New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: January 29, 2013

Drug Crime Defendant Moves for Acquittal for Failure to Prove Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged on several drug related charges including possession of cocaine and heroin, possession of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin possession, with the intent to sell, two counts of attempted first degree murder, and displaying a firearm during the commission of a felony.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant was convicted on the charges of possessing marijuana with the intent to sell, trafficking cocaine, and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell. He was sentenced to five years for the marijuana charge, ten years for the trafficking cocaine charge, and five years for possession of cocaine with the intent to sell.

Case Background

Published on: January 29, 2013

Defendant Convicted of Intent to Distribute 41 lbs. of Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

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

Published on: January 28, 2013

Defendant Contends Court Has Insufficient Evidence to Sustain a Drug Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case is seeking to have his conviction reversed. He was convicted of possession of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the question before the court is whether or not the evidence in the case is enough to sustain the conviction.

Case Background

At the time the appellant was charged with the offense he was a college student and had a female companion who was also a student. He frequently visited the female companion’s apartment, sometimes during the evening and sometimes he stayed the night.

Published on: January 28, 2013

Defendant Argues That Drug Possession Charge Does Not Merit Four Level Enhancements

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is appealing a four level enhancement that was applied to his sentence for using or possessing a firearm in relation to another felony offense. The district court found that the defendant’s firearm possession facilitated the underlying drug possession felony.

Case Background

According to the facts that were presented in the case a police officer observed the defendant and another individual acting suspiciously near a gas station. A New York Drug he officer stopped the defendant and asked if he had anything on his person that would be of concern to the officer. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the defendant admitted that he was carrying a small amount of marijuana. The officer searched him for the marijuana and found a loaded semiautomatic pistol in the front pants pocket of the defendant along with a small bag of marijuana. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of marijuana.

Published on: January 28, 2013

Defendant Contends Insufficient Evidence to Uphold Marjuana Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a jury conviction that charged him with the crime of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime and for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon.

Case Background

In July, law officers executed a search warrant on the defendant’s residence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officers testified that the defendant arrived at his home around 9:45 p.m. and got out of his vehicle and went into the house. Not long afterwards another car pulled up and the defendant came out of the house to talk to the driver of the vehicle. After the driver left the officers executed the search warrant of the property.

Published on: January 27, 2013

Drug Crime Defendants Claim There is Insufficient Evidence Against Them

by Stephen Bilkis

The DEA along with the local Sherriff’s Department started a joint investigation of what was believed to be to be a cocaine trafficking organization. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigation focused on a local restaurant and its owner. The investigators believed that the owner of the restaurant was the leader of the organization that purchased powder cocaine and crack as well as marijuana (marijuana possession). These suspicions were confirmed when confidential informants made several drug purchases at the restaurant. The owner refused to sell to one of the informants, but his son sold to the informant and the owner watched the transaction take place.

The task force began to accumulate evidence against the owner of the restaurant as well as many of his customers over the years. Several individuals were arrested in the central part of the state for possession of numerous controlled substances and identified the restaurant as where they received the drugs.

After a while participants in the drug ring started to turn on the organization. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the first individual told officials that crack cocaine was dealt at the restaurant and the main person was the owner. He told officers that he along with another man, and the girlfriend of the owner worked directly for the restaurant owner. Other people came forward and confirmed this story.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Defendant Accused of Aiding and Abetting Perpetrator in Robbery

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused man along with a co-accused was convicted of robbery in the first degree. He and his co-accused had been charged with aiding and abetting the actual perpetrator; and the sole evidence linking the accused to the robbery was his own admissions. The evidence was insufficient to establish the accused man’s guilt of robbery as a principal.

The accused man’s admissions established only that he had given a gun to his co-accused who, in the accused man’s presence, then turned it over to their actual perpetrator man, whom they knew was going to use it in a robbery; and that after the robbery, and an ensuing homicide in which a police officer was killed, the accused cut his actual perpetrator’s hair in an effort to help him evade capture. It is indisputable that the accused was never present during the actual commission of the robbery and it is not claimed that he ever shared in the robbery proceeds.

