Criminal matters in New York State are governed by a statute of limitations.  The time within which a criminal action may be brought is the statute of limitations.  Most of the time the statute of limitations refers to the time allowed to bring a civil action however, the similar legal theory also applies to the prosecution of a criminal offense. 

Generally the more serious the crime the longer the prosecution has to bring the charges.  In the case of Class A felonies, such as Murder, there is no limitation on when the action may be commenced.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

• Class A Felony — No time limit, CPL 30.10(2)(a)
• Other Felonies — 5 years, CPL 30.10(2)(b)
• Misdemeanor — 2 years, CPL 30.10(2)(c)
• Violations — 1 year, CPL 30.10(2)(d)

Generally after a crime is committed charges must be filed within the above time frames. CPL 1.20(17)

Speedy Trial

Usually in a criminal matter charges are filed with the Court almost immediately.  However, an accused has a right to a speedy trial once the charges are filed with the Court.  The United States Constitution (6th Amendment) and by law in New York State require a speedy trial.  The laws governing speedy trial are some of the most complex in all criminal law however this overview should give you a good understanding of the speedy trial laws in New York State. 

These laws are litigated in every county including Westchester County, Orange County, Putnam, Rockland and Dutchess County.  In local criminal courts such as White Plains City Court, County Court, Yonkers, Greenburgh, Bedford, North Castle, Mount Vernon, Newburgh, Goshen, New Windsor, Southeast, Kent and other similar Courts all keep records of speedy trial time.   

The right to a speedy trial is broken down into two areas a Constitutional Speedy Trial Right and a Statutory Speedy Trial Right.

Constitutional Speedy Trial

The constitutional speedy trial looks to the length of time between the commencement of the action against the defendant and the commencement of trial.  A due process argument may be made if an inordinate amount of delay has occurred between stages in a criminal matter such as between commission of the offense and arrest.  This applies to all offenses.

To usually obtain dismissal of a criminal matter on constitutional speedy trial grounds in New York State any argument must include a showing that the accused has been prejudiced by the prosecutions failure to prosecute the charge in question.  If the delay is significant (usually a number of years) prejudice need not be shown unless there was justification for the delay (People v Guzman, 227 AD2d 219).

The Court will consider five factors to determine dismissal on Constitional speedy trial grounds.  Those factors include:

1. The length of the delay
2. The reason for the delay
3. The degree of actual prejudice to the defendant
4.  The seriousness of the underlying charge
5. the extent of any pretrial incarceration

See, People v Taranovich 37 NY2d 442 and People v Vernace 96 NY 2d 886

Statutory Speedy Trial under CPL 30.30

CPL 30.30 the speedy trial statute requires the People announce their readiness for trial within a certain amount of time after the action has been commenced against the defendant.  The important dates are the date of the commencement of the action and the date on which the prosecution announces readiness for trial.

The trial does not actually have to begin but if the people do not or can not announce readiness the case will be dismissed as a violation of the statutory speedy trial law.

CPL 30.30 —  Time restrictions

• Felony — 6 months
• A Misdemeanor — 90 Days
• B Misdemeanor — 60 Days
• Violation — 30 days
• Traffic Infraction — N/A

There are excludable periods of time that will stop the speedy trial clock and the prosecution will not be charged with the delay.  Some of the excludable time includes:

• Reasonable period of delay attributable to other proceedingsconcerning the defendant such as a competency proceeding, demands to produce, pre-trial motions, appeals. 
• Adjournments at the request of the defendant or consented to by the defendant.

• The defendant is absent or unavailable, such as a bench warrant or in jail in another jurisdiction.

• Time that the defendant is without counsel.

The Best Speedy Trial Defense

The best speedy trial defense involves a calculation of time starting with the date of the alleged crime itself and determining what time is chargeable to the prosecution as a violation of either statutory or due process rights.

Some cases may be dismissed in court others require a written motion.  A clear understanding of the various time periods is required.

In Westchester County Court (White Plains) a handgun was suppressed with the consent of the District Attorney due to an admitted illegal search of an automobile by the Rye City Police Department.  The two felony charges for possession of a weapon were dismissed after indictment.

Rye City Police Search of a Vehicle

In the City of Rye a motorist was stopped for making an illegal right turn on a red light (traffic infraction).  After the vehicle was stopped the driver was found to have a suspended driver’s license (VTL 511) and asked to exit the vehicle.  The driver was handcuffed, placed under arrest and seated in the rear of the officer’s police vehicle.  After the arrest the officer began the search of the client’s vehicle and discovered a gym bag next to the driver’s seat.  The officer opened the bag and found gym clothes and a loaded, defaced, handgun wrapped in a sweatshirt.  The defendant was arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (VTL 511).

The Illegal Search

After an investigation by criminal defense trial attorney, Andrew Proto it was determined that the police had no reasonable cause to search the vehicle.  There could be no safety concerns for the officer since the client was handcuffed in the back of the police vehicle.  The District Attorney claimed that the officer was simply inventorying the contents of the vehicle as the vehicle was about to be impounded and no illegal search was conducted.  However, the officer admitted that he had not searched the bag pursuant to an inventory search but for officer safety.

Motion to Dismiss the Criminal Possession of a Weapon Charge and to Suppress the Handgun

In the United States Supreme Court case of Arizona v Gant _ US_, WL 1045962 (2009), the Supreme Court overturned the search of defendant Gant’s car after he was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car.  Criminal Defense trial attorney Andrew Proto, argued the Rye City Case had the same facts as in Gant and any inventory search by the Rye City Police Department was an after thought by the police once the handgun was discovered. 

Suppression

Once the gun was suppressed on consent of the District Attorney the client was no longer facing a minimum five year sentence in state prison.  The best criminal defense is to aggressively defend serious charges such as criminal possession of a weapon and look for any violation of one’s constitutional rights.

The criminal defense trial attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP regularly appear in the Courts of Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess and Rockland Counties.  If you or someone you know is facing a serious charge contact our office.  We look to every defense possible and pursue the best criminal defense to protect your rights.  We are always available for a FREE Consultation.

In order for urine (blood) test to be admitted at trial, prosecutors must present testimony from the lab technicians who preformed the tests. 

In People v Levy, 2008 NY Slip Op 51878(U), the prosecution presented testimony from the police officers who handled the sample before it was mailed to an out of state lab for testing, the lab employee who received the sample and placed a portion of it into test tubes, and a supervisor from the lab testified.  The lab supervisor testified about the normal procedures the lab follows when it receives and tests a urine sample, and he determined, after reviewing the lab’s 300 page litigation package that tests were preformed on the defendant’s sample. 

The court concluded that the results of the DWI urine tests were NOT admissible.

The prosecution failed to present testimony regarding the chain of custody for the test tube samples.  A witness was needed with personal knowledge about the tests preformed.  The Court also refused to admit the lab’s litigation package under the business exception rule.

This summer I successfully defended a DWI blood reading of .24 in White Plains.  I was able to have the blood results suppressed on a similar basis as above. 

In my case the prosecution failed to present evidence that a physician or someone under a physician’s supervision drew the blood. 

The White Plains Court also refused to admit evidence of the blood sample results under the business exception rule in that ruling that live testimony is needed.  The result was a not guilty jury verdict.

Andrew Proto