New York Criminal Lawyers Blog

As a New York criminal defense attorney who regularly handles drug and narcotics cases, I have successfully defended PCP felony cases. New York's PCP laws make possession of minimal weights of PCP a felony.

However, our New York criminal defense attorney has successfully exploited a loop hole in the law and the inherent nature of PCP to achieve knockdowns of felony PCP cases to misdemeanors.

PCP is often used by pouring it on mint leaves. When New York police submit PCP for analysis, they often submit the mint leaves also. Then the lab techs usuallly weight the gross weight of the mint leaf and the PCP. However New York's felony drug laws, mandate that the PCP be over the felony weight limit. Since the lab techs weight the leaves, they cannot distinguish what weight is attributable to the PCP and what weight attributable to the the leaf.

Additionally, PCP evaporates very quickly. As a result, there is usually not enough PCP for retesting. Therefore, at best, the prosecutors in New York can only prove misdemeanor level possession. New York criminal defense lawyer Michael Joseph has won several felony hearings on PCP cases and obtained misdemeanor level dispositions without jail.

Often commercial trucks driver interstate and when crossing state lines are suddenly subject to different criminal laws. Often in the South and in Middle America, it is not illegal to possess a weapon. In fact commercial truckers often carry weapons for personal protection such as taser guns, mace pepper spray, butterfly knives, brass knuckles and even handguns.

Unfortunately New York has very stringent weapons laws and even unknowing violations can land a commercial trucker in jail. Michael Joseph is a New York criminal defense lawyer who has represented numerous interstate truckers in weapons charges. We have successfully achieved non-criminal resolutions for commercial truckers on several occassions.

Commercial truckers from out of state who enter New York are at risk for arrest when they possess a weapon. Usually a routine traffic stop will result in an arrest if a New York police officer observes a weapon in the cab. If you or your trucker employee has been arrested in New York for a weapons charge, call our New York criminal defense attorneys. All after hour voicemails are forwarded to New York criminal defense lawyer, Michael Joseph's cell phone. All calls will be returned.

Michael Joseph is a New York criminal defense attorney with extensive experience with weapons charges and regularly appears in the Courts of New York City (Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn), Westchester, (White Plains, Yonkers, Harrison, Port Chester, Ossining, Ardsley, Bronxville, Scarsdale, Elmsford and Tarrytown)

New York civil rights lawyer Michael Joseph won an important appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the federal Court of the Southern District of New York, Michael Joseph proved that two bronx detectives were guilty of malicious prosecution and the jury awarded almost 1,500,000 in damages. With the attorneys fees award and interest, the total award will be approximately $1,800,000.

The Court of Appeals made a groundbreaking decision which recognized that when detectives use confidential informants, who they know are not credible, they can be held liable for malicious prosecution. The Court of Appeals recognized that where police officers suborn perjury or engage in misconduct, the presumption of probable cause associated with a grand jury indictment is rebutted. The Court of Appeals also recognized that pressuring a witness to falsely implicate a defendant is sufficient to establish fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution.

New York civil rights lawyer and malicious prosecution attorney Michael Joseph has expanded the way in which malicious prosecution can be proven. Lawyers in New York who represent victims of malicious prosecution in New York should carefully consider this new rule and carefully explore the use of confidential informants.

Unfortunately, the police and detectives in New York, especially New York City ( Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan) use confidential informants who will say anything to get themselves out of criminal charges and jail. Unfortunately, these confidential informants often set up innocent and false implicate innocent people and cause criminal cases to be brought against them. Now New York detectives can be held liable when they use confidential informants who they should know are lying.

New York civil rights lawyer gives free consultations and proudly serves the New York City communities of the Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens as well as the communities of Westchester including White Plains, Yonkers, Ossining, Mamaroneck, Scarsdale, Hartsdale, Bronxville, Port Chester, Mount Vernon and Rye.

