New York Criminal Attorney Blog

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 Defendant Unsuccessfully Appeals Criminal Possession of a Weapon Conviction, Despite Argument Regarding Discriminatory Juror Striking

September 6, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case between the State of New York and a defendant convicted of criminal possession of a weapon, an appellate court ruled that the defendant did not have grounds to appeal his guilty verdict. Originally, the defendant was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. His case went to trial, a jury found him guilty, and the defendant promptly appealed. After considering the defendant’s argument that the State unfairly struck a Black individual and a Hispanic individual from the jury, the court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, officers were on patrol one evening when they received word that they should be on the lookout for the defendant in this case, given that there was an active warrant for his arrest and he had possibly been involved in a recent homicide in the city. The officers eventually spotted the defendant and began following him in his car. They radioed to other troopers in the area that the defendant was on the loose in his silver Ford Taurus.

Another officer on patrol spotted the car. He turned on his emergency lights to stop the defendant, at which point he saw the defendant stop the car, get out of the car, pull out a pistol from his pockets, and drop the pistol on the ground. The defendant then began running on foot.

New York Defendant Loses Appeal After Standoff with Police Officers, While Appellate Division Highlights Elements of “Menacing a Police Officer” Crime

August 30, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a July 2023 case before the Appellate Division, Third Department in New York, the defendant asked for the court to reconsider his guilty verdict for menacing a police officer pursuant to Penal law 120.18. According to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence to allow a jury to find him guilty, and the court should vacate the conviction as well as the related sentence. The court looked at the facts of the case, weighed the evidence, and eventually disagreed with the defendant, keeping his conviction in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two deputy sheriffs went to the defendant’s home because he had failed to pay child support in accordance with his legal obligation. The sheriffs knocked on the defendant’s door to serve him with a warrant for his arrest. The defendant refused to allow the sheriffs to enter, at which point they called for backup and then pounded down the door.

The officers found the defendant standing at the entryway to his home with a rifle. The officers retreated and took cover, and a stand-off ensued that lasted two hours. Eventually, the defendant exited his home, having abandoned the weapon. The officers arrested him.

Uncovering the Hidden Ramifications: Exploring Lesser-Known Consequences of New York State Tax Fraud

August 23, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

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 Court Looks at Justification Defense in Recent Assault Case

August 13, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

As we have discussed, the defense of justification, or self-defense is one of the most important defenses that exist in New York criminal law. Once the defense of self defense is raised the burden is on the prosecution to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Recently, the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York denied a defendant’s appeal in a 2019 assault case in which the defense of self-defense was raised. Faced with the defendant’s appeal, the court looked at the entire trial record to see if it agreed with the defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defense. The Court pointed out that many of the issues raised on appeal were unpreserved for appellate review. Ultimately deciding the defendant’s argument was not persuasive, however, the court denied his appeal and kept the defendant’s original conviction and sentence in place.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant faced criminal charges after he hit the victim of his in the face with an unknown hard object. The defendant hit the acquaintance multiple times with the object, then proceeded to punch him in the face. After the incident, the victim was rushed to the hospital, where he received emergency treatment and reconstructive surgery for his injuries.

The State charged the defendant with assault in the first degree. His case went to trial, after which a group of jurors unanimously found him guilty. The court sentenced the defendant to time in prison, and he promptly appealed. The higher court issued a decision on the appeal in July 2023.

New York Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Burglary Case, Despite Questionable Use of Security Footage

August 6, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

In a July 2023 burglary case before the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York, the defendant highlighted possible issues in identifying a suspect through surveillance footage. This case involved a defendant who was charged with and eventually convicted of Burglary in the Second Degree. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing in part that the trial court made a mistake when it allowed non-eyewitnesses to identify him in a home surveillance video as the person who had committed the burglary. Looking at the trial court’s record, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant broke into a home one evening when the residents were out. He stole several items, all of which he brought back to his bedroom, which was located in a group home for mentally ill adults. The house’s residents had high-tech home surveillance footage, which they shared with the police after the burglary.

The investigators reviewed the footage, and eventually, several of the defendant’s parole officers identified the defendant as the person who committed the robbery. The State charged the defendant with burglary, grand larceny, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief. His case went to trial, and a jury unanimously found him guilty. The court then sentenced him to time in prison as a result.

Appellate Division Reverses Lower Court’s Judgment in NY Robbery and Criminal Possession Case, Highlighting the Importance of Unbiased Courts

July 30, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a June 2023 case before the Appellate Division, Second Department in New York, the defendant successfully argued for a reversal of his conviction of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. Originally, a jury found the defendant guilty after an incident during which he took several pairs of footwear from a department store. On appeal, he argued that the lower court deprived him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. Looking at the record, the higher court agreed with the defendant and granted him an entirely new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant walked in and out of a department store one afternoon in August 2018. When he walked out, the storm alarm started blaring, and a store security guard noticed that he had taken several pairs of footwear with him.

The security guard followed the defendant and tried to retrieve the stolen goods. The defendant reached for his back pocket and said, “Keep going or watch what’s going to happen to you.” The guard let the defendant go, but he summoned police officers to the scene. The officers arrested the defendant several minutes later, close to a subway station, and the defendant was criminally charged.

Defendant in NY Sex Offender Registration Case Unsuccessfully Asks for Reconsideration of Risk Level

July 22, 2023 | Tilem & Associates

In a recent case coming out of an appellate court in New York, the defendant’s request for a new analysis under the Sex Offender Registration Act was denied. The defendant took issue with the trial court’s decision regarding his “risk level” after he was originally found guilty of possessing child pornography. Asking for a lower risk level on the sex offender registry, the defendant argued there was not enough evidence to support the high risk level the lower court had assigned him. Reviewing the case and ultimately disagreeing with the defendant’s argument, the higher court denied his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with possession of child pornography several years ago, in 2014. He pled guilty and was sentenced accordingly. When an individual in New York is classified as a “sex offender” by the court, that person must register on the sex offender registry to notify the public of his or her risk level. Once the individual is sentenced, or if incarcerated before the individual’s release, a court must hold an evidentiary hearing to decide what the person’s assigned risk level will be. One is the lowest risk level, and three is the highest.

In this case, the court designated the defendant as a level two sex offender, meaning it thought he posed a moderate risk to the community. The defendant appealed, arguing he should have been classified as a level one instead of as a level two.

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.

Defendant in New York Sex Offender Case Successfully Argues for Reversal of Trial Court’s Decision

July 8, 2023 | Peter Howard Tilem

Recently, a New York defendant successfully argued to reverse the lower court’s classification of his sex offender registration risk level in a sex offender case. The defendant was charged with and convicted of engaging in forcible sexual intercourse in 2012, and when he was eventually released from prison, the State suggested a risk level to put on the defendant’s sex offender registry. After the lower court accepted the State’s recommendation, the defendant appealed, and the higher court reversed the original decision. Generally, before a sex offender is released from incarceration an evidentiary hearing is held to determine the appropriate risk level and therefore the terms of the offender’s registration.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant engaged in forced sexual intercourse with a child when he was 19 years old. He spent five years in prison, and he registered for the sex offender registry when he was released. As part of that registry, the defendant knew the court would assign him a “risk level,” which would indicate to anyone looking him up on the registry how dangerous the court thought he might be.

The State suggested a risk level of 3 (the highest possible level) for the defendant, but the defendant thought his level should be lower than the State’s suggestion. During a hearing on the defendant’s risk level, the court granted the State’s request and assigned the defendant the number 3 on the sex offender registry. The defendant appealed.