The Facts:
Stemming from a grand larceny case where defendants were convicted, at an Extraordinary Special and Trial Term of the Supreme Court, of conspiracy in the fourth degree, hindering prosecution in the third degree and official misconduct, the Appellate Division, on appeal, found that the evidence was legally insufficient, unanimously reversed, expressly stating it did so on the law and the facts, and dismissed the indictment.
The people now appeal from the said judgment.
The Facts:
On 18 April 1975, in the County of Queens, a person was assaulted and robbed. Among the items taken were a 1970 Cadillac, a wallet and four blank checks. Thereafter, that person’s signature was forged on two of the checks which bore the date 18 April 1975 and which were presented for payment. On 3 May 1975, defendant was apprehended in the County of Nassau while operating the said stolen vehicle. A New York Criminal Lawyer said as a result, defendant was indicted in Queens County for Robbery in the First Degree and Assault in the Second Degree. Defendant was thereafter convicted on both charges. In Nassau County, defendant was charged with Criminal Possession of the Forged Checks (Second Degree, 2 counts) and Criminal Possession of the Cadillac (First Degree) together with certain traffic offenses not hereto relevant.
Consequently, defendant, by his attorney, applies to the Court for an Order dismissing the indictment which accuses him of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (2 counts) and dismissing the first count of indictment which accuses him of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant contends that the prosecution of these charges would constitute a second prosecution in violation of CPL 40.20 and Penal Law 165.60.
The charges in this case arise from five separate incidents, beginning in July 1986. On July 3, 1986, a man representing himself as an executive of a foreign branch of a major company, asked that $5,000 in travelers’ checks be prepared and delivered to an associate. Thereafter, defendant appeared at the offices of the company, identifying himself as the associate, and as signed five Citicorp travelers’ checks purchase agreements, one for each of five $1,000 packets of checks, then signed many of the checks in the upper left hand corner, as required of purchasers. When it was discovered a week or two later that there had been no authorization for the checks, most, if not all, of the checks had been negotiated at various metropolitan locations.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of one count of grand larceny in the second degree for stealing property having an aggregate value in excess of $1,500, three counts of forgery in the second degree and three counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree with respect to the travelers’ checks and of forgery in the second degree with respect to the purchase agreement.
Thereafter, defendant stayed at the Days Inn in Manhattan registering as the associate, and advancing $140 as a deposit. During his stay, he presented the cashier with a purchase order from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, providing that Met Life was to be billed for the room, taxes and incidental expenses. Days Inn refunded defendant his initial deposit and the bill for his four day stay ($819.67) was never paid since defendant was neither employed by Metropolitan nor authorized to present such a purchase order. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
The Facts:
On 6 July 2006, defendant was arrested and charged with Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. On 13 September 2006, defendant was arrested and charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. In both instances, defendant was represented by lawyer-one. On 31 October 2006, defendant met with an ADA (the person herein complained of) outside the courthouse, and in November 2006, defendant fired lawyer-one and hired lawyer-two to represent him. On 8 December 2006, defendant and lawyer-two met with the ADA assigned to the case to negotiate and execute a plea and cooperation agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, defendant was required to perform various duties, including but not limited to: testifying against co-defendants, making controlled buys of controlled substances, engaging in taped telephone conversations, and providing information to support the issuance of search warrants.
On 27 December 2006, pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to the charges of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree and to a violation of probation for a previous offense and received time served. In exchange for his guilty plea, defendant was promised a sentence of no more than seven years imprisonment and two years post-release supervision. A New York Criminal Lawyer said under the agreement, based upon the extent and nature of defendant’s cooperation, defendant may be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and re-plead to a lesser charge. If that occurred, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office may recommend any sentence permissible by law based upon the nature and extent of defendant’s cooperation. Conversely, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office also had discretion to terminate the cooperation agreement and ask the Court to sentence defendant to seven years imprisonment, the maximum term permissible under the plea agreement.
The Facts:
In the early 1960s, a man who was a resident of Queens County and a meter reader for a certain Company entered upon a scheme under which he accepted money from various investors, agreeing to pay them a return of 1% a week and explaining to them that this high return was being paid by a factoring company which loaned out moneys to various companies in the fur, textile and other industries where there was a need for immediate cash. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said there was no factoring company and he was merely repaying these people from their own moneys.
