New York Criminal Attorney Blog

Defendant in New York Criminal Case Successfully Gets Incriminating Statements Suppressed

March 29, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case involving leaving the scene of an accident or incident before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress was improperly denied by the lower court. The defendant was criminally charged and convicted after an incident in which he left the scene of an automobile accident without reporting. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the police officer questioning him neglected to give him the proper Miranda warnings before soliciting information. Agreeing with the defendant, the appellate court ended up suppressing several of the defendant’s incriminating statements.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, state troopers were patrolling one evening when they pulled the defendant and his acquaintance over to the side of the road. Apparently, the troopers had been informed to be on the lookout for a car that looked similar to the defendant’s, whose driver was on the run after colliding with a motorcycle nearby.

The troopers brought the defendant out of his car, told him to place his hands on top of the vehicle, and began to question him about where he had been earlier that evening. At that point, the defendant admitted that he had been driving the car for several hours, including at the time the motorcycle accident happened. Quickly, the defendant backtracked and said that he had actually been on the train earlier that night. When the officer asked which train the defendant had taken, however, the defendant could not think of anything to say.

Young Defendant in New York Successfully Overturns Unfavorable Trial Court Decision

March 22, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Last month, a New York appellate court decided a case that overturned a young defendant’s murder conviction after trial and suppressed statements that were made to his father and recorded by the police in the police station. Originally, the defendant had been found guilty of several violent crimes, including murder in the second degree. After the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating statements, the defendant appealed; on appeal, the higher court unanimously agreed that the trial court’s decision should be reversed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was 15 years old when he was charged with murder, criminal possession of a weapon, and attempted robbery. Officers brought the defendant to the station upon his arrest, at which point they complied with their legal obligation to call one of the defendant’s parents or guardians. The defendant’s father immediately came to the station and informed the officers that they wanted to speak with an attorney before submitting to an interview.

At that point, the officers left the interview room, leaving the defendant and his father alone with a video camera recording the conversation. The defendant’s face collapsed into his hands, and he began speaking in a distressed tone to his father. His father warned him to stop talking and reminded his son about the video. However, the defendant continued and attempted to make his conversation inaudible by covering his mouth and speaking in hushed tones. Later the defendant discovered that their conversation had been recorded and that the State wanted to use the recording as evidence at trial. Indeed much of the video was inaudible but what was audible was played for the jury.

Recent Appellate Case Highlights the Collateral Consequences of a Domestic Violence Arrest

March 15, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent Domestic Violence case being prosecuted in Bronx County, the defendant challenged the issuance of a Temporary Order of Protection during the pendency of his Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation (Strangulation) prosecution that prevented him from living in the home that he owned. A 2021 decision from an Appellate Court required a hearing any time that the issuance of a temporary order of protection (TOP) would cause both a significant and immediate deprivation of a substantial property or personal interest. Insistent that he could be in the house without even running into his significant other, the defendant asked the court to reverse this order. Ultimately, the court held an informal hearing without witness testimony and decided to keep the Temporary Order in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was charged with criminal obstruction of breathing and harassment after he tried to choke his wife. The State charged the defendant, and the court held a hearing to determine what should happen with the order of protection during the pendency of the case. The hearing was informal, meaning the court did not require witness testimony but rather accepted documents as evidence.

New York Court of Appeals Sides with Defendants in Recent Firearms Case

March 8, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent New York gun case before an appellate court in the state of New York, the court had to decide whether a search warrant executed by several state troopers was valid. Originally, the trial court decided that evidence found by the troopers should be suppressed, and it granted the defendants’ motion to controvert the search warrant and suppress the incriminating evidence. On appeal, the State asked the higher court to reverse this decision, but the court could not find a reason to agree with the State’s arguments and ultimately denied the request.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendants were charged with drug and weapons offenses after state troopers searched their two-story home in Queens. A confidential informant had told investigators that he knew several firearms were in the defendants’ home since he had visited recently and been shown two guns by one of the residents.

Both the search warrant and the affidavit in support of the search warrant described a two story, two family home with a right entrance and a left entrance.

The officers searched the home and found drugs, ammunition, and guns on the first floor. Interestingly, they found nothing on the second floor. They also arrested several people. The defendants filed a motion to suppress, arguing the warrant that gave the officers permission to search the premises was invalid and that the evidence shouldn’t come in at trial. The Constitutions of both New York State requires that search warrants particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be taken. This warrant authorized the search of the entire house even though the police were aware that it was a two-family home. Accordingly, the trial court granted this motion, and the evidence was suppressed.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Rape Case

March 1, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent rape case before an appeals court in New York, the defendant asked the court to find that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial for rape in the second degree. Originally, the defendant was charged by indictment after evidence supported a showing that he had engaged in sexual relations with a 14-year-old girl several times. During the trial, the defendant thought his attorney should have made more objections to the evidence that the State asked the jury to consider. Ultimately, the defendant lost at trial, and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly. On appeal, the court considered the defendant’s argument and disagreed that his counsel was inadequate. The defendant’s conviction was affirmed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was a man in his 40s who knew the victim and her family. As the defendant and the victim spent more time together, the defendant disclosed to the victim that he was having trouble in his marriage. Eventually, the defendant and the victim began engaging in sexual relations, and the State police received a report that the defendant was sexually abusing the minor.

