New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 17, 2012

Defendant Moves to Supress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 20, 1984, two police officers were on patrol in a marked police car, when they observed a white, 2-door Pontiac stopped or standing adjacent to a fire hydrant, at the intersection in the Bronx. he police officer who had been operating the patrol car stopped and requested the woman to move the auto from the hydrant, whereupon she stated that she did not have a license and that it was not her car. A New York DWI Lawyer said the officer maneuvered the patrol car so that its headlights faced the front of the Pontiac and both officers exited their vehicle carrying flashlights, with the patrol car driver proceeding to the passenger side and his fellow officer to the driver’s door.

One of the officers asked the woman to produce her operator’s license, registration and insurance certificate. She responded that she did not have a license but the registration was produced from the glove compartment, although the record does not reflect whether it was retrieved by the car owner or by the woman. In any event, after the woman was unable to state the name of the owner in response to the officer’s inquiry, the police officer, who was shining a flashlight into the car, noticed a closed, brown paper bag, resting against the seat, between the car owner and the woman. He inquired as to the contents of the bag, whereupon the woman picked up the bag, handed it out the window and stated that it’s only boxes of envelopes.

According to the police officer, she became confused at that point, and didn’t understand him. She complied with the command and handed the bag out the window. The other officer, who was positioned on the sidewalk behind the passenger door, only heard highlights of what had transpired between his fellow officer and the woman.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Young Girl Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On 2009, a seventeen years old girl was arrested and subsequently accused of felony charges in two separately docketed felony complaints. She was charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree when an undercover police officer alleged in the complaint that she along several others, were selling narcotics from a first-floor apartment window of a building. The officer specifically alleged that the girl, who he saw at the window inside the apartment, handed three bags of crack cocaine (cocaine possession) to his colleague, who was standing on the sidewalk outside the window. The man then immediately delivered the crack cocaine in her possession to the officer.

In a separate complaint, the girl was also charged with crack possession. Another police officer alleged that, at about the same time the sale occurred, he entered the aforementioned apartment and found the girl and a twenty-three-year-old man, inside. The officer further stated that he recovered fifteen clear bags containing crack cocaine sitting in plain view on the dining room table. While the police officers were in the apartment, the girl’s brother entered and asked what is going on. The brother was also arrested, along with the girl and the man.

The girl appeared for her arraignment and the court assigned the public defender organization to represent her. A very experienced staff attorney from the organization was designated to be the girl’s attorney. The attorney met with the girl to discuss the case prior to her court appearance. He went over the factual allegations in the accusatory instruments with her, and she then told the attorney her version of the events. When the girl appeared, she entered pleas of not guilty to all charges. The cases were deferred for grand jury action.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Court Discusses Amended Habeas Petition

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves two federal prescriptions: the one-year limitation period imposed on federal habeas corpus petitioners by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1); and the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.

Respondent was convicted of murder and robbery in California state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. His current application for federal habeas relief centers on two alleged trial-court errors, both involving the admission of out-of-court statements during the prosecutor’s case in chief but otherwise unrelated. Respondent had made inculpatory statements during pretrial police interrogation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he alleged that those statements were coerced, and that their admission violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He also alleged that the admission of a videotape recording of testimony of a prosecution witness violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.

Respondent’s conviction was affirmed on appeal and became final on August 12, 1997. Under the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1), he had until August 12, 1998, to file a habeas petition in federal court. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said on May 8, 1998, in a timely filed habeas petition, respondent asserted his Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of the videotaped prosecution witness testimony, but did not then challenge the admission of his own pretrial statements. On January 28, 1999, over five months after the August 12, 1998 expiration of AEDPA’s time limit and eight months after the court appointed counsel to represent him, respondent filed an amended petition asserting a Fifth Amendment objection to admission of his pretrial statements. In response to the State’s argument that the Fifth Amendment claim was time barred, respondent asserted the rule that pleading amendments relate back to the filing date of the original pleading when both the original plea and the amendment arise out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth . . . in the original pleading,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). Because his Fifth Amendment and Confrontation Clause claims challenged the constitutionality of the same criminal conviction, respondent urged, both claims arose out of the same “conduct, transaction, or occurrence.”

Published on: August 17, 2012

Petitioner Demands Evidentiary Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner was a Florida prisoner on death row, having been convicted of first degree murder. The district court granted a writ of habeas corpus setting aside his conviction and sentence. The United States Court of Appeals reversed the decision of district court. The issues involved are whether or not the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State violated the Brady rule.

An illicit love affair ensued between a man, a real estate broker with ties to Boston’s criminal underworld, and a woman, who was married to a wealthy citrus grower. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man and the woman conspired to kill the wealthy husband by hiring petitioner as an assassin to murder husband. Unfortunately, the murder did not signal the beginning of a blissful life on the estate for the lovers. The man allegedly wanted more money and continue to harass the woman and her child. Terrified, the woman went to the authorities and implicated the man as the person behind her husband’s murder.

During the trial, the man discredited the woman as prosecution’s star witness. Trial proceedings were tainted with evidentiary irregularity leading to the unavailability of key witnesses. The man was discharged from prosecution in the crime of murder. The court then granted the petition to destroy certain physical evidence held for man’s prosecution.