Clearly, the accused did intentionally render assistance to the actual perpetrator. However, to be criminally liable for the robbery itself, he must also be shown to have shared the same specific intent or mental culpability as the actual perpetrator, and this was not done. The transfer of the weapon to the actual perpetrator, without more, is at best equivocal; and the subsequent cutting of the actual perpetrator’s hair is of little or no probative value, since it was the intervening killing of a police officer and not the robbery which obviously gave rise to the extensive manhunt. In other words, while the accused may be guilty of other crimes, such as criminal facilitation and hindering prosecution, the circumstantial evidence was not at all inconsistent with his innocence of the crime of robbery itself.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Defendants Bring Motion to Supress Evidence in Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case for the sex crime of obscenity where the defendants filed a motion to suppress certain evidence presented during the trial. In the motion, they raised as a contention that the prosecution was stopped from introducing evidence for acts of sodomy since there was a previous acquittal of the defendants for the offense of consensual sodomy.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the surrounding facts of the case were that the appellants had been earlier charged of consensual sodomy and promotion of obscenity for performing in a show participated by the defendants. After trial, the parties charged were acquitted for the sex crime of consensual sodomy but a hung jury resulted for the charge of promoting obscenity.

A retrial was processed for the felony of promoting obscenity and, during the trial, the prosecution showed evidence that included testimony in relation to the alleged acts of sodomy. Based on the ground that the there was acquittal granted to the appellants for the consensual sodomy, such testimony relating thereto should not be presented as evidence since it would constitute double jeopardy and constructive estoppel.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Court Discusses Imposing Tax on Possession of Illegal Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

The question before the court in this case is whether imposing a tax on the possession of illegal drugs after the state has imposed a criminal penalty for the same conduct is in violation of the constitutional prohibition of successive punishments for the same crime.

Law Review

Montana’s Dangerous Drug Tax Act went into effect on the first of October, 1987. The Act imposes a tax on both the possession and the storage of illegal drugs. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the Act specifically states that the tax will be collected only after the state and federal fines or forfeitures have been satisfied. The imposed tax is either 10% of the market value of the drugs or specified amount depending on the drug. For example, the charge for marijuana is $100 per ounce and the charge for hashish is $250 per ounce. The charge is whatever is greater.

Published on: January 26, 2013

Court Weights Constitutionality of Sentencing for a Felony in the Third Degree

by Stephen Bilkis

The Florida state filed an appeal placing in issue the constitutionality of the provisions of law pertaining to the inclusion of prior convictions in the charging information. This was due to the ruling of the circuit court, wherein the appellees who were charged and found guilty of petit larceny and they have already been previously convicted of such crime twice. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the accused on the ground that such charges were unconstitutional which deprived the defendants’ due process and equal protection of the law. The court granted the motion, thus, the appeal was made by the state.

The issue before the court is the constitutionality of the provision of law where “upon the third or subsequent conviction for petit larceny, the offender shall be guilty of a felony in the third degree.” A New York Criminal Lawyer said this was a distinct substantive offense that can be distinguished from the statute on being considered a criminal habitual offender. Both statutory provisions provide harsher punishments for a repeated offender. As habitual offender, the previous offense shall serve as the basis of an increased penalty while the other law makes the prior offense part of the elements of the present offense charged against the felon, which must be specifically alleged and proved during trial. In the latter case, the jury must provide judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the existence of facts related to prior conviction or convictions and return a verdict as to both.

The court pointed out several cases to sustain the action of the trial judge in submitting before the jury the judgment as to the verdict of the present offense charged and as to the historical fact of prior conviction. Furthermore, a New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the jury is under obligation to come up with specific findings of the facts in said former convictions.