felony, to cover the entire indictment; that thereafter, the court unilaterally set aside that plea and directed a trial upon which the defendants were convicted of the Class C felony for which they were indicted and for which they have now been sentenced. In essence, they assert a claim of double jeopardy.

Sources, however, showed that during the joint trial the accused applied to withdraw his plea of guilty and the court granted that application, and this was the understanding of all at the time. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said it is apparent that the court thought that the defendant was moving to withdraw his plea and not that the court was acting unilaterally.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Sex Offenders Display Early Signs of Mental Illness

by Stephen Bilkis

When you ask an expert New York Criminal Lawyer these days, it is common to hear that most sex offenders suffer from severe mental abnormality or disease. To help you further understand this, we take a good example of this case of John Suggs. He is a known detained sex offender who suffers gravely from being mentally abnormal. During his trial, two expert psychologists presented in court to prove and offer their opining that John truly suffers from mental abnormality. The doctors are named as Dr. Krishner and Dr. Peterson.

One of the doctors rendered a summary report that described his childhood, teenager and adult history when it comes to history of trauma and abuse. It was outlined comprehensively as they recount all the helpful things that may have happened in the past of the accused. As a child, it was discovered that he was not taken good care of by his parents. At the young age of three, he was already wandering the streets and since then has become such a great rebel in school and even in the immediate community he was in.

According to another New York Criminal Lawyer, he also once set fire to a dormitory and even was convicted of the death of his own mother at one point. He even attempted to commit suicide at the young age of 11 by thinking of drinking mercury straight from a thermometer. It was at the age of 1 when he committed his first rape case. He kidnapped a female college student by pointing a knife straight at her and raped and stole some money from her in a room. The lawyer who once studied this case believes that this is such a case of extreme mental abnormality.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Rules on Cocaine Possession Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, several police officers were charged with various crimes arising out of their conduct in connection with their search for a lost police radio. According to the records of the case, the police officers went to two apartments to pursue a lead regarding the radio. The radio had been lost during an arrest related to a drug crime in the area several days earlier. The records said the police officers pushed their way into two apartments, ransacking both, and unlawfully detained the individuals encountered within the apartments. In searching the second apartment, the police officers discovered vials of crack coccaine and threatened the occupants therein that they would be charged with coccaine possession if the radio were not promptly returned. The police officers allegedly told the apartment occupants that they would “forget” about the drugs if the radio was returned. Administrative proceedings were then commenced against the police officers by conducting hearings.

Following a jury trial, each police officer was found guilty of unlawful imprisonment, coercion, criminal trespass, and official misconduct. Two of the officers were also convicted of falsifying business records. Prior to sentencing, the police officers moved to set aside the verdict alleging improper use of their statements in connection with the indictment and trial.

Among the numerous issues raised on appeal, the police officers challenged the sufficiency of the trial evidence, the cour’ts charge on unlayful imprisonment, alleged inconsistencies in jury verdict and the court’s restriction on cross-examination of certain witnesses. Each of the police officers gave similar statements essentially denying any wrongdoing. The policemen testified in court that they saw one of the occupants of the apartment in the alley and he dropped the cocaine when he saw the police officers. One of the policemen said he has arrested the same person for marijuana possession prior to the incident.

Published on: February 17, 2012

Court Rules on Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Michael Hernandez was found guilt of six counts of first degree sodomy, one count of attempted first degree sodomy, two counts of second degree sodomy and one count of first degree sexual abuse. Following his conviction, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended designating Mr. Hernandez as a risk level three sexually violent offender upon his release. Mr. Hernandez’s criminal defense lawyer requested a risk assessment hearing to determine whether he should be assigned to risk level two based on the evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that according to trial records, Mr. Hernandez was convicted on sex crimes charges for committing improper sexual acts with five boys, aged 11 to 15. Apparently, Mr. Hernandez had convinced the boys to run away from home and go to a shack in the woods near Pelham Bay, where the sexual offenses occurred. At the time the sexual acts were committed, Mr. Hernandez was 19. He received a sentence of 8 1/3 to 25 years with a release date of November 7, 2011.

On October 23, 2003, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders submitted a risk assessment which recommended classifying Mr. Hernandez as a sexually violent offender based on score which was calculated by assigning a certain number of points for specific details of his crimes. Mr. Hernandez’s score totaled 165 points and was broken down accordingly: 10 points for use of force; 25 points for sexual intercourse and/or aggravated sexual abuse with the victim; 30 points for more than three victims; 20 points for a continuing act of sexual misconduct; 20 points for the victims being under age 16; 10 points for Mr. Hernandez being under age 20 at the time the crimes occurred; 30 points for a prior violent felony or misdemeanor sex crime conviction; 10 points for the prior crime occurring less than three years before the most recent acts; and 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while incarcerated.