New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 31, 2026

Special Conditions of Supervised Release Upheld After Felon-in-Possession Conviction. United States v. Jimenez, No. 24-1661 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal courts frequently impose conditions of supervised release designed to assist a defendant’s rehabilitation and protect the public after a term of imprisonment ends. These conditions can address issues such as employment, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and the use of electronic devices. Although district courts have broad discretion when imposing such conditions, defendants often challenge them on appeal, arguing that they are not reasonably related to the sentencing factors set forth in federal law.

Background Facts

William Jimenez, also known as “Flip,” pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to possessing ammunition after having previously been convicted of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Published on: May 30, 2026

Sentencing Vacated After Court Relied on Co-Defendant’s Prior Shootings as “Context.” United States v. Dralle, No. 24-2424 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal sentencing judges have broad discretion to consider a wide range of information when determining an appropriate sentence. That discretion, however, is not unlimited. A defendant may not be punished for the conduct of another person unless the law permits the conduct to be attributed to the defendant. Likewise, when a court considers uncharged conduct at sentencing, the allegations must be supported by sufficiently reliable evidence and proven by at least a preponderance of the evidence if disputed.

Background Facts

Chase Dralle pleaded guilty to illegally receiving a trafficked firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 933(a)(2) and 933(b). The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment.

Published on: May 29, 2026

Second Circuit Upholds Internet Monitoring Condition of Supervised Release. United States v. Brown, No. 24-1227 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

After a person is released from federal prison, the court may impose conditions of supervised release designed to protect the public and reduce the risk of future criminal conduct. Some of those conditions are mandatory, while others are tailored to the specific circumstances of the defendant and the offense. As technology becomes increasingly intertwined with everyday life, courts have frequently been asked to determine when restrictions on computer and internet use are appropriate.

Background Facts

Mark Richard Brown pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to fourteen counts of making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 and one count of theft of government funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

Published on: May 28, 2026

Statements Made Before Miranda Warnings Admitted After Court Found Defendant Was Not in Custody. United States v. Pence, No. 24-1025-cr (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

One of the most important protections available to individuals during police questioning comes from Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Under Miranda, law enforcement officers generally must advise a suspect of certain constitutional rights before conducting a custodial interrogation. Those rights include the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney present during questioning. However, Miranda warnings are required only when a person is both in custody and being interrogated. As a result, courts are frequently asked to determine whether a suspect was actually in custody when statements were made to law enforcement officers.

Background Facts

Christopher Pence was investigated by federal law enforcement authorities in connection with a murder-for-hire scheme. During the investigation, agents interviewed Pence and obtained statements in which he admitted participating in the plot.

Published on: May 20, 2026

Court of Appeals Holds Domestic Violence Survivors Cannot Waive DVSJA Hearings as Part of Plea Agreements. People v. N.H., 2026 NY Slip Op 02437 (N.Y. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

In People v. N.H., 2026 NY Slip Op 02437, the New York Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant may waive a hearing under the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) as a condition of a plea agreement. The DVSJA is a New York law enacted in 2019 that allows certain criminal defendants who are survivors of domestic violence to seek reduced sentences if they can show that the abuse they suffered was a significant contributing factor to their criminal conduct and that a standard sentence would be unduly harsh. The case required the Court to determine whether a defendant could give up the right to seek that relief as part of a negotiated plea agreement.

Introduction

The Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act was enacted in 2019 to provide sentencing courts with greater flexibility when dealing with defendants whose criminal conduct was significantly influenced by domestic violence. The law allows certain defendants to seek reduced sentences if they can demonstrate that abuse played a substantial role in their criminal behavior and that a standard sentence would be unduly harsh.

Published on: May 11, 2026

Federal Habeas Petition Denied After Court Found No Right to Justification Instruction. Brown v. James, No. 23-7864 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

A criminal defendant is often entitled to have the jury consider a defense that is supported by the evidence. One example is justification, commonly known as self-defense. If a trial judge refuses to give a requested justification instruction, the defendant can challenge that decision on appeal. However, once the state appeals process is over and the defendant seeks federal habeas corpus relief, the rules are different. A habeas corpus petition is a legal proceeding in which a person in custody asks a federal court to review whether the conviction or imprisonment violates the United States Constitution or federal law. Federal courts do not decide whether a state court correctly applied state law. Instead, they consider whether the defendant’s federal constitutional rights were violated.

Background Facts

Darryl Brown was convicted of first-degree manslaughter in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, after he shot and killed his daughter’s boyfriend during an altercation in the lobby of his apartment building. At trial, Brown requested that the jury be instructed on the defense of justification. He argued that the evidence supported a claim that he acted in self-defense. The trial court denied the request and did not include a justification instruction in its charge to the jury.

Published on: May 10, 2026

Police Detention Without Probable Cause Required Suppression of Confession. Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. One of the most important requirements imposed by the Fourth Amendment is that police generally must have probable cause before arresting a person. Over the years, courts have addressed situations where law enforcement officers attempted to question suspects without formally placing them under arrest. In those cases, courts have examined whether the police conduct was so restrictive that it amounted to an arrest requiring probable cause.

Background Facts

The case arose from the investigation of a robbery and homicide that occurred at a pizza parlor in Rochester, New York. During the investigation, a Rochester police detective received information from another officer suggesting that Richard Dunaway might have been involved in the crime.

Published on: May 8, 2026

Eyewitness Identification Evidence Held Sufficient to Support Robbery Conviction. People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620 (1983)

by Stephen Bilkis

In criminal cases, defendants frequently challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. When reviewing such claims, appellate courts do not decide whether they would have reached the same verdict as the jury. Instead, they determine whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented at trial.

Background Facts

The defendant was convicted of three counts of robbery in the first degree. The prosecution’s case relied largely on the identification testimony of a witness who observed the crime.

Published on: May 8, 2026

Terrorism Conviction Reversed in Part Following Times Square Subway Bombing. United States v. Ullah, No. 21-1058 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

Federal terrorism prosecutions often involve multiple criminal charges arising from a single act. In such cases, courts must carefully examine whether the evidence supports each individual charge and whether the government proved every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Even when the evidence clearly establishes that a defendant committed a serious terrorist attack, appellate courts must determine whether the convictions comply with federal law.

In United States v. Ullah, No. 21-1058 (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the convictions of Akayed Ullah for his role in a bombing attack in a crowded underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the Times Square subway station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. While the court upheld most of Ullah’s convictions and his life sentence, it concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the terrorism-related charges.

Background Facts

Published on: May 6, 2026

Certificate of Appealability Required to Appeal Denial of Rule 4(a)(5) Motion. Griffin v. LaManna, No. 24-3009 (2d Cir. 2026)

by Stephen Bilkis

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a legal procedure that allows a person who has been convicted of a crime and is in custody to challenge the legality of that conviction or sentence in federal court. Habeas corpus petitions often raise claims that constitutional rights were violated during the criminal proceedings. However, federal habeas cases are governed by strict procedural rules and filing deadlines. Missing one of those deadlines can prevent a court from reviewing the merits of a prisoner’s claims.

In Griffin v. LaManna, No. 24-3009 (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether a state prisoner could appeal the denial of a motion seeking additional time to file an appeal in a habeas corpus case without first obtaining a certificate of appealability. The court also addressed whether the prisoner’s attorney had demonstrated excusable neglect sufficient to justify missing the original appeal deadline.

Background Facts