IN THE NEWS Category Archives — Page 16 of 17 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM CHALLENGES MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES IN FEDERAL CRACK CASES

October 1, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

New York criminal defense firm Tilem & Campbell has filed Court papers seeking to prevent the use of mandatory minimum sentences in federal crack cases. Citing the reasoning in the recent Supreme Court decision, Kimbrough v United States that permitted Federal District Courts to consider the “100-1” ratio when considering whether or not to sentence below the federal sentencing guidelines in crack (or cocaine base) cases, Tilem & Campbell asked the Courts to take the ruling one step further and declare the mandatory minimums unconstitutional. The “100-1” ratio refers to the fact that under the current federal sentencing scheme, an offender sentenced for cocaine base is likely to get roughly the same sentence as a person sentences for 100 times as much cocaine.

The Supreme Court in Kimbrough found that this “100 -1” ratio was unwarranted based upon the fact that cocaine base (crack) and cocaine are two forms of the same drug with the same active ingredient and the same physiological and psychotropic effects. In addition, citing statistics from the United States Sentencing Commission, the Supreme Court indicated that there was a racial disparity with minorities and in particular African-Americans receiving longer sentences for crack offenses than their white counterparts who were committing cocaine offenses.

Tilem & Campbell filed the challenges in both the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and the US District Court for the Eastern District Court and decisions are awaited from both Courts.

NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM WINS ANOTHER DISMISSAL IN NEW YORK GUN CASE

September 25, 2008 | Peter Howard Tilem

New York Criminal Defense Law Firm, Tilem & Campbell, scored another major victory in a New York gun case when it won a complete dismissal of all charges in a Bronx County case yesterday using a federal defense under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA). The original charges included Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree. The Defendant faced a minimum sentence of 3 and 1/2 years in prison on the Second Degree charge which is a class “C” violent felony.

The case was won using a little known Federal Defense that provides a defense to gun charges in all 50 states for those transporting firearms from one place where they may legally possess that gun to another such place if done so in accordance with federal law.

The victory comes on the heels of a string of major victories in the past three months for Tilem & Campbell which included another dismissal of felony gun charges in a Brooklyn Gun case in June and the sentencing earlier this month to house arrest for a person charged in Federal Court with trafficking in a large number of firearms from Texas to New York. Unfortunately, the firm suffered one loss back in June when a Tilem & Campbell client was convicted by a jury of gun possession.

NEW YORK GRAFFITI CASE FOCUSES ATTENTION ON SERIOUS CRIMES

September 22, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

The Queens District Attorney’s Office announced the indictment of a Dutch man for his role in spraying graffiti on a subway car in Queens and then taking police on a foot pursuit on the subway tracks. The cases focuses attention on the serious charges associated with graffiti in New York including Criminal Mischief, Making Graffiti and Possession of Graffiti Instruments. It also focuses attention on “Graffiti Tourism” a growing phenomenon in this area.

Criminal Mischief in New York is a crime involving damaging property (either intentionally or recklessly) and is generally a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Damaging property in an amount exceeding $250 can be charged as a class “E” Felony punishable by a prison term of up to 4 years and damaging property in an amount exceeding $1500 is a class “D” felony punishable by up to seven years in prison.

The problem is that the threshold amounts have not been changed since 1971 and when the New York State Legislature amended the Grand larceny Statutes in 1986 they forgot to amend the Criminal Mischief statutes. In practice, that means that if you steal property worth $300 you are only guilty of a misdemeanor but if you damage property worth $300 you are guilty of a felony.

NEW YORK CRIMINAL LAWYERS Peter Tilem AND John Campbell ON THE RADIO

September 5, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

New York Criminal Defense Attorney’s Peter Tilem and John Campbell spent the morning,yesterday, on The Pulse 87.7 FM talking about criminal law and answering listeners’ questions. Peter Tilem and John Campbell were on the Star and Buc Wild morning show during the 8:00 am hour and ended up staying until 10:00 am talking with Star, DX 21 and White Trash Helene while listeners phoned and E-Mailed in their legal questions and even an NYPD Sergeant E-Mailed in his question concerning arresting people for Possession of Rifles in New York City.

Tilem & Campbell sponsored breakfast for the show and a great time was had by all; both Peter Tilem and John Campbell were invited back to come on the show in the near future. Yesterday’s appearance was videotaped and will be posted on this blog as soon as the video becomes available.

NEW YORK STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ANNOUNCE ANTI-DWI CAMPAIGN UNTIL LABOR DAY

August 18, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

New York State law enforcement officials announced this week a new campaign to crack down on Driving While Intoxicated or Impaired on New York State roads. The campaign coincides with the national “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest,”campaign which is scheduled to last until September 2, 2008. The program calls for police agencies throughout New York State to increase the use of saturation patrols and checkpoints in an effort to catch intoxicated and impaired drivers.

Readers of this Blog and clients of Tilem & Campbell are reminded of my blog dated March 3, 2008 warning drivers about being arrested even if their Blood Alcohol Limit (BAC) is below the legal limit. Obviously it goes without saying that a driver should never operate a vehicle while intoxicated or impaired by any substance. However, if you are stopped in a DWI check point and you have alcohol on your breath you may be arrested regardless of whether you are legally intoxicated or impaired.

Keep in mind that if you refuse to take the breath test your license to operate a vehicle in New York will be revoked for a period of one year regardless of whether you are convicted of DWI or DWAI. Remember that a good lawyer can challenge both the police testimony and the breath test results.

US SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN DC GUN BAN

June 26, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

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.

QUEENS COURT LIMITS APPLICABILITY OF NEW YOK CITY KNIFE LAW

May 22, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

New York City Administrative Code 10-133(b) (Unlawful Possession of Knives or Instruments), makes it illegal to possess a knife with a blade of four inches or more 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.

Sean Bell Verdict and the New York Defense of Justification – New York Criminal Attorney’s Not Surprised

April 25, 2008 | Jasmine Hernandez

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.

GIVE NEW YORK JUDGES A RAISE

April 13, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

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.

NEW YORK CRIMINAL DEFENSE FIRM TILEM & CAMPBELL IN TODAY’S JOURNAL NEWS

April 11, 2008 | Tilem & Associates

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 Peter Tilem, 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.