As a New York criminal defense lawyer in New York City and Westchester (White Plains), I have handled numerous weapsons charges. A new decision toughens the requirement of what officers must put in a criminal complaint to establish a knife is a gravity knife. Officers in New York often claim that every knife they find is a gravity knife to justify the charge. However, not every knife is a weapon for purposes of Penal Law.

§ 265.01 (1) outlaws possession of a gravity knife, among other weapons. The Penal Law defines a gravity knife as one with a blade that (1) "is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force" and that (2) "when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever or other device. This definition distinguishes gravity knives from certain folding knives that cannot readily be opened by gravity or centrifugal force. the law in New York requires that the blade lock in place automatically upon its release and without further action by the user distinguishing a gravity knife from, for example, a "butterfly knife," which requires manual locking.

The New York Court of Appeals recently held that a conclusory statement that an object recovered from a defendant is a gravity knife does not alone meet the reasonable cause requirement. The Court held that an arresting officer should, at the very least, explain briefly, with reference to his training and experience, how he or she formed the belief that the object observed in defendant's possession was a gravity knife. Where, the accusatory instrument contained no factual basis for the officer's conclusion that the knife was a gravity knife, as opposed to a pocket knife, craft knife or other type of knife that does not fit the definition of a per se weapon as defined in Penal Law article 265, the charge should be dismissed.

New York criminal defense lawyers who handle weapons charges should familiarize themselves with this case.

New York criminal defense lawyers who regularly handle DWI cases know that accidents are a common consequence of driving while intoxicated. An accident involving an injury dramatically increases the exposure of that a criminal defendant in New York faces.

In 2007, a new law was enacted in New York to toughen the punishment of New York criminal defendants who injure others. The New York Legislature created the new crime of aggravated vehicular assault. Penal Law § 120.04-a is similar to vehicular assault in the first degree except that it requires the People to prove that the defendant drove recklessly.

Aggravated vehicular assault is a class C felony punishable by an indeterminate prison term of up to 5 to 15 years 1. In addition, another provision was added to article 125 of the Penal Law enacting the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide, a class B violent felony punishable by a maximum determinate sentence of 25 years' imprisonment. The purpose of this new law was to prevent drunk drivers who maimed or killed another person could rely on his intoxication to mitigate criminal responsibility.

In a recent decision interpreting this law, the Court of appeal recognized that a defendant's getting intoxicated to be sufficient to establish the reckless disregard elements, must be close in time to the act. In other words, the people must prove that the reckless state of mind occurred close in time to the behavior which caused the injury.

As a New York criminal defense lawyer, I have successfully defended numerous criminal cases involving allegations of sex crimes. The New York Criminal Procedure Law gives any person charged with a felony the right to a felony hearing. At a New York felony hearing, also called a felony examination, the State of New York must prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a felony has occurred.

Demanding the felony hearing is an important method to test the case against a New York sex crimes lawyer's client and to cross examine the witnesses at an early stage. Normally in felony practice the New York criminal defense lawyer does not have the ability to question witnesses against the defendant until trial. The felony hearing allows the New York criminal defense lawyer handling a rape chare or other sex crime to gain valuable insight into the case at an early stage and better prepare for trial. Also the witnesses at this stage have not been prepared by the prosecutor, so the experienced criminal defense lawyer can pin down the witness' story before it has been coaxed by a prosecutor.

Also, the New York felony hearing forces the prosecutor into a contested hearing and often exposes weakness in the case early on. In a recent major felony sex crime case in Westchester, our New York sex crime lawyers successfully challenged the case at a felony hearing so successfully that the sex crime charges were voluntarily withdrawn by the prosecutor.

In a felony sex crime case in New York, which is headed for trial, the felony hearing is an important tool that every New York criminal defense attorney should utilize.

New York criminal defense lawyers must keep up with the changing times. Now a days people put tremendous amounts of information on their social media sites, such as facebook, twitter, high five and other sites.

Often complaining witnesses in criminal cases where there is a relationship involved such as assault, domestic violence and sex crimes often discuss their accusations on their personal sites. On more than one occasion, our New York criminal defense lawyers have found information on social media sites that directly contradicted the claims which the complaining witness made in sworn Court documents.

In one particular case involving allegations of domestic violence, assault and criminal contempt, our New York criminal defense lawyers found a blog where the complaining actually bragged about making false accusations of domestic violence to have her husband arrested. Our New York criminal defense lawyers won a complete acquital, with the prosectuor moving to dismiss all charges once our creative criminal defense lawyers exposed the blogs.

New York criminal defense lawyers should investigate the social media sites of the complaining witnesses and they may yield evidence that cannot be found anywhere else. Often little things can go a long way towards getting New York juries to render a not guilty verdict.

As a New York criminal defense lawyer in New York I have handled many domestic violence cases in New York City including the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Westchester, including White Plains, Yonkers, New Rochelle, Ossining, Port Chester, Rye, Greenburgh, New Rochelle, Mount Kisco, Mamaroneck, Irvington, Sleepy Hollow, Dobbs Ferry, Elmsford and Mount Vernon

Every New York and Westchester County criminal defense attorney, who has handled domestic violence cases where the complaintant curiously complains of years of prior acts of abuse to bolster their cases and get back at those they accused. In these circumstances, Judges often set high bail, even though these claims of abuse usually have no corroboration such as photos depicting injuries, prior complaints to the police or even medical records.

To prevent those accused with domestic violence from being convicted based upon unsupported allegations of prior abuse, the New York Appellate Court (Second Department) recently reversed an assault conviction arising out of domestic violence, where the Judge allowed the jury to hear testimony that the defendant previously abused the complaintant. Unfortunately juries are easily swayed by these often bogus claims of prior domestic abuse.

The Court clearly held that evidence of similar uncharged crimes as a general rule must be excluded from evidence because it may induce a jury to base a finding of guilt on collateral matters or may induce the jury to convict a defendant because of his past. If the only purpose of the evidence of prior acts is to show an alleged bad character or propensity towards crime, it is not admissible because there is a very real danger that the trier of fact will overestimate its significance of the evidence. Evidence of prior uncharged crimes is admissible if it establishes some element of the crime or if there is a recognized exception to the general rule such as intent, motive, knowledge, common scheme or plan, or identity of the defendant. The Prosecutor must identify some issue, other than mere criminal propensity, to which the prior evidence of abuse is relevant.

The Court clearly held that the mere fact that the defendant maintained his innocence of the crimes charged did not make identity an issue. Nor is enhancing or bolstering the credibility of the complainant, a recognized exception.

Criminal attorneys in New York City and Westchester that handle domestic violence cases should use this decision to move in limine and prohibit the introduction of this type of evidence in advance because once the cat is out of the bag, the prejudice cannot be cured.

Numerous counties including the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Westchester have set up Integrated Domestic Violence Parts. There are Courts which are in the New York Superior Court which hear only domestic violence cases. The same Judge often simultaneously acts as a Family Court, Criminal Court and often a Matrimonial (Divorce) Court.

Anyone arrested in White Plains, Yonkers and several other of the Westchester towns for domestic violence will be transferred to the Westchester Superior Court. Several defendants accused of misdemeanors challenged the jurisdiction and ability of the New York Superior Court from hearing misdemeanor cases involving domestic violence. The basis of the challenge was that local New York Courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanors involving domestic violence. The New York Court of Appeals held that since the New York Court system are the integrated Court system, the New York Superior Courts could continue to hear domestic violence cases.

Michael Joseph is a New York and Westchester criminal defense lawyer, with extensive experience in defending domestic violence cases and has successfully defended domestic violence cases in the Bronx, White Plains, Yonkers, Greenburgh, Elmsford, Scarsdale, New Rochelle, Westchester, the Bronx, Manhattan and Queens.

In general prosecutors have an obligation to disclose to New York criminal defense attorneys, information which tends to establish the defendants' innocence or undermine the State's case. Unfortunately the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Fuentes restricted the right of New York criminal defense lawyers right to obtain material which undermines the case against their clients.

