New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 19, 2012

Court Discusses 4th Amendment Issues

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 26, 2001, three detectives, assigned to anticrime patrol in an unmarked Chevrolet Blazer and traveling northbound on Valentine Avenue in Bronx, were stopped at a red light at the intersection of Valentine Avenue and 184th Street, a high crime area. The Chevrolet Blazer was the first in line at the red light. The detective and sargeant, both in plain clothes, sat in the front of the vehicle. The sergeant was the driver. The officer in uniform, was a passenger in the rear of the vehicle.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that, while they were stopped, a detective observed three young males, one of whom was appellant, crossing the street in front of their vehicle. The officer testified that as the trio passed in front of the Blazer, they looked inside. One of the three “did a double take” and all of them “appeared to become startled.” Although the three males stayed together, their pace quickened. When they reached the other side of the street, walking southbound on the sidewalk, appellant separated from the group and, “walking closer to the building than the other two” “made a gesture like he’s putting something down by the building, by a doorway in the building which would lead to an alley.” As the detective explained, “He made a motion with his hand which looked to me he was casting something away, putting something down.” Appellant then joined the other two young men, who were walking southbound on Valentine Avenue.

The police vehicle then made a U-turn and pulled up alongside the three boys. The detective and rolled down their windows “to gauge their reaction.” Appellant “turned, looked at their car, looked right at the officer,” “panicked” and “took off running southbound on Valentine.” The other two young men remained standing where they were.

Published on: August 19, 2012

Defendant Requests Re-sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

A woman was convicted after a jury trial of murder. Upon the conviction, the woman was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of seventeen years. She was also convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate term five years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of two and one-half years to run concurrent with the life sentence.

The woman moves personally without a notice of motion or sworn affidavit, for re-sentencing to a determinate term of imprisonment. She did, however, verify that she served the District Attorney. Notwithstanding such service, the District Attorney failed to file any opposition. Consequently, on February 4, 2010, the court deemed the woman’s motion submitted on default.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said irrespective of the District Attorney’s default, the woman fails to provide any legal basis upon which the court may grant the relief requested. While she refers to the recently passed laws that may allow people who are serving life sentences to be considered to be re-sentenced to an alternate determinate sentence, she fails to identify any legal basis in support of her application. Indeed, it appears to the court that her claim is predicated on having been denied parole, stating that he has been denied parole release based solely for her crime, which will never change. It is served above and beyond the minimum term on both indictments and the maximum on one that she is not asking for a reduction that will minimize the responsibility to accept the punishment of her crime, however, the past cannot be change and to be denied release solely for her offense, which will not change is illogical and excessive. The woman believes that she is eligible to file an application under the standards of law and respectfully that she be re-sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Witness Recants Testimony

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant is currently serving a prison term of twenty-five years to life, having been convicted of Murder in the Second Degree for shooting and killing the victim on the evening of July 16, 1991. Defendant and his co-defendant were convicted after a jury trial based on identifications made by a single eye witness. The witness, a woman with a lengthy psychiatric history, the details of which were largely unknown to defendant at the time of trial, testified that she looked out her fourth floor window at midnight and saw defendant and two other men with guns approach her building. As she ran downstairs she heard five gunshots and saw the back of the men as they left the scene. Although her fourteen year old son was out on the street and witnessed the shooting, he was never called as a witness at trial. The People did not present any physical evidence, motive evidence or any other evidence to corroborate the witnesses identification of defendant as one of the shooters.

The witness was a complete stranger to both defendants, has now recanted her trial testimony, claiming that she lied when she testified that she saw the faces of the shooters and identified them. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, she now claims that she did not actually see and could not have seen the faces of the shooters and that she identified defendant based only on her observation of a photograph of him that she saw in the investigating detective’s car. The witness states that she falsely identified defendant out of a strong desire to protect her son, whom she believed was being threatened by a detective and whom she did not want to testify.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant moves to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL §440.10 based primarily on the witnesses recantation. He argues that her recantation is newly discovered evidence that is credible and reliable and that if known at trial would have created the probability of a more favorable verdict to defendant.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Minor Charged with Drug Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

At about 6:30 p.m., a 15 year old boy violated the criminal law. The boy was in unlawful barbiturates possession that can only be obtained by a doctor’s prescription. The boy, prior to his arrest, has been observed by the witness being approached by another youth who placed a dollar bill upon a mail box and in return received something from the boy. The object is being taken from the boy’s right pants pocket where the two bottles of barbiturates was found (drug possession).

