Articles Posted in Queens

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.

The plaintiffs and appellants in the matter are B.B.C.F.D., S.A., etc., et al. The defendants and respondents in the case are Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., et al., and Mina Persyko. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the plaintiff in this matter is seeking to appeal a verdict that was made on the 7th of November, 2008. The previous order dismissed some of the claims that were made by the plaintiff and denied the motion from the plaintiff to recall and modify the complaint.

Case Background

Continue reading

The Facts:

The seizure of evidence from the defendant was an offshoot of a joint investigation undertaken by the DEA and New York State law enforcement authorities. The purpose of the investigation was to identify the members of a drug dealing organization, its suppliers and customers, and to locate stash and distribution locations. he investigation began at least as early as 27 September 1990, when several eavesdropping warrants were issued permitting the authorities to gather information concerning narcotics trafficking being done by a large number of people including man-one and his brother, man-two.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said through the wiretaps, surveillance and a confidential informant, the agent in charge of the operation had established, by 17 January 1991, that the organization used an apartment at the Bronx to store and package heroin for sale; that another place at Walton Avenue was being used to store narcotics and narcotics packaging paraphernalia; and that another place in Wyatt Avenue was being used to discuss their narcotics business. Moreover, the agent was aware that the DEA’s wiretaps showed a pattern of conversations that are coded, cryptic and carefully worded. According to the agent, the intercepted conversations contain repeated references to iron and board and for clothes, which he believed to be references to narcotics packaging paraphernalia. Narcotics, as the agent averred, were discussed in terms of food, bottles, cases of beer, and clothes.

Continue reading

The Facts:

On 16 October 1994, defendant was arrested for selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover police officer. On 27 January 1997, he was convicted of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree. He was sentenced as a Second Felony Offender to concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of 5 1/2 to 11 years. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he was convicted in that case of. On 19 May 1999, defendant was released on parole.

Approximately 6 months later, he was arrested for another drug sale charge. On 4 August 2000, he pled guilty to Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a class C felony. He then apparently failed to appear in court for sentencing and a bench warrant for his appearance was issued on 28 February 2001. He was returned on that warrant a little more than two years later on 2 May 2003. He was sentenced upon that conviction on 12 June 2003 to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.

Continue reading

The appellant in this matter is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is John VanDuyn Southworth. Southworth is responding both for himself and as the executor of the estate of Alice Keegan Southworth, deceased. The case is being heard in the Fourth Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The case before the court involves an issue involving an experimental driver’s rehabilitation program that was established by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the question before the court is whether the state of New York can be held liable for issuing an interim driver’s license to a person that has a record of alcohol related driving violations.

Case Background

Continue reading

The Facts:

On 20 September 1960, some seven months after the commission of an armed robbery against a couple in Westchester County, defendant appeared at police headquarters in Cheyenne, Wyoming, requesting a pass, as an indigent, for a free night’s lodging with the Salvation Army. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said when he made a similar request the next night, the police radio dispatcher became suspicious. In response to an inquiry, defendant admitted that he could be wanted for questioning, thus, he was thereupon arrested by the jailer for vagrancy. Thereafter, a Captain was called, and defendant admitted that he might be wanted for questioning in New York on a robbery charge. The Captain then called in the resident F.B.I. agent. At about 10 o’clock that night, according to the Captain, defendant orally confessed to having committed the robbery, although he refused to sign a statement.

The following day, the Cheyenne authorities advised the Westchester authorities that defendant had been apprehended, and confirmed that defendant had, indeed, been questioned about the robbery. That afternoon he was convicted of vagrancy and sentenced to a $50 fine or 50 days, the sentence to be suspended upon completion of investigation on the New York robbery charge.

Continue reading

Early morning, Charles T. Williamson took his girlfriend, Inez Goodwin, to work at where Mr. Williamson also used to work. After Ms. Goodwin entered the building, Mr. Williamson saw her speaking with defendant, Delroy Bulgin. Mr. Williamson watched this conversation for about five minutes from less than 10 feet away and then he approached them to find out what was going on. Mr. Williamson also observed that Ms. Goodwin looked uncomfortable, as though she did not want to have any problems with defendant at her workplace. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that Mr. Williamson told defendant that he did not belong there and asked him to leave. Defendant kept saying that he just wanted five minutes to talk with Ms. Goodwin, but Mr. Williamson replied that there was nothing to talk about and he should leave.

The next day, at about 5:30 a.m., a Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant’s car crashed into Mr. Williamson and Ms. Goodwin’s minivan on Noble Avenue in the Bronx. Police Officer Shawn O’Dwyer and his partner, were in uniform in a marked police car on patrol in the 43rd Precinct at that time. As the officers were traveling westbound on Story Avenue, approaching the intersection of Noble Avenue, Officer O’Dwyer heard a loud bang to his left, which he thought might have been a car accident. He saw Mr. Williamson and Ms. Goodwin in a minivan at the corner of Story and Noble Avenues. Mr. Williamson flagged the officers down, leaning out of his window and pointing behind him, indicating to Officer O’Dwyer that something was going on.