This ruling will undoubtedly encourage Prosecutors to withold information that undermines the case against criminal defendants and completely undermining the intergrity of criminal trials. In this blogger's opinion, the New York Courts are misconstruing the federal caselaw.

Judge Jones, the dissent in Fuentes was correct. In general Appellate Courts essentially forgive a failure to disclose unless a document is " Material". Material means there must be "a reasonable possibility" that its disclosure would have affected the outcome of the trial. In Fuentas, the defendant was charged with rape and the defendant claimed that the sexual activity was consentual. A record which was withheld from the defense, i.e., a record of a psychiatric consultation which contained information concerning the condition of the victim during her examination following the incident. The victim expressed feelings of depression, suicide, family problems, mistreatment by her mother, withdrawal and substance abuse. Clearly, these raised issues as to the complaining witness' credibility and the fact that she had recently used drugs was relevant, but the Court to protect a conviction at all costs held that it wasn't material. The Court made this decision even though New York criminal Courts have routinely held that non-disclosure of psychiatric problems justifies a reversal.

Michael Joseph is a New York criminal defense lawyer with offices in Manhattan and White Plains.

New York criminal defense attorneys who represent clients with drug and gun cases often encounter issues concerning the validity of search warrants and the scope of the permitted search.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits warrantless entries by police unless the entry is authorized by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The New York and Federal Courts have required that a warrant must particularly describe the property and place to be searched. The Courts have recognized that if a warrant doesn't describe with particularity the place to be searched, it is void.

A warrant authorizing a search of an apartment house will usually be invalid if it fails to describe the particular apartment to be searched with sufficient definiteness to preclude a search of other units located in the building and occupied by innocent persons. In New York City boroughs of the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn and the urban Westchester communities of White Plains, Yonkers and New Rochelle, a large amount of the population lives in apartment houses and these issues become common ones. The description must be sufficiently detailed that the officer can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.

Recently, Courts have recognized that where the warrant is vague or ambiguous as to what it authorizes, the officers must suspend their search. Police Officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they rely on outside information to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant or simply guess.

Therefore New York criminal defense attorneys must continue to be diligent in analyzing the scope of warrants on behalf of our clients.

New York City criminal defense attorneys who handle gun charges must be aware of the New York City Gun offender registration law. New York City's Gun Offender Registration Act (often called GORA) imposes registration and reporting requirements on people who have been convicted in the New York City Criminal Courts of a "gun offense. The law is found at Administrative Code of City of NY § 10-601. GORA defines a gun offender as a person who is convicted of a gun offense. A gun offense is a conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree or criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

Under GORA, a gun offender shall register with the department at the time sentence is imposed on a form prescribed by the department. The gun offender is required to appear within forty-eight hours of his release, if they received a sentence of imprisonment. If the sentence does not include imprisonment, registration is required within 48 hours of when the sentence is imposed. New York City criminal defense attorneys need to make their clients aware of these regulations.

Gun offenders who receive probation must be especially careful. Failure to register is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars or imprisonment up to one year or both. The law also specifically states that it is not an excuse that the gun offencer did not receive any form to register. Therefore those that receive probation, could be violated for just failing to register, which is in and of itself a crime.

The Supreme Court upheld the ability of the government to "commit" sex offenders to insane asylums. Often defendants in sex cases are pressured to take plea bargains, even if they are not guilty and even if the claims are questionable.

This new ruling makes criminal defendants charged with sex crimes think seriously about whether they want to accept a plea bargain. The new danger is that a plea bargain is no longer a bargain because the defendant will not get what they are promised.

Normally, sex offenses invoke strong emotions and the New York Courts tend to set high bail. As a consequence, defendants in New York charged with sex crimes remain incarcerated while the cases are pending. Then after a defendant has spent significant time in jail, they are offered a deal where they spent a short additional period of time in jail and if they turn down the deal of facing even more time in jail waiting for trial.

