Ask Me Help Desk - Criminal Law > Upcoming trial CPL 220.16 (1) & (12)

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvyrkez

I wonder if you can petition the court to get a new lawyer? I would call the clerks office asap. Let them know your concerns. My sister got a new one, but we aren't in NY, and hers were DUIs. Guilty or not, how does that make for a fair trial???

DUI's and a felony possession with intent to sell are wildly different scenerios.

What do you mean "make for a fair trial"? A new attorney in the posters case would be another PD as he stated he has no money for a private attorney.

The poster is upset as he was caught after not being caught for 9 years and now has to face the music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvyrkez

I wonder if you can petition the court to get a new lawyer? I would call the clerks office asap. Let them know your concerns. My sister got a new one, but we aren't in NY, and hers were DUIs. Guilty or not, how does that make for a fair trial???

OP has been advised how to request new counsel. I don't know if he's followed any of that advice. The Clerk's Office is not how new counsel is assigned.

DUI's are very different from felony possession with intent to sell.

How does what make for a fair trial? I don't know what you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

DUI's and a felony possession with intent to sell are wildly different scenerios.

What do you mean "make for a fair trial"? A new attorney in the posters case would be another PD as he stated he has no money for a private attorney.

The poster is upset as he was caught after not being caught for 9 years and now has to face the music.

Twinkiedooter, I really appreciate your input, that is why I posted the question here to receive constructive feed back and hopefully some guidance that I can actually use. What I would like to ask now is what are you online for? So far all I've seen you do is provide your twisted perception of what is being shared. I'm not going to say that I'm not upset about being arrested. I'm more upset at the fact that I'm about to be railroaded, if this is how the justice system has to obtain convictions in this manner then wow that says a lot about the society that we now live in. What you should start worrying about is the other 65% of the incarcerated population that hits the streets after having been railroaded and are now left with very few options as far as trying to re-enter society and start anew, I'm quite sure You'll sing a different tune if you were to ever meet one of those type of guys. I'm very proud of what I've accomplished in the 9 yrs, it took a lot for me to continue striving to do right each day when there are people like you who don't know what it is to walk in our shoes but feel that you have all the answers and unfortunately are in such positions that hinder guys like me from moving forward. Please keep your comments to yourself if you don't have anything useful or constructive to say.

Respectfully submitted

Quote:

Originally Posted by eliquest

Twinkiedooter, I really appreciate your input, that is why I posted the question here to receive constructive feed back and hopefully some guidance that I can actually use. What I would like to ask now is what are you online for? So far all I've seen you do is provide your twisted perception of what is being shared. I'm not going to say that I'm not upset about being arrested. I'm more upset at the fact that I'm about to be railroaded, if this is how the justice system has to obtain convictions in this manner then wow that says alot about the society that we now live in. What you should start worrying about is the other 65% of the incarcerated population that hits the streets after having been railroaded and are now left with very few options as far as trying to re-enter society and start anew, I'm quite sure You'll sing a different tune if you were to ever meet one of those type of guys. I'm very proud of what I've accomplished in the 9 yrs, it took alot for me to continue striving to do right each day when there are people like you who don't know what it is to walk in our shoes but feel that you have all the answers and unfortunately are in such positions that hinder guys like me from moving forward. Please keep your comments to yourself if you don't have anything useful or constructive to say.

Respectfully submitted

I would suggest that you read the rules for posting. You have absolutely no right to demand who does or does not have anything "useful" to say to you and you respond only to the "feel good" posts, not the posts which are giving you legal information.

As far as your statistics and percentages and all the rest of that - I have no idea where you get this info.

Perhaps you would be happier on a message board - which this is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

OP has been advised how to request new counsel. I don't know if he's followed any of that advice. The Clerk's Office is not how new counsel is assigned.

DUI's are very different from felony possession with intent to sell.

How does what make for a fair trial? I don't know what you mean.

