New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: July 9, 2013

New York Court Discusses Use of Long Form Indictment

by Stephen Bilkis

Defendant was charged of four counts of common law larceny, one count alleging grand larceny, first degree, and three counts of petit larceny. This indictment was prepared in accordance with Section 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is commonly known as a ‘long form indictment.’

A Grand larceny case said that when the People sought to introduce criminal evidence at the trial that the defendant made use of a false or fraudulent representation or pretense in the commission of the larceny, it was met with an objection by the defendant that such testimony was inadmissible since the indictment failed to meet the requirements of Subdivision 1 of Section 1290-a of the Penal Law which provides as follows: ‘if the defendant made use of any false or fraudulent representation or pretense in the course of accomplishing, or in aid of, or in facilitating the theft, evidence thereof may not be received at the trial unless the indictment or information alleges such representation or pretence.’

Published on: July 7, 2013

Defendant Claims Constitutional Rights Were Violated in DUI Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a case involving a Hispanic criminal defendant who was stopped and taken into custody by police officers for DWI. The defendant evaded a toll booth in a “cash only” lane without paying the required toll. The defendant was brought to the police department and was shown a video in the Spanish language explaining the process of taking breath tests. Having understood the same, the defendant complied and allowed the police officers to take his breath test. However, defendant asserted that he was not offered the opportunity to perform the standard coordination test.

During the trial, the defendant argued that his constitutional rights were violated when the police officers took his breath test but did not allow him to take the standard coordination test for the reason that he, allegedly, do not understand English. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and several other motions which include a motion to suppress the videotape of the administration of the breath test and to set aside the verdict ad dismiss the charges on the ground that defendant’s federal constitutional rights were violated. The People filed an opposition to the said motions.

Published on: July 6, 2013

New York Appellate Court Hears Case Involving Drug and Gun Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The convictions in this criminal case come from a storefront operation that was conducted by undercover agents that work for the State Police and the Attorney General’s office. The operation was set up as a way to buy stolen property and guns. The principal operator of the store was an investigator for the Organized Crime Unit of the Attorney General’s office.

During the operation, the investigator met with a man and asked if he knew of any handguns that he could purchase. Thereafter, the investigator met with the man and the defendant several times and was unsuccessful in purchasing a handgun for $400 from someone that was only known as “the kid.”

Published on: June 24, 2013

Defendant Appeals Criminal Facilitation Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a judgment made in the Supreme Court of New York County. The judgment convicted the defendant of criminal facilitation in the second degree and sentenced him to a term of seven and a half to fifteen years.

Case Facts

Published on: June 23, 2013

Court Discusses Probable Cause in Car Search

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant motioned to suppress a gun, the magazine in the gun, and nine rounds of ammunition in the magazine at a hearing before the court.

During the hearing the People called one witness, a police officer who was assigned to the Anti-Crime Unit of the 75th precinct at the relevant times.

Published on: June 22, 2013

People Appeal Defendant’s Successful Motion to Suppress Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

The Supreme Court of Bronx County granted the defendant’s motion to suppress both physical evidence and statements. The People are appealing. There is an appeal from the same order that granted the People’s motion to reargue and on re-argument adhered to the original decision, dismissed the appeal from the prior order.

Case Background

Published on: June 21, 2013

Court Discusses Outcome of Mapp-Huntley Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant has been charged with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and disorderly conduct. A Mapp-Huntley hearing has been held in this case. The testimony that was offered during the hearing was quite different and the court does not find either testimony to be wholly credible. At the end of the hearing each party requested more time to submit post hearing memoranda of law and they both have.

Case Facts

Published on: June 20, 2013

Appellate Court Decides if Conspiracy Ruling is Designed to Prevent Different Kinds of Harm

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed an action to dismiss the charge of murder against him. He subsequently indicted in the State of Maryland, along with his colleague, on the allegation that he conspired with them to the murder of the victim. But, the man was acquitted of the conspiracy charge upon a jury verdict. The narrow issue presented by the motion is whether the conspiracy ruling and the murder statute are designed to prevent different kinds of harm.

The acts allegedly committed by the man which underlie both the Maryland and New York court are substantially the same. The evidence revealed that the man directed his colleague to go from Maryland to New York to kill the victim. It is alleged that the man’s colleague shot and killed the victim in New York.

Published on: June 18, 2013

Defendant Challenges Jury Instructions

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the County Court of Tompkins County. The judgment found the defendant guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Case Background

Published on: June 17, 2013

Defendant Appeals Death Penalty in New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant is a confessed serial killer and was convicted by a jury for several offenses including one count of first degree murder for intentionally causing the death of three women in separate criminal transactions that were committed in a similar fashion.

The people filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty and because of this a separate sentencing proceeding followed the jury case. The jury in the sentencing court determined unanimously that the defendant should be executed. The defendant appealed to this court.