Published on:

Defendant Moves to Suppress Identification Testimony


The defendant in this case is M.B. He has made an omnibus motion requesting several forms of relief. The People of the State of New York are the plaintiffs in the case. The County Court of the City of New York in Suffolk County is hearing the case.

Case Discussion

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s omnibus motion has requested discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20. The People have answered that they have provided their entire discovery to the defense. The defendant has not submitted a reply to contest the sufficiency of the answer that was provided by the People. For this reason, it seems that the request has been complied with.

The defendant is requesting the disclosure of exculpatory materials pursuant to the Brady v Maryland case. The People have stated that they do not possess any Brady material, but acknowledge their continuing obligation to provide the defendant with these materials.

The defendant has moved to suppress identification testimony on the basis that the identification process that was used was unduly suggestive. In response, the People state that there was no prearranged identification procedures used in order to identify the defendant. The Court is aware of the fact that the case at hand involves the sale of drugs (drug possession) to an undercover agent and that the police were the ones who made the confirmatory identifications in the case. These identifications were provided on the same day that the alleged sales occurred. On the first sale, the defendant gave the undercover police officer his name and the undercover police officer was able to match the defendant’s name with a photo on the same day. The defendant sold to the same agent again and the agent was able to confirm the identity of the defendant. The defendant was brought in upon his arrest and the undercover police officer who had face to face transactions with him was able to indentify him at that time.

Court Decision

The application for further discovery by the defendant is denied as moot. The defendant’s application for disclosure of exculpatory materials is granted as the People responded that they do not have present knowledge of these materials being in existence and they acknowledge their obligation to provide these materials. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s application for a hearing to determine if the People may introduce prior uncharged criminal and immoral conduct if the defendant testifies during trial is granted and a hearing for the matter will be held before the trial. If the people intend to introduce any prior conviction or uncharged acts by the defendant in their case the People are directed to file a motion prior to the trial so a hearing can be conducted in the matter.

In addition, the application made by the defense to be given the names of all of the witness’s of the prosecution is granted. The defendant’s application for suppression of the identification procedure is denied as is the application for a hearing to determine if there was probable cause for his arrest. The application for the indictment to be dismissed is denied. The motion by the People for reciprocal discover is granted.

If you need any type of legal advice it is important to contact Stephen Bilkis & Associates. Having a qualified attorney on your side can make the difference in any type of legal case, whether you have been charged with drug possession, sex crimes or theft. Contact one of our offices located in New York City to come in and speak with one of our lawyers in a free consultation.

Contact Information