Articles Posted in CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

|

As we have often discussed, one powerful tool that criminal defense attorneys can employ is the motion to suppress incriminating evidence. When a trial court grants a defendant’s motion to suppress, the jury never sees the evidence that the defendant has asked the court to keep out of the trial record. These motions, when successful, can make all the difference for defendants in New York, and they often help defendants win their cases.

How do you know if you, as the defendant, should be filing a motion to suppress? There are several flags that should alert you that there might be grounds for the trial court to suppress incriminating evidence in your case. These include: an unlawful encounter with the police, an officer’s failure to give Miranda warnings, errors in a field sobriety test, and problems with how the State handles evidence before it is admitted in court.  Generally, if the prosecutor wishes t0 use incriminating statements, physical evidence or a police arranged identification as evidence at trial, an experienced criminal defense lawyer will include a request for suppression of that evidence as part of their omnibus motion.

It is also true that if you think there might be a chance the court could grant your motion to suppress, it is often better to present the motion than to hold back. In a recent case before a New York court, the defendant appealed her guilty verdict, arguing she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to file a motion to suppress that could have been successful. The court granted the defendant’s appeal, concluding that the defendant’s attorney failed her by not asking the court to suppress evidence that investigators found in a search that might have exceeded the scope of their warrant.

Continue reading

|

If you drive on the roads of New York, you are automatically susceptible to police-initiated traffic stops for traffic violations. There is much debate, however, about what circumstances can lead an officer to have “reasonable suspicion” to stop a driver for a traffic stop. Without reasonable suspicion that some law has been violated, police officers are supposedly prohibited from initiating these stops. Can a minor violation in traffic laws give an officer reasonable suspicion under New York law?

Opinion Issued by New York Court

A New York court recently issued an opinion confirming that yes, minor violations in traffic laws can be legal grounds for a traffic stop. In the court’s opinion, it considered a defendant’s argument that his broken headlights and tinted windows were not enough to give an officer reasonable suspicion to stop him while he was driving. Therefore, argued the defendant, any evidence that the officer found in his car during the traffic stop should have been suppressed by the trial court judge in his criminal case.  The two infractions cited by the police for the stop were 0 point traffic infractions.

The court concluded that broken headlights and tinted windows were sufficient grounds for a traffic stop. According to New York traffic law, all motor vehicles must display at least two lighted head lamps on the front. In addition, no motor vehicle is allowed to be covered with material with “light transmittance of less than seventy percent.” The officer’s view of the defendant’s car gave him reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, given the defendant’s broken headlights and tinted windows. The court was unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument that the officer did not actually have a valid reason to stop him while he was driving.

Continue reading

|

It is well-established in the United States that individuals have a constitutional right to privacy in their homes. Experienced New York criminal defense lawyers screen cases for illegal searches and seizures.  Under certain circumstances, though, police officers can obtain warrants from a court and search a private dwelling as part of a criminal investigation. In general, without having obtained a warrant, officers are not allowed to search an individual’s home. There is, however, an exception. In emergency situations, officers are allowed to go into a person’s private residence without a warrant.

Six Factors to Apply

What is an emergency situation? Case law in New York says that officers should consider the following six factors when deciding whether to enter a home without a warrant: the violent nature of the alleged crime; the possible involvement of firearms; the likelihood that a crime has occurred; whether the suspect might be inside the home; the likelihood of the suspect escaping; and the possibility of a peaceful entry.

Ideally, an officer will weigh these factors before entering a home without a warrant. If (and only if) the six factors cause an officer to reasonably believe that an emergency exists, that officer can enter a private dwelling without a warrant. Because an officer will likely not be weighing each factor carefully during what the officer believes to be an emergency, it is the trial court’s job to later review these factors and determine whether the officer’s frame of mind lined up with the factors.

Continue reading

|

In both the state of New York and the United States more broadly, criminal defendants have the right to an attorney. If they cannot afford an attorney, the court will appoint an attorney for them. Defendants do have the option, though, of requesting to appear pro se, meaning they can litigate their case without any attorney at all.

Case Law Regarding Self-Representation

In New York, a criminal defendant has the option of requesting to represent himself if three criteria are met: (1) the request is both clearly stated and timely made; (2) the defendant has explicitly waived the right to counsel; and (3) the defendant has not done anything that would make self-representation particularly difficult for the court.

Inquiry by the Court

A trial court is not allowed to deny a defendant’s request to represent himself without sufficiently investigating the facts at issue. The court must make an effort to properly determine whether the defendant can meet these three requirements under New York law. Case law specifically states that a court must “conduct a dispassionate inquiry into the pertinent factors” regarding any request for self-representation.

Continue reading

|

In criminal trials, juries must reach unanimous verdicts, which means all jurors must find a defendant guilty in order for the defendant to receive a guilty verdict. In a perfect world, jurors are able to deliberate and come to a verdict without the influence of the judge’s opinion regarding the case’s outcome. In a recent New York case, however, things took a turn when the higher court found that the trial court judge influenced jury members too heavily during their deliberations.

In the case before the Appellate Division, Second Department, the State charged the defendant with conspiracy and criminal possession of a controlled substance. The defendant pled not guilty, and his case went to trial. After both sides presented evidence, the jury went back to deliberate.

Jury Deliberations

After two days of deliberation, the jury submitted a note to the judge indicating that “after intense discussion,” they were unable to reach a unanimous decision. The judge advised the jury to try again, and after one more day, the jury again submitted a note that they were unable to reach a decision. Again, the judge advised the jury to keep trying. On the fourth day of deliberations, the jury again submitted a note indicating that the members were “hopelessly deadlocked.”

