The defendant in the case is appealing a judgment and sentenced that found him guilty by jury verdict of a violation of the narcotics law.
Case Background
The information provided in the case charged the appellant along with five other defendants of possession of marijuana.
The appellants in this case were convicted in a nonjury trial for possession of 230 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. The marijuana was found in a locked trunk of a car that had been rented and driven by one of the defendants (marijuana possession). Another defendant was a passenger in the car at the time an immigration search was conducted.
Case Facts
The checkpoint where the search took place was on highway 35. The government often employs checkpoints at this location or one nearby.
The appellant in this case was charged by information with possession of over five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession). He filed a sworn motion to have the reciting dismissed. The motion in part stated that he lived in the home with his wife and children and that while the search of the home revealed marijuana, he was not in actual possession of any type of controlled substance at the time the search took place. The state filed for a leave to amend, which was granted.
The state then prepared to move that the defendant was in constructive possession of a controlled substance. The state plans to prove this by the fact that the defendants name and address were on the box that contained the marijuana and that the marijuana was found in his bedroom closet.
Case Discussion
The appellant along with a co-defendant were charged with felony possession of marijuana, cocaine possession, possession of a drug implement, and possession of methaqualone. The appellant was denied the motion to suppress certain physical evidence. The appellant was tried alone. The trial resulted in a hung jury mistrial. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court then ordered that the case of the appellant be tried with the co-defendant. The joint trial resulted in the appellant being found guilty as charged.
The appellant was sentenced to five years’ probation after serving six months in jail. The appellant motioned for a new trial, which was denied and this appeal followed.
Relevant Facts
The appellant is appealing an order that revoked his probation after a trial court determined that he had violated the terms of his probation by being in possession of marijuana and cocaine.
Case Background
The appellant was placed on probation. It was not long afterwards that the appellant was arrested for possessing both marijuana and cocaine. His arrest on these charges led to an affidavit being filed stating he violated his probation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the affidavit alleged that the defendant had committed the offenses of possessing marijuana and cocaine, which violated his probation conditions that stated he was to live without violating the law.
The defendants are appealing a conviction that stems from a multi-count indictment. The first defendant appeals his conviction and sentence to life in prison for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kg or less of marijuana (marijuana possession), and between 500 grams and 5 kilograms of cocaine, distribution of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to commission drug trafficking, and being felon in possession of a firearm.
The second defendant appeals her convictions of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or less of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to run a felony drug trafficking crime ring.
Arguments for Appeal
In this case, the defendant is a self-styled Hispanic civil rights advocate. He threatened to wreak one-half million dollars’ worth of damage to Citibank’s automatic teller machines in an attempt to induce Citibank to give money to several organizations.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the evening of June 4, 1984, thirty-one Citibank 24-hour banking facilities in the Bronx and Manhattan were vandalized, and glue and other unidentified substances poured into the part of the automatic teller machines into which customers insert their cards to activate the machines. The damage was extensive. In all, sixty-eight machines had to be repaired.
In twenty-one of the twenty-seven Manhattan facilities, one of defendant’s two Citibank banking cards were used to enter the facility before the machines were damaged. At one location, defendant’s card was used to complete a transaction at an automatic teller machine shortly before it was vandalized. At another, a video camera recorded defendant’s entry into the facility just after one of his cards had been used to unlock the door, and moments before the machines inside were damaged. The next day, defendant, while denying responsibility, spoke to a Citibank regional manager and told him that 109 of Citibank’s automatic teller machines had been “hit” and glue poured into them. Two days later, defendant told several Citibank executives that he was not asking for anything for himself, only for the “Hispanic community.” Otherwise, defendant explained, it “would be extortion.”
The defendants and appellants in this case were convicted on a number of different accounts that involved trafficking marijuana. They are raising a number of different claims against their convictions. The main issues that are being raised are whether or not the district court properly denied motions to suppress the evidence that was seized from a search warrant that was executed and if the evidence was admitted properly. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they further question whether or not the evidence was sufficient to support their convictions.
Case Background
A federal grand jury issued an indictment with 27 charges against the seven defendants. There were numerous offenses related to the trafficking of marijuana (drug possession). There were also charges of conspiracy, criminal enterprise, importation, possession with the intent to distribute, and possession with the intent to distribute on board a United States vessel.
Case Facts
An informant contacted agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and informed them that there were large transactions of large quantities of illegal drugs being made in the area. The informant then helped the Drug Enforcement Administration create a reverse sting operation. In the operation DEA officers poses as sellers of illegal drugs to help ferret out illicit drug traffickers. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the informant was instructed to put the word out that there was a large amount of marijuana available for sale.
The informant approached one of the bartenders at a local restaurant and told him that he had some friends that were looking for buyers for 1000 pounds of marijuana at $200 each. The informant told the bartender that they could easily make $25,000 each in the deal.
A child was born on August 9, 2004. Since September 22, 2004, when the child was discharged from the hospital, on the basis of a petition that had been filed alleging that his biological mother had neglected him, the child has resided in the home of his maternal cousin and her husband.
A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the adoption home study prepared by a social worker employed by New York Foundling, the foster care agency that has care and custody of the child describes him as a healthy seven-year-old boy with no special needs who is developing age-appropriately, and who is beginning regular second grade classes. The home study also reflects the fact that the child’s maternal cousin and her husband have been married for over thirteen years and that they are both employed. The maternal cousin is a nursing assistant, and her husband is the Head Supervisor of the Custodial Department of a State College. Also residing in the home is the couple’s fifteen-year-old biological son. The social worker describes the biological son as healthy, doing well in school, and having a positive and loving relationship with the child. The adoptive parents, their son and the child reside in a three bedroom house in New York.
The couple has been involved in the child’s life since he was a baby. One can see that they love the child very much and that he means the world to them. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said they were observed by the social worker to be very attentive and affectionate toward the child, who lovingly refers to them as mommy and daddy. They share an inseparable bond with the child, and have a good understanding of his needs. They are providing effectively for his physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. The couple understand and willing to accept the moral and legal responsibilities of adoption. Their commitment to the child is deep rooted and they have made it clear that he knows that they are there for him. The child feels the same strong sentiments toward the family and although too young to fully comprehend adoption, he is a happy, well-adjusted child for he knows that he is loved and wanted. Based on the overall progress the child has made in the home, it is therefore recommended that the application for adoption submitted by the couple be approved and that the child be adopted by the caring family.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog