This is a case involving the People of the State of New York against the defendant G.T. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Criminal Term in Suffolk County, Part I. The defendant of the case has moved to compel a cooperation agreement with the plaintiff’s. He states that he will provide information in support of indictments of others in exchange for consent by the District Attorney to a plea of a lesser charge against him and a recommendation that he should not be incarcerated.
Additionally, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant seeks a dismissal of the indictment because of the legal insufficiency of the Grand Jury minutes, prosecutorial misconduct, and selective prosecution. Following this relief he moves for a change of venue and discover and inspection.
The defendant worked as an insurance agent. Among his clients wer the County of Suffolk and various other governmental units and agencies located in the county. The indictment charges the defendant with 36 counts of grand larceny in the second degree, six counts of grand larceny in the third degree, and 32 counts of criminal breach of fiduciary. Allegedly, the defendant unlawfully appropriated corporate funds and trust funds that should have been segregated for the purpose of payment of the premiums that were due to the insurance company.
After reading the minutes from the Grand Jury the court finds them to be legally sufficient to sustain the charges that are contained in the indictment.
The defendant was indicted on the first of December, 1976 and a letter of understanding was signed on the 29th of December by the District Attorney and the defendant. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said the letter states that the defendant George P. Tobler agrees to supply the District Attorney with statements and documentary evidence as well as testimony if necessary before a grand jury and upon the trial of any of the indictments that result from the information that is provided.
G.T. agrees to fully cooperate and provide the District Attorney with truthful and honest information. If indictments occur as a result of the information it will be found that G.T. is in compliance with the D.A. and the following actions regarding his indictment will take place: the D.A. will recommend that the defendant not be incarcerated, that a single plea of guilty to a misdemeanor will satisfy the entire indictment, and none of the information provided by the defendant will be used in a criminal prosecution case against him.
The defendant states that he has fully complied with the above agreement and should be granted the appropriate actions in regard to his case. However, the plaintiff states that the defendant has not supplied the District Attorney with any pertinent information and for this reason that the agreement is void.
The defendant has motioned for the District Attorney to fulfill its consent to a misdemeanor plea. However, the defendant has not fulfilled his end of the agreement. For this reason, the motion by the defendant is denied and the case will be remitted for trial at a later date.
If you need to speak with a lawyer for any reason, whether you have been charged with theft, drug possession or sex crimes, contact the Law Offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. We have a team of expert lawyers in every area of the law. Our offices are located throughout New York City for your convenience. Contact us at any time to set up an appointment for a free consultation.