Continue reading

|

As we have written extensively, discovery is a large part of the criminal process.  In a recent case before a New York appeals court, the parties asked the court to address whether certain changes to New York procedural standards, that is the new discovery laws, affected cases that were already in motion prior to the date the changes took effect. The case provides an interesting look at how very procedural and mechanical problems can end up having a big impact in a defendant’s proceedings.

Changes to Trial Procedure in New York

On January 1, 2020, New York made a technical change to its laws about preparing for trial. The change said that the State must file a “certificate of compliance” with the state’s newly enacted discovery rules. “Discovery” is the exchange of documents between parties in preparation for trial, and the 2020 changes essentially sought to make sure the State was in compliance with these new discovery rules prior to stating that it was ready to move forward to trial.

In the case before New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, the parties went to trial on January 27, 2020. On day one of trial, the State said it was prepared to move forward, even though it hadn’t filed its certificate of compliance under the new law. The defendant asked the court to dismiss the indictment because the State failed to file this certificate. The defendant’s case began, however, before the January 1, 2020 changes went into effect. Did the State still have to comply with the new law, even though it wasn’t in effect when the defendant was arraigned?

Continue reading

|

In criminal law, a “show-up” is the process through which a witness and a suspect are together face-to-face for the purpose of the witness’s ability to identify whether the suspect indeed committed the crime.  A “Show-Up” identification is by its very nature suggestive, as opposed to a line-up identification in which a victim or witness has the opportunity to choose from a group of 6 individuals.   Therefore rules are in place that govern how and when a show-up can be employed.    In a recent case before a New York court, the defendant argued that the show-up in his case was overly suggestive and therefore unfair. The court reviewed the defendant’s appeal and ultimately disagreed with his argument, affirming his original robbery conviction in the process.

Case Law Around Show-Ups

According to New York case law, courts generally prefer procedures other than show-ups, given that it can be suggestive for a witness to make an identification while face to face with a suspect. However, if there are emergency circumstances, a show-up is permissible. The show-up is also permissible if the witness can view the suspect close to where the crime occurred and close to the time at which the crime occurred.

A June 2024 Case

In the June 2024 case, the defendant argued his show-up was prejudicial. In this case, police officers responded to a robbery committed by two individuals. One individual immediately fled to a nearby house, and officers found and arrested him immediately. In looking for the second individual, the officers drove a witness through the neighborhood to see if he could make any kind of identification. Eventually, the officers and the witness returned to the house, where additional officers had apprehended a second suspect. Upon seeing the second suspect, the witness immediately identified him as the person who committed the robbery. Officers then arrested and charged the defendant with robbery.

Continue reading

|

As we have discussed often, New York’s speedy trial statute can be a defendant’s best friend.  A March 2024 case before a New York appellate court emphasized the importance of coming to court prepared for trial when the court expects you to be prepared for trial. In this particular case, the prosecution filed a “statement of readiness” prior to a trial for reckless driving, only to later confess it was not ready to move forward and ask for more time to prepare for trial. Once the prosecution asked for extensions (without any explanation) three times in a row, the trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the higher court decided this was the correct ruling, given that the state declared it was ready and then, without reason, sought an extension three different times.

The Prosecution’s Extensions

The defendant was arrested and charged with reckless driving in early December 2017. A couple of weeks later, when it became apparent the case was going to go to trial, the State filed what is called a “certificate of readiness,” declaring to the court that it was ready for trial. The State and the defendant appeared for the first day of trial on September 5, 2018, at which point the State asked for a 12-day extension. The parties reappeared on October 18, at which time the State again admitted it was not ready for trial. The court extended the trial for a third time, and again, on November 28, the State told the court it was unprepared.

Each time, the State failed to offer any reason that it needed an extension. By the time the parties appeared for the fourth time on February 4, 2018, 420 days had passed between the defendant’s indictment and the first day of trial. The defendant’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The defendant appealed, the higher court reversed, and the State again appealed. The case then came before the New York Court of Appeals.

Continue reading

|

Recently, the  New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court sided with a defendant who was originally charged with and convicted of harassment in the second degree. in a very important speedy trial case that keeps prosecutors honest about complying with New York discovery laws. After being found guilty, the defendant filed a speedy trial motion to dismiss, arguing that the prosecution incorrectly advised the court it was ready for trial before it had turned over all of the documents it was required to disclose as discovery. Ultimately, the court agreed with the defendant, granting his motion to dismiss.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers first arrested the defendant in this case after he became physically aggressive toward his mom. The State charged him with harassment in the second degree, and the defendant pleaded not guilty. The court subsequently scheduled the case for trial several months down the line. Prior to trial, as is standard in New York courts, both the prosecution and the defense appeared for several hearings to report in on the progress of trial preparation.

Also, in the state of New York, the prosecution in a criminal case is always required to file something called a “certificate of compliance” with the court. This certificate advises the court that the prosecution has provided all of the necessary “discovery” to the defense, meaning all of the relevant documents that the defense has requested as part of the trial preparation.

Continue reading

|

Introduction:

In the intricate landscape of New York criminal defense, felonies, as opposed to misdemeanors, stand out as serious offenses, and New York classifies them into distinct categories based on their severity. From Class A to Class E felonies, each level represents a different degree of criminal activity, carrying varying degrees of punishment. In this guide, we’ll delve into the different classes of felonies in New York, shedding light on their definitions and the potential consequences they entail.

Class A Felony:

Continue reading
Contact Information
188 E Post Rd
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: 914-833-9785Toll Free: 877-377-8666

Attorney Advertising

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Tilem & Associates, PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design