There was only one witness who testified at the fact finding trial. The police officer testified that at that day from a distance of about 30 feet, he observed the boy approach a youth at a mail box on a public street in daylight, take a bill of currency placed on top of the mail box, pass an unseen object in his closed hand to the youth and then he followed the boy as he shuffled unsteadily, evidently intoxicated by alcohol or a drug, for about two blocks until he turned through the doorway of a grocery store. The police officer thereupon spoke to the boy in the store. He observed that the shuffling boy appeared to be dazed or drugged, with half-closed eyes. The police officers ask the boy to identify himself and requested to be search. The boy cooperated without objection. Upon tapping his clothes in the well-known manner, the police officer noticed hard objects in the boy’s pocket. He then asked the boy to empty his pockets. Still cooperating without objection, the boy produced two unlabeled brown bottles containing dozens of pills and nine one dollar bills. The boy confessed on the spot, as the police officer testified, that the many white pills were barbiturates and he had sold the pills. He stated that he could not remember or did not know the name of the man from whom he had obtained the pills, a strange man in a park. Quite importantly, the boy further admitted that he had been himself taking those pills for about one and one-half months and his obvious doped condition was the result of it. The pills were now in evidence.

The court was tempted to defer the proceeding, after which no chemical analysis was yet available for the purpose of obtaining the analysis from the police department laboratory. In addition, because of the failure to analyze the pills received in evidence as found in the possession of the boy, there are lengthy observations and findings which the court required to make. The opinion of the court may shed on the juvenile drug crime problem and simplify the evidence and procedures in similar cases.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Court Discusses Crime of Conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

This involves a case where the court dismissed the indictment against defendants for conspiracy in the fourth degree (two counts), hindering prosecution in the third degree (two counts) and official misconduct (two counts).

In the early 1960s, JF, a resident of Queens County and meter reader for a company, entered upon a scheme under which he accepted money from various investors, agreeing to pay them a return of 1% A week and explaining to them that this high return was being paid by a factoring company which loaned out moneys to various companies in the fur, textile and other industries where there was a need for immediate cash. In fact, there was no factoring company and JF was merely repaying these people from their own moneys. Among the hundreds of persons who invested with him were members of the staff of the District Attorney of Queens County, including defendants.

In March of 1971, after being the victim of a real or apparent robbery, and being ostensibly unable to continue to pay off investors, JF fled New York City and went to San Francisco. His whereabouts were unknown to the authorities until a year later, when he was discovered by two irate investors and was returned to New York City by them. Within two weeks, he was indicted for 35 counts of grand larceny by a Queens County Grand Jury upon presentation of the case by the District Attorney’s office. At that time, defendant was the District Attorney of Queens County, his son-in-law, was the Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney and another defendant was a County Detective in the District Attorney’s office.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Defendants Arrested for Narcotic Sales

by Stephen Bilkis

In May 1990, members of the narcotics teams arrested three men for street narcotics sales to undercover police officers. In each case, both the arrest and the evident conduct constituting the crimes was charged occurred entirely within the county and pursuant to an agreement between the district attorney and the special narcotics prosecutor, the criminal actions were commenced by the filing of felony complaints in court.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that all the three men were arraigned and their cases adjourned for action by the special narcotics grand jury and/or possible disposition by way of waiver of indictment and the filing of superior court’s information. The counsel orally moved for dismissal of the felony complaints on the ground that the court had lacked of geographical authority as defined in law. With the concurrence of all the parties, the court reserved decision and set a schedule for the filing of written motions and memoranda of law.

