Published on:

Defendant Questions Sufficiency of Evidence


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.

There the transaction was consummated. The co-accused asked the undercover police officer how much he wanted to buy. The undercover police officer signified that he wanted to buy two glassine bags. The undercover police officer gave the co-accused a $20 bill. They parted ways after that. As the undercover police officer and the accused were going down the stairs of the building, the accused took one glassine pack from the undercover police officer. He said it was to be his tip for helping score some crack cocaine.

Later, the undercover police officer later tested the contents of the glassines he bought and found them to be positive for crack cocaine (drug possession). Other police officers apprehended the accused and the co-accused. The undercover police officer identified them positively: the accused was the middleman and the co-accused was the principal.

The undercover police officer then went before the grand jury and presented his testimony attesting to the events. The district attorney instructed the grand jury that the accused and the co-accused worked in tandem. The accused was the pointer or screener and e co-accused was the actual drug dealer.

The Grand Jury indicted both the accused and the co-accused with one count of criminal crack cocaine possession and sale; criminal crack cocaine sale in or near school grounds; and criminal facilitation.

A New York City Criminal Lawyer said before the arraignment, the accused asked to inspect the Grand Jury minutes which was granted by the trial court. The accused then moved for the dismissal of the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally insufficient to establish the offenses charged; and that the accused committed the offenses charged.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss which the accused promptly appealed. The only question before the Court is whether or not the Grand Jury had s sufficient evidence to indict the accused.

A Manhattan Criminal Lawyer said the Court said that evidence is legally sufficient when the facts, if accepted as true, establish the elements of the offense charged and the identity of the accused as the person who committed all the elements of the crime charged.
Here, the accused merely accompanied the undercover police officer. There is no evidence that shows any prior agreement between the accused and the co-accused to engage in a criminal enterprise. There is no proof that the accused actually assisted the drug dealer.

The Court dismissed the indictment against the accused but gave the district attorney leave to re-file the case when evidence warrants.

Are you like the man in this case who was charged with a crime without legally sufficient evidence? You need the assistance of a Bronx Drug Crime lawyer. You need the advice of a Bronx Drug Crime attorney who can question the Grand Jury proceedings. At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, they have Bronx Drug Crime attorneys who are willing to represent you and assist you at every step of the legal process. The Bronx Drug Crime lawyers from Stephen Bilkis and Associates can argue in your behalf. Call or visit any of the offices of Stephen Bilkis and Associates in the New York area today.

Contact Information