Criminal Procedure

Published on: March 28, 2013

Defendants Contend they Were Never in Possession of Drugs

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a joint appeal case by two defendants for their respective adjudications and sentences that were imposed when a jury found them guilty of unlawful possession of marijuana. The defendants concede that the evidence shows that they attempted possession, but they argue on appeal that they never had actual or constructive possession of the marijuana and because of this their convictions should be reduced from a third degree felony charge to a first degree misdemeanor charge.

Case Background

This was a reverse sting operation where the defendants along with eight other codefendants came up as potential buyers for marijuana that was offered for sale by an undercover police officer that posed as drug sellers.

Published on: March 27, 2013

Technically, Defendant was Arrested Before Illegal Sale of Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a direct criminal appeal from the defendant who is seeking a review of his convictions for purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with the intent to purchase it and for attempted possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana. There are four issues in the case being raised by the appellant.

The first issue that the appellant raises is whether or not it was an error to deny his motion for dismissal and subsequent motion for judgment of acquittal base on an entrapment defense. The second issue is whether it was an error to deny his motion to dismiss based on allegations that the state had failed to produce exculpatory evidence. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the third issue is whether it was an error to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with the intent to purchase it based on legal insufficiency. The final contention that the appellant offers is whether it was an error to deny the motion for arrest of judgment on the charge of purchase of marijuana or possession of marijuana with intent to purchase on the ground of inconsistent verdicts.

Case Background

Published on: March 26, 2013

Court Rules Closed Containers Cannot Be Searched Without a Warrant

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves an appeal from convictions of possession of marijuana. The defendant challenges that the trial court’s failure to suppress the marijuana. The other defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence in the case.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the local police officer was monitoring a parking lot during a rock concert. He saw three men leave the building about half way through the concert and get into a car. He saw the two men in the front seat start to fumble around on the floorboard for about a minute and then saw what looked like a cigarette being lit and passed around the vehicle. He suspected that the cigarette was likely marijuana so he called for backup.

Published on: March 25, 2013

Defendants Marijuana Charges Reversed

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in the case is appealing a judgment and sentenced that found him guilty by jury verdict of a violation of the narcotics law.

Case Background

The information provided in the case charged the appellant along with five other defendants of possession of marijuana.

Published on: March 24, 2013

Defendants Contend Search of their Vehicle was Unlawful

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellants in this case were convicted in a nonjury trial for possession of 230 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. The marijuana was found in a locked trunk of a car that had been rented and driven by one of the defendants (marijuana possession). Another defendant was a passenger in the car at the time an immigration search was conducted.

Case Facts

The checkpoint where the search took place was on highway 35. The government often employs checkpoints at this location or one nearby.

Published on: March 23, 2013

Court Decides Constructive Possession Issue

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was charged by information with possession of over five grams of marijuana (marijuana possession). He filed a sworn motion to have the reciting dismissed. The motion in part stated that he lived in the home with his wife and children and that while the search of the home revealed marijuana, he was not in actual possession of any type of controlled substance at the time the search took place. The state filed for a leave to amend, which was granted.

The state then prepared to move that the defendant was in constructive possession of a controlled substance. The state plans to prove this by the fact that the defendants name and address were on the box that contained the marijuana and that the marijuana was found in his bedroom closet.

Case Discussion

Published on: March 22, 2013

Defendant Charged with Marijuana and Cocaine Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant along with a co-defendant were charged with felony possession of marijuana, cocaine possession, possession of a drug implement, and possession of methaqualone. The appellant was denied the motion to suppress certain physical evidence. The appellant was tried alone. The trial resulted in a hung jury mistrial. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trial court then ordered that the case of the appellant be tried with the co-defendant. The joint trial resulted in the appellant being found guilty as charged.

The appellant was sentenced to five years’ probation after serving six months in jail. The appellant motioned for a new trial, which was denied and this appeal followed.

Relevant Facts

Published on: March 21, 2013

Defendant Appealing Order that Revoked his Probation

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant is appealing an order that revoked his probation after a trial court determined that he had violated the terms of his probation by being in possession of marijuana and cocaine.

Case Background

The appellant was placed on probation. It was not long afterwards that the appellant was arrested for possessing both marijuana and cocaine. His arrest on these charges led to an affidavit being filed stating he violated his probation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the affidavit alleged that the defendant had committed the offenses of possessing marijuana and cocaine, which violated his probation conditions that stated he was to live without violating the law.

Published on: March 21, 2013

Defendant Claims Search Warrant Lacked Probable Cause

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendants are appealing a conviction that stems from a multi-count indictment. The first defendant appeals his conviction and sentence to life in prison for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kg or less of marijuana (marijuana possession), and between 500 grams and 5 kilograms of cocaine, distribution of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to commission drug trafficking, and being felon in possession of a firearm.

The second defendant appeals her convictions of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or less of marijuana, and use of a communication facility to run a felony drug trafficking crime ring.

Arguments for Appeal

Published on: March 20, 2013

Court Decides if Defendants Acts were Sufficient Heinous to Justify Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the defendant is a self-styled Hispanic civil rights advocate. He threatened to wreak one-half million dollars’ worth of damage to Citibank’s automatic teller machines in an attempt to induce Citibank to give money to several organizations.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on the evening of June 4, 1984, thirty-one Citibank 24-hour banking facilities in the Bronx and Manhattan were vandalized, and glue and other unidentified substances poured into the part of the automatic teller machines into which customers insert their cards to activate the machines. The damage was extensive. In all, sixty-eight machines had to be repaired.

In twenty-one of the twenty-seven Manhattan facilities, one of defendant’s two Citibank banking cards were used to enter the facility before the machines were damaged. At one location, defendant’s card was used to complete a transaction at an automatic teller machine shortly before it was vandalized. At another, a video camera recorded defendant’s entry into the facility just after one of his cards had been used to unlock the door, and moments before the machines inside were damaged. The next day, defendant, while denying responsibility, spoke to a Citibank regional manager and told him that 109 of Citibank’s automatic teller machines had been “hit” and glue poured into them. Two days later, defendant told several Citibank executives that he was not asking for anything for himself, only for the “Hispanic community.” Otherwise, defendant explained, it “would be extortion.”