Below you’ll find my short video overview on the topic:
What to know about The CCIA – YouTube
The passage of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) in New York has caused significant confusion and uncertainty among firearm license holders, practitioners, and policy observers alike. With much of the commentary online being outdated, incomplete, or simply incorrect, it’s important to take a moment to clarify:
When you’ve been accused of a serious crime like murder, every decision you make during a police interrogation matters—including what you say and whether you waive your right to remain silent. In a recent case out of Queens, the New York Appellate Division reviewed whether a defendant’s statements to police should have been suppressed. Despite the defendant’s argument that he never signed a Miranda waiver form, the court upheld the conviction, holding that an oral waiver was enough. The decision is a warning to anyone facing serious charges: what you say, and how you say it, can follow you all the way to trial.
The Underlying Charges and Police Interrogation
The case stemmed from a homicide that occurred in or around October 2012. The defendant was accused of killing another man using a hammer. After his arrest, the defendant gave oral statements to law enforcement. Although he refused to sign a Miranda waiver card, he did verbally acknowledge his rights and agreed to speak with officers.
Before trial, the defendant’s legal team filed what’s known as an “omnibus motion,” which included a request to suppress the statements he made during the interrogation. The trial court denied that request after holding a hearing. A jury later convicted him of second-degree murder, and he was sentenced accordingly. On appeal, his attorneys argued that the denial of the suppression motion was a mistake and that other pieces of evidence unfairly prejudiced the jury.
Miranda Rights and the Validity of an Oral Waiver
Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, police must advise you of your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney before conducting a custodial interrogation. You also have the right to waive those protections—but only if the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
In this case, the defendant claimed that because he didn’t sign the waiver card, his statements to police should have been excluded. But the appellate court disagreed. Relying on long-standing New York precedent, the court emphasized that a signed waiver isn’t required. An oral waiver—so long as it’s clearly made and not coerced—is legally sufficient. Here, the defendant had verbally acknowledged his rights and agreed to answer questions. That was enough for the court to uphold the trial judge’s decision and keep the statements in evidence.
Jailhouse Calls and Alleged Prejudice at Trial
The appeal also challenged the introduction of recordings from jailhouse phone calls the defendant made after his arrest. In some of those calls, the defendant referred to prior bad acts or talked about things he’d be willing to do. While some of the comments did touch on previous wrongdoing, the court found that many of the statements were either relevant to the current charges or speculative in nature—not admissions of other crimes.
The court did agree that a few of the statements were inflammatory and should not have been admitted. However, it concluded that the error was harmless. In other words, the remaining evidence of guilt was strong enough that these mistakes didn’t deprive the defendant of a fair trial. The judge also gave instructions to the jury meant to reduce any potential prejudice.
Gruesome Photos and Their Role in Trial
The defendant further argued that more than 20 photographs of the victim’s post-mortem injuries should have been excluded because they were excessively graphic and designed to inflame the jury. But the court disagreed here as well, stating that the photos helped support the medical examiner’s testimony and illustrated the nature of the attack. Because the images were relevant and not introduced simply to provoke emotion, they were deemed admissible.
Lessons for Anyone Facing a Violent Felony Charge
This case underscores a few key points for defendants:
If you talk to police after waiving your Miranda rights—even verbally—those statements can and will be used against you.
You do not have to sign anything for your waiver to be valid.
Phone calls from jail are recorded and can become trial evidence. Assume nothing is private once you’re behind bars.
Graphic evidence can be admitted if it helps explain the charges, even if it’s upsetting to look at.
Not every mistake at trial leads to a reversal. If the appellate court sees the overall trial as fair and the evidence as strong, it may affirm the conviction anyway.
Protect Yourself from the Start
If you’ve been arrested or charged with murder, manslaughter, or another violent felony, the best way to protect yourself is to say nothing until your attorney is present. Don’t rely on assumptions about Miranda rights, and don’t believe that refusing to sign a form means your words can’t be used against you.
At Tilem & Associates, we fight aggressively to challenge unlawful police conduct and suppress damaging evidence. From pretrial motions to appeals, our team works to uncover weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and uphold your constitutional rights. Call Tilem & Associates today at 877-377-8666 or reach out online for a confidential consultation. Your words matter—make sure you have the right team defending them.