When the defendant was charged, he was taken in for an interview with the police. At that point, he was given Miranda warnings, and he cooperated fully with the investigators. Later in the day, the defendant provided a written statement admitting that he had been having sex with the victim in the case.

How to Dispute Hearsay Evidence in New York Criminal Cases

February 27, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

Criminal prosecutions in New York are confined by constitutional and statutory protections for people accused of crimes in this state. The state rules of evidence and criminal procedure prevent prosecutors from eliciting certain types of testimony and other evidence that is determined to be inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay involves an out-of-court statement, offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is by definition a violation of the confrontation clause of the US Constitution in that it may violate the principle that the accused has the right to confront the witness against the accused. Although many exceptions to the prohibition on hearsay evidence exist, hearsay evidence manages to find its way into trial in thousands of criminal prosecutions each year.

A New York court recently affirmed the conviction of a man for attempted sexual assault, rejecting the defendant’s arguments that inadmissible hearsay testimony offered at trial should invalidate his conviction. The defendant from the recently decided case was charged with attempted sexual assault after he was reported to have aggressively approached and grabbed a 14-year-old victim while they were in an elevator together. During the trial, the defendant’s attorney objected to the admission of certain portions of a 911 call involving the victim’s neighbor on the basis that the statements were hearsay. The objection was overruled, and the defendant was convicted of the charges.

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the admission of the hearsay evidence was an error, which tainted his conviction. The appellate court agreed with the defendant that the statements should not have been allowed at trial; however, the court found the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming other evidence incriminating the defendant in the charges. The court noted that there were other areas at trial where inadmissible evidence may have been admitted, but the defendant failed to properly address those on appeal, so the court would not disturb the defendant’s conviction.

Defendant in New York Assault Case Unsuccessfully Argues for Reversal of Conviction

February 18, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the defendant challenged her conviction and sentence for assault and criminal contempt. On appeal, she argued that the State had not proven that the victim of the assault had suffered a physical injury, which was a necessary element of the crime in this case. Looking at the trial court’s record, the court ultimately disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the jury’s original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged after she was found stabbing another individual. The defendant stabbed the victim six times, and the police arrested her and took her into the station. The defendant was held in jail while she awaited trial, and eventually, the case went before a jury in late 2018. After trial, the defendant was found guilty of assault in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree. She promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the State had not proven every element of the crime that it needed to prove. In fact, in all criminal cases, the prosecution must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the woman correctly claimed that State had to present evidence both that the victim had suffered a physical injury and that the defendant intended to cause the physical injury. According to the defendant, the State had not proven either of those two elements.

Defendant in New York Robbery Case Loses on Appeal of Motion to Suppress

February 12, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a robbery case before a New York appeals court earlier this month, the defendant asked the court to reconsider an unfavorable decision he received at the trial court level. Originally, the defendant was criminally charged with robbery and criminal possession of a weapon, and he asked the lower court to suppress incriminating evidence that an officer found on his person while conducting a search. The court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, and on appeal, the higher court agreed. The defendant’s argument was rejected, and the original judgment was affirmed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers were called to a residential building one night right as a robbery was taking place. The officers arrested several people at the scene of the crime, then they walked out of the building to find the defendant emerging from a driveway nearby. The driveway was right behind the building where the offense occurred, and the officers approached the defendant to see if he knew anything about the crime.

At that point, the officers tried to ask the defendant several questions, but he immediately began running away. The officers chased him, caught up to him, and arrested him. They quickly found a cell phone and cash on the defendant’s person; the cell phone had several incriminating text messages that ended up playing a part in the State’s case against the defendant.

New York Appellate Court Sides with Defendant in the Face of Unfair Treatment from Police Officer

February 6, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Last month, the Appellate Court decided the prosecution’s appeal of a lower court’s unfavorable decision in a firearm possession case. It is unusual for the prosecutors to appeal and they can only do so under very limited circumstances. The State had originally asked the lower court to admit evidence, including two handguns, that resulted from an officer’s pat down of the defendant, and the lower court had determined that the evidence could not come in at trial. When the State appealed, the higher court reviewed the evidence of the case, ultimately deciding that the lower court’s decision was correct and that the officer did not have a legal basis to conduct a pat down of the defendant.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when an officer attempted to pull him over for several traffic violations, including parking illegally, failing to stop at a stop sign, and failing to signal while turning. At first, the defendant did not stop for the officer, so the officer called in backup to help him conduct the stop.

When the backup officer came to the scene, he saw the defendant get out of the car and start running away. The officer did not know the details of what was going on, but he knew that the original officer was trying to conduct a traffic stop of the individual. The second officer then started chasing the defendant. He tackled the defendant, handcuffed him, and pat him down, finding two handguns between his legs.

New York Murder Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues that Trial Court Violated His Right to Confrontation

January 31, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a defendant in New York charged with murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree appealed his guilty verdict and related sentence. The defendant argued before the Appellate Court that parts of his trial were unfair; namely, the testimony offered about the murder victim’s cause of death violated his constitutional right to cross-examine the witness. Looking at the record of the case, the Appellate Court disagreed and ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was criminally charged after investigators tracked him down in 2015. The investigators were looking for an individual connected to the shooting death of an unarmed man in Brooklyn in May 2015, and they eventually had enough evidence to charge the defendant in this case.

The defendant’s case went to trial in June 2018, and he was found guilty both of murder and criminal possession of a weapon. After his sentencing hearing, the defendant promptly appealed.