New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

October 11, 2009

Can Your Inability to Urinate be the Basis of a DWI (VTL 1192.3) Refusal?

Many New York criminal defense attorneys have handled cases with unique, if not “funny” sets of facts. While no criminal accusation is a laughing matter, criminal defense attorneys always have to be ready to handle situations that fall outside every day parameters. In the context of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192.3, one criminal defense lawyer and the court were confronted with such a situation. In that case, People v. Krivak, a Rockland County, New York Village Justice addressed the following issue: Is one’s inability to urinate for the purpose of submitting to a chemical test a legal “refusal.”

Briefly, and by way of background, New York permits the prosecution of individuals who are deemed to be driving while intoxicated even if their BAC is not recorded. This offense is often referred to as “Common Law DWI” and is found in the Vehicle and Traffic Law under section 1192.3 Police and prosecutors establish this crime by asserting that the accused had certain characteristics such as watery and blood-shot eyes, the smell of alcohol, slurred speech and unsteadiness on their feet. If a person refuses to take a chemical test to ascertain if and the amount of alcohol in their system, their failure to do so may legally be construed as a refusal. This refusal can then be used at a trial as evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

October 8, 2009

Escort Ring Nailed in the Burbs: Westchester County DA Busts Up “High End” Prostitution Crew

by Jeremy Saland

As long as the world’s oldest profession is profitable, the police and prosecutors will continue to go on the offensive to busting up and tearing down escort and prostitution rings. Unfortunately for Kenneth Fuina and Shawana Smith, they were the targets of such an investigation by the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office that spanned two years. Now, Fuina and Smith are sitting in a White Plains jail cell on $100,000 bail each and facing the charge of Promoting Prostitution in the Third Degree, a class “D” felony punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in state prison. A third defendant, Genevieve Peattie, was released from jail but is charged with a misdemeanor of Prostitution.

According to reports, it is alleged that Kenneth Fuina and Shawana Smith ran a website for high end call girls charging between $600 to $2000 for one or more hours of “GFE” or a full service sexual encounter otherwise known as “Girl Friend Experience.” The girls were recruited and their services were offered through a website, www.discreetcompanions.moonfruit.com. Once a client contacted Fuina or Smith, it is alleged that the girls were sent out to hotels in Westchester cities such as White Plains, Rye, Rye Brook and Tarrytown.

October 8, 2009

Brooke Astor’s son Anthony Marshall Convicted in Grand Larceny and Forgery Scheme: Manhattan Judge to Sentence Defendant to Mandatory State Prison

by Jeremy Saland

Convicted of Grand Larceny in the First Degree in Manhattan Supreme Court, a New York trial jury has sealed Anthony Marshall’s fate. Prosecutors called over seventy witness during the course of the trial that addressed whether or not Marshall was involved in forging Brooke Astor’s signature and stealing her fortunate as she suffered from dementia and lived in squalor. In the end, the jury found that Marshall had bilked his own mother out of millions of dollars.

Unfortunately for Marshall, a conviction for Grand Larceny in the First Degree is an enormous defeat especially for an 85 year old man. By law, the minimum sentence he faces will be 1 to 3 years in state prison while the maximum Marshall could face is 8 and 1/3 to 25 years. If Marshall had been acquitted of this charge and “merely” convicted of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Forgery in the Second Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and other crimes on the indictment, he would have not faced mandatory prison. While we certainly can only speculate what a judge might sentence and individual to, by law Marshall could have gotten nothing more than a conditional discharge or even no probation and up to 1 and 1/3 to 4, 2 and 1/3 to 7 or 5 to 15 depending if he were convicted of the “E,” “D,” or “C” felonies respectively. Compounding an already ugly case, Marshall still faces a pending civil case.

October 7, 2009

13 People Indicted on 263 Counts of Fraud Related Crimes: 18 Month Investigation Between Brooklyn DA and Secret Service

by Jeremy Saland

After correctly speculating as to some of the possible charges, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office has issued a press release regarding today’s announcement that 13 people have been indicted for a wide ranging criminal enterprise that spanned states and countries. As I have noted in the past, criminal defense lawyers in New York are seeing more and more of these types of crimes being swept up in large scale investigations. This certainly will not be the last of such investigations and prosecutions.

According to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office:

October 7, 2009

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes Announces Multi-National Identity Theft Bust: Ring Alleged to Run Credit Car, Real Estate and Insurance Fraud Scams

by Jeremy Saland

According to reports, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has announced the indictment of 13 individuals with ties to Russia and Ukraine. The accused are alleged to have run or taken part in a multi-national credit card scheme where they purchased stolen credit card numbers online, crafted fake credit cards and then made purchases in the United States. These individuals are also alleged to have taken the scheme further into the arena of insurance fraud and real estate fraud. Working with the Secret Service, the take-down also netted some high-end automobiles including a Bentley, Mercedes and a Land Rover.

Although there has been no press release, it is likely that these individuals face charges relating to Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and potentially Enterprise Corruption if there is an ascertainable structure in their “crew.”

