This case is an appeal from a final administrative order that was made by a school board. The order expelled the appellant from school for possession of marijuana.
Case Background
The principal of the school was notified by a teacher that a student had told her that the appellant, who was a ninth grader, had a marijuana cigarette in the bathroom. The reporting student said that the marijuana cigarette would be with one of three students.
The DEA along with the local Sherriff’s Department started a joint investigation of what was believed to be to be a cocaine trafficking organization. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the investigation focused on a local restaurant and its owner. The investigators believed that the owner of the restaurant was the leader of the organization that purchased powder cocaine and crack as well as marijuana. These suspicions were confirmed when confidential informants made several drug purchases at the restaurant. The owner refused to sell to one of the informants, but his son sold to the informant and the owner watched the transaction take place.
The task force began to accumulate evidence against the owner of the restaurant as well as many of his customers over the years. Several individuals were arrested in the central part of the state for possession of numerous controlled substances and identified the restaurant as where they received the drugs.
After a while participants in the drug ring started to turn on the organization. The first individual told officials that crack cocaine was dealt at the restaurant and the main person was the owner. He told officers that he along with another man, and the girlfriend of the owner worked directly for the restaurant owner. Other people came forward and confirmed this story.
The appellants in this case were indicted for a number of violations of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. A jury trial was held in the matter and the defendatns were all convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. The defendants raise several issues on appeal.
Case Facts
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the appellants for a time frame of almost a year smuggled marijuana into the United States. The smuggling would typically include using shrimp boats to go into Columbia and return with multi-ton cargos of marijuana.
The defendant is appealing his conviction of possession with the intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana. Border Patrol agents found the marijuana in his tractor trailer while at a border checkpoint. The defendant argues on appeal that his counsel was ineffective as they failed to request a Pennington jury instruction. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he also argues that the district court made an error by failing to provide a Pennington jury, by allowing the government to comment on his arrest, and that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a government witness offer his opinion about whether the defendant knew about the drugs in the trailer. He further argues that the government did not provide sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury.
Case Facts and Procedural Background
The defendant was driving a commercial tractor trailer when he arrived at a checkpoint located at the board. The border patrol agent asked the defendant if he was the only occupant of the truck and about his immigration status. Another agent informed the questioning agent to the fact that a narcotics dog had alerted the trailer.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said the case before the court involves 10 appellants that have each been charged and convicted under different counts of a seven count indictment. The common thread between the appellants is that they have each been associated with participating in a bribery and drug smuggling ring.
Each of the appellants in the case is challenging his or her convictions on varied grounds. Some of the appeals are common among those that have been convicted for the same counts and others that are unique to each individual appellant. There are six main categories of appeals. First, is the admissibility of recorded conversations between a co-conspirator and certain appellants. Second, there are challenges to the RICO conspiracy convictions. Third, there are appeals regarding the sufficiency of evidence to convict. Fourth, certain appellants argue the cumulative sentences regarding the RICO conspiracy charges and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Fifth, the denial of conflict free counsel to certain appellants. Finally, there are tax issues raised by the appellants that were convicted on the sixth and seventh counts of the indictment.
Case Facts and Background
The appellant in this case was a passenger in a car where marijuana was found. He is appealing his juvenile adjudication on the two counts of possession of contraband on the ground that the evidence did not support a finding of constructive possession.
Case Background
The majority of the case against the defendant consisted of testimony of the arresting officer. The officer stated that she was on patrol during the early morning hours when she saw two young men trying to change a tire on a car located in a public parking lot. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the officer approached the young men and offered to help by providing light with her flashlight. The deputy stated that the young men were friendly, but acted a bit nervous and suspicious.
The Facts of the Case:
On 18 November 2009, the State enacted Leandra’s Law, roughly one month after the DWI death of an 11-year-old 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; barring indigency, that offenders pay for installation and maintenance of the interlocks. However, Leandra’s Law exhibits numerous defects which put its constitutionality in question.
Meanwhile, a defendant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated or drunk driving pursuant to the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Following Leandra’s Law, New York’s newest anti-DWI measure, the matter is now before the Court for sentencing under it.
A man moved for an examination of the stenographic minutes from a grand jury proceeding for the purpose of determining whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the charge contained in the indictment and whether the legal instructions given to the grand jury were sufficient. He also seeks dismissal of the charges on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence or for other defects in the proceedings.
The man stands charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), a class E felony. Based on records, the felony status of the crime is based on a predicate conviction for driving a motor vehicle with in the violation of vehicle and traffic law, an unclassified misdemeanor.
The incident occurred one evening where a state officer’s attention was drawn to the man’s automobile because it was moving slowly. He estimated that the driver of the vehicle was driving about 25 miles per hour in a 30-mile per hour zone during the late evening when no traffic was present and the roads were clear and dry. The officer followed the vehicle and testified that the man was going about 20 miles per hour in the 30-mile per hour zone. At some point he verified the speed of the vehicle using radar. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man consistently maintained the same speed up hill and downhill, including a steep hill, until he pulled over at the direction of the officer. He also testified that the man was driving on the right-hand side of the road. The man further testified that he pulled him over solely because of his driving. He also testified in saying that driving ten miles per hour below the limit is considered impeding traffic. The district attorney however did not reprimand the grand jury on the witness in advising on the law.
The defendant in this case was found guilty of possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for dismissal for the paraphernalia offense and the possession of a felony amount of marijuana offense because the state did not have enough evidence to support a conviction on these charges.
The defendant concedes that the state had enough evidence to convict her of the lesser charges of a misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana for the two partially smoked joints that were in plain view.
Case Background
On September 15, 1983, a DWI roadblock, indicated by signs, was set up by a uniformed police unit at the westbound 181st Street Bridge. All vehicles proceeding through the roadblock were stopped. Each driver was then approached and asked how they felt. The vehicle operated by the defendant was driven into this initial area in a normal manner and was stopped solely in accordance with the questioning procedure. The Police Officer, while asking the defendant how he felt, made several observations. He noticed that the defendant’s eyes were watery, his speech was slurred, and he had the odor of alcohol on his breath.
A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was then directed to drive his vehicle to the safety zone a few feet away. The Police Officer ordered the defendant out of his car and gave him a field sobriety test. Based on the defendant’s performance and his statement that he had consumed eight beers, the defendant was then placed under arrest and transported to a highway unit precinct. On the way to the precinct Police Officer gave the defendant his Miranda warnings. Upon arriving at the highway unit precinct, the defendant was again advised of his constitutional rights, whereupon he repeated his statements as to his alcohol consumption. He voluntarily consented to taking a breathalyzer test. The results indicated a reading of .12 percent blood alcohol.
A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant moves to dismiss the charge based on the alleged unconstitutionality of the roadblock and also moves to suppress the breathalyzer test results as well as expected testimony relating to coordination tests administered to him as being obtained in violation of his rights under the State and Federal Constitution. A hearing on this motion was held on March 8, 1984 and continued on March 12, 1984. The defendant now stands charged with violating VTL 1192(2) and 1192(3). He thus makes the instant motion.
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog