New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 7, 2014

The jury nevertheless convicted the defendant of conspiracy

by Stephen Bilkis

In this extraordinary case, the Court found that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial by the combination of the trial court’s mishandling of hearsay objections and its refusal to give a missing witness charge as to a registered jailhouse informant.

A Queens County Criminal attorney said that while incarcerated and awaiting trial on an embezzlement charge, the defendant allegedly asked a fellow inmate to introduce him to people who, for money, would be willing to kill two witnesses who were expected to testify against him. The inmate turned out to be a registered jailhouse informant who, at the time, was working with police on another case in which he reported that a different prisoner had also solicited his help in hiring a hit man. In the words of the lead detective in that case, in return for his help, the informant was looking for a “get out of jail free card.”

After the informant alerted the police to the defendant’s alleged request, an investigation was begun involving undercover police officers posing as contract killers. The investigation ultimately led to the defendant’s arrest. At trial, the position of the defense was that it was the informant who had first suggested, and then insisted, that the defendant speak with “hit men,” and that the defendant had done so only because he was afraid of the informant.

Published on: February 6, 2014

People v. Rahman

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Rahman

Court Discusses the Prejudicial Effects of a Sandoval Hearing

The defendant was arrested and charged for two counts each of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. The defendant however, stated that he had an alibi that he was visiting a friend and his aunt when the sales took place on both dates. The defendant further alleged that there was a seller imitating him. The defendant requested a Sandoval hearing to exclude his prior convictions which included drug related offenses where he chose to testify. It was concluded that the People could cross-examine him about his two prior convictions for possession of dangerous drugs. The defendant was convicted of sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant appealed the conviction on the basis that he was prejudiced during the cross-examination by the prosecution.

Published on: February 5, 2014

People v. Valentin

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Valentin

Court Discusses the Offense of Criminal Facilitation as a Lesser Offense to Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance

The defendant was arrested after a sting operation in which it was alleged that he sold heroin to that drug enforcement agent. The defendant was charged with one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree pursuant to section 220.41 of the Penal Law. It was alleged by the undercover detective and other person who witnessed the transaction that the defendant sold the detective 15 bags of heroin for 140 at a social bar. The defendant was arrested after the transaction while he was at the social bar although no narcotics were found on his person or the proceeds of the transaction. However, purchase money was found in a garage bin along with other money. The defendant denied the allegations but acknowledged that he was asked about narcotics from one of the witnessed but refused.

Published on: February 5, 2014

PAL Football Board of Directors

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an action to recover damages or the alleged libel, slander, negligent hiring and training and negligent supervision of the defendant police officer by the defendant county. It has been alleged by the complainant man that on November 6, 2005, he was present at the Athletic League Sports Complex at a football game and following the game, directed a combative, disgruntled park patron out of the park and advised the defendant police officer. The complainant alleges that thereafter, he was sitting in his truck when the police officer, in the presence and hearing of others, spoke to him stating that he smell marijuana in the complainant’s track. The complainant contends he was not engaging in the use or marijuana possession and that the police officer refused to arrest him when he challenged him to do so.

On November 9, 2005, the police officer allegedly submitted a written report of the criminal incident to the County Police Department to a Lieutenant. The complainant claims the report was false and was disseminated to the Police Athletic League in a board meeting with the intent to damage his employment, good name, reputation, and credit. The complainant claims he was thereafter terminated from his contract with the Police Athletic League (PAL) in December 2005.

The County and the police officer seek an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint asserted against them. The adduced testimony establishes that the police officer was on duty at his job as a police officer and was present on November 6, 2005 at the PAL football field to observe a football game between twelve year olds from Huntington and the South Shore League to help defray any problems as there were previous complaints about the conduct of the players/coaches/referees on the playing field with regard to yelling and not controlling their conduct. The police officer was observing the game with a PAL Board member, and when the game was over, spotted the complainant’s green van. The police officer wanted to let the complainant know there was nothing further he could do about the woman who complained to him, to advise the complainant that he was leaving, and also, because the police officer’s his first van was green when he began his job, he thought the complainant ‘s van might have been the same one. The complainant testified to purchasing the van from PAL. When the police officer approached the van, the complainant was seated inside. Standing by the driver’s side windows, both police officers testified they could smell criminal marijuana coming from the van when the van window was opened, there was smoke in the vehicle, and one of them stated the complainant’s eyes appeared bloodshot. The complainant denied that he had been smoking marijuana when the police officer questioned him and challenged the police officer to arrest him. The police officer did not arrest him and he walked away. At his next work day, the complainant prepared the written memo directed to his supervising officer concerning his observations of the complainant at the PAL complex. Upon receiving the report, the complainant’s boss who was employed by PAL and was responsible for hiring the complainant, advised him that his supervising officer made a request for the complainant to take a drug test which he did approximately two weeks later. Thereafter, a meeting was called by the supervising officer with the PAL Board, for which the supervising officer and the police officer were board members, to discuss the situation and make a determination as to whether or not the complainant’s employment should be continued. A copy of police officer’s report was disseminated to the board. After a vote by the PAL Board, it was decided that the complainant’s contract, which was due to expire was not to be renewed. The complainant had been working for PAL for seventeen years.

