New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 21, 2012

Defendant Contends Police Did Not Have Probable Cause for Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

Four police officers in Manhattan were assigned to the Street Crime unit. They report for duty in plain clothes and they drive/ride in taxicabs around the city looking for crimes in progress.

ON December 10, 1982, two police officers were in a yellow cab near 115th Street around 5:00 p.m. They saw a car with three passengers going very slowly. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said the police in the cab followed them for nearly two blocks before the police officer saw that the car had a busted tail light. The police officers drove up next to the car and flashed their police badges and identification and told the driver to pull over.

The three men in the car pulled over. The police officer approached and they noticed that the three men inside the car looked nervously around at the two police officers who approached the car at the two front doors of the car.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discussed Multiplicity of Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was indicted by a grand jury for the crime of Robbery in the first degree, Robbery in the Second Degree and criminal use of a weapon. At the arraignment, the man asked the trial court to first open the minutes of the grand jury proceeding to see if a prima facie case had been proved by the District Attorney that would justify the indictments for robbery. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the Court granted the motion of the accused and scrutinized he grand jury proceedings to determine if there was legally sufficient grounds as basis for the indictment.

The Court reviewed the minutes of the grand jury proceedings and found out that the police officer who arrested the man was presented to testify. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said in his testimony, he stated that the man was arrested following a conversation the arresting police officer had with the complaining witness and the co-defendant of the man.

The Court held that allowing the arresting police officer to testify regarding the conversations he had with the complaining witness and the man’s co-defendant allowed hearsay testimony to be admitted during the grand jury proceedings. But the Court also ruled that although errors were made, these errors were not serious enough to warrant the dismissal of the first two counts of the indictment for Robbery in the first degree and for robbery in the second degree. So the accused’s motion for dismissal of the first two counts of the indictment is denied.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Court Discusses Reasonable Suspicion of Police

by Stephen Bilkis

Two police officers in a patrol car received a report over the radio that a fight had just been witnessed and called in at 1411 Grand Concourse. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the anonymous report stated that one of those who engaged in the fight had a knife. The only descriptions the witness gave about the two persons who were involved in the fight wore a red jacket and a dark jacket with a white stripe.

The two police officers drove to the address given in the report but they saw no one wearing the red jacket and dark jacket with a white stripe. When they got there a call for assistance was broadcast over the car radio. The two police officers responded. As they were heading toward the location of the other police officers who called for back-up, they saw three men. The officers got off their police car and headed for the three men. One of the men saw the two uniformed police officers and started running. The police officers gave chase and as they were chasing down the man, they saw him throw something. They finally caught up with the man and they also found what he threw away: it was a handgun. The police officers arrested him and charged him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Even before the arraignment, the accused (the man who ran and threw away a handgun) moved to suppress the gun as evidence. He claims that the gun is not admissible as evidence as it was obtained by the police without probable cause. The police officers’ actions were not justified in chasing the man and in arresting him.

Published on: May 21, 2012

Class Action Filed Against Handgun Manufacturers

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 24, 2003, several families of victims of gun crimes (possession of a weapon) filed a class action suit against seven firearms manufacturers to recover damages as a result of their family members deaths. The concept behind this lawsuit was that the manufacturers of these handgun had created a situation in which it was too easy for a subject to obtain a handgun and use it to assault another person. The court is forced to evaluate who is responsible for illegally possessed handguns. The complaint states that these illegally obtained handguns are a public nuisance because they endanger the health and safety of most of the population. The contention that was made in this complaint was that the manufacturers of these handguns are knowledgeable of the fact that their product is used to commit crimes and that they have chosen to contribute to these crimes by continuing to manufacture, distribute and market handguns to people who they know are likely to use them in an unlawful manner. The complaint maintains that the manufacturers of these handguns are aware that certain types of guns and certain areas where guns are sold, are disproportionately responsible for a large number of crimes in which handguns are used. The complainants seek an order directing the manufacturers of firearms to stop making them in New York state and to stop selling them in New York state which will stop the nuisance that they have created.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court evaluated the complaint in the light that it would be improper to penalize one person for the actions of another. Handguns are not the only legally manufactured and sold item that can be used illegally in the hands of a person who intends to commit an illegal act. With that contention, the manufacturers of kitchen knives, hunting knives, hatchets, or machetes could also be forced to stop manufacturing their products because some people use them to perform illegal and violent crimes. The court finds it improper to hold a person who is conducting themselves in accordance with the laws of the State of New York responsible for the actions that a third party. If a person is going to break the law, they will find a tool to use.

A good example of this type of logic is found in a particular well-known motorcycle gang. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said their weapon of choice for most of their crimes is a claw hammer. Should companies that make claw hammers stop producing them? Is the government in a position to limit the types of people who are allowed to purchase a claw hammer?

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Decides if There is a 14th Amendment Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the Commissioner of Correction of Connecticut, John R. Manson. The respondent/defendant of the case is Nowell A. Brathwaite.

