On this proceeding, a real estate company and a man move for a relief, in which both of them seek inspection of the grand jury minutes, suppression of evidence, discovery and disclosure. The real estate company and the man are both charged under count one with attempted promoting prostitution in the third Degree.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the City of New York’s proof consisted of the testimony of two undercover police officers. The first undercover officer testified that when he entered in the real estate’s office with another undercover officer and spoke to a real estate agent, he indicated that he wanted to rent a house in the neighborhood. The real estate agent arranged to show a house to the undercover officer. While walking to the house, the real estate agent explained that the owner wanted the house to be used for commercial purposes. The undercover officer speaks with the agent in Spanish language explaining that it would not be a problem because he was in the people’s business and that the house would be the house of prostitution. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the real estate agent then allegedly explained to the undercover officer that the house they were going to see would not be suitable for that purpose because it had recently been used as a house of prostitution. It had been closed down by the police, with extensive media coverage. The real estate agent said that he would try to find another house that would be more suitable.
Afterwards, the undercover officer returned to the real estate’s office. On that occasion, the original real estate agent was assisted by the man who was introduced to the undercover officers as being a real estate agent who had some prior knowledge with that kind of business. The man suggested a house that was in a secluded area.
The man got into a car with the other real estate agent and the undercover officer and his fellow officer followed in their own car to a house in the secluded area. A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said after arriving at the location, the police and the man examined the house, discussing how the exterior could be modified to afford the greatest degree of privacy and how to alter the interior space to provide for the optimum amount of bedrooms. After some additional conversation about the manner in which the house of prostitution would be run, the parties spoke to the owner and learned that the house had already been rented to another individual.
At this point the man was arrested for attempted promoting prostitution in the third degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree. The corporate entity was also charged with the same two offenses. The matter was presented to the grand jury which voted a true bill with respect to both the real estate agency and the man.
In examining the sufficiency of the grand jury minutes, the court concludes that the city of New York presented a sufficient evidence to establish a case to permit a trier of fact to conclude that the man was either an agent or high managerial agent, as those terms are defined under the law. Although the court concludes that the real estate company is a proper party with the matter, the court must still determine if the facts presented are sufficient to sustain the charges contained in both counts.
The court also inspected the instructions given by the assistant district attorney to the grand jurors and finds that they are sufficient. Therefore, the request for release of the grand jury minutes and charge to defense counsel is denied.
The real estate company additionally moves to separate its trial from that of the co-opponent. Upon review of the indictment, the court finds that the indictment has properly joined the opponents who are charged jointly with the remaining offense contained in the indictment which is based upon the same criminal transaction. The court further finds that the opponent has not established a good cause basis to warrant a severance.
The real estate company claims in only conclusory terms that the defenses are antagonistic and mutually exclusive. The mere allegation that the man acted outside the scope of his authority does not render the defenses mutually exclusive and that is an insufficient basis upon which to grant severance. Therefore, the real estate’s application for severance is denied.
The man makes additional requests for relief. He claims that at the arraignment in the Supreme Court, the district attorney served notice of intent to offer the opponent’s the grand jury testimony at trial. He then moves to preclude any use of the testimony in the grand jury because a copy of the testimony was not attached to the notice that was served at the Supreme Court arraignment. There is a deficiency of written decisions regarding whether the City of New York are required to serve notice if the only statement sought to be introduced is the man’s own testimony. In one trial court decision, it was held that notice must be served, but in another trial court decision, the court held that the City of New York need not serve notice. The court finds that the notice requirement was satisfied despite the lack of an annexed transcript and the request for preclusion due to a supposed failure to comport with the notice requirements is denied.
Alternatively, the man moves to suppress his grand jury testimony claiming it was derived in part by an improper cross examination and thus violated his right to testify in the grand jury. The court has examined the man’s testimony and finds that the questions asked by the district attorney were not so overly vigorous as to prevent him from fully and fairly testifying. Therefore, the man’s request for a hearing is denied.
The man also requests suppression of physical evidence, including observations claiming that the evidence was obtained in violation of the fourth amendment of the country’s constitution and the applicable section of the state constitution. It was said there that the opponent is entitled to be free from any unlawful stop and search unless the police have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, a warrant or consent. The opponent has standing to challenge the unlawful interference with the persons and premises. He further alleges in support of his request for a hearing.
In opposition to the man’s request, the district attorney supplied a copy of the search warrant completed in conjunction with the arrest. The man does not seek to controvert the search warrant, nor does he set forth a factual basis upon which to suppress any evidence seized. Therefore, his request for a suppression hearing is denied.
The man has been provided with copies of audio tapes made during the course of the criminal transaction. The man also seeks preclusion of the tapes, claiming that the tapes are inaudible. The district attorney maintains that the tapes are audible and states that they are in the process of having transcripts made. The man’s request is granted to the extent that a hearing is to be held, when the transcripts are produced, prior to trial, to determine if the tapes are so inaudible as to render them inadmissible.
Consequently, the real estate company and the man’s requests to extend the time to make additional motions are granted.
Each individual is liable in building and maintaining a good society. If someone did something damaging to the community, it is a risk and can put young individuals in danger. That’s why, if you suffered from criminal act you should fight for your rights and you can ask the Queens County Criminal Lawyer for legal assistance. You can also have legal guidance from the Queens County Assault Attorney or Queens County Family Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates if one of your family members experienced physical attack, or have been charged with drug possession, theft or sex crimes..