New York Criminal Attorney Blog

In a landmark decision that was closely watched by New York criminal lawyers and attorneys throughout the Country, The United States Supreme Court struck down Washington DC's ban on handguns. As discussed in our earlier March 19, 2008 blog, the decision is monumental because it marks the first time the Court has recognized that the right to "keep and bear arms" applies to individual citizens and not only State Militias. The fact that the Supreme Court now recognizes an individual right raises many questions about the legality of the gun laws throughout New York and the North East.

To me, as an attorney who was a member of the firearms trafficking unit of the District Attorney's office in Manhattan and has handled numerous gun cases throughout my career, this decision raises more questions than answers. For example, while the Court has prohibited a total ban on guns, to what extent will Courts allow "Reasonable Restrictions" on the ownership of handguns? Will the Courts permit onerous licensing and registration laws to continue? To what extent does this effect individuals facing the mandatory minimum three and one half year sentence for those charged with possession of a loaded firearm in New York?

At Tilem & Campbell we are continuing to analyze the decision with an eye toward helping our clients navigate the maze of New York gun laws. A further blog on this topic in the coming weeks will further discuss the ramifications of the decision.

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

Posted In: GUN CRIMES , IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

New York City Administrative Code 10-133(b) (Unlawful Possession of Knives or Instruments), makes it illegal to possess a knife with a blade over four inches in any public place in New York City. Criminal Lawyers and Judges have struggled with this section for years because the reach of the statute is so broad and because of how easy it is to violate this statute.

Firstly, there is no specific “mens rea” or mental culpability required for this offense. Most criminal statutes require a person to act intentionally, knowingly or recklessly. This statute does not even require that the person knowingly possess the knife. Most weapons offenses require that the possession be knowing possession. In addition, as all of us know, knives have many legitimate uses and even the average kitchen knife has a blade length over four inches. To demonstrate the reach of this statute, over twenty years ago a Queens Criminal Court Judge ruled that the statute could be applied to a Sikh priest who had the knife as part of a genuine religious observance.

Last month another Queens Criminal Court Judge ruled that possessing a knife over four inches in a car is not a violation of this New York City Administrative Code section since a person’s car, even though on a public street, is not a “public place.” In the recent Queens case, the knife was seen in the center console of a vehicle that was stopped by the police for a routine traffic infraction. The Court ruled that the center console of a person’s vehicle is not a public place and dismissed the New York City Administrative Code violation.

Unlawful Possession of a Knife is a violation, not a crime under the New York City Administrative Code. Although only a violation, a person accused of violating this section faces up to 15 days in jail and a fine of up to $300.
If you, a family member or friend receive a summons or are arrested for violating the New York City Administrative Code, take the matter seriously and contact an experienced New York Criminal Attorney.

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

Posted In: IN THE NEWS , WEAPONS OFFENSES

Bookmark:

The verdict in the Queens, New York shooting of Sean Bell by New York City Police leaves many questions unanswered. The verdict, however, is not surprising to experienced New York Criminal Defense Lawyers in light of New York’s defense of justification and a history of high profile cases in which the defense has been used successfully.

The defense of justification or “self defense” as it is more commonly known has played a role in the acquittals of Bernard Goetz in Manhattan, the police officers acquitted of shooting Amadou Diallou in the Bronx and the acquittal of Police Officer Frank Livoti implicated in the death of Anthony Baez. In both the Baez and Sean Bell cases it was a Judge deciding the case without a jury that acquitted the defendants in those cases. In the Goetz and Diallou trial it was a jury that acquitted the defendants.

The defense of justification or the right to self-defense is one of the oldest defenses originally recognized at common-law. It has been codified in New York Law since at least the year 1881. Today, self defense is codified in Penal Law §35.15. Under the right of a self-defense a person may use force against another person to protect himself or a third person. The force used may even rise to the level of deadly physical force under certain circumstances. All of the elements of the defense are beyond the scope of this article but force may also be used for example to prevent a crime or apprehend someone who has committed a crime.

The defense of justification is a common defense raised by experienced New York Criminal Defense Lawyers in many homicide and assault cases. It is a powerful defense for many reasons but in no small part because once raised, the prosecution has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. What that means is that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was not acting in self-defense. This is often very hard to prove. It is even more difficult to prove given that an element of self-defense is the defendant’s belief at the time of the self defense. The defendant’s belief is very difficult to know it is even harder to prove in many cases.

Given the complexity of the issues involved, it is not surprising that successful New York defense attorneys such as the lawyers at Tilem & Campbell have used the defense with great success. It is also no surprise that that the police officers involved in the Sean Bell case were found not guilty.

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

Posted In: IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

New York State Chief Judge Judith Kaye filed suit against the New York Governor and Legislators seeking pay raises for New York State Judges. It is absolutely preposterous that it has come to this considering that Judges have not received any pay raise, not even to adjust for cost of living, in more than nine years. New York Judges' salaries are ranked 49th in the Country among State Judges. In addition, the New York State Judges make about $30,000 less that Federal Judges who are also underpaid.

The potential for harm to the judiciary was noted recently by United States Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas in a hearing last month before Congress. Justice Thomas pointed out that Federal judges make about what first year associates make at the largest law firms. Judge Kay in her lawsuit points out that many professors working for the State and City system make more than a New York Supreme Court Justice as do the District Attorneys in New York City.

As a New York trial attorney I am in Court virtually every day. I see the most serious of cases being litigated before Judges throughout the area. The litigants in those cases deserve that there cases be heard by the best and the brightest judges who can give their fullest attention to each case.

If New York doesn't fix the imbalance caused by going 10 years without judicial raises, the good judges on the New York bench will leave and be replaced by the few lawyers who cannot get a better paying job or the few lawyers who are independently wealthy and just don't care. Neither type of Judge is the kind that New Yorker's deserve.

