Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In this drug offense, petitioner was a 21 year old heroin addict. On September 18th, two agents of the Sheriff’s Department of Louisiana, accompanied by a paid informant, and encountered petitioner. Aware of petitioner’s addiction, they asked him whether he had any heroin. He answered that he did not but agreed to “score a bundle” for them. This jargon describes the purchase of 25 packets of individual doses of heroin, a retail transaction. Petitioner telephoned his “connection” (i.e. his supplier), the agents provided the funds to enable him to make the purchase and he left to accomplish the transaction. He returned with 22 packets. The agents took 19 and allowed him to retain three.

Some months later, a New Orleans Heroin Possession Lawyer said that petitioner was arrested, tried and convicted of distributing heroin (drug possession). Petitioner testified at trial. He did not deny the facts set forth above, but contended that he was entrapped. He admitted that his addiction required five to six packets of heroin each day, but he was not able to afford that much. He paid $10 to $12 per packet. He was employed as a carpenter earning $3 per hour, but he did not work steadily. He admitted that he had previously been convicted of two felonies, burglary and theft by fraud. His wife testified that, while she also worked, her husband was a good provider for her and their one child. A New Orleans Drug Crime Lawyer said that petitioner was sentence to life imprisonment without parole for distributing heroin.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether petitioner’s sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime as to contravene the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

Continue reading

The accused husband and wife were charged with a violation of the Penal Law. They were arraigned and each pleaded not guilty. On the same date the charge was amended to attempted petit larceny. The husband and his wife changed their pleas to guilty of the amended charge. The sentence was deferred pending a pre-sentence report and a medical examination pursuant to the Mental Hygiene Law, to determine if the accused husband and his wife were narcotic addicts.

Pursuant to the District Court’s order, the accused wife was examined by a doctor, and her husband was examined by a separate doctor, on March 8, 1973. The reports of the doctors certified that each of the accused was a narcotic addict, within the meaning of such term, as defined in the Mental Hygiene Law. Each of the accused denied being a narcotic addict. They both waived a jury and addiction hearings were held separately for each of the accused husband and wife.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the undisputed testimony is that each of the accused husband and wife has not used heroin for a period of over two years, and during that period of time, each has been on a State of New York approved program of methadone maintenance. The question before the District Court is to determine whether the complainants have met their burden of proving heroin addiction by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence despite the fact that the accused husband and wife admittedly have not used heroin for over two years.

Continue reading

This is a case being heard before the Supreme Court, Appellant Division, Second Department of the State of New York. The respondent in this matter is the People of the State of New York J.B. is the appellant of the case.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing a judgment that was made in the Kings County Supreme Court. The judgment convicted him of rape in the first degree after he pleaded guilty to the crime. The appeal will review the denial of the charges after a hearing for suppression of identification.

Case Background

Continue reading

A man was convicted of multiple counts of criminal sale of marijuana and criminal sale of a controlled substance. A New York Criminal Lawyer said since the investigation which led to the man’s indictment was an ongoing one and the sales were to persons who purchased the drugs for their own use or resale, the police were not able to confiscate each substance transferred. Therefore, at trial, the complainant had to rely largely on the testimony of the buyers to establish that the substances purchased were in fact marijuana or phencyclidine.

As to the marijuana counts (drug possession), the jury found the man guilty of selling marijuana to four persons who testified for the complainant. Each of these witnesses was questioned as to his familiarity and expertise with marijuana, and each admitted to great familiarity with the substance. One testified he had used it 20 times and was positive that the substance he purchased from the man was marijuana. Two others testified that they used marijuana 50 times or more and were familiar with the effect of marijuana and the substance they purchased several times from the man gave them the expected effect. Another testified that he had smoked marijuana many times before and the substance purchased from the man was like that which he had previously smoked.

The man was also found guilty of criminal selling of phencyclidine to three persons who testified for the complainant. One witness testified that he used this drug five or ten times with the effect that it leaves his mind blank. He stated that while he is not an expert on PCP (phencyclidine) he knew the drug he purchased was PCP because of his experience with it. Another testified that he had learned some years earlier to recognize PCP from its taste. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the third testified she had used phencyclidine seven or eight times and recognized the substance by its nasty taste and the effect it had, making her feel drunk and drowsy. She had never obtained phencyclidine from anyone except from the accused man.

In this criminal case, at the hearing, the People called two witnesses: a New York Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent, and New York City Police Department Detective. The defense called no witnesses.

