Articles Posted in Queens

According to a New York Drug Crime Lawyer, on April, 1973, as a result of a joint major Federal-State narcotics investigation, an indictment was filed against defendants along with 10 other large-scale heroin merchants, for conspiracy to violate Federal drug laws. To support the conspiracy count, covering a period from May, 1971 until the filing of the indictment, 10 particular incidents, including meetings and drug deliveries, were specified as overt acts. A number of substantive drug crimes of heroin possession were also charged.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the instant appeals arise out of a separate concurrent State prosecution in which the three defendants were charged with sale and heroin possession of dangerous drugs. The indictment states that on each of January 8, 12, and 22, 1973, Abbamonte, Coumoutsos, and Campopiano possessed and sold over 16 ounces of heroin. These sales had neither been specified as overt acts of the Federal conspiracy nor had they been the subject of the substantive counts in that indictment.

The Federal charges were disposed of first. Two defendants pleaded guilty, among other counts, to conspiracy. The other defendant, on the other hand, went to trial and was found guilty on all counts charged. The evidence at that trial although not mentioned in the indictment included testimony concerning the three January drug sales that are the subject of the State prosecution. All three defendants received substantial Federal sentences.

Continue reading

On February 20, 1967, the then City Manager of respondent city of Independence, appointed petitioner to an indefinite term as Chief of Police. In 1972, petitioner and a new City Manager, engaged in a dispute over petitioner’s administration of the Police Department’s property room. In March of that year, a handgun, which the records of the Department’s property room stated had been destroyed, turned up in Kansas City in the possession of a felon. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said this discovery prompted the City Manager to initiate an investigation of the management of the property room. Although the probe was initially directed by petitioner, the City Manager soon transferred responsibility for the investigation to the city’s Department of Law, instructing the City Counselor to supervise its conduct and to inform him directly of its findings.

Sometime in early April 1972, the City Manager received a written report on the investigation’s progress, along with copies of confidential witness statements. Although the City Auditor found that the Police Department’s records were insufficient to permit an adequate accounting of the goods contained in the property room, the City Counselor concluded that there was no evidence of any criminal acts or of any violation of state or municipal law in the administration of the property room.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the City Manager asked petitioner to resign as Chief of Police and to accept another position within the Department, citing dissatisfaction with the manner in which petitioner had managed the Department, particularly his inadequate supervision of the property room. He warned that if petitioner refused to take another position in the Department his employment would be terminated, to which petitioner responded that he did not intend to resign.

Continue reading

On February 26, 2001, three detectives, assigned to anticrime patrol in an unmarked Chevrolet Blazer and traveling northbound on Valentine Avenue in Bronx, were stopped at a red light at the intersection of Valentine Avenue and 184th Street, a high crime area. The Chevrolet Blazer was the first in line at the red light. The detective and sargeant, both in plain clothes, sat in the front of the vehicle. The sergeant was the driver. The officer in uniform, was a passenger in the rear of the vehicle.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that, while they were stopped, a detective observed three young males, one of whom was appellant, crossing the street in front of their vehicle. The officer testified that as the trio passed in front of the Blazer, they looked inside. One of the three “did a double take” and all of them “appeared to become startled.” Although the three males stayed together, their pace quickened. When they reached the other side of the street, walking southbound on the sidewalk, appellant separated from the group and, “walking closer to the building than the other two” “made a gesture like he’s putting something down by the building, by a doorway in the building which would lead to an alley.” As the detective explained, “He made a motion with his hand which looked to me he was casting something away, putting something down.” Appellant then joined the other two young men, who were walking southbound on Valentine Avenue.

The police vehicle then made a U-turn and pulled up alongside the three boys. The detective and rolled down their windows “to gauge their reaction.” Appellant “turned, looked at their car, looked right at the officer,” “panicked” and “took off running southbound on Valentine.” The other two young men remained standing where they were.

This case involves two federal prescriptions: the one-year limitation period imposed on federal habeas corpus petitioners by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1); and the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.

Respondent was convicted of murder and robbery in California state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. His current application for federal habeas relief centers on two alleged trial-court errors, both involving the admission of out-of-court statements during the prosecutor’s case in chief but otherwise unrelated. Respondent had made inculpatory statements during pretrial police interrogation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he alleged that those statements were coerced, and that their admission violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He also alleged that the admission of a videotape recording of testimony of a prosecution witness violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

Respondent’s conviction was affirmed on appeal and became final on August 12, 1997. Under the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1), he had until August 12, 1998, to file a habeas petition in federal court. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said on May 8, 1998, in a timely filed habeas petition, respondent asserted his Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of the videotaped prosecution witness testimony, but did not then challenge the admission of his own pretrial statements. On January 28, 1999, over five months after the August 12, 1998 expiration of AEDPA’s time limit and eight months after the court appointed counsel to represent him, respondent filed an amended petition asserting a Fifth Amendment objection to admission of his pretrial statements. In response to the State’s argument that the Fifth Amendment claim was time barred, respondent asserted the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth . . . in the original pleading,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). Because his Fifth Amendment and Confrontation Clause claims challenged the constitutionality of the same criminal conviction, respondent urged, both claims arose out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”

Continue reading

In this case of the People of the State of New York verses the defendants Smithtown General Hospital, Lorna Salzarullo, David Lipton, Harold Massoff, Lorna Salzarullo, and Mary Chiu, are charged with allowing a prosthetic devices salesman to participate in a meaningful way during a surgical procedure that was being performed at the Smithtown General Hospital without the knowledge or consent of the patient. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Criminal Term, of Suffolk County Part II.

Case Background

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the individual defendants are health care professionals, two are orthopedic surgeons, one is a registered nurse, and the other an anesthesiologist. The alleged incident took place on the third of July, 1975.

Continue reading

This is a case of the People of the State of New York versus the defendant, Gil Rivera. The case is being heard in the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Bronx County. The defendant has moved to set aside the sentence that has been imposed on him. He basis his argument for this motion on the ground that the sentence was unauthorized, illegally imposed, or otherwise invalid as a matter of the law.

Court Discussion

The instant case at hand deals with the Mental Hygiene Law. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said this law was originally enacted in April of 1966. The purpose of this law was to provide a comprehensive plan that covers the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts.

Continue reading

Suffolk Drug Crime 20

This case involves a matter of a recommitment proceeding in relation to Criminal Procedure Law in relationship to the respondent Francis S. The petitioners and appellants in this case are the District Attorney of New York County and the Commissioner for the New York State Office of Mental Health.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the main issue before the court is whether an acquittal by reason of mental disease or defect of a person who has repeatedly violated the order of conditions that he gained upon release and who is still mentally ill, a poly substance abuser, given to acts of violence and still found to be not suffering from a dangerous mental disorder is appropriate.

Continue reading

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

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading