New York

Published on: September 10, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

An undercover policeman, equipped with a hidden transmitter, entered a social club and, for fifty dollars, purchased cocaine from a man in the front room. He left the club and radioed his backup team. Because the transmission was garbled, they understood only that he had made a buy. The sergeant in charge ordered the team to enter the club and secure it so that no one could leave. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then went down the street to meet the undercover who described the seller: a bearded black male, thirty years old, medium build, wearing a tan cap, brown leather jacket, glasses, white sneakers, dungarees, and a large silver bracelet.

A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the sergeant entered the club, found six or eight persons in the front room, but none of them fit the description. They were released. In the back room were twenty to thirty-five people shooting craps. (The defendant claims he was the banker of the game and thus handled all of the wagered money.) The players were made to walk in single file past the sergeant. The defendant was held because he “fit the description a hundred percent”. But, belying certainty, the sergeant also held three or four others because they “partially fit the description”. He had all of them frisked for weapons. Then, obviously to pinpoint the drug seller among the suspects, the sergeant asked which of them had any money. When the defendant and another acknowledged that they had the sergeant said, “Let me have it”. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant handed over $101, included in which were the marked fifty dollars the undercover had used in the purchase. The defendant was told he was under arrest and the others were released.

The defendant was taken by police car to the station where the undercover looked at him through a one-way mirror. He said that “he thought it was him, but he was not sure”. The sergeant said “If you are not a hundred percent sure it’s him, then I’m going to release him”. Again, the undercover responded that “he could not be a hundred percent sure at that time”. While the process to release the defendant was going on, a cap and glasses found in the transporting car were placed on him. After that the sergeant told the undercover that the defendant “fits the description. He has the bracelet. He has the beard, the cap. He has the glasses and he has the jacket. He has the money”. The undercover then identified the defendant as the drug seller.

Published on: September 9, 2012

Petitioner Requests a Recalculation of his Sentence

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1996, after a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of 7Â½ to 15 years on each charge. In 1997, petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree under. Thus, at the time of sentencing on the manslaughter conviction, petitioner was “subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment imposed at a previous time by a court of this state”. A New York Criminal Lawyer said pursuant to the terms of a negotiated plea agreement, petitioner pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charge. Consistent with the discretion afforded by statute to impose either a concurrent or consecutive period of incarceration, the court sentenced petitioner to a term of 7Â½ to 15 years, to be served consecutively with the sentence imposed following his conviction on the unrelated controlled substance charges.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, the two cases against petitioner were consolidated for appeal. This Court affirmed the manslaughter conviction and reversed the earlier drug conviction. Rather than seek retrial, the People accepted petitioner’s plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in exchange for a sentence of 7Â½ to 15 years, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the manslaughter conviction. Supreme Court sentenced petitioner in accordance with the plea agreement in October 2000 and issued a commitment order.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in response to his inquiry regarding eligibility for parole, the Department of Correctional Services informed petitioner that his aggregated sentence was 12 to 24 years based on two terms of imprisonment that are to be served consecutively. In a letter to counsel, the Department took the position that pursuant to the decision of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in Matter of Muntaqim v Herbert, the “relationship between such sentences had to remain consecutive. Thus, the Court that resentenced Mr. Murray on indictment #5174/94 could not change it from consecutive to concurrent.”

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

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 5, 2012

Court Orders New Trial

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, based upon his arrest for assault which later became a murder charge for acts allegedly committed. Plaintiff was incarcerated for 333 days. The charges remained pending for nearly 8 more months after plaintiff was released from custody. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, all charges were dismissed on the motion of the Bronx County District Attorney. After trial in this action, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding damages to plaintiff in the sum of 2.7 million dollars for false arrest and 7.1 million dollars for malicious prosecution.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant, the City of New York (City) now moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 and 4404 (a) for an order (1) setting aside the jury’s verdict on liability as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, (2) setting aside the jury’s verdict and ordering a new trial as the jury’s liability verdict is against the weight of the evidence, or, in the alternative, (3) dismissing the malicious prosecution claim for failure to prove proximate cause, or, in the alternative, (4) setting aside the damages verdict and ordering a new trial on damages as the jury award was excessive and contrary to the weight of the evidence, and for other related relief.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the City’s renewal of its trial motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case or for a directed verdict is denied as the court adheres to its original decision on the record.

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.

Published on: September 2, 2012

Defendant Refuses to Give DNA Sample

by Stephen Bilkis

Seven men were grouped together outside a house. They were talking loudly together and drinking. One of the neighbors called the police and so two uniformed police officers were dispatched to the scene. The police officers had their police badges and did not have their guns drawn.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said as they were speaking with the group of seven men, one of the men stood up and pulled up his pants by his waistband and walked away in the direction of the house. When the man adjusted his pants, a small plastic bag fell from his pant leg. The police officer saw the plastic bag and it was a re=sealable bag contained dried herbs. The police officers seized the plastic bag from the ground and smelled it and they thought it was marijuana. Subsequent testing revealed it to be marijuana as suspected by the police officers.

They followed the man who had gone into the house. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officers knocked on the door and the residents of the house opened the door to the police officers and let the police officers in to the house. When the police officers went into the house, they noticed that a group of men were also drinking. Their bottled alcoholic beverages were contained in a cooler which lay open on the floor.