Manhattan

Published on: September 13, 2012

Court Discusses Plea Bargain

by Stephen Bilkis

An undercover police officer posed as a buyer of cocaine which was clandestinely sold at a fast food joint. The undercover police officer was able to buy six small bags of cocaine on six separate occasions. With the cocaine bought from the fast food joint, the police officers had probable cause to apply for a search warrant and to arrest the employees of the fast food joint.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officers arrested the workers of the fast food joint and they searched the fast food joint and found seventy-eight bags re-sealable bags filled with white powdery substance which was later tested and found to be cocaine. The seventy-eight bags of cocaine were located in various areas of the fast food joint and some were found in the pockets of the employees of the fast food joint.

The Grand Jury handed down an indictment of twenty-one counts of criminal cocaine possession (drug possession) and sale. After the arraignment, the manager of the fast food joint was told by his lawyer that under the laws in effect at that time, the sentence he would most likely be given if proven guilty would be one to three years for every count which would amount to an indeterminate sentence of about eight to twenty-five years.

Published on: September 8, 2012

Defendant Questions Sufficiency of Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

An undercover police officer went to buy drugs. He stayed at a street corner waiting for someone to approach him. The accused approached the police officer and they talked for a while. The accused asked the police officer if he was looking to score some crack. The police officer said that he was looking for crack. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accused told the police officer that he too was looking to buy some crack. They waited a bit more where they were but no one approached them.

The two decided to take a walk to a busier street corner. As they waited there another man (the co-accused) came up to them and asked them if they were looking for anything in particular. When the undercover police officer and the accused said they were, the co-accused gave them an address where they could go. The co-accused told the two men to wait inside the building.

The undercover police officer and the accused then walked all the way to the address given by the co-accused and when they got there, they went inside the building and waited. The co-accused later appeared and went up one flight of stairs, down the hall into the rear of the building.

Published on: September 4, 2012

Special Narcotics Court Reviews Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York City, there is a special Grand Jury that handles cases from the Special Narcotics Courts of the city. When they are called to review a case, it generally means that the persons who are in line to be indicted are the result of many months of undercover police work designed to apprehend the most dangerous drug dealers. This group is not interested in apprehending the lower level drug dealers. A New York Criminal Lawyer said they are interested in making sure that the drug suppliers that provide narcotics to the street level dealers are put behind bars for good. To ensure that this happens, the narcotics officers are specially trained to be aware of all of the different search and seizure laws that apply to drug cases so that they do not make careless errors that will wind up costing them a conviction in court. Unfortunately, they occasionally do make mistakes.

It is commonly understood that people who are engaged in drug trafficking are often involved in other felony crimes. However, a New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said when an undercover officer is made aware of criminal wrongdoing through his position with the narcotics task force, they cannot simply ignore the fact that they are entrusted to enforce all of the laws of New York. In 2004, one narcotics officer was advised by an informant that there was a group of individuals who were forming a narcotics robbery gang. Their goal was to rob drug traffickers of their money and drugs and then sell the drugs themselves. They assumed that robbing drug dealers would be easy because the drug dealers are not likely to go to the police and tell them that they had robbed. The narcotics officer began working with another undercover officer to arrest this gang of thugs. They let it be known that they would be interested in joining the gang so that they could get close to the people involved and formulate a case.

One of the undercover officers was invited to join the robbery gang. He let the other one know about the intentions of the group so that they could maintain proper surveillance. Ultimately, on the evening that the robbery was planned, the group intended to rob some drug dealers of 60 kilos of cocaine (drug possession) and an unknown amount of cash. The undercover officer was picked up by his contact person and three other males. They loaded the cars with multiple guns and drove to the address that they intended to rob. The police were already there. The robbers were taken into custody and charged with multiple felony offenses. Once they were all indicted, their attorneys filed motions to dismiss the charges because they believed that the Special Grand Jury for the Narcotics Court did not have jurisdiction to handle the robbery and firearms charges. Their logic hinged on the fact that the subjects were not charged with even one narcotics charge.

Published on: August 23, 2012

Sex Crimes Defendant Also has Immigration Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The people of the state of New York are the plaintiffs in this case being heard in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County.The defendant has moved to have his conviction for the Class E felony of Rape in the third degree vacated. The basis for his argument for this motion is that he lacked effective assistance of counsel.

Case Background

The defendant illegally entered the United States with his father in the year 1991 when he was just sixteen years old. The defendant never attempted to become a citizen of the United States while he was living here and before he was prosecuted on the charges of rape in the third degree. He was not eligible for any type of program or amnesty after his illegal entry into the country.

Published on: July 13, 2012

Plaintiff Requests Punitive Damages in White Collar Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. The property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.

Published on: July 2, 2012

Court Discusses Mental Hygine Act

by Stephen Bilkis

The petitioner of the case is the State of New York. The respondent of the case is P.H. This case is being heard by Judge Daniel P. Conviser.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the respondent, P.H., is a sex offender and this case involves the civil management petition that has been filed, pursuant to the mental hygiene law. A hearing was conducted on the 22nd of September, 2008 to determine whether or not probable cause existed in the case to believe the respondent was in need of civil management as set by the Mental Hygiene Law section 10.06.

The petitioner called one witness during the hearing, Dr. Erika Frances. The court determined her testimony to be credible in the matter. There were no witnesses called by the respondent of the case.

