New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
The defendant has been convicted of possessing with the intent to distribute 41 pounds of marijuana. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said he is appealing the conviction and seeking a reversal because of actions that were taken in the district court. First, the court refused to grant a continuance of his trial so it could be held after a co-conspirator pled guilty. Second, the court did not allow the counsel for the defense to cross examine a witness on their prior misdemeanors. Third, the court allowed prejudicial testimony concerning the reputation of the defendant for telling the truth and being honest. Fourth, the court refused a verdict on the ground of insufficient evidence and refused to allow results from a polygraph test that the defendant took. Finally, the court refused to consider a charge of proximity to marijuana as opposed to possession.
The defendant has supplied supplemental briefs and has motioned for a new trial. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said he states that a new trial should have been granted on the basis of newly found evidence and because of the suppression of favorable evidence by the government.
Case Background
The primary witness for the government testified that the defendant approached him on the streets of Eagle Pass and offered him $200 to travel to Batesville. The witness was lured by the thought of easy money and agreed to give the defendant a ride. The witness was told to leave his keys in the car and then take a walk. When the witness returned to the car he headed to Batesville. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said when he followed the instructions that he was given and was stopped by Border Patrol. The border patrol found a suitcase in the trunk of the car and inside it was marijuana. The witness agreed to help the authorities and was allowed to continue to his destination, but was watched by customs agents.
At the location he was told to go to in Batesville, the witness met the appellant who told him to park the car at the back of the establishment. A co-defendant then removed the marijuana from the car to another, talked with the appellant, and then headed towards San Antonio. He was arrested a short time later.
The appellant paid the witness the $200 and they were both arrested. A Queens Drug Possession Lawyer said all three of the participants were charged with conspiracy and possession. The co-defendant and witness both plead guilty to the charge of conspiracy and the charge of possession was dropped. The appellant went to trial and was convicted on both counts.
Case Discussion and Decision
The appellant argues that there is new evidence in the case that shows that the witness was using the vehicle to smuggle in illegal aliens and that he was employed to transport the marijuana in question.
The defendant seeks a new trial based on the fact that evidence was suppressed in the case as well.
The court has carefully reviewed all of the facts of the case and finds the defendant’s arguments to be without merit. The convictions are confirmed and the appeal is denied.
If you need legal advice of any kind, contact the law offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Our offices are located throughout the city of New York for your convenience. You may contact us at any time to set up an appointment for a free consultation.