New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: February 19, 2013

Defendant Contends Confession was Coerced

by Stephen Bilkis

In summary, the accused was arrested for possession of a weapon and when brought to the station he asked the police officer that he would cooperate in bringing additional guns through his wife. A few hours later, he was already suffering from heroin withdrawal that prevented him to being brought to the criminal booking office. A New York Criminal Lawyer said during the course of his detention and while feeling sick due to his withdrawal from drugs, the other investigators questioned and interrogated him for the gun crime, specifically, a shooting incident. The result of which, is that he was asked to sign a waiver and was then charged and subsequently arraigned for the alleged crime of shooting that he committed.

A few days later, the offender was examined by a doctor where he was diagnosed of having heroin withdrawal. An expert in forensic psychiatry testified that the defendant suffered from opioid withdrawal where symptoms usually occur within eight to twelve hours from the last drug intake. The doctor further averred that a person having opioid withdrawal is not in his normal behavior and usually suffer severe physical conditions.

The defendant was charged with the crime for shooting the victim inside his apartment at Brooklyn. The appellant moved to suppress evidence acquired due to his unlawful detention for the charges of criminal possession of weapons and seek to repress his admissions he gave through coercive measures conducted by the police towards him during such detention.

Published on: February 18, 2013

Police Officer Hurt in Domestic Violence Call

by Stephen Bilkis

First Case:

Sometime in March 1998, petitioner who is a police officer since 1989 was suffering from depression and suicidal ideation and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the petitioner was out of work for several months after which time she returned to light-duty work that did not involve her carrying a weapon. She remained on light duty until September 2001, when she stopped working altogether. In 2003, she applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits, claiming to be permanently disabled due to posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. The application was initially denied and petitioner requested a hearing and redetermination. Following hearings, the Hearing Officer upheld the denial, finding, among other things, that petitioner had failed to establish that she was incapacitated from the performance of duty as the result of a disability sustained in service. Respondent made supplemental findings of fact, but otherwise adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings. Thus, a CPLR Article 78 Proceeding ensued to review the determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

The court finds that the denial was proper and affirms the respondent’s determination. Under the Retirement and Social Security Law, in order to be entitled to performance of duty disability retirement benefits, an applicant must establish that he or she is physically or mentally incapacitated for performance of duty as the natural and proximate result of a disability sustained in such service.

Published on: February 17, 2013

Court Discusses Consecutive Sentencing

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing his conviction for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana and possession (marijuana possession) with the intent to distribute Quaaludes. He is appealing his sentence as well. The defendant argues that the district court was wrong in the instructions that they gave to the jury, that more than one sentence for possessing more than one drug is not authorized, and that the sentenced that was imposed underneath one of the counts was in excess of what is allowed by the state.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was convicted on two counts of possession of a controlled substance. The first count convicted the defendant of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. The second count convicted the defendant of possession with the intent to distribute Quaaludes.

Published on: February 16, 2013

Defendant Contends Government Relying on Hearsay Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant in this case was convicted for possession and use of a gun. This conviction was based on a statement from a witness that the defendant possessed an identical gun that he typically kept in his home in another state.

Case Background

The defendant was arrested in March of 1990. Agents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms had tracked him from his home in Missouri to Texas. The agents watched him for a few days and acquired evidence to identify him as the buyer of a large amount of drugs. After concluding that the defendant had completed the purchase and was going to leave Texas with the drugs the agents alerted the local police. The police pulled him over and found 30 pounds of marijuana (marijuana possession) in the trunk of the car and a pistol in a sock on the floorboard behind the driver’s seat.

Published on: February 11, 2013

Defendant Claims 6th Amendment Right to Impartial Jury was Violated

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant was convicted on a charge of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and distribution of approximately 530 pounds of marijuana. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he is appealing this conviction on the ground that the trial court’s examination of prospective jurors was inadequate and that the venue for the distribution count was improper.

Case Background

The conspiracy and distribution convictions of the defendant come from his attempt to sell a large amount of marijuana to an undercover agent. The transaction between the defendant and the undercover cop was arranged by a co-conspirator. The undercover agent was posing as a buyer from Michigan and agreed to buy 500 pounds of marijuana at the price of $250 per pound.

Published on: February 10, 2013

Defendant Appeals Sentence for Conspiracy to Possess and Distribute Marijuana

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant is appealing his 168 month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana. He argues that the district court made a mistake when they applied a two level enhancement for firearm possession because there was insufficient evidence that a co-conspirator possessed the firearm.

Case Background

The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana. The defendant and another individual were found to be the organizers of a marijuana distribution operation. The two men would set up residences that were known as “traps.” These locations would be the storage facilities for large amounts of marijuana. The contraband would be stored and distributed from these traps.

Published on: February 10, 2013

Defendant Appeals Conviction for Trafficking Cocaine

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant/appellant in this case is appealing convictions for trafficking in cocaine and marijuana possession.

Case Background

Evidence showed that the girlfriend of the defendant rented a car through her aunt. The defendant borrowed this car and was driving on the turnpike when he was pulled over by a state trooper for a traffic violation. A New York Criminal Lawyer said one of the friends of the defendant was a passenger in the car. The state trooper requested the rental agreement and the defendant removed it from the glove box.

Published on: February 9, 2013

Evidence for Conspiracy to Possess Marijuana is Insufficient, According to Defendant

by Stephen Bilkis

The first appellant in this case was convicted for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine. The second appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The third appellant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. This is a consolidated appeal by all of the appellants.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the first appellant argues that the evidence against him for the conspiracy charge is insufficient. The second appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient for the charge of conspiracy of possession of marijuana. He also is challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion for severance. The third appellant also argues that the evidence against him is insufficient for the charge of conspiracy of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.

Case Facts

Published on: February 9, 2013

Defendant Claims Evidence Does Not Support Possession Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

The appellant was convicted by a jury on the charges of possession of marijuana possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. The appellant is appealing the convictions on two grounds. First, he states that the evidence in the case is insufficient for the conviction. Second, he argues that the district court made an error by allowing certain past marijuana dealings involving his brothers be introduced as evidence.

Case Facts

The appellant rant a service station. According to a co-conspirator the appellant told him to load almost 2000 pounds of marijuana. The marijuana was owned by the appellant’s brother. The contraband was in burlap sacks and was stored along with the truck that it was to be loaded onto in a shed about 20 miles from the station.

Published on: February 9, 2013

Court Decides if Marijuana Possession is a Serious Drug Offense Under ACCA

by Stephen Bilkis

The government is appealing the sentence of only 55 months for the defendant for being a felon in the possession of a firearm. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the government challenges the determination from the Supreme Court that the defendant was not an armed career criminal. Furthermore, the government states that the prior convictions of the defendant for first degree possession of marijuana were serious drug offenses and should have been ruled as such by the court.

Court Discussion and Decision

The question before the court is whether or not the prior conviction of the defendant for marijuana possession in an amount that is more than for personal use is sufficient to be considered a serious drug offense as listed under the ACCA.