Published on: June 22, 2012

Defendant Seeks to Change His Sex Offender Status

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York, a system of using an offender’s previous crimes to predict his recidivism rates is used. This system classifies sex offenders into degrees. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that certain offenses will cause the offender to be classified as a higher risk to the public if they are released without tighter supervision. In one case, the offender was convicted on July 29, 1982 for attempted rape in the first degree. This offense is considered a class C felony sex offense under Penal Law §§110.00, 110.05 and §130.35. The Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a hearing be held in the Supreme Court to ensure that the designated level of risk that is assigned to an offender is appropriate as it relates to their offenses. In this case, the court took into account, a previous sex offense that had been committed while the offender was still a juvenile.

The offender’s counsel moved to reduce his sex offender status rating because his juvenile record should have remained sealed and not considered as relevant to the current crime. The court did not agree. They admitted that juvenile offenses are deemed vacated after the offender has been adjudicated and served their sentence, however, when it comes to a prior felony sex crime conviction, the court is reticent to not include it. Just because an offender is a juvenile when he commits the offenses that are included in the Sex Crime Registration Act, it does not preclude the court from considering his prior actions when they determine the risk that he poses to commit the same or similar offense again in the future.

The offender’s counsel petitioned the court to provide a presumptive override to the decision based on the use of the juvenile history in determining the offender’s recidivism rate. The court maintained that Risk Assessment Guidelines that were developed by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders found that it was appropriate to utilize all information that may be a predictor to the likelihood that the offender will pose a significant risk to the public safety. The risk points that are allocated are based on the facts that are acquired with review of the offender’s criminal history. Failure to include all information that is available on an offender’s criminal history would skew the results of the guidelines.

Published on: June 21, 2012

Potential Juror Misconduct Reviewed In Sex Crimes Case

by Stephen Bilkis

It is difficult to understand the immensity of the responsibility that serving on a jury can be for some people. In this age of electronic information obtainable on the internet and even on a person’s telephone, it can be a daunting task for a juror to follow the instructions provided by the judge and make a determination only on the information that is presented in the courtroom. It is no surprise then when a juror is found guilty of misconduct for investigating a case on their own to attempt to help them make their decisions. As students, we are all taught to research a topic before we can make an informed opinion and not to rely solely on information that is provided by word of mouth. A New York Criminal Lawyer said when assigned to a jury and told that they are not allowed to make an informed decision based on research, many can feel lost and compelled to research the case on their own. This was the case, with one juror who was sitting on a non-sequestered jury, hearing the details of a serial sex crime offender’s case (rape). During the trial, the woman went to dinner with several friends and their acquaintances.

At that dinner, the woman brought up some of the details of the case that she was sitting on the jury for. She stated that the case was about a teen aged defendant who had cut up and raped a woman as part of a gang initiation. She allegedly stated that she had made up her mind about the defendant and his guilt in the situation. However, she stated that she knew she had a duty to deliberate the case with the other jurors before she actually made up her mind. She stated that the jury was a diverse group of people and she would need to hear what everyone had to say about the situation. She was unaware that one of the dinner guests was a defense attorney until later that night when they were walking to the train station. As they were walking, the woman talked to the attorney and found out that she was a defense attorney. The woman asked the attorney what she thought about DNA evidence because she had Googled the defense attorney involved in the case on her computer and discovered that he had a private practice. She asked pointed questions about DNA evidence and if she had ever had an opportunity to represent anyone who had their DNA match a crime several years after the offense had occurred.

The defense attorney informed her that it was not appropriate to discuss the case and that she could not answer the question for her. A Manhttan Criminal Lawyer said that the juror told the attorney that all of the information was in, but that the jury had not received the charge yet. The attorney attempted to change the subject. The following Monday morning, the defense attorney who worked for Legal Aid discussed the situation with her supervisor and her supervisor contacted the defense attorney who was handling the case. It was several days later before the chain of phone calls got to the correct people. By that time, the defendant had been convicted of the crime. As soon as the defense attorney for the defendant learned of the juror’s impropriety, he filed a motion for a mistrial on the case.

Published on: June 17, 2012

Defendant Claims Evidence was Illegally Obtained

by Stephen Bilkis

A police officer, a nine-year veteran of the NYPD who has made 500 narcotics-related arrests, investigates drug sales in lower Manhattan. On February 28, 2010, the police officer, together with his detective partner entered the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building in Manhattan to conduct a “vertical” –a floor-by-floor patrol of the premises in order to search for loiterers, drug users, people consuming alcohol and trespassers.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Officer testified that, in housing projects, officers may question anyone they encounter to determine whether they are on premises lawfully. Sometimes, at his discretion, he requires residents to provide identification or a key and must prove that they are not trespassers. Likewise, persons claiming to be legitimate visitors must also supply corroboration.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the police officer testified that he entered the premises at around 6:30 p.m. and observed defendant standing alone in the lobby. Thereafter, he approached the defendant and asked whether he resided in the building. Defendant replied that he was visiting a friend. When defendant did not supply a name and apartment number, the police officer arrested him for trespassing on NYCA premises. The detective searched the defendant and recovered 29 ziplock bags of cocaine from his waistband. The police officer performed a search and found $284 on defendant’s person. Thereafter, defendant was charged with criminal cocaine possession and trespassing.

Published on: May 23, 2012

Defendant Contends No Probable Cause for Search of Glove Box

by Stephen Bilkis

A man is charged with criminal possession of a weapon; criminal possession of stolen property and one count of bribery. He moves to suppress physical evidence seized at the time of his arrest and any custodial statements attributed to him.

On the morning of January 23, 1982, a police officer received a phone call at the precinct from an unidentified male who reported that automatic weapons could be found in the trunk of a maroon Oldsmobile parked near a bar.

Two officers responded and staked out the vehicle. At approximately 2:35 a.m. they observed the accused enter the car and followed him to the parking lot of a bar in a nearby town. When the accused exited the vehicle, the officers approached him, identified themselves and requested his driver’s license and registration.