Published on: August 17, 2012

Plaintiff Claims They Were Denied Due Process

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendants for: harassment, blackmailing and conspiring to boycott their classes and attempting to have them terminated from East Texas Police Academy (“ETPA”) in retaliation for their testimony in a case against another police officer involved in a shooting incident. Plaintiffs also claimed violations of: their rights to testify freely under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2); their right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment; their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and tortious interference with business relations. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs were instructors at the ETPA, in Kilgore, Texas, which provides basic and advanced training for law enforcement officers in the greater East Texas area. Defendants are the police chiefs or sheriffs from seven cities and counties within the greater East Texas area and who possess final authority over the training of the officers employed by their respective agencies.

Before the fall of 1998, Defendants enrolled their officers in ETPA courses on a regular basis, including courses taught by the Plaintiffs. The defendants were not contractually bound to continue using either the ETPA’s services or the services of Plaintiffs in particular. In August 1998, Plaintiffs voluntarily testified as expert witnesses against a police sniper from Kerrville, Texas who fatally shot a teenager. The said police officer was not trained at the ETPA nor belongs to the police agencies headed by the Defendants. In the said case, Plaintiffs testified that the Kerrville police officer used excessive force and that the Kerrville police department failed to implement the proper policies necessary to direct the conduct of officers acting as snipers.

The said testimony irked the Defendants and threatened the ETPA that they will all stop engaging their services for officer training. One of them said that Plaintiffs testimony “is in direct conflict with the basic fundamentals and expectations that we have come to enjoy from Academy instructors.” It created “conflicts of interest” and violated principles of “cooperative responsibility.” A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said they believe that an unacceptable conflict of interest exists whenever a police instructor testifies against a police officer, regardless of location and regardless of whether the instructor had trained the officer. Such a conflict does not exist when an instructor testifies for police officers.

Published on: August 16, 2012

Defendant Previously Tried in Military Court

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter involves Harvey O. Booth and Lee Clary as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court as the respondents. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellant in the case is James T. King as the Jefferson County District Attorney. The other case involves the respondents Leslie Bridgewater and Lee Clary as the Judge of the Jefferson County Court and James T. King as the Jefferson County District Attorney as the appellant.

The District Attorney of Jefferson County is appealing two cases. He is seeking to overturn the grant of writs of prohibition that prevent his office from prosecuting serious crimes that were committed by two solders on military property. The soldiers were off duty at the time.

The petitioner soldiers were tried and convicted by a general court martial for identical conduct that they were indicted for in Jefferson County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in each of the cases is whether a military tribunal is considered a court with any jurisdiction in the United States. If a military tribunal is considered a court with jurisdiction than the double jeopardy protection laws of the state of New York would bar the successive prosecution of the issues in these cases.

Published on: August 16, 2012

Court Looks at Elements of Sexual Abuse

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in a case against the defendant Stan Miller. This case is being heard in front of the Criminal Court of the City of New York in Kings County. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant in the case has been charged with attempted sexual abuse in the second degree, attempted sexual assault in the third degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, harassment in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant has moved to have the charges against him dismissed.

Case Facts

The complaint in this case comes from a thirteen year old girl. The defendant is a teacher at the child’s school. On the day that the incident occurred the defendant walked the child to his home. The child wanted to leave the defendant’s home and the defendant proceeded to block the doorway and would not let her leave. The child states that the defendant asked her for a kiss and she said no. She says that he moved his face into close proximity of hers and tried to kiss her. These actions caused the child to become alarmed and annoyed.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Defendant Moves to Have Verdict Struck

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case of appeal. The appellant is James Lavender, who is appealing a verdict that was made by a jury in the Supreme Court of Bronx County on the 19th of March, 1984. This verdict convicted the defendant of attempted rape in the first degree and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 25 years to life.

Case Background

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the appeal in this case is made by the defendant as a result of a jury trial. A hearing testimony was held and took place over a period of four days. The jury commenced into deliberations at close to 12 p.m. on February 6, 1984. After deliberations and a rereading of some of the testimony of the case, the jury went to their hotel for the night at 11 p.m.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Reverses Rape Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. The defendant and appellant in the matter is Edward Murphy. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. The defendant is appealing an order made by the Supreme Court of Bronx County that convicted him after a jury trial of the crime of rape in the first degree and sentenced him to a lesser sentence concurrent with a conviction of rape in the first degree.

Court Records

In review of the case it is found that the defendant offered statements to the court standing by his plea of guilty. He bargained for this plea and did not want to withdraw it. The statements made to the probation officer that were thought by the court to be a protestation of innocence were not inquired into the court in any extent. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the order of the court to vacate the guilty plea must be set aside in this particular case.

Published on: August 15, 2012

Court Hears Motion for Dismissal

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a matter being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, and Fourth Judicial Department. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case deals with the State of New York as the petitioner and respondent and Nushawn Williams, who is also known as Shyteek Johnson, as the respondent and appellant.

The respondent and appellant, Shyteek Johnson is appealing a decision made in the Supreme Court of Chautauqua County that denied the motion made by the respondent/appellant to dismiss the proceeding.

Case Background