Yes, I have been following the advice given. I was informed that I could make a verbal request directly to the Judge stating why I felt that I needed a new lawyer. I presented the reasons that I originally stated when I first asked to have this lawyer removed from my case and I also included the reasons that have arisen since then. My request was denied, I start picking the jury tomorrow. I really appreciate everything that everyone has contributed, Thank you very much! I shall continue to fight because NO one has the authority to break the law to enforce the law, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly how to go about it but I'm a quick learner and I have only one area of interest so if I do have to serve time, I'll have time to learn what I need to defend myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eliquest

Yes, I have been following the advice given. I was informed that I could make a verbal request directly to the Judge stating why I felt that I needed a new lawyer. I presented the reasons that I originally stated when I first asked to have this lawyer removed from my case and I also included the reasons that have arisen since then. My request was denied, I start picking the jury tomorrow. I really appreciate everything that everyone has contributed, Thank you very much! I shall continue to fight because NO one has the authority to break the law to enforce the law, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know exactly how to go about it but I'm a quick learner and I have only one area of interest so if I do have to serve time, I'll have time to learn what I need to defend myself.

If you serve time it'll be too late to defend yourself. I think you're mistaken about the new Attorney part. excon said (loud and clear) to write a letter, send copies. You posted that you were doing exactly that. Now you verbally asked for new counsel (thus pretty effectively alienating present counsel)?

What are you facing time-wise? What have they offered? Or haven't they - ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I think you are too hung up on the details to see the whole picture here.

The Court-appointed Attorney is right. You can't just say, "I don't want you to represent me any more" and expect him/her to skip Court and see what happens next. He/she has to be removed/excused from representing you and you have to have somone else in his/her place. The Judge is most probably NOT going to allow you to represent yourself (and if you do, you're quite frankly a fool) so your criticism of that portion of this matter is unwarranted.

As far as whether or not it was a legal arrest based on good information from an informant - the informant said you had drugs (and whether or not he said to protect his own tail is between you and him). Bottom line - he said you had drugs, you did have drugs. So in my eyes it's a good informant and there were grounds to at least detain you.

I don't know how many people were walking out of your building but based on information from the informant, they stopped one - you. The search wasn't occasioned by your nationality - it was occasioned by information, correct information, from the informant.

And for the record I think snitches are low lifes.

I have no idea what you mean by a visual body cavity search - this seems to be a contradiction in terms. Maybe it's language I've just never come across before.

You said something to the effect that this not real, "this is for personal use" to the Police? This will be interpreted as "protect your own tail." As far as your friend who is going to testify that you "and him were going to "party" later - I trust he is coming to Court with an Attorney because he's going to be the next arrest.

You've ONLY been arrested in the past 9 years for public urination, possession of drug residue in a bill, smoking pot in public, all misdemeanors and you think this is a good criminal history? Granted you aren't a serial killer but you appear to have learned nothing from "only" misdemeanors.

I would also skip the "I'm bad now but I'll be worse when I get out argument." What is accomplished by sending you to prison is you are off the street and out of the drug selling business - which the Police apparently believe is the business you are/were in.

I'm a little surprised that you were immediately terminated from your employment. What does your Attorney say about that?

And as far as addressing your problem - it looks like you've had several opportunities over the years and look at it as "only" a few arrests. Now they have your undivided attention. If you aren't willing/able to "address" your problem, why is it the job of the State to "address" it?

All right, I filed a motion several months ago requesting that The Court-appointed Attorney be reassigned, the judge stated that he'll give us two weeks to work it out, when we returned to court nothing was worked out except for the fact that I have a letter from the lawyer lying to me about making the time to go over the case with me and inform me of his defense strategy, which never took place. I started to write him letters detailing the increasing number of questions the would form after each court appearance, The fact that I wanted various documents to prepare myself and my defense so that way I could avoid a trial by ambush. Which is exactly what is taking place.

Now as far as whether the arrest was legal, the whole matter was blown out of proportion based nationality because I've lived in some part of New York State most of my life and There is no way that you're going to tell me that if I were of a different nationality the cops would have conducted the arrest as they did. The information came from a person that has never given information before, so to the best of my knowledge the officers should have needed more information to give his information substance. When I walked out of my building I walked about 30- 40 feet to a intersection to cross the street when undercover officers jumped on me, they didn't identify themselves and never stated that they were detaining me, they arrested me and had me all roughed up, then conducted a search that revealed the drugs concealed within my pants pocket. Again to the best of my knowledge, what is found after an unlawful arrest doesn't justify the arrest. Correct me if I'm wrong. A Mapp Hearing was ordered and I was sent to a different judge for the hearing, who ruled the search was incident to a lawful arrest based on the (CI) testimony, which was conducted in a closed court where neither I nor my lawyer was allowed to be present, the lawyer composed 14 questions at the moment that the judge ordered me to re-appear to hear her decision.

To clarify what I meant by Visual Body Cavity Search, while I was being held on a public street One officer put on rubber gloves and took my pants down, inspected my anal cavity and groin area. Again which to the best of my knowledge is a 4th amendment violation, rendering whatever is found as fruit from the poisonous tree, inadmissible. But the lawyer omitted this from his description of events in his omnibus motion, when I filed an amendment to the omnibus motion he hid it from the court and told me to have faith in him because it was an issue that he wanted to pursue during cross examination of the detective, But never did, until I spoke up in court during the hearing, an then he only skirted around it with two questions and left it alone.

I'll Have to finish responding in a little while I have a meeting to attend.

I've addressed the rest of this once. As far as the arrest and whether the informant was reliable or not - you have absolutely no idea how long this person was an informant. He said you had drugs. You were stopped. You did have drugs. That's about all that it takes to be reliable.

If you feel this is a nationality issue, have you contacted the ACLU?

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said to a young whippersnapper lawyer who injected the word "justice" one too many times into his oral argument before the Court: "I must remind you, young man, that this is a court of law, not a court of justice."

I think Judy hit the nail on the head a long time ago when she said you keep worrying about the little details and fail to see the overall picture here.

As far as you getting railroaded, I am sure that your jury will be able to see or not see your case in terms of what laws were supposedly broken in order to arrest you. It would be totally different if you did not have any drugs in your pocket when you were arrested and the drugs were planted on you - then you could holler and stamp your feet that you are being railroaded. Now that would be railroaded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said to a young whippersnapper lawyer who injected the word "justice" one too many times into his oral argument before the Court: "I must remind you, young man, that this is a court of law, not a court of justice."

I think Judy hit the nail on the head a long time ago when she said you keep worrying about the little details and fail to see the overall picture here.

As far as you getting railroaded, I am sure that your jury will be able to see or not see your case in terms of what laws were supposedly broken in order to arrest you. It would be totally different if you did not have any drugs in your pocket when you were arrested and the drugs were planted on you - then you could holler and stamp your feet that you are being railroaded. Now that would be railroaded.

I'm working on the "fact" that on a public street the Officer put on rubber gloves, pulled down his pants and underwear and inspected his anal cavity and groin area. And the Attorney doesn't think this is important or an invasion of privacy or illegal.

Instead we're back to whether the informant was credible and whether it's a biased search due to race or religion or something.

Then there's the whole filing a motion to ask for new counsel "months ago" but asking how to get new counsel a week ago.

Something doesn't make sense here -

I agree with you Judy that something is not right here as well.

It seems that the issues the OP raised about were, in fact, visited by the Court and already ruled on. He can't go back and change these rulings because he does not like them. CI's testimony allowed. Search allowed. Supposedly inappropriate search allowed. Replacement of attorney - given 2 weeks and he didn't change attorney.

I am really skeptical about the police not immediately identifying themselves. I'm not buying this part. They always yell "Police, don't move or such and such dept stay where you are".

Also the part about the surrounding buildings still having video tapes of his alleged arrest some 5 1/2 months later. If it was that public of an arrest where he had his pants down and his privates exposed, don't you think this would have hit the newspapers? It would have made the Hall case look pretty tame in comparison.

Frankly, on literally the eve of trial and jury selection he can't do much of anything now.