New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
The appellants in this case were convicted of one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants argue that the Speedy Trial Act as well as the 6th amendment barred them from being prosecuted. The appellants also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that was submitted against them.
Case Fact
The appellants were indicted and convicted based on a reverse sting operation conducted by a DEA agent acting undercover. The agent used a confidential informant who advised people within the community that she knew someone that wanted to sell marijuana.
The appellants contacted the informant and told her that she had a buyer that wanted to purchase marijuana. Arrangements were made for the buyer to meet with the agent.
The informant, appellant, and agent all met at the home of the appellant’s mother. The agent told the appellant that he did not bring the marijuana with him for safety reasons, but had it stored at a location nearby.
The agent asked the appellants if they had the money for the marijuana and he was shown a bag with a large amount of cash. The agent told the appellants that the marijuana (marijuana possession) was in a parked car nearby and that he would give them the key to the car so they could bring the marijuana back to the house. The agent would pick up the car from the home.
The defendants gave the agent $5000 of the $70,000 that they had on them. The agent gave the defendants a key and told him to look at the marijuana to see if he liked it. The defendant looked over the packages and then walked away from the rear of the vehicle. It was at this point that the agent signaled the officers located nearby and the arrest was made.
On the day of the arrest the government filed a criminal complaint against the defendants charging them in connection with their unsuccessful attempt to buy marijuana. A probate hearing was held and probable cause was found. The defendants were released on bond and subject to pretrial supervision. A year later a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed. The complaint was dismissed and the government then filed an indictment charging the defendants with conspiracy to possess and intent to distribute marijuana.
The defendants moved to have the indictment dismissed, but the judge determined that the only charge that would be dismissed would be the initial charge made against them upon their arrest. The defendants argued that the complaints should be dismissed based on the delay of the charges that were made against them in the indictment.
Court Discussion and Decision
The court has looked over the case and the main issue is whether or not the indictment should have been dismissed. The court feels that the indictment should have been dismissed as it is a violation of the Speedy trial act and sixth amendment rights. Additionally, the court finds that there was not sufficient evidence to support the charges. An NYC Criminal Lawyer said the ruling is in favor of the defendants for this reason and the indictment and all charges against the defendants are dismissed.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers law offices in New York City. We have a team of experienced lawyers who are ready and willing to help you through any type of legal issue that you may have, whether you have been charged with drug possession, sex crimes or theft. Contact us at any time to set up an appointment for a free consultation.