Police in New York are all too eager to seize your firearms and unfortunately recent changes in the law have made it easier for the police to seize your guns and harder for you to get them back, even when no charges have been filed. The Suffolk County Police for example were called to the scene of a domestic incident where no one was arrested, and quickly suspended the license of the gun owner in the home. The Suffolk County Police took the position that because charges could be filed for a period of one year the guns would not be returned for a period of one year; even though no one was arrested, no charges were filed and no orders of protections were issued. It took an Article 78 filed in the Suffolk Supreme Court to get the County to agree to return the guns. In another incident in another County an Order of Protection was filed against a husband by a wife as retaliation during an ongoing contested divorce. When the Sheriff’s Office served the Order of Protection they seized the husbands guns. Shortly thereafter, the case was dismissed and the Order of Protection vacated. However, the Sheriff refused to return the guns until the Court signed an Order for the return of the guns and the Judge (licensing officer) reinstated his license.
New York’s New Gun Confiscation Laws
Several relatively new laws that have been added or amended in the last few years assist the police in seizing guns even when no one has been arrested. Red flag laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) as they are also known are just one way of the police seizing firearms from someone who has not committed a crime. We have already written about Extreme Risk Protection Orders in past blogs. However, Criminal Procedure Law §530.14 requires a licensing officer to suspend a firearms license when a Temporary Order of protection is issued regardless of anything else. In addition, after the Order of Protection is vacated, CPL §530.14 requires the licensee to: make a written application to the Court for the return of their weapons, and serve notice to the the county attorney, district attorney, the protected party under the order of protection, and every licensing officer who has issued a firearms license to the subject of the order.
Tax fraud is a major issue for the state of New York, and it has taken the trial of one of the state’s most famous natives to really shine a light on the issue. Convictions for tax fraud are very rare, given the complexity of such cases. Despite this, New York State – and specifically the South and Eastern circuit districts – features twice in the top five offenders nationally, according to the United States Sentencing Commission.
There are clear reasons for this, of course. New York as a state has a huge amount of revenue derived from service and wire means; it’s often easier to conduct scams in this environment. Deliberate evasion is becoming more common, too, to tackle the deleterious impact of tough economic circumstances. While the big ticket convictions for tax fraud are often welcomed – being seen as justice against abusers of the system – it’s also important to consider the lesser-known reasons for fraud, and its hidden consequences.
Avoiding tax
New York’s New Type of License – Semi Automatic Rifles
Among the new package of laws that were signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul was the requirement to obtain a license before purchasing or acquiring a new semiautomatic rifle (other than an “assault rifle“). The intention seems to have been to prevent the purchase of rifles by 18, 19 and 20 year old individuals but the law does much more. Notwithstanding, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has already ruled a similar California ban on 18, 19 and 20 year old young adults is unconstitutional. Under S.9458/A.10503 Article 400 of the Penal law was amended to create a new type of gun license called a license for a semiautomatic rifle. Similar to licenses to carry pistols the new law says that a license to purchase a semiautomatic rifle obtained outside of New York City will not be valid inside of New York City unless a special permit giving validity is obtained from the New York City Police.
The new law does not make it a crime to own or possess guns which were acquired before the effective date. Rather, the new law makes it a crime to purchase or obtain a new semiautomatic rifle without having the new type of license. The new licenses appear to be issued by the same licensing officers using the same criteria as license for handguns and is almost certain to back up and slow down the already overwhelmed system for obtaining handgun licenses. The new licenses require recertification every five years.
As New York Second Amendment Attorneys we are constantly monitoring upcoming gun legislation. Following up on our blog the Twelve Most Ridiculous Gun laws, we just may have to revamp the whole list with some of the crazy new ideas that we have been hearing lately. So lets look at a roundup of recent gun legislation and suggestions.
New York has recently passed some ridiculous gun laws recently criminalizing the possession of unfinished frames which can basically include an hunk of aluminum, plastic or polymer. In addition, New York has made it a crime for a convicted felon to possess innocuous gun parts such as barrels or triggers. Nothing that can fire; possession of just the parts is now a crime.
