New York Criminal Lawyers Blog

All New York criminal lawyers must be thoroughly familiar with the New York Criminal Procedural Law provisions concerning when a defendant facing New York criminal charges may be released after bail has been set.

With a misdemeanor charge, under Criminal Procedural Law 170.70, a person who has been incarcerated because they are unable to make bail for more than five days, not including Sunday, must be released if an information has not been filed. In simple terms, that means that there must be sworn allegations based upon personal knowledge filed with the Court that meets all of the elements of the crime charged.

Common examples of defects which require a defendant to be released are the lack of a lab report in a drug case, the lack of a supporting deposition in an assault or criminal mischief case. Another example in a petit larceny or shoplifting case is the failure of the District Attorney to file an affidavit of the owner of the property.

The only exceptions where a defendant may be held in custody is where the defendant has consented or waived the defects or if the District Attorney can establish that there was good cause why the defendant should not be released. Under New York law, good cause must include a compelling fact or circumstance which precluded the District Attorney from establishing all of the elements of the offense.

For New York Criminal Defense Lawyers, insistence on speedy trial rights are a powerful defense strategy for weeding out baseless claims. If witnesses are shaky, they often will not appear for the grand jury which prevents the People from indicting an accused. We have aggressively pursued our client's speedy trial rights which has resulted in numerous dismissals in numerous questionable assault, gang assault and sexual assault cases in New York City and Westchester.

Criminal Procedural Law § 210.20(g) states in pertinent part that after arraignment upon an indictment, the superior court may, upon motion of the defendant, dismiss such indictment or any count thereof upon the ground that the defendant has been denied the right to a speedy trial. Criminal Procedural Law § 30.30(1)(a) states in pertinent part that a motion made pursuant to paragraph (g) of subdivision one of section 210.20 must be granted where the people are not ready for trial within six months of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a felony.

The six month period is generally determined by computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People's declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then adding to the result any postreadiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for an exclusion. People v. Cortez, 80 NY2d 201, 208, (1992).

Unless the defendant has consented, the preindictment period is wholly under the control of the People and there is nothing defendant can do to prevent or delay presentment of the case to the grand jury. People v. McCaffery, 78 A.D.2d 1003, 433 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dep't 1980). Therefore, unless a defendant consents to waive the speedy trial time, the entire pre-indicment time is chargeable to the People.Unlike the postreadiness delays, the absence of a valid indictment during this period is a circumstance that directly impaired their ability to proceed to trial. People v. Cortes, 80 N.Y.2d 201, 211 (1992). Once the defendant has made a showing of an unexcused delay greater than six months, the burden then shifts to the People to prove that any periods of that time should be excluded. People v. McCaffery, 78 A.D.2d 1003, 433 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dep't 1980).

The District Attorneys will sometimes try to have this time excluded by claiming that the uncooperative witnesses were unavailable. However, the Courts have narrowly construed exceptions which permit the People to exclude time under CPL 30.30 because the People's obligation to exercise due diligence to procure a witness before he/she becomes unavailable is strictly construed. People v. Mims, 587 N.Y.S.2d 536 (N.Y.Sup.1992).

Also, as a pre-requisite for the People to exclude time under C.P.L. § 30.30, it must be shown that the People have "exercised due diligence "to obtain " the presence of the witness. See CPL § 30.30(4)(g). Jurisprudence has recognized that in order to demonstrate due diligence, the People must undertake "credible, vigorous activity" to make the witness available. People v. Figaro, 245 A.D.2d 300 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.1997); People v. Salazar, 688 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y.Sup.,1999).

The mere unavailability of a witness, without more does not exclude the time from running against the People. People v. Barenzano, 875 N.Y.S.2d 822 ( N.Y.City Crim.Ct.,2008).There are no exceptional circumstances where the witnesses avoid cooperating for their own reasons. People v. Salazar, 688 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y.Sup. 1999).

Where a witness resides out of State, the Courts have found no exceptional circumstances where the People fail to make efforts to secure a material witness order or otherwise to secure the witness' attendance. People v. Salazar, 688 N.Y.S.2d 401 (N.Y.Sup. 1999). Likewise in People v. Meyers, 114 A.D.2d 861 N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1985), the Court held that the People did not demonstrate due diligence or exceptional circumstances where the witnesses were unwilling to testify before the Grand Jury because the People made no attempt to make the recalcitrant witnesses available. An example of taking definitive steps to secure the attendance of a reluctant witness was found in People v. Khan, 146 A.D.2d 806 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dep't 1989), where upon learning that the out of state witness was reluctant to testify, the People immediately prepared a material witness order, had it signed and forwarded it to the Florida State Attorney's Office.