October 7, 2009

NYC Criminal Defense Firm in the News: Jeremy Saland in LA Times Regarding David Letterman Extortion / Blackmail Case

by Jeremy Saland

The New York based criminal defense firm of Saland Law PC is once again in the news. Jeremy Saland, one of our top criminal defense attorneys and a lawyer who previously served as a prosecutor in Manhattan, was sought out by the Los Angeles Times for his legal insight into the David Letterman extortion and blackmail case.

The Los Angeles Times asked Mr. Saland to comment on Mr. Halderman’s possible defense alleging that Mr. Letterman sexually harassed his female employees. Citing New York Penal Law section 155.15(2), Mr. Saland acknowledged that it may be relevant if done in narrowly crafted way. Relevant, however, does not mean it will necessarily be a winning argument.

October 5, 2009

Disorderly Conduct in NY: Reckless Behavior Sufficient to Establish Violation

by Jeremy Saland

Just about every NY criminal defense attorney has either represented a client charged with Disorderly Conduct or worked out a disposition where Disorderly Conduct was offered in lieu of a top count plea. In the criminal courts of New York City, “Disorderly Conduct” can be heard throughout the hallways and courtrooms before the judge bangs his gavel to start the day until the last cases are called in the evening.

Recently, a NY County Criminal Court judge addressed Disorderly Conduct in denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss. In People v. Derrick Diaz, 2008NY062928, the complaint alleged that the police “observed the defendants yelling and screaming and behaving in a violent, tumultuous, and threatening manner, as follows: pushing at police officers and causing a disturbance. Defendant’s [sic] conduct created a public disturbance/inconvenience in that it caused a crowd to gather, disruption of the normal flow of traffic, and people to express alarm.”

October 2, 2009

Extortion and Grand Larceny in New York: Your Criminal Defense & an Analysis of NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e), 155.30(6) and 155.40(2)

by Jeremy Saland

With the recent Extortion attempt of David Letterman by Robert “Joe” Halderman fresh in our minds, now would be a good time to share with my readers what constitutes Extortion under New York State law. As a New York criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor who supervised the investigation and prosecution of multiple individuals charged with the Extortion of an NBA All Star, I am intimately familiar with Extortion as it is defined under New York Penal Law section 155.05(2)(e) and under Grand Larceny in the Fourth and Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.30(6) and 155.40(2) respectively.

Before proceeding with an analysis of the Extortion statute, it is important to note that Extortion is specifically defined under section 155.05(2)(e) of the New York Penal Law. Like larceny by trick, false promise and common law larceny, Extortion is a means by which a larceny is perpetrated. According to NY Penal Law 155.05(2):

October 2, 2009

David Letterman Extortion Attempt: Robert “Joe” Halderman Charged with Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree

by Jeremy Saland

There certainly is no proper or correct way to extort someone, but don’t ever take a check…especially one that was specifically written to bounce once deposited. Unfortunately for Robert “Joe” Halderman, nobody told him that the 2 million dollar check he received from David Letterman was the set up for a punchline that led to his arrest. If convicted of Grand Larceny in the First Degree by Extortion, the television funny man could have the last laugh as Mr. Halderman watches Mr. Letterman in syndication for up to the next 5 to 15 years in state prison.

Having been a Manhattan prosecutor for 7 years and the lead prosecutor on the extortion attempt of an NBA All Star, I have handled the exact same case under similar facts. Instead of individuals seeking a multi-million dollar check in exchange for a video of the basket ball player, Mr. Halderman sought 2 million dollars for “screenplay treatment” and to keep a years old fling with a staffer secret.

September 28, 2009

Bus Driver Arrested in Queens with Kids on Bus: Charged with Reckless Endangerment & DWAI

by Jeremy Saland

The Queens County District Attorney’s Office has announced the arrest of a bus driver charged with DWAI (VTL 1192.1), Reckless Endangerment (NY Penal Law 120.20) and Attempted Endangering the Welfare of a Child (NY Penal Law 110/260.10) after an assistant principal at the school allegedly noticed the smell of alcohol on the bus driver’s breath. It is further alleged that the bus driver, Lakhram Omwathatth, was unsteady on his feet and had watery-bloodshot eyes. Making matters significantly worse and compounding an already terrible situation, it is alleged that five students were on the bus waiting to be driven from school. That being said, it appears that Mr. Omwathatth had driven the bus to school without the students and was arrested prior to leaving with them. Mr. Omwathatth blew a .037 on the intoxilyzer, well below the legal limit. He is further alleged to have stated that he consumed Nyquil and a “non-alcoholic Dr. Pepper.”

I don’t think that anyone could disagree with District Attorney Richard Brown’s statement regarding the importance of protecting children. DWI is one of the most serious crimes with horrific consequences to innocent victims. Moreover, DWI is a preventable crime with some common sense and responsibility. However, regardless of how horrendous the situation may be, i.e, the presence of children in a school bus, the prosecution still has the legal burden of proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. In this particular case, I believe the prosecution has stretched to find an applicable “A” misdemeanor to charge the defendant with.