Under these circumstances, even innocent defendants accept plea bargains to get out of jail. Now, defendants must be careful because they may not get the short sentence they are promised. After being promised a short period of jail, sex crime defendants are being put in insane asylums. Now New York criminal defense lawyers must advise their clients who are charged with sex crimes of these real dangers prior to accepting a plea.

Senator Chuck Schumer announced plans to announce a new bill that will provide for immigration reform that will allow illegal aliens to adjust their status. So there is hope for the 12 million people that are here illegally to finally get green cards and become permanent residents and citizens.

All illegal aliens who are present in the United States on the date the bill is passed will have to register or face imminent deportation. So if you are an illegal alien, you will have to start the process to get your papers (Green card) quickly or get deported.

Senator Schumer announced that there will be a family reunification provision, which will allow illegal aliens, to not only get green cards but to bring their families here to. So all illegal immigrants should consult with immigration attorneys as soon as possible.

Michael Joseph offers consultations for all illegal aliens in the New York and Westchester area, including Port Chester, White Plains, Ossining, New Rochelle, Greenburgh and Valhalla.

As a New York criminal defense lawyer who also practices criminal defense in Westchester towns with high immigrant populations such as White Plains, Port Chester, New Rochelle, Ossining and Mamaroneck, I have defended numerous undocumented aliens/immigrant who are charged with criminal offenses. One of the most common criminal charges for which undocumented immigrants are arrested is false or forged documents.

The more common charges are violations of New York State Penal Law, sections 170.25 (criminal possession of a forged instrument, 2nd degree) (Class D Felony) and 175.35 (Offering a false instrument for filing, 1st degree) (Class E felony).

New York criminal defense attorneys need to be familiar with the immigration consequences of these charges when discussing plea bargains. Each of these crimes probably constitute a "crime of moral turpitude," ("CIMT") as that term is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"),inasmuch as each contains as an element, an intent to defraud or deceive. Conviction of a crime of moral turpitude or admission by the alien of the commission of acts constituting the essential elements of such a crime, or an attempt of conspiracy to commit such a crime, renders an alien inadmissible, absent an applicable exception or waiver.

The "petty offense" exception to the crime of moral turpitude ground of inadmissibiility would not be available for a conviction under either section charged, even if the alien was otherwise eligible, as both crimes are classified as felonies.

The following list of plea bargain alternatives, and their immigration consequences, are set forth below in descending order of desirability:

1. adjournment in contemplation of dismissal-should avoid immigration problems

2. Plea to a violation (e.g. disorderly conduct,Penal Law, Section 220.40)-should avoid immigration problems.

3. Plea to offering a false instrument for filing, 2nd degree (Class A misdemeanor) (Penal Law, Section 175.30) is arguably not Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, as intent to defraud is not an element of the offense. Even if it is found to constitute Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, the petty offense exception available, if client has no other Crime Involving Moral Turpitudeat time applies for admission and a prison sentence in excess of six months is not imposed.

4.. Plea to criminal possession of a forged instrument, 3d degree (Class A misdemeanor)(Penal Law, Section 170.20)-constitutes CIMT. However, as crime is not punishable by term of imprisonment of more than one year (i.e. not felony), the petty offense exception to CIMT as ground of inadmissiblity should be available, provided that the client has no other CIMT at the time he applies for admission and a prison sentence of more than six months is not imposed re. this offense.

5. plea to attempted offering a false instrument for filing, 1st degree (Class A misd.) is arguably not Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, as intent to defraud is not an element of the offense. Even if it is found to constitute Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, the petty offense exception available, if client has no other Crime Involving Moral Turpitudeat time applies for admission and a prison sentence in excess of six months is not imposed.

It must always be remembered that ncarceration for any length of time will increase the chances that the ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcment) and the Department of Homeland Security will become aware of the alien's situation, and will institute immigration court proceedings for deportation against him.

New York criminal defense attorneys should always analyze and explain to the client the potential immigration consequences of a plea and if possible craft the plea to avoid immigration consequences.