The agent testified that on April 3, 2008, he, along with his supervisor, and the members of his field team, conducted surveillance at West 225th Street and Broadway in Bronx County based on information received from an undisclosed source that a drug crime trafficking organization was planning to engage in a transaction that evening. The agents were informed that the seller would arrive in a vehicle containing approximately ten to fifteen kilograms of cocaine (cocaine possession) and enter the Target parking lot located on West 225th Street near Broadway. With the cocaine remaining inside, the seller would give the vehicle to the purchaser, who would remove it, place the money inside, and return the vehicle.

A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, while conducting surveillance during the daylight hours of April 3, 2008, Agent Aceves observed individuals, who he referred to as the sellers; arrive in a black BMW, for the purpose of negotiating the transaction details he was advised would occur that evening. Agent Aceves, however, neither identified those individuals nor provided a factual basis upon which to conclude they had engaged in negotiating the transaction.

Continue reading

This is a matter dealing with an application made by Patrick Henry, the District Attorney of Suffolk County. He has entered a petition for a judgment and determination of forfeiture under Article 33, Section 3388 of the Public Health Law of the State of New York. The respondent of the case is Salvatore Castagnaro. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part II.

Case Background

On the 3rd of September, 1980, the defendant – respondent Salvatore Castagnaro entered a plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. A New York DWI Lawyer said his plea satisfied the seven charges that were made against him in an indictment. The defendant was then sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one to three years.

Continue reading

This proceeding is taking place in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in St. Lawrence County. The case deals for a judgment that is pursuant to Article 78 of CPLR that was originated by a petition made by Tywan Jones and verified on the 13th of November, 2007. The petitioner is an inmate at the Ogdensburg Correctional Facility and is seeking an order from this court to direct that he be credited with approximately 270 days of jail time that he allegedly spent in the Suffolk County and or Willard Drug Treatment Campus against his sentence of three years that was imposed by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Additionally, the petitioner seeks for this court directing his immediate enrollment in the DOCS Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program.

Case Background

A New York DWI Lawyer said on the third of July, 2003, the petitioner was sentenced in the Suffolk County Court as a second felony offender. His sentence was imprisonment of three to six years and was for a conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. DOCS received the petitioner in their custody on the 14th of July, 2003. He was entitled to 67 days of jail time credit at the time. On the 29th of January the petitioner was released into parole supervision after completing the DOCS shock incarceration program.

Continue reading

In this case, the court granted the appellant’s motion for a stay of the temporary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said respondents were the owners and operators of a motion picture theatre which has been showing the film, ‘I Am Curious (Yellow).’ They were indicted by the Suffolk County Grand Jury for possessing with intent to exhibit an obscene film in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 272, § 28A. Subsequently, respondents brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to enjoin future prosecutions for the showing of ‘I Am Curious (Yellow)’ and to declare that prosecution and the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional.

The indictments were then dismissed, and new indictments were thereafter returned. Respondent’s request for a temporary injunction barring the second prosecution was denied by the District Court. Respondents were convicted of the state obscenity offense.

The plaintiff in this case is the Banco Nacional Ultramarino. The defendants in the case are Maria F. Chan et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Justice Lorraine Miller is overhearing the case.

Case Introduction

This case deals with complex financial transactions in the amount of $6,580,150 in stolen funds from the plaintiff (white collar crime). The transactions spread across four continents, U.S. Secret Service, IRS, Interpol, the FBI, the United States Drug Enforcement agency, the United States Customs Service and both federal and foreign tribunals as well as banking institutions located around the world. The motion in this particular case deals with approximately $1,000,000 of the funds that are in New York.

Continue reading

Two officers of the police department were assigned to the prisoner van component and while driving in one of the avenue they saw the man with another individual. As the two walked north, the officers saw the man adjusting the right side of his waistband. The officers thus decided to follow the men as they walked around the block. A New York Criminal Lawyer said deeming the man to conduct a crime as indicative of his possession of a firearm and given what they characterized as a circuitous route, the two took in a high-crime area and decided to stop the men.

The officers approached the two men and ordered them to stop. The other officer approached the man’s companion to question him, turning his back to his companion. While the other officer approached the man to search him and removed from his right pants pocket a firearm. The two officers then arrested the man for criminal possession of a weapon.

The man was detained at the precinct and subsequently transferred to a correctional facility. Consequently, the man was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. A Mapp hearing was held and the arresting officer testified. After the trial, the charge against the man was dismissed.

Continue reading