Sometime in March of 1971, after being the victim of a real or apparent robbery, and being ostensibly unable to continue to pay off investors, the said man fled New York City and went to San Francisco. His whereabouts were unknown to the authorities until a year later, when he was discovered by two irate investors and was returned to New York City by them.
The Facts:
Sometime in January 1990, a debtor shot and killed her husband (the decedent). Thereafter, the daughter of the decedent and Administratrix of the decedent’s estate filed a wrongful death claim in Texas State Court. Under the Texas wrongful death statute, the daughter as Administratrix (in charge with the estate administration), was required to bring and prosecute the action because none of the children and parents of the deceased began such an action within three months after the decedent’s death.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 2 March 1995, the debtor commenced bankruptcy proceedings. The daughter in her capacity as Administratrix, filed an Adversary Complaint in the Bankruptcy Court objecting to the dischargeability of debts owing to the wrongful death beneficiaries. The daughter based the objection upon the debtor’s willful and malicious acts which are not dischargeable. In the complaint only the daughter, as Administratrix, was named as plaintiff in the caption. However, all wrongful death beneficiaries were named within the body of the complaint.
The Facts:
Sometime in 1993, a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was brought by Plaintiffs-Appellees, a certified class of detainees in the Cameron County, Texas jail, against Cameron County and the State of Texas, the governor of Texas, and various members of the Board of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The plaintiffs, who were imprisoned for various crimes like assault, rape, kidnapping, robbery, murder, larceny, other white collar crimes, etc., alleged that overcrowding at the Jail produced conditions that constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs originally filed suit against only the County. The County brought a third-party complaint seeking injunctive relief against the State, alleging that the State failed to expeditiously transfer nearly 300 paper ready inmates to state correctional facilities and, therefore, was responsible for the constitutional violations.
On 21 January 1994, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding the State as a defendant, and on 20 May 1994, they filed an application for a preliminary injunction, in an attempt to remedy the overcrowding by enjoining the County and the State from incarcerating more prisoners in the Jail than allowed by the Texas Jail Standards.
The Facts:
In the early fall of 1986, defendant-appellant and his friend travelled from the friend’s home in Fort Lauderdale, Florida to New York. On 10 October 1986, defendant-appellant dropped his friend off at a shopping mall on Long Island, New York. When he returned a few hours later, he told his friend that he had robbed a bank during his absence. The friend noticed red stains on the interior of defendant-appellant’s car, which later proved to have come from a red dye bomb attached to the stolen money bags. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after defendant-appellant rejoined his friend, they, the couple, used some of the stolen money to pay for lodging in a local hotel.
On 13 October 1986, or three days later, defendant-appellant was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and detectives of the Suffolk County, New York Police Department. He was charged under New York state law with the armed robbery. Defendant-appellant’s friend was also apprehended by the FBI. She immediately agreed to cooperate with their investigation of defendant-appellant, and several days later testified before a New York state grand jury in connection with both the 10 October 1986 bank robbery and another robbery allegedly committed by defendant-appellant in 2 September 1986. Defendant-appellant’s friend was not charged in either of these crimes, and returned home to Fort Lauderdale after her appearance before the grand jury.
The Facts:
Sometime in 1971, the plaintiffs brought a class action 10 against eight judges and other state officials including the State Attorney of Dade County, Florida, asking the federal district court to declare unconstitutional and to enjoin two practices of the defendants: the pretrial detention of arrestees without a judicial determination of probable cause, and the pretrial detention of indigent defendants solely because they were unable to post money bail as a condition of release.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court held for the plaintiffs on the first charge and for the defendants on the second.
The Facts:
A deputy sheriff of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff Department and another officer were parked on the side of the road checking for traffic violations when they observed plaintiff-appellee’s vehicle with an expired brake tag. A New York Criminal Lawyer said after stopping the plaintiff-appellee, the deputy sheriff asked for his driver’s license, which was also expired. Thereafter, the deputy sheriff radioed the Criminal Sheriff’s office to verify the license expiration and then placed the plaintiff-appellee under arrest. The plaintiff-appellee was then transported to Central Lock Up and booked without incident and in accordance with standard arrest procedures for brake-tag and license violations.
Plaintiff-appellee invoked section 1983 and state tort law alleging that the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff’s Office was without legal authority to investigate criminal activity or make the subject stop and arrest.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog