New York Criminal Attorney Blog

Understanding a Criminal Defendant’s Rights During Interrogation in New York

May 21, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

If you are questioned in relation to a criminal matter in New York, there are important rights you have under the law. Oftentimes, however, the reality is that state actors do not follow the law when interrogating suspects. If you have faced any kind of interrogation and are now being charged with a crime, one tool available to you is filing a motion to suppress. A defendant can file a motion to suppress to ask the trial court to “suppress,” or get rid of, the record of their statements to the officer questioning them. A successful motion to suppress can then have hugely beneficial effects during the rest of a defendant’s criminal proceedings.

In a recent case before the Appellate Division, Second Department, the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress statements he had given to an officer in connection to several burglaries. While the court ended up denying the defendant’s appeal, the order offers several interesting circumstances that can be grounds for a successful motion to suppress.

The Questioning Officer’s Obligations During Interrogation

When an officer questions a suspect, who is in police custody, regarding a criminal matter, the officer must give that suspect his Miranda warnings – that is, the officer must clearly articulate that the suspect has the right to remain silent and has the right to an attorney. If the suspect waives these rights, he must do so knowingly, and he must understand what he is giving up. If a suspect is held for multiple days or multiple rounds of questioning, the officer has a responsibility to reread the Miranda warnings at reasonable intervals.

Limits on “Voluntary” Nature of Confessions in New York Criminal Courts

May 15, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

During interrogation, New York detectives and officers are only legally able to obtain statements from defendants that are made voluntarily. If a detective coerces a defendant, or if the defendant does not understand what he or she is being interrogated about, a court may later rule that any confession was involuntarily and thus invalid. A recent case coming out of the Appellate Division, Third Department, shows some of the limits on this law and serves as a reminder of the importance of experienced, qualified counsel in criminal cases.

The Ruling

In the court’s ruling, it first reiterated the law that when prosecuting a criminal case, the State bears the burden of showing that a defendant’s statements during interrogation were voluntary. The State must therefore show that the defendant’s statements were “not products of coercion, either physical or psychological.”

In the case before the court, a defendant was being interrogated about a recent murder. During the interrogation, the defendant asked the questioning officer for medical attention, and the officer refused. Later on in the conversation, the defendant confessed to being involved in the murder, and he ended up pleading guilty to manslaughter in the first degree. Before pleading guilty, however, he filed a motion to suppress the confession, which the trial court denied.

New York Court Decides Prosecution Properly Charged Defendant in Burglary-Related Case

May 8, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a procedurally complex case, the New York Court of Appeals recently issued a decision reversing an appellate court’s decision in favor of the criminal defendant. The defendant originally faced charges after he broke into a college dormitory, supposedly attempting to sexually assault girls in the dormitory. At trial, the defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary but acquitted of a second offense, “burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.” He appealed; the appellate court reversed; and the New York Court of Appeals ultimately reversed again to reinstate the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree.

Burglary v. Burglary as a Sexually Motivated Felony

The state first charged the defendant with “burglary in the second degree as a sexually motivated felony.” Under this charge, the prosecution would have to show that the defendant 1) committed the burglary and 2) committed the burglary because, in substantial part, of his own sexual gratification.

New York Court of Appeals Opinion Grants Harvey Weinstein New Trial in High Profile Rape Case

May 1, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

Film producer Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction has been highly publicized and scrutinized for several years, and on April 25, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion that has elicited even more outrage surrounding the proceedings. In its opinion, the court decided that Weinstein is entitled to a new trial, which means a new judge and new prosecutor will likely appear for the proceedings. As part of the trial, the court will also reconsider Weinstein’s 23-year sentence.

Basis for the Original Trial

Weinstein’s original proceedings were based on three sex crimes against three individuals. During the trial, the prosecution argued that the defendant abused his power and fame to take advantage of female actors, coercing them into unwanted sexual acts. The theory of the case was that Weinstein offered these women assistance with their careers in exchange for his demands. The case proceeded to trial in 2020.

A jury convicted Weinstein of first-degree criminal sexual act and third-degree rape. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 23 years in prison, plus five years of post-release supervision. He has been incarcerated for the last several years.

New York Defendant Succeeds in Criminal Appeal on Grounds that Prosecution Failed to Offer Explanation for Unreadiness at Trial

April 24, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

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.

New York Court Concludes that Prosecution Failed to Meet Burden in Violent Crimes Case

April 18, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before the New York Court of Appeals, New York’s highest Court the defendant asked the court to affirm a lower court’s ruling, which concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its burden during the trial of his criminal case. The case in question involved a brutal murder, and even though the evidence showed that the defendant killed the victim in the case, he argued that the prosecution did not prove every element that the relevant statute required it to prove. On appeal, the court agreed, ultimately affirming the ruling that vacated one count of the defendant’s indictment.

Facts and Procedural History

The opinion lays out the facts of the case: one day in 2018, members of two New York gangs were engaged in a physical fight when they came across a teenager that they believed to be part of one of the gangs. The opposing gang members chased the teenager down, dragging him across the street and stabbing him in the process. The defendant in this case ultimately stabbed the victim, and he bled out and then died shortly thereafter.
The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. He appealed, and the Appellate Division vacated the first-degree murder conviction. According to the higher court, the evidence was not sufficient to show that the defendant was guilty of first-degree murder. The State appealed this order, and the New York Court of Appeals issued an opinion regarding the State’s appeal.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the court reviewed the evidence and decided that the prosecution failed to establish at least one element of the case during trial. According to the first-degree murder statute in question, the prosecution was supposed to show that the defendant showed “a sense of pleasure” in injuring the victim. And, according to the court, the prosecution had not presented evidence to demonstrate this sense of pleasure.

New York Defendant Unsuccessfully Argues that COVID-19 Face Masks Impeded His Right to Fair Trial

April 12, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a recent homicide case before a New York Court of Appeals, the defendant challenged his guilty convictions on the grounds that he was unable to fully observe potentially jury members during the jury selection portion of his trial. When the defendant’s case was before the lower court, COVID-19 was in full force, and the potential jurors were required to wear masks inside the courtroom. According to the defendant, the masks presented a problem with regards to his right to observe the individuals’ expressions and demeanors. Ultimately, on appeal, the court disagreed with the defendant and affirmed the guilty convictions.

Procedural Background

The defendant’s case revolved around a three-car collision in 2017, in which the defendant’s blood alcohol content was above the permissible limit. One of the other passengers ended up dying as a result of the crash, and the state charged the defendant with three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and manslaughter in the second degree.

The defendant pled not guilty, and his trial began in April 2021. At that time, many COVID-19 protocols were still in place, including that potential jury members were told to wear face masks while in the courtroom. They were, however, allowed to remove the masks and put on a clear plastic face shield in its place when the judge or an attorney directly questioned them.

New York Court Issues Opinion Underscoring the Importance of “Voluntary” Confessions in Criminal Cases – GUN CONVICTION REVERSED

April 6, 2024 | Peter Howard Tilem

A Queens County Gun conviction was recently reversed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. In a recent opinion published by an appellate court in New York, the court emphasized that a defendant must be able to voluntarily waive his right to an attorney before speaking with an investigator about a case. In the case before the court, the defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that because he had recently been in a medically induced coma when a detective questioned him, he was unable to understand his Miranda rights and knowingly and voluntarily waive those rights. On appeal, the higher court agreed with the defendant, reminding officers of how important it is that a defendant can comprehend what is happening before he can be subject to interrogation.

The Defendant’s Medical Condition

According to the opinion, the defendant had been involved in a shooting and was shot in the elbow, the leg, and the lower back. An ambulance took him to the hospital, where he underwent three different surgeries. The hospital then put the defendant in a medically induced coma. When he was able to wake up, he remained in the intensive care unit. At approximately 6:00pm, the same day he underwent surgery, a detective came into the defendant’s hospital room to question the him in about the shooting.

The Defendant’s Miranda Rights

When the detective approached, the defendant asked if he could see a nurse because of his level of physical pain. The detective refused, saying he would call a nurse later, after the questioning was finished. At that point, the detective read the defendant his Miranda rights, indicating that he had the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney. The defendant said he understood. The detective then asked the defendant about the shooting, and the defendant admitted to being guilty of criminal possession of a weapon.

New York Court Uses Defendant’s Actions to Infer Intent to Kill in Violent Crimes Case

March 23, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case before the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, the defendant appealed his convictions of attempted murder, attempted assault, robbery, burglary, and criminal possession of a weapon. Part of the defendant’s argument regarding the “attempted murder” offense was that the facts of the case did not support the jury’s finding of guilt, and the verdict should therefore be reversed. Reviewing the record, the higher court disagreed and ultimately affirmed the lower court’s verdict, emphasizing that the defendant’s actions throughout his physical altercation with the victim led to a reasonable inference that he intended to kill the victim.

Defendant’s Argument

The defendant’s argument centered around the fact that during the incident in question, he and the victim both fought in the hallway of a motel while one of them was holding a gun. Shots were fired, and the victim was shot during the parties’ struggle for the gun. There was not enough evidence, maintained the defendant, to prove that he attempted to kill the victim – the evidence only showed that the victim’s injuries were the result of a chaotic fight that involved a loaded gun. Without reason to assume that he intended to kill the victim, there was no basis for the “attempted murder” conviction. The defendant therefore asked the higher court to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

Basis for Appellate Court’s Ruling

The appellate court disagreed. According to important New York case law, it is possible to infer intent to kill from the defendant’s actions. Here, the victim testified that the defendant shot directly at him while they were fighting, as well as that the defendant placed the gun directly on his body before shooting. Other witnesses affirmed this testimony. These actions directly supported the inference that the defendant intended to kill the victim.
Additionally, the victim’s injuries showed a gunshot wound, lacerations above the eyebrow, and abrasions to other parts of the body. These injuries were consistent with the victim’s testimony about where and how the defendant shot him. Given that the physical evidence, in addition to the testimony, supported the inference that the defendant wanted to kill the victim, it was reasonable for the jury to have found the defendant guilty.
Ultimately, then, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, and the defendant’s convictions stayed in place.

New York Court Emphasizes Restrictive Conditions of Probation in February 2024 Opinion

March 17, 2024 | Tilem & Associates

Recently, a New York defendant appealed his convictions related to possession of a firearm, arguing that probation officers did not have the right to search through his personal belongings. The court’s opinion, which denied the defendant’s appeal, reflects the reality that for individuals on probation, there is less of an expectation of privacy. While this can be a difficult restriction to bear, it is important to keep probation conditions in mind to stay in compliance with the related legal restrictions and to stay away from harsh repercussions. Those on Probation are already convicted and are not entitled to a trial if they are accused of violating probation but rather are only entitled to a hearing before the judge that is supervising their probation.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the defendant was on probation for attempted robbery in the first degree. One of the conditions of his probation was that he was not allowed to possess a firearm. Local police officers notified the probation department that the defendant had been seen with a firearm on three different occasions. After that, the defendant’s probation officers promptly showed up at his house.

The defendant was not home, but his mother was home, and she let the officers search the defendant’s bedroom. They found a shotgun shell, a round of ammunition, and a firearm. The defendant was charged with the following offenses: criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of pistol ammunition.