Posted by Tilem and Campbell, PC | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

Peter H. Tilem, Senior Partner at Westchester Criminal Defense Firm Tilem & Campbell is quoted briefly in today's Journal News. Mr. Tilem was in Federal Court in White Plains, yesterday, with his client Ramon Vargas who, according to the article, entered a plea of guilty in a case involving Federal credit card fraud and forgery charges.

According to the article Mr. Vargas, who faced up to fifteen years in prison on the charge, faces less than half that time or 87 months as a maximum under the sentencing guidelines. Sentencing in the case will most likely be scheduled for July.

Peter H. Tilem, a former Manhattan Prosecutor, with his law partner John Campbell, maintains an active New York Criminal Defense law firm in based in White Plains New York. The firm handles State and Federal Criminal Matters throughout lower New York State.

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

Posted In: IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

White Plains based law firm Tilem & Campbell has launched its own investigation into some of the practices of the Cayuga Heights Village Court and Judge Glenn G. Galbreath. Tilem & Campbell, the Westchester County based firm that represents drivers throughout New York State and is the owner of domain name TRAFFICTICKETEXPRESS.COM, launched the investigation after a letter from the Cayuga Heights Court seemed to indicate that Judge Galbreath may be implementing an illegal plea policy with regard to speeding tickets. During a preliminary investigation, the firm received complaints from several lawyers about the Court and Judge Galbreath prompting the wider probe.
Peter H. Tilem, Senior Partner at the firm, has requested transcripts of numerous Court proceedings and has requested access to all traffic ticket cases adjudicated in the Court over the last year. As a former New York County Prosecutor, Mr. Tilem has extensive experience in conducting investigations. A similar investigation launched by the firm last year into practices at the North Hills Village Court led to the firm filing an action against Judge Sigmund Semon in the Supreme Court of Nassau County.

Posted by Tilem and Campbell, PC | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (4)

Posted In: IN THE NEWS , TRAFFIC

Bookmark:

Westchester based Criminal Defense Law Firm, Tilem & Campbell, is following with great interest the case of District of Columbia v. Heller which was argued in the United States Supreme Court yesterday morning. Peter H. Tilem, Senior Partner at the firm is a former member of the Firearms Trafficking Unit of the New York County District Attorney’s Office and has handled numerous firearms and weapons related cases both as a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney. The firm, Tilem & Campbell owns the domain name handgunattorney.com and has handled numerous firearms and weapons related cases in both Federal and State Court.

The Heller case involves a Federal challenge to the District of Columbia ban on private possession of handguns. This marks the first Second Amendment case considered by the United States Supreme Court since 1939. The question being considered by the Supreme Court in this case is whether the District of Columbia ban violates the rights of citizens who, though not part of any militia, wish to keep handguns in their home. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and has struck down the DC law. The decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to have far reaching ramifications.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the Circuit Court, it will mark the first time in this nation’s history that the Supreme Court has applied the Second Amendment to citizens not a part of a State Militia and therefore can have an impact on the gun laws of States throughout the Country. New York City and other localities throughout New York State that have particularly restrictive gun laws may be profoundly affected by the Decision particularly if the Supreme Court Decision upholds the Circuit Court ruling.

While it is often difficult to predict how the Court will rule from the questioning of the Justices, some of the questioning today seemed to indicate that at least some of the Justices will vote to uphold the Circuit Court decision which struck down the DC Law. Chief Justice Roberts asked the lawyer arguing on behalf of the District of Columbia what was reasonable about a total ban and likened the ban to a ban on newspapers in violation of the First Amendment.

While the Supreme Court is not expected to rule for several months, this Firm will continue to monitor the case and report on any decision as soon as becomes available. This Firm will be preparing constitutional challenges to New York gun laws on behalf of our clients in appropriate situations, should the Supreme Court uphold the Circuit’s decision.

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

Posted In: GUN CRIMES , IN THE NEWS

Bookmark:

As promised, here is a the video of New York Criminal Defense Attorney John Campbell commenting on the Governor Spitzer prostitution scandal.

As discussed in my previous post John Campbell, the managing partner here at the White Plains, New York law firm of Tilem & Campbell which owns the domain name escortattorney.com was asked to comment on the scandal and specifically whether Governor Spitzer was likely to be charged. Please see below.

Posted by Peter Howard Tilem | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: IN THE NEWS , PROSTITUTION

Bookmark:

RNN, the Regional News Network just came by the office to get comments from Criminal Defense Lawyer John Campbell the managing partner here at the firm about the prostitution and Mann Act issues in which New York Governor Elliot Spitzer finds himself embroiled. The firm has handled numerous prostitution related cases and while John and I are often the “go to” lawyers here in Westchester County for the media to get their legal comments, it is nice to be able to comment on an issue with which we are so familiar.

Tilem & Campbell, PC owns the web domain name escortattorney.com and has had the opportunity to represent clients in a wide variety of prostitution related cases that go far beyond simple prostitution. As such, John was a natural choice to comment on the Governor Spitzer situation.

John explained to RNN that while the Governor’s conduct may have technically violated the Mann Act, it is unlikely that he will be prosecute because customers also referred to as “Johns” (no pun is intended) are usually not prosecuted under the Mann Act. John explained that often, federal investigations often focus more on the organizers and managers and the prostitutes or customers.

John also speculated that a deal would be worked out in which the Governor would be allowed to resign in exchange for an agreement that he would not be prosecuted. Elliot Spitzer has hired a large Manhattan based law firm to represent him which seems to indicate that he at least believes that he will have upcoming legal issues.

When the video from RNN becomes available we will post the link on this Blog.

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

Posted In: IN THE NEWS , PROSTITUTION

Bookmark: