Firearm Possession Ban Reinstated for Anyone Convicted of A Misdemeanor Crime Involving Domestic Violence
The United States Supreme Court today in United States v. Hayes reinstated the prohibition on possession of a firearm by a person convicted of “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” found in U.S.C §922(g)(9). In doing so, the Court held that although a domestic relationship must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in a U.S.C. §922(g)(9) firearms prosecution, it does not need to be a element of the predicate offense. The predicate offense need only involve the use or attempted use of physical force or the threatened use of deadly weapon against a spouse or other domestic victim to qualify as a crime of domestic violence. For example, in New York a person convicted of assault in the third degree would be banned from possessing a firearm if the victim of the assault was their spouse or some other domestic victim.
Cornell University Law School LIIBulletin
Reply Brief For The United States
In People v. Coldiron [2008 Slip Op. 772] the Appellate Division Fourth Department concluded that the jury’s possession of a printed copy of the CJI charge on assessorial liability obtained off the internet by one of the jurors without permission of the court or the parties warranted a reversal of the conviction. 
In People v. Weaver, [2008 Slip Op. 101104] the Appellate Division Third Department ruled that the NY Constitution does not preclude the warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of a motor vehicle or retrieval of its data in connection with an ongoing police investigation. 
In People v. Neptune, [Slip Op. 04731] , the Appellate Division Second Department ordered a new trial for the defendant who was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree because the court over defense counsel’ objection repeatedly defined the term ‘Recklessly” in a manner that substantially deviated from the Penal Law definition and from the pattern criminal jury instructions. 
In People v. Carthew [Slip Op 50879], the Appellate Division- 2nd Department affirmed the dismissal of an information charging the defendant with criminal contempt in the second degree because the factual portion of the information failed to allege that the defendant was served with a copy of the order of protection, that he was present in court when it was issued or that he signed the order of protection. The Court also noted that a certified copy of the order of protection was not attached to the information.
In People v. Gary White [Slip No. 38] the New York Court of Appeals in a split decision held that under the circumstances of this case post-Miranda statements were not required to be suppressed even though the defendant had been subjected to a period of pre-Miranda custodial interrogation without a pronounced break before the commencement of the post-Miranda interrogation. The circumstances included: the pre-Miranda custodial interrogation lasted no more than five minutes, the defendant first gave an exculpatory alibi after being read the Miranda warnings; the defendant made no incriminating statements before the Miranda warnings were read; there was a fifteen to twenty minute period of small talk followed by the defendant being allowed to smoke a cigarette and drink a soda just before the reading of the Miranda warnings, the defendant freely indicated his willingness to speak; the defendant acknowledged he understood his rights ; and the defendant signed a Miranda card before making any substantive statements.
People v. Williams [2008 NY Slip Op 100317]
People v. Balram, __AD3d __ , [3rd Dept. 01/10/08] 