Case Issues

This case involves the issue of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment, under the Due Process Clause requires the exclusion of pretrial evidence that was obtained by a police procedure that is deemed suggestive and unnecessary.

Published on: May 19, 2012

Court Discusses Williams Roger Clemens Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff and appellant in this case is William Roger Clemens. The defendant and appellee in the case is Brian BcNamee.

Appeal

The plaintiff in the case is appealing a ruling from the district court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said this court will determine whether or not the defamatory statements that were made elsewhere caused damages to the plaintiff and are sufficient in granting personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Published on: May 18, 2012

Court Decides if Incriminating Statements are Admissible

by Stephen Bilkis

On September 30, 1974, three men wearing bandanas on their faces entered the house of a man and rounded up all the people in his house. The three men threatened the man of the house at gunpoint and told him that they will kill his children if he did not open his safe and give them all the valuables he had.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man complied and opened his safe. As he was opening his safe, the bandana on the face of one of the three armed men came loose and fell off. The man of the house got a good look at his face. But just the same the man of the house gave the armed men all the cash in his safe, a diamond ring and his coin collection which was worth around $40,000.00. The armed man whose face he saw was the same man who pointed a gun to his head all the while that he was opening the safe.

A month later, the man of the house was summoned by the Nassau police. They asked him to identify one of the armed men, the one whose face he saw, from a line up they had. The man of the house positively identified the armed man whose bandana fell from his face.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Court Discusses the Drug Law Reform Act

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1997, officers assigned to the New York City Police Department’s Narcotics Division were conducting a short-term undercover operation for the purchase of heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that at midnight in the area of Bronx County, the accused, while acting with two other male individuals, sold a quantity of heroin to an undercover police officer. The accused was arrested and charged by indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. More than a year after the undercover operation, a jury convicted the accused of both offenses.

The court adjudicated the accused, a second felony offender and entered judgment against him, imposing two indeterminate concurrent terms of twenty-two years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of eleven years. The basis of the adjudication was a judgment of conviction for attempted robbery, a class D violent felony offense.

The Appellate Division affirmed the accused man’s conviction, but modified his sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of six years. The Court of Appeals denied the accused man’s application for leave to appeal.

Published on: May 17, 2012

Defendant Contends Improrper Jurisdiction

by Stephen Bilkis

The Grand Jury of the Special Narcotics Courts voted an indictment against the accused men charging them with criminal possession of a weapon and conspiracy in violation of the Penal Law. In summary, a New York Criminal Lawyer the court alleges that a confidential informant contacted one of the accused, offering him an opportunity to rob drug dealers of a valuable supply of narcotics and cash. The accused allegedly accepted the informant’s offer and engaged the three accused men to be part of the robbery gang. The case detectives instructed the informant to tell the accused men the robbery location. It is alleged that the informant and the four accused men loaded two vehicles with a number of weapons and went to that Bronx location with the intention to commit a burglary and a robbery.

The accused men filed omnibus discovery motions, to which the court responded. The State also supplied the grand jury minutes to the court for in camera examination. After examining the grand jury minutes, the court ordered the parties to submit additional memoranda of law on two jurisdictional questions. To enable the parties to fully brief the issue, the court found that release of certain portions of the grand jury minutes to the parties was necessary to assist the court in making the determination on the motion.

The Crime Investigator testified in the grand jury. In summary, the informant testified that he had continuous conversations with one of the accused; however, his testimony is devoid of any references to where he or his co-accused was located when they had the telephone conversations. Furthermore, it is apparent from the grand jury minutes that none of the face-to-face meetings between the informant and the accused men occurred in Manhattan. The sole reference to Manhattan in the informant’s testimony is contained in the informant’s recitation of why he was at a certain place at a certain time.

Published on: May 16, 2012

Case Deals with Drug Reform Act of 2009

by Stephen Bilkis

Three men committed class B felonies involving narcotics and were sentenced to undetermined prison terms under the Rockefeller drug laws which governed sentencing of drug offenders. A New York Criminal Lawyer said two of them received sentences of 2 to 6 years and the other man was sentenced with 5 to 10 years. All were paroled but violated it and all of them were sent back to prison. After the enactment of the drug law reform act of 2009, the three men applied for resentencing.

Based on records, the drug law reform act of 2009 allows certain prisoners sentenced under the so-called Rockefeller drug laws to be resentenced. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court hold that prisoners who have been paroled and then re-incarcerated for violating their parole are not for that reason to banned from seeking relief under the law.

Further, the drug law reform act of 2009 is codified. It permits people imprisoned for class B drug felonies committed while the Rockefeller Drug Laws were in force to apply to be resentenced under the current, less severe, sentencing regime. It was stated that any person in the custody of the department of correctional services convicted of a class B felony offense defined in the law which was committed prior to January thirteenth, who is serving an indeterminate sentence with a maximum term of more than three years, may except as provided in the law, upon notice to the appropriate district attorney, apply to be resentenced to a determinate sentence in accordance with sections of the penal law in the court which imposed the sentence.