As a White Plains Criminal Defense Lawyer I handle a fair amount of sex crimes in Westchester County. To successfully prosecute a sex crime, corroboration is required and normally an accusation without more is not sufficient to convict.

The Westchester County Police and some the local Police have become very aggressive in getting confessions. We have observed that the police are doing interviews in which they suggest that certain answers will help our clients, then they turn on a recording device. The initial promises and sometimes threats and practice sessions are not on the recording. We recently found one instance where the tapes themselves were edited and were missing information.

If you are arrested and facing sexual assault charges based on a taped confession in Westchester, it is advisable to have the tapes reviewed by a forensic professional as you may find discontinuities which will support a claim that the confession was obtained improperly.

We have also argued that when these issues arise, the defense has a right to the technical information concerning the making of the recording and the mechanics of the recording system. These new police tactics require Westchester criminal defense attorneys to be especially vigilant in handling cases where there was a taped statement.

Michael Joseph is a New York and Westchester criminal defense attorney who regularly defends sex cases in White Plains and New York City.

Defendants in the New York and Westchester Criminal Courts who had children in their vehicles while arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) or Driving Under the Influence (DUI) are being charged with endangering the welfare of a child. Our Westchester DWI Lawyers have aggressively fought these charges.

A recent line of cases in the New York Courts have held that merely having a child in a car when the operator has a blood alcohol level (BAC) above the legal limit (DUI) is not sufficient to establish endangering the welfare of a child.

Instead there must be actual, not theoretical or possible harm.

This is especially important because endangering the welfare of the child has serious collateral damage. For example it can trigger the involvement of social services and possibly a neglect proceeding.

Also if you are not a citizen, a conviction of endangering the welfare of a child can have negative consequences with immigration, possibly leading to deportation. It is important for lawyers to aggressively fight convictions of endangering the welfare of a child.

In New York, where a criminal charge for a felony results in a plea of guilty with a indeterminate sentence there is a required sentence of post release supervision (PRS). Many people who took plea bargains, were not advised of this and then served jail time for violation of the post release supervision, in addition to their original sentence. If you are charged with violating the terms of post release supervision, your New York Criminal Defense lawyer can make a motion to vacate the PRS part of the sentence.

The New York Court of Appeals recently decided that if a sentencing judge did not pronounce the sentence of post release supervision as part of the sentence, the New York State Department of Corrections cannot administratively impose it. In many of these cases,the Department of Corrections added the sentence, even though it was not pronounced as part of the original sentence.

Therefore a lawyer for the accused can make a motion to have the PRS vacated.

As a New York and White Plains Criminal Defense Lawyer, we see alot of cases involving petit larceny charges arising out of shoplifting. For a first time offender, we have had tremendous success in getting shoplifting charges dramatically reduced and in many cases resolved with adjournments in contemplation of dismissal.

However, we are starting to see a new trend where major department stores are writing threatening letters to our clients. They claim to be entitled to outrageous amounts of money because a person shop lifted in their store. This is probably due to the bad economy and stores looking to make money any way they can.

These stores are justifying their demands on the General Obligations Law 11-105. This law states as follows:

An adult or emancipated minor who commits larceny against the property of a mercantile establishment shall be civilly liable to the operator of such establishment in an amount consisting of:

(a) the retail price of the merchandise if not recovered in merchantable condition up to an amount not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars; plus
(b) a penalty not to exceed the greater of five times the retail price of the merchandise or seventy-five dollars; provided, however, that in no event shall such penalty exceed five hundred dollars.

The statute also makes a parent liable for the acts of a child.

The important thing to remember is this only gives the store the right to sue if the property is not recovered. In most cases, the property is recovered. Also, usually it is not worth it for the store to pay the court costs involved and spend time litigating, so they just send threatening letters and hope to scare the persons accused of shoplifting. This is a growing trend and we have seen stores in White Plains, Queens, Manhattan, Port Chester and the Bronx sending these letters. Our advise generally is to ignore them until you actually get Court papers served upon you. Otherwise the stores are usually bluffing.