NYC Drug Distribution Lawyer

First, drug sale charges in New York may depend in whole or in part upon the testimony of individuals who themselves have been arrested and charged with serious narcotics offenses and who are attempting, through their assistance with the police and prosecutors, to “work off” their charges. Under these circumstances, these “cooperating witnesses” may have very understandable reasons to exaggerate, fabricate or lie about an accused’s alleged involvement in a controlled substance sale case. For more than 30 years, Brooklyn drug distribution lawyer Fred Sosinsky has delivered text-book cross-examinations of such interested witnesses demonstrating to juries time and again the healthy skepticism they should have when evaluating such testimony.   Rather than rely on such witnesses’ sworn accounts, Fred has convinced many a jury to reject such testimony as unworthy of belief.   

Second, if the case is based upon police testimony alone, Fred Sosinsky has won not guilty verdicts for his clients in drug sale cases by showing that police officers, detectives, or other investigators who testified at trial were not honest in their accounts of what they claim to have seen or heard. Through meticulous preparation and skillful cross-examination of law enforcement witnesses, Fred Sosinsky has destroyed the credibility of prosecution witnesses and made reliance upon their sworn statements unreasonable if not impossible. 

Third, if there was a police search of either the accused or the accused’s vehicle or residence and drugs or other evidence of a narcotics sale were recovered, Fred Sosinsky will challenge the right of the police to have stopped, searched, and seized the evidence.  If the police had no warrant to conduct a search of a car, an apartment, garage, or storage unit, there may be successful challenges made to the search.  Even where law enforcement claims that they had an emergency justifying a warrantless search of a house or room, Fred may be able to show there was no such circumstance present. Fred can challenge a search which the police assert was conducted after acquiring consent by showing that such consent was merely acquiescence to a police show of force.  And even those searches carried out after police get a warrant may be litigated and evidence suppressed based on lack of probable cause and lies and misstatements contained in the warrant application. 

Fourth, there may be evidence that the police used unreasonable methods or pressure to encourage a person to engage in a narcotics sale when, absent such conduct or pressure, the person was unlikely to have done so.   In such cases, an entrapment defense may be viable and lead to an acquittal.  This is especially so if the accused has no history of engaging in similar conduct.  

Fifth, under the law in New York, if it can be shown that a person accused of a drug sale was merely accommodating or helping a drug purchaser to obtain drugs rather than assisting or aiding the actual seller of the drugs, there may be a successful “agency” defense to be asserted. Fred Sosinsky has won trials for clients in Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and the Bronx where there were significant questions raised as to the role and intent of his client in participating in a drug transaction. Working with the drug distribution lawyer New York City residents trust provides you the best opportunity for a positive outcome in your case.

Finally, a winning challenge to chain of custody or police laboratory work involved in a drug prosecution may be brought. Often enough,  reasonable doubts premised upon inconsistencies and errors in police paperwork may be raised about the drugs in question . It may also be the case that there is a material dispute about the make up or weight of a controlled substance.