Published on: February 5, 2014

A man was convicted of the crime of issuing a fraudulent check

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was convicted of the crime of issuing a fraudulent check and of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, and from the decision of the Supreme Court that unanimously affirming the decision of conviction, the man appeals by permission.

In connection with the man’s purchase of a quantity of lumber, the man gave to the seller a check upon a bank where payment thereof was refused because of insufficient funds to the man’s credit. As a result of the transaction the man stands convicted of a violation of the penal law.

Based on records, grand larceny in the second degree is the appropriating, taking, stealing the property of another the value of which is over $100 and less than $500 in any manner whatsoever. Further, larceny is just another name for stealing and it is the taking of another man’s property with a view of depriving him of it and appropriating it to your own use and benefit, stealing. Forgery was an element.

Published on: February 5, 2014

DCJS’ regulation

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York DWI Lawyer said that, this matter is before the Court for sentencing under The Defendant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3).

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the State enacted Leandra’s Law November 18, 2009, roughly one month after the DWI death of 11-year-old girl in New York City. It demands, inter alia, that all first-time, misdemeanor DWI offenders install ignition interlock devices in every automobile they own or operate for at least 6 months. It further requires, barring indigency, that offenders pay for installation and maintenance of the interlocks. However, like so many products rushed to market prematurely, Leandra’s Law exhibits numerous defects imperiling its constitutionality.

The issue in this case is whether the Leandra’s Law is constitutional.

Published on: February 4, 2014

The evidence was legally insufficient

by Stephen Bilkis

In two related juvenile delinquency proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the appeals are from (1) a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Queens County, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree , (2) an order of disposition of the same court, which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation with the “Probation Department of the County of Queens” for a period of 18 months, (3) a fact-finding order of the same court, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and (4) an order of disposition of the same court which, upon the fact-finding order, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation with the “Probation Department of the County of Queens” for a period of 18 months,

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency, the Court found that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and attempted criminal robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree.

Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented is primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses. Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the findings of fact were not against the weight of the evidence.

Published on: February 2, 2014

People v. Reyes

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Reyes

Court Discusses the Credibility of Detective testimony versus the Defendant

The defendant was charged with sale, possession with intent to sell and possession of heroin on two separate occasions. The charges stemmed from the allegation that the defendant sold heroin in a glassine envelope on two separate occasions to an undercover detective. The detective also used the assistance of a patrolman to indicate that the sale had been completed. The defendant, however, stated that he was leaving work to pick up his son at the time the sale was alleged to have transpired on the first occasion but provided no further evidence to support his alibi. The defendant’s nephew also testified that he was him an hour prior to the defendant’s arrest on the second occasion it was alleged that he sold heroin to the undercover defective. The defendant’s nephew further stated that at no time the defendant possessed any illegal substance. The defendant was convicted by a non-jury trial of one count of criminal selling a dangerous drug in the third degree and sentenced to an intermediate term of imprisonment not exceeding four year. The trial court however, dismissed the remaining charges because the prosecution failed to prove their case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant appealed the conviction on the ground that he should not have been convicted since the other charges were dismissed.

Published on: February 1, 2014

The Supreme Court of the United States

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant moves to suppress physical evidence and his statements. He was charged of crimes of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

A Queens County Criminal lawyer said that in October 2011 a Detective of the 104th Precinct Detective Squad, was assigned to investigate a burglary that took place in Middle Village, Queens. Police Officer, an eight (8) year veteran of the NYPD and also working with the 104th Precinct Detective Squad, was assigned to investigate a burglary that took place a day earlier. They worked together on these criminal cases.

Thereafter, the Detective placed a telephone call to the defendant and speaking in English, asked him to come to the precinct and speak with him. The defendant spoke to him in English. They scheduled an appointment two (2) days later. The detective did not recall telling the defendant why he needed to speak to him. The detective did not tell the defendant that he would be coming in to surrender. The detective had been given the defendant’s name, address and telephone number by the co-defendant, who had been arrested earlier that day.

Published on: February 1, 2014

The issue is whether the court erred

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, defendant, a graduate student and teacher at Penn State University, was convicted by the court, without a jury, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, a class A felony, and was sentenced to a minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years to life. It is not disputed that on January 4, 1975 the defendant, while under police surveillance, sold a substantial quantity of cocaine to a police informant.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, the informant who made the purchase of cocaine upon which defendant’s conviction is based testified that he had known defendant for about two years before the transaction of January 4, 1975; that he had visited defendant’s Pennsylvania apartment on several occasions; and that he had made prior drug purchases from defendant. He also testified that on December 4, 1974, the day before he was arrested in Steuben County for possession of amphetamines, he purchased 1,000 pills which he believed to be amphetamines, a gram of cocaine and one or two grams of PCP from defendant in Pennsylvania. While it later developed that these pills were not a controlled substance, he asserted that defendant told him that they were ‘black beauties’ and he paid defendant between $220 and $240 for the pills.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the informant admitted that over a period of time he had used amphetamines, sedatives, hallucinogens, marijuana and heroin, and that he had sold drugs to others. He had a prior Chemung County conviction for felony possession of marijuana which was pending on appeal. On December 5, 1974 he was arrested for felony possession of amphetamines and shortly thereafter he expressed a desire to work with the state police as an informant. On December 20, 1974 he discussed with his attorney his possible informant’s role and its effect not only upon the charge with which he was then confronted but also upon the prior Chemung County conviction.