Officer O’Dwyer drove southbound on Noble Avenue and saw a gray or silver Acura about one-half block away, being driven by defendant, backing up. Defendant’s car was the only car that Officer O’Dwyer saw driving on Noble Avenue at that time. Officer O’Dwyer immediately turned his lights on in order to stop defendant’s car and investigate what he had heard, but defendant put the car in drive and drove past the police car. Officer O’Dwyer then made a U-turn and followed defendant’s car northbound on Noble Avenue, approximately 15 feet behind the Acura. At the intersection of Noble and Story Avenues, defendant failed to stop at the stop sign and turned right onto Story Avenue. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant proceeded eastbound on Story Avenue to the intersection of Story and Rosedale Avenues, where he failed to stop at a steady red traffic light and turned left onto Rosedale. Officer O’Dwyer was approximately 15 to 20 feet from defendant at this point, with both lights and sirens on. Officer O’Dwyer followed defendant’s car for a minute or two and never lost sight of it. Approximately two-tenths to two-thirds of a mile later, defendant pulled over at a 45 degree angle and exited the Acura. When defendant’s car stopped, Officer O’Dwyer saw damage to its left front quarter panel. Defendant was arrested without incident and transported back to the 43rd Precinct.

Continue reading

When a mentally ill offender commits a heinous crime in New York, the judicial court has the ability to determine whether the person should be considered not responsible for his actions by reason of mental disease or defect. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in some cases, the offenders illness can make the determination of how to handle his conviction and sentencing much more difficult. The ethics that are involved in punishing mentally ill persons are complicated. Clearly, a person who is a threat to society if they are not controlled should not be allowed to terrorize innocent people. However, a person who does not understand that what they did was wrong, is also an innocent in the eyes of many people.

The courts must determine a balance that is ethically acceptable between the right of the innocent victim and the rights of the offender. When an offender is determined to be mentally ill, the court must determine if he is capable understanding the trial process and participate in his own defense. If he is not capable of assisting in his own defense, then other steps are necessary to ensure that the product of justice is attainable. Most states have now incorporated a policy that allows them to determine that a person is guilty while still being mentally ill. That is because many people have skirted the justice system in the past because they are mentally ill or suffering from some other disease or defect. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said citizens of these states have determined that allowing a person to not be punished for an offense simply because they are not responsible for their actions is not fair to the innocent victim of their acts. There is also a need for the judicial courts to protect the citizens of their states from future illegal actions that this person may likely perform.

In 1978, an offender was convicted of rape in the first degree. He was a violently mentally ill offender who was found to suffer from a mental disease or defect. The courts of New York, where his offense was committed determined that he was not able to be placed in the usual offender population because of his mental illness. However, they were also convinced that if he was released, he would recidivate. In order to prevent him from harming anyone else, they decided to commit him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene in a secure facility for treatment. He was indicted on his crimes on March of 1978. On review of his mental state, he was re-committed to the secure institution on September 3, 1981 and again on October 27, 1982.

Continue reading

A good criminal attorney can be the deciding factor in a criminal trial for a defendant who has been charged with an offence, in understanding the rights and restrictions that are imposed upon him. Prosecutors are only human and as such are capable of making mistakes that are common to all people. Procedural law is strict. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said only a person who has been sufficiently trained in the law is capable of deciphering the requirements that the prosecution team has to meet in order for them to obtain a conviction. When the prosecution team makes an error, it is not up to them to admit to the error. It is incumbent upon the defense team to expose the error.

The case of one defendant in New York is an example. He was charged with several misdemeanor offenses of menacing and reckless endangerment stemming from incidents that occurred between May and October of 2009. On October 12, 2009, he was arraigned on two misdemeanors. Bail was set on the charges and court date was set for October 16, 2009. On the 16th, the prosecutor served and filed an information with the court. As an oversight, the prosecution team failed to convert the misdemeanor information with a misdemeanor complaint as required. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that an information is a court document that details the facts of a case against a particular defendant. The information provides the details of the offenses and the charges that are being pursued.

The defense team filed a motion to release the defendant from custody because the complaint was not converted to an information as required by the New York State statute CPL §170.70. This statute requires that a misdemeanor complaint filed by a prosecutor of the state of New York must replace the complaint with an information within five days of the person’s incarceration. The five day rule does not include Sundays. If the complaint is not replaced with an information within five days, the statute requires that the defendant be released on his own recognizance.

Continue reading