New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defense Moves to Supress Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A detective led a police team that was investigating the deaths of a two man. The bodies of the two victims were discovered in the bathroom of the other man’s apartment. Both men had been bound with duct tape and shot through the head. A New Criminal Lawyer said when the detective and his colleague went to the apartment, they smelled a strong odor of marijuana and observed marijuana residue. The police later discovered that the other man had been a low-level drug dealer.

A witness, who claimed to have been a close friend of the other victim undergone interview with the detective, during their discussions, the witness stated that he knew the victim and they had been friends for fifteen years. The witness also stated that the victim had been a marijuana dealer with regular clientele. He also revealed that he had been present in the victim’s apartment when the victim sold between a half-pound and a pound of marijuana to another man. The witness also asserts that the victim had also been well acquainted with his client, whom he sold the pound of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the witness further states that the victim told him about a shipment of 30 to 50 pounds of marijuana and had some out-of-town buyers for it. The victim was nervous about so large a shipment and his client was present when the victim mentioned the prospective sale to the witness.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police utilized the information from the witness to obtain a photograph of the victim’s client. They put the photograph into a computer-generated photo array which they showed the witness. The witness identified the person pictured in the photograph as the client who purchased the marijuana from the victim. The police also obtained a number of addresses of locations that were linked to the client. A New York Drug Possessionhttp://http://www.newyorkcriminallawyer24-7.com/lawyer-attorney-1732528.html Lawyer said another detective informed the head detective that the victim’s client had a reputation for robbing drug dealers. At about 7:00 pm that same day, the detectives visited one of the apartments in the hope of finding the victim’s client.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defendant Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was standing in the corridor of a public housing project in Manhattan. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the housing projects are known to be a place frequented by drug dealers, drug addicts, those publicly drinking alcohol, trespassers and other persons engaged in criminal acts. Police officers have been assigned to conduct floor-by-floor patrols of the housing projects because of the prevalence of the crime in those areas.

On February 28, 2010, two veteran NYPD police officers made floor-by-floor patrol of a housing project in Manhattan. The police officers asked anyone they encounter in the housing projects their names, their addresses and even ask where they are going. When the police found persons in the corridors who are not tenants of the public housing apartment building they are patrolling, they ask for the persons reasons for being there. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they asked whether they are visiting, they asked the name and apartment number of the person they visited and they confirm with the tenant.

When the police officers encounter people who claim to be residents, they ask the people to prove their identity and prove their residence in the building by asking them for their key and asking for any identification that states their residence in the building.

Published on: August 1, 2012

Defendant Moves to Suppress Physical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

An NYPD Officer, a nine-year veteran, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. He has made 500 narcotics-related arrests.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 28 February 2010, the officer and his partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building. They were there to conduct a vertical floor-by-floor patrol of the premises during which the officers search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers. In housing projects, unlike police procedures applicable to private apartment buildings, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on the premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, the officer requires that purported residents provide identification or a key. Such individuals must prove that they are not trespassers and persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Defendant Claims Mental Illness as Defense to Sex Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

Issues that involve mentally ill suspects can be difficult to manage in the criminal justice system. Mentally ill suspects are a special population of offenders that do not fit squarely in the legislative intent in most cases. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when a violent crime involves a person who is clearly mentally ill, the court must balance the rights of the victim’s family to see justice done with the ethical problem of managing an offender who may not be able to comprehend the trial process, his charges, or that what he did was wrong. There have been several laws throughout history that were designed to create a balance of determination where it regards mental competency to stand trial. The McNaughten Rule was the common choice for the last 100 years. The McNaughten Rule established that the offender had to know that what he had done was wrong.

In 1963, the New York Legislature passed document No. 8. On pages 18-19 of this docuent, the courts revised the McNaughten Rule’s theory of the offender knowing that what he did was wrong. The more modern view that encompasses the scientific knowledge of the day as it relates to mental illness, only requires that an offender has a substantial capacity to know or appreciate that what they have done is wrong. Some states include this wording in legal statutes that claim the person may be guilty, but still mentally ill. In states that have a guilty, but mentally ill statute, the person who is found guilty of the crime is sentenced to a mental institution until they are deemed cured, then they are transferred to a penitentiary where they will serve the remainder of their sentences. In 1970, this option was not available. One particularly heinous crime brought this legal problem to the forefront of public attention.