Today, I read that there is legislation pending in Albany to require licenses to possess or purchase a semi-automatic rifle. Now remember, so called “assault rifles” are already banned in New York so this is for semi-automatic hunting rifles. How many of these semi-automatic rifles are used in crimes in New York any year? Keep in mind, that New York City already requires licensing of long guns and we can watch the news and see how that is going.
An arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) can be a serious charge with serious consequences in the event of a conviction. If an intoxicated driver also injures another person in an accident while driving under the influence, they may be charged with criminal assault as well as the DWI offense. Because of the serious implications that both DWI and violent crime charges can have on one’s record, it is important for people charged with such crimes to mount a strong legal defense from the start. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York recently addressed an appeal by a man who was convicted of DWI and assault charges after being involved in a head-on collision while allegedly intoxicated.
According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was arrested after he was involved in a crash where he crossed over a double yellow line and struck another vehicle, seriously injuring the occupants. After consenting to a blood test, the defendant was found to have a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal limit, and he was charged with DWI and assault offenses. The defendant attempted to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing that there was no warrant or probable cause for the officer to draw his blood. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments, finding that he had consented to the blood draw and no warrant was needed. The defendant also appealed his conviction on other grounds, which were not addressed by the court because his trial counsel did not make the appropriate objections to preserve those arguments for appellate review.
Trial judges who make legal errors that violate the rights of defendants can be reversed by appellate courts if the proper procedures are followed. One requirement for a ruling to be reversed on appeal is that the ruling was objected to at the lower level. When a criminal defense attorney fails to properly object to an erroneous trial court decision, their client may not be able to get the appropriate relief, even on appeal. Rather, it is essential that a trial attorney “preserve” an issue for appeal by making a timely objection during the trial. Because of this, it is essential for defendants to retain experienced and knowledgeable criminal defense counsel as early in the process as possible.
In a recent opinion from a New York court, the defendant in a child sexual assault case lost his appeal after he attempted to argue that the prosecution had behaved unfairly during his trial. The court disagreed, reviewing the prosecutor’s conduct and concluding that it was all acceptable. The defendant’s verdict was thus affirmed and he was sentenced to time in prison.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the victim, a child born in 2009, told another student on the bus to school that the defendant (her mother’s partner) was engaging in sexual conduct with her. Authorities soon learned of this alleged sexual assault, and the defendant was charged with predatory sexual assault against a child as well as attempted rape in the first degree. The County Court dismissed the defendant’s rape charge, but the prosecution proceeded with a jury trial to rule on the predatory sexual assault charge.
As a result of the trial, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. He subsequently appealed the jury’s verdict.
It is currently rumored that Governor Andrew Cuomo will resign effective in two weeks. While we have not been able to confirm this with any news source, we believe this to be the case. To be sure Governor Cuomo has been no friend to law abiding gun owners. The SAFE Act which was pushed through by Cuomo in an attempt to pass it without comment or opposition targeted law abiding gun owners including owners of modern sporting rifles, semi automatic rifles and made it more difficult for all gun owners to purchase ammunition. Several of the main provisions of the Safe Act were either found to be unconstitutional or impossible to implement and are not being enforced. These provisions include the 7 round magazine limit and the background checks to buy ammunition.
If it turns out that the rumor is true, Governor Cuomo will not be missed my gun owners.
As we wrote in our blog on March 12, 2021 Jerry from Jerry’s Firearms in Suffolk County was arrested. At that time there was speculation about the charges and whether Jerry was arrested for selling “other” weapons that the Suffolk County Police decided violated New York’s Safe Act or whether Jerry was arrested for record keeping violations. It now appears that the answer is both.
Franklin Armory Other
In late May 2021 the Suffolk County Police began sending unsigned letters to purchasers who bought the Delta Level Defense CT4-2A, other firearm that demanded that the purchaser call the Suffolk County police to schedule an “inspection” of the gun. Since May, at least one other round of letters has gone out. The letter indicates that those who comply will not be arrested and rumors have been circulating that the Suffolk county Police have threatened those who took the guns out of state or modified them with arrest for tampering with evidence. It has become clear that the Suffolk County police consider these firearms illegal and Jerry has been charged with a class “B” violent felony for selling 10 or more of these firearms. He faces up to 25 years in prison.
New York Criminal Attorney Blog