While the court was waiting from the city of New York’s response, the prosecutor presented the two men’s matters to a special narcotics grand jury. A true bill was voted with respect to each and the charges were filed. The indictments are currently pending in other special narcotics Supreme Court parts. One of the men has actually entered a guilty plea to a lesser included offense. Consequently, the city of New York moved to dismiss the charges against the other men because the laboratory report showed that the items sold contained no controlled substance. Apparently, the motion was granted by the court.

Published on: August 18, 2012

Court Discusses Conspiracy Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The two accused men, charged with the crimes of Criminal Sale of a Dangerous Drug and Conspiracy, move to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution puts them in jeopardy again for crimes of which they already have been convicted in another jurisdiction. They contend, in short, that their prosecution in Nassau County of the crime of Conspiracy included therein acts which are alleged in this indictment and thus fall within the proscriptions of the Criminal Procedure Law which prohibit such a second prosecution. The Court ordered a hearing on the contentions of the accused men and the facts and circumstances of the issues as testified to at the hearing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused men with others met the undercover Police Officer who was accompanied by an informer at a restaurant owned by one of the accused in Queens County Restaurant. There was a discussion concerning the buying and selling of cocaine and the accused men quoted prices to the undercover detective. An agreement was made the next day to meet at the same place for the purchase of 1/8 of a kilo and at the subsequent meeting the accused delivered the 1/8 of a kilo to the officer and received from him the sum of $4,000 as a payment. Having established a basis for doing business, the accused men and undercover officer, entered into another deal at a Restaurant for the sale of a kilo for $32,000. The actual sale for the kilo was made in Nassau County.

Subsequently, the accused men were indicted in Queens County charged with the crime of Criminal Sale in the First Degree, involving the $4,000 sale and the conspiracy which led up to that substantive crime. They were also indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury for crimes involving the $32,000 sale, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance (drug possession) and Conspiracy.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Thirteen Year Old Robbed at Knife Point

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The case involves the People of the State of New York versus the defendant.

Case Background

On the second of June in 2005 at around 3:20 in the afternoon, the victim, who was thirteen years old at the time, was on her way home from school. She was going down the well lit stairs of the subway station near the corner of Essex and Delancey Streets in Manhattan. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said she was descending the stairs a man she did not know approached her and asked for some change. The man stood face to face with her and she states that she did not think he was going to hurt her. She says that she looked directly at him and told him that she didn’t have any change.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Court Conducts Risk Assessment for Sex Offender

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was arrested for acting in concert with another in allegedly committing the crimes of Kidnapping in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.25 [1]), Rape in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]), Sodomy in the First Degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [1]), and Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree (Penal Law § 135.10), against the victim on May 3, 2000, in the vicinity of East 233rd Street and White Plains Road in Bronx County. Defendant and co-defendants were subsequently indicted for all of the above charges. In the felony complaint, it was alleged that the Defendants detained the victim in a car and refused to let her leave when she requested to do so. Further, when she attempted to get out, she was pulled back inside and her mouth covered when she tried to scream for help. The defendants then held the victim down while Defendant inserted his penis into her vagina and Scott inserted his penis into her mouth, both without her consent. At the time of his arrest, when told that he was being charged with rape, Defendant responded, “I kind of had that feeling.” He was subsequently identified by both the victim and an eyewitness in separate corporeal lineups.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, in the course of the Grand Jury presentation, it was established that the victim was with a friend. The friend knew Defendant and talked to him while the victim was standing close by. The victim and friend got into the back seat of the vehicle. When the friend got out purchasing some cigarettes or marijuana, Defendant drove off with the victim. The victim called to the friend for help. However, the defendant pulled her back into the car. Defendant proceeded to drive to a parking lot. He then got into the back seat, grabbed the victim’s thigh and demanded that she place his penis into her mouth. Thereafter, Defendant removed the victim’s pants, held her hands down, and engaged in sexual intercourse (rape) with her against her will. The defendant then inserted his pturbated into her mouth while Defendant held her hands down as she was repeatedly shouting, “No.” Scott then struck the victim in the mouth. Afterwards, the victim was driven to within one block of her home and forcibly thrown out of the car.

DNA tests performed on the victim and Defendant revealed that his semen and that of another male were found on a vaginal swab of the victim as well as on her panties.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Drug Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

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.