In 1970, a sixteen year old boy was working in a New York apartment building as a porter. One of his duties was to fix minor problems within the apartments. One day, a woman called in a problem with her blinds, the porter responded to fix them and entered her apartment. She was later found raped and brutally stabbed numerous times. The knife was left protruding from her buttocks when the offender left the scene. A New York Criminal Lawyer said before her body was found, the porter had shown up at the fire station next door to the apartment building with a severe cut on one of his hands. He told the firemen that he had cut his hand on some barbed wire. The firemen transported him to the hospital to receive stitches. The boy went home and told his mother that he had fallen on a bag that had glass in it and cut his hand. He was later arrested and told the police a different story about how he had cut his hand.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Court Discusses 8th Amendment

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Defendant is charged with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.39(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 18 October 1973, and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, in violation of § 220.16(1) of the Penal Law, committed on 23 October 1973. A New York DWI Lawyer said the narcotic drug involved in each instance was heroin; heroin sale and heroin possession.

Under the revised drug laws which became effective on 1 September 1973, each of the crimes charged is classified as an A–III felony, punishable by an indeterminate term of imprisonment, the minimum period of which, for a first offender, is from one to eight and one-third years, and the maximum of which is life imprisonment.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Teenager Charged with Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 23, 1990 a police detective was looking through a one-way mirror at the passengers lined-up waiting for a bus to go to Virginia. The detective noticed a girl who looked no more than 13 years old lined up all by herself without a parent or guardian travelling with her. The detective also noticed that she had a bulge underneath her zipped-up coat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said aware that some drug dealers used teenagers as drug mules to bring drugs across through state lines, and fearing that the teenager may be a runaway, the detective approached her and talked to her.

The detective sat behind her on the bus. The detective asked her first if she didn’t mind speaking to her and she assented. He asked her if she was travelling alone, how old she was and where she was headed. The girl confirmed that she was travelling alone and that she was on her way to visit family in Norfolk. She also claimed that she was 18 years old.

Published on: July 31, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant is Eligible for Resentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 16 October 1994, defendant was arrested for selling $20 of cocaine to an undercover police officer. On 27 January 1997, he was convicted of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree (drug possession). He was sentenced as a Second Felony Offender to concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of 5 1/2 to 11 years. He was convicted in that case of. On 19 May 1999, defendant was released on parole.

Approximately 6 months later, he was arrested for another drug sale charge. On 4 August 2000, he pled guilty to Attempted Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a class C felony. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he then apparently failed to appear in court for sentencing and a bench warrant for his appearance was issued on 28 February 2001. He was returned on that warrant a little more than two years later on 2 May 2003. He was sentenced upon that conviction on 12 June 2003 to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a term of 3 1/2 to 7 years.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Court Awards Partial Summary Judgment

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiffs in this case are the Auto Collection Inc, et al. The defendants in the case are Christopher Pinkow, et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs, the Auto Collection Inc. is a corporation of New York and is licensed by the State of New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles to operate a car dealership. Auto Collection is in the retail business of selling cars. Steven and Joshua Lever are members of the Auto Collection. Autoland and LOV Motors, Inc. are exporters of cars and they purchase high end vehicles and other vehicles to sell to customers located in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. They have not been licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Oleg Sakhontchik is a representative for LOV. Gleb Sakhontchik is a member of Autoland.

Published on: July 30, 2012

Attorney Disbarred for Criminal Offense

by Stephen Bilkis

This matter deals with David A. Appell, who is an attorney and the respondent in the case. The petitioner in the matter is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. The case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is a disciplinary proceeding that has been instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

Case Background

Published on: July 29, 2012

Court Decides Outcome of Fraudulent Transfer Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in this case is the Banco Nacional Ultramarino. The defendants in the case are Maria F. Chan et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Justice Lorraine Miller is overhearing the case.

Case Introduction

This case deals with complex financial transactions in the amount of $6,580,150 in stolen funds (white collar crime) from the plaintiff. The transactions spread across four continents, U.S. Secret Service, IRS, Interpol, the FBI, the United States Drug Enforcement agency, the United States Customs Service and both federal and foreign tribunals as well as banking institutions located around the world. The motion in this particular case deals with approximately $1,000,000 of the funds that are in New York.