Violent Crimes Category Archives — Page 2 of 5 — New York Criminal Attorney Blog Published by White Plains, New York Criminal Defense Lawyers

New York Defendant in Second Degree Murder Case Gets New Trial Based on Improper Questioning by Police Officers

December 2, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In an October 2023 Murder case before the Appellate Division, First Department, the defendant argued that several of his incriminating statements to police officers should have been suppressed by the lower court. The defendant was originally convicted of murder in the second degree, and the lower court sentenced him to a term of 25 years to life in prison. On appeal, the defendant took issue with the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress his statements. The higher court weighed the evidence and ended up agreeing with the defendant, remanding the case for an entirely new trial.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers responded to a 911 call on the evening in question at the defendant’s home. The defendant himself made the call, reporting that an unknown person had invaded their home and killed his wife. Both the defendant and his wife were taken to the hospital, then, after the defendant’s wife died, the defendant was brought into the station for questioning.

Officers gave the defendant Miranda warnings and proceeded to ask him questions about the incident. At first, the defendant stuck with his story, that an unknown intruder had stabbed his wife. Then, however, the officers told the defendant that he was not being arrested and that the statements would “not necessarily” be used against him. At that point, the defendant admitted to being the one to kill his wife.

New York Defendant Successfully Appeals Sentence in Assault Case Based on Age at His Time of the Crime

October 30, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent matter before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, the court modified a defendant’s judgment in his favor, vacating part of his sentence for an assault conviction from 2013. The defendant asked the court to reconsider part of his sentence given his young age at the time of the conviction. The State conceded that the sentence should be altered, and the Court ultimately granted the defendant’s request.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant pled guilty to one count of assault in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree in 2013. Months later, the defendant appealed, arguing that his plea should be vacated because the court did not take into account that he might have been eligible for youthful offender treatment, which typically means that a defendant is sentenced to less time in prison because of his or her young age at the time of his or her conviction and which would mean that he doesn’t have a criminal record.

The court denied the defendant’s appeal, and the defendant challenged this decision. The higher court decided it was willing to at least hear the defendant’s argument regarding his position that the lower court should resentence him given his age at the time of the conviction.

New York Court Rules Defendants Entitled to New Trial After Issues During Jury Selection

September 13, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before the Appellate Division, First Department in New York, the court decided another issue regarding jury selection in favor of two defendants who the Court said were entitled to a new trial after a possible error in jury selection prior to the the trial. The defendants were originally found guilty of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and gang assault in the first degree after a jury trial. The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly denied their challenges to jury selection before trial. The higher court granted the defendants’ appeal, siding with the defendants and remanding their case back to the lower court.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the two defendants in this case were charged several years ago after a violent robbery. The case went to trial, and before trial began, the court began the process of selecting a jury for the trial.
During jury selection, each side is allowed to object to several possible jurors that could end up deciding the case. In this jury selection in particular, the prosecution objected to five possible jurors — all of these possible jurors were nonwhite. When the defense challenged these objections, arguing they could have been based on the potential jury members’ race, the court dismissed the challenge and quickly moved on.
Ultimately, the jury found the defendants guilty, and the defendants appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendants argued that the court should have allowed them to fully challenge the prosecution’s objections during jury selection. According to case law under a case called Batson v. Kentucky, the court is required to allow defendants an opportunity to present a full challenge to the opposing party’s decision to object to a possible jury member. The Baston challenges come into play specifically when one side wants to object to the other side’s jury selection on the grounds of race, ethnicity, or sex.

New York Court Affirms Defendant’s Conviction in Murder Case, Despite Multiple Arguments for Reversal

July 15, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before an appellate court in New York, the defendant presented multiple arguments in an attempt to reverse his conviction for murder in the second degree. Ultimately, the court decided that because the evidence was legally sufficient to support the guilty verdict, the defendant’s appeal should be denied. The court also affirmed the lower court’s decision regarding the defendant’s sentence, and he will remain incarcerated as a result.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with murder after officers found the victim dead from a knife wound. Apparently, the defendant held unto the knife until the victim fell to the ground, then had stabbed him with the knife.

The defendant pled not guilty, and his case proceeded to trial. Despite his attorney’s best efforts, though, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty on September 12, 2018. The defendant appealed, and it took his case several years to work its way through the appeals system. Finally, almost five years later, the higher court issued this decision.

New York Court Reverses Appellate Division’s Ruling on Sufficiency of the Evidence

June 15, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent case before a New York appeals court, the State asked for a reconsideration of an appellate division’s unfavorable decision. Originally, the defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree. In January 2022, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed the defendant’s guilty verdict because, according to the court, there was insufficient legal evidence to support the conviction. In May 2023, however, that decision was reversed, given the higher court’s ruling that the evidence was, indeed, sufficient to show that the defendant had assaulted another individual. The case was then remanded back to the lower court for additional proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree after a burglary incident in 2014. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged. First, the defendant appealed on the grounds that there was not enough evidence on the record to support the conviction. The reviewing court agreed, reversing the guilty verdict.

In 2023, however, the state of New York appealed. The higher court looked again at the evidence to determine if the original reversal was correct. Particularly relevant to the court’s review was evidence that the victim in the case experienced bleeding and swelling after the burglary incident. Hospital records indicated that the victim’s pain was “aching,” and the victim testified while at the hospital that the defendant had punched him in the face on the night in question.

New York Defendant Successfully Moves for New Trial in Second-Degree Murder Case

June 7, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent Murder case coming before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court, the defendant asked for a new trial because the trial court judge had closed the courtroom during the middle of his eight-day jury trial. Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, defendants are entitled to public trials, and according to the defendant, the trial court deprived him of this fundamental right to a public trial. Looking at the evidence in the record, the higher court agreed with the defendant and ended up granting him a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was criminally charged with second-degree murder. His case went to trial, and the State asked the judge to close the courtroom a few days into the eight-day trial. During a conversation between the attorneys and the judge, the judge noted that several individuals in the courtroom had been “very intimidating,” had inappropriately taken photos during the proceedings, and had posted these photos on social media.

The defendant’s attorney asked if the court would consider banning cell phones instead of excluding the public from the trial, but the judge decided to proceed with closing the courtroom. The defendant’s trial proceeded in private, and the jury later found him guilty as charged. The defendant was then sentenced accordingly.

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 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.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Asks Court to Suppress Incriminating Statement Made to Attorney

January 25, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Earlier this month, a New York defendant convicted of attempted murder, appealed his guilty verdict before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. According to the defendant, the lower court violated his rights by allowing the State to enter into evidence a comment that he had made to his attorney in the presence of law enforcement officials. This statement, said the defendant, was meant to be part of a private conversation, and the lower court should not have let it in as evidence. The higher court reviewed the record and ultimately rejected the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with several violent crimes, including assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Once charged, the defendant was taken to a holding room at the local police department. A police investigator stood about five feet outside the open door in full view of the defendant, including while the defendant met with his attorney in the holding room. At one point during the defendant’s conversation with his lawyer, he made an incriminating statement in a loud voice, and the investigator overheard the defendant make this statement.

The defendant argued before the lower court that this statement should not be used in court, given the statement was made to his attorney, was made after his right to counsel had attached and was not meant to be heard by the investigator. The lower court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant appealed.