New York Criminal Attorney Blog

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday, that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the scientists who prepare reports which are introduced at trial. The list of scientists would include chemists who test for the presence of controlled substances, fingerprint analysts and ballistics experts as well as many others. Although the ruling is an important one for the rights of those accused of crimes the ruling is likely to have little impact in New York where State laws already gives defense lawyers the right to cross-examine scientific witnesses.

The ruling is an extension of the 2004 Supreme Court decision Crawford v. Washington which limited the permissible uses of hearsay in criminal trials under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court seems to be expressing continued concerned over the use of hearsay (out of Court statements) in criminal trials.

If you or a loved one stand accused of a crime or have been convicted of a crime based upon hearsay, contact one of the experienced criminal defense lawyers at Tilem & Campbell.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

A Westchester County substitute school teacher was arrested last week and charged with Assault in the Third Degree (misdemeanor assault), Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Harassment for an incident involving a third grader in his gym class. According to police the teacher allegedly taunted and then assaulted the student after the student came at the teacher in a New Rochelle, New York public school. The case has received a great deal of media attention and the teacher, Daniel Sanabria, has now hired the White Plains criminal defense law firm, Tilem & Campbell, to defend him against the criminal charges.

The Westchester Journal News extensively quotes Tilem & Campbell, partner Peter Tilem about Mr.Sanabria's action in the case. According to the Journal News article, both Mr. Sanabria and criminal defense lawyer Peter Tilem are disputing the allegations. An article has also been featured in the New York Post and stories have been run on cable news Channel 12.

Mr. Sanabria is due in New Rochelle City Court next week where he is expected to defend the charges.

Posted by Tilem and Campbell, PC | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

A recent change in New York Vehicle & Traffic Law sec. 1806 will make it much harder to fight traffic tickets in New York State. Prior to New York April 7, 2009, New York law made it clear that in most cases a person should only have to appear one time to fight a routine traffic infraction such as speeding, unsafe lane change or failure to signal. The Vehicle & Traffic Law made it clear that upon receipt of a "not guilty" plea from a motorist the Court was required to schedule the matter for a trial. On the trial date the motorist could plea bargain or proceed to trial. Judges who violated this rule faced sanctions from the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission found that judges that set cases down for a "pre-trial" conference rather than trial were putting an unnecessary burden on motorists who would then feel coerced to plead guilty rather than appear in Court multiple times for a rather routine matter.

Well, the New York State Legislature and Governor decided that coercion was the best way to resolve New York traffic tickets and have now amended the Vehicle & Traffic Law to require Courts to send motorists an "appearance" date rather than a "trial" date. This law seems to require motorists to appear a minimum of two times to fight their traffic tickets.

Since New York State Troopers are not permitted to plea bargain their tickets and many localities do not have prosecutors to handle those tickets, we have to wonder both what the purpose is of holding such a Court appearance? and what would happen at that appearance?
In any case as noted by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, this practice is likely to coerce many guilty please.

Motorists who receive tickets need to understand that experienced traffic lawyers can make these appearances without the motorist being present and can usually resolve these tickets with reduced or no points. Since experienced traffic lawyers generally handle several cases in a Court at one appearance they can offer very reasonable rates to fight tickets. Traffic lawyers can save the motorist from making multiple appearances, save the motorist money, save the motorist points, save the motorist the driver responsibility assessment and save the motorist from insurance increases.

If you wish to fight a ticket contact one of the experienced traffic court attorneys at DrSummons.com.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , TRAFFIC

Bookmark:

New York State traffic offenses such as speeding tickets, DWI's, Driving with a Suspended License and other driving infractions and crimes are getting more expensive. New York State already imposes surcharges totaling $85 for any traffic infraction over and above any fine. The total Surcharge is $80 in City Courts. However, the law imposed a cap, or maximum surcharge of $100 per incident which meant that if a motorist was convicted of multiple tickets the maximum surcharge could be $100. In a memo sent to all New York State City, Town and Village Courts, the Office of Court Administration has notified the Courts that effective for New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) offenses committed after July 6, 2009, the cap for mandatory surcharges was raised to $180.

The calculations are complex because over the years, as a way to increase revenue, New York has imposed an increasing number of fees on all types of convictions especially traffic violations. For example the $85 surcharge imposed on a routine traffic infraction such as speeding or passing a red light actually includes a $55 mandatory surcharge, a $5 crime victim assistance fee, a $5 town and village fee if the conviction is not in a City Court, and a $20 additional surcharge. The new $180 cap only applies to the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee. So if you are convicted of 10 routine traffic infractions, the surcharges will total $180 (the "cap"), plus $200 (the $20 additional surcharge 10 times) plus $50 (the town and village fee 10 times).

A conviction for a DWI can cost $400 just in surcharges. That's excluding the fine of between $500 and $1000. Even a conviction for Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol, a traffic infraction, carries surcharges of $260. Additionally, suspension lift fees (suspension termination fees) have gone up from $35 to $70 and the cap on these fees has doubled to $400.

The bottom line is that simply pleading guilty to and paying New York traffic tickets has gotten very expensive. Routine tickets can result in fines, surcharges, imposition of the driver responsibility assessment and insurance increases and/or surcharges. If you receive a traffic ticket contact an experienced New York traffic Court attorney or visit DrSummons.com.

Posted by Tilem and Campbell, PC | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , DWI/DWAI , TRAFFIC

Bookmark:

As experienced New York DWI attorneys, we deal with many different types of New York DWI cases. Many times in a New York Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) case, the motorist will have an allegedly high Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) but yet perform well on Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs) such as the “Walk-and-Turn”, “One Leg Stand”, and “Finger-to-Nose” tests. Also, many times, despite a high BAC, the motorists will appear fine on a video. When this happens, defense attorneys argue the obvious – the Breathalyzer was not working properly and therefore, the high BAC score was incorrect. Why else would the motorist perform well of the FSTs and appear fine on the video?

In an effort to try and explain this apparent discrepancy between the motorists BAC score, the prosecution will try to offer “Tolerance” Evidence. In other words, the prosecutor will try to make the jury believe that the reason the motorists performed well of the FSTs but yet had a high BAC is because the motorists is a chronic drinker who has been drinking heavily for a long time and therefore, has developed a tolerance to the effects of the alcohol.

However, the prosecutor should not be allowed to offer evidence regarding the motorist’s tolerance where they have no evidence that the motorist is in fact a heavy drinker and has therefore developed a tolerance. Without knowing the motorist’s drinking history and whether they were in fact a heavy drinker, tolerance evidence is completely irrelevant.

If you have been charged in New York with Driving While Intoxicated or Driving While Ability Impaired, call one of the experienced DWI attorneys at Tilem & Campbell toll free at 1-877-377-8666 for a free consultation. We handle cases throughout New York including White Plains, Greenburgh, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Mamaroneck and New York City as well as all other courts throughout the downstate area. You can also visit us on the web at www.tilemandcampbell.com.

Posted by John Campbell | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE , DWI/DWAI

Bookmark: