Don't Consent: Call an Attorney
When confronted by law enforcement, Call the Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, 631-450-2515 (NYS) (954) 998-2918 (FLA).
In People v. Favors, Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 ), assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 ), and attempted aggravated sexual abuse in the third degree (§§ 110.00, 130.66  [a]). The Fourth Department affirms the decision based upon, among other things, the written consent to search.
Often times police “ask” the accused to consent to a search. Most people wish to comply with authority although it is not in their best interests. Whether facing a charge in Suffolk County or Buffalo County, New York, one must assert their rights, demand an attorney, rather than comply if one wishes to avoid this situation.
The Court here held that:
Contrary to defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations "notwithstanding minor inconsistencies in the testimony of the People's witnesses" (People v Sommerville, 159 AD3d 1515, 1516 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1121 ).
Whether its driving under the influence or an accusation of rape, ca.l an attorney. An attorney can assert one’s right to remain silent and the evidence obtained thereafter may not be used against the accused. An attorney helps the accused level the field – do not feel pressured, call the Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, 631-450-2515 (NYS) (954) 998-2918 (FLA). The results can make all the difference:
The Defendant in People v. Favors did not call an attorney but challenged the evidence, seeking suppression, at the trial level and here on appeal:
We reject defendant's contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized from his apartment. Contrary to defendant's assertion, his written consent to search his apartment was not rendered involuntary by the fact that he was seated in a police car in close proximity to several police officers when he signed the consent form (see People v Evans, 157 AD3d 716, 717 [2d Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1147 ; People v Fioretti, 155 AD3d 1662, 1663 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1104 ; see also People v McDonald, 173 AD3d 1633, 1634-1635 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 934 ). Moreover, at the time he signed the consent form, defendant was not handcuffed; was not under arrest; had not been subjected to threats, promises, or other coercive tactics; and had been informed of his right to refuse consent (see generally Fioretti, 155 AD3d at 1663).
In the matter of People v. Favors, and other high profile cases in particular (i.e. Harvery Weinstein), the ability to suppress evidence or assert one’s fifth amendment rights is vital at the outset:
Defendant argues that County Court erred in precluding him from introducing evidence concerning a pair of underwear recovered from the crime scene. Defendant sought to introduce such evidence in order to highlight the fact that his DNA was not found on the underwear. We agree with defendant that the court erred in invoking the Rape Shield Law (CPL 60.42) to preclude the evidence inasmuch as the absence of defendant's DNA from the underwear did not constitute "[e]vidence of a victim's sexual conduct" (id.). We nevertheless agree with the court's alternative rationale that the evidence was irrelevant inasmuch as the underwear did not contain DNA from either the victim or defendant. Thus, the evidence had "no logical connection" to any issue in the case (People v Bent, 160 AD2d 1176, 1178 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 937 ).
People v. Favors can be accessed here. Call the Law Offices of Cory H. Morris, 631-450-2515 (NYS) (954) 998-2918 (FLA) for any criminal/addiction matters, appeals, accidents, injuries and accountability matters.