Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog

http://www.mdattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAs a Maryland Criminal Attorney I am often hired by people who have made the very big mistake of trying to represent themselves in a criminal case. I have blogged about this topic in the past but I had a case today that vividly illustrates the peril one places oneself in by appearing in criminal court without an experienced, aggressive criminal defense attorney.

My client is a 53 year old mother and grandmother with absolutely no criminal record. She is the mother of another one of my clients so I had met her several times in the past. She was charged with witness intimidation by her estranged daughter in law and the ex-girlfriend of her son. In fact, the alleged witness intimidation occurred during the trial in which I successfully defended her son against assault charges filed by the ex-girlfriend. Essentially, she was accused of making a phone call in which she threatened the victim telling her that she better not come to court. She was also accused of standing in her way as she tried to enter the court house on the day of trial and nudging her as she walked by.

Continue reading "First Offender Represents Herself in Witness Intimidation Case and Goes to Jail" »

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney - Lawyers for the ACLU filed a report with the United Nations Committee to end Racial Discrimination yesterday stating that despite efforts by senior law enforcement and government officials to stop it, racial profiling still persists in this country. The Boston Globe reported on the story in today's edition.

The report claims that Asian Immigrants and immigrants from North Africa have been the targets of much of the racial profiling the latter group because they may be suspected of being Islamic terrorist. Latin Americans have also been targeted for possible immigration violations and African Americans were targeted because of suspected narcotics trafficking, according to the report. The Obama administration stated that it is opposed to racial profiling with exceptions for national security and border investigations.

The tremendous and unfair disparity between crack and powder cocaine in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is no more! For many years, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for offenses involving the possession or sale of crack cocaine were exponentially more severe than the guidelines for offenses involving only powder cocaine. For example, a defendant with no prior criminal record who possessed a kilo of crack cocaine would face a guidelines sentence of between 15 – 20 years without parole. That same defendant would face a sentencing range of between 5 – 6 years if he possessed a kilo of cocaine powder.

For years, criminal defense attorneys, interest groups, and even many federal judges objected to the disparity, noting that there was no rational basis to treat crack cocaine differently from powder cocaine. Statistics revealed that the disparity adversely affected African Americans, who were most often charged with offenses involving the crack cocaine guidelines.

On December 12, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission announced that it was retroactively reducing the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. While there was still a substantial disparity between crack and powder cocaine, the Sentencing Commission’s actions were promising and were the first official recognition that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine was a problem that needed to be resolved.

On May 1, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) did just that. In a memorandum to all United States Attorney’s offices across the country, the DOJ instructed all federal prosecutors to “inform courts that the Administration believes Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission should eliminate the crack powder disparity . . .” That is, federal prosecutors are now instructed to inform sentencing courts that they agree that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine should be eliminated. The impact of this new policy is going to be dramatic.

Continue reading "Federal Crack & Powder Cocaine Guidelines Disparity is Gone!!" »

http://www.mdattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlhttp://www.mdattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAs A Maryland Criminal Attorney I am often retained after a defendant has gone to court and received what they perceive to be an unjust result. Some of these clients were represented by other attorneys when the bad result was obtained and some were foolish enough to have attempted to represent themselves in criminal court which is always a bad idea. In criminal court, the State is represented by a trained prosecutor who has spent years studying and practicing the law and is intimately familiar with the Maryland Rules as wells as the Criminal Procedure Article. Why someone would go to court facing the possibility of large fines, probation or even the loss of one's freedom without retaining an attorney who is as at least as knowledgable and experienced as the State's Attorney, is incomprehensible to me. Yet, I see it almost every day, usually with very bad results for the defendant. I represented a defendant today who had recently made this mistake and as a result spent 10 days in jail in a case that never would have resulted in jail time had she been represented by an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney. Here are the facts:

My client is a 19 year old young women with no prior record. She was the driver in a car when the police stopped her looking for her boyfriend for whom they had an arrest warrant. The police claimed that they saw a small amount of cocaine in plain view upon approaching the vehicle and based on that, searched the rest of the car. The police recovered 12 Oxycontin pills from my client's purse. They placed her under arrest and charged her with possession of a controlled dangerous substance. A few months later she appeared in the District Court without an attorney. She requested a postponement which was denied. (Note: many clients express to me their belief that a person is always granted a postponement on their first trial date. While I believe that the law does require the court to grant a postponement on the first trial date in most circumstances, some judges view it differently and routinely deny these requests.) My client had no choice but to represent herself at trial. She was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months in jail - FOR HER FIRST OFFENSE!

Continue reading "Defendant Charged with Possession of Prescription Medications Successfully Defended on Appeal In Baltimore County Maryland" »

Maryland Criminal Attorneys who represent defendants who are charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance need to have a solid understanding of what types of conduct by the police will lead to the application of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule states that in circumstances in which the police violate a person's Constitutional Rights, any evidence collected by the police will be excluded from use at trial.

The most common situation in which the exclusionary rule is applied is in the context of a car stop. In order for the police to lawfully stop a motorist, the police officer must either witness a violation of the rules of the road such as speeding or running a stop sign, or the officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) that the operator of the vehicle is committing a crime. If it is determined by the court that the officer neither witnessed a violation of the traffic laws or had RAS to believe a crime was being committed, all evidence that is gathered as a result of the illegal stop will be suppressed. That is exactly what happened in my case today in Essex District Court, in Baltimore County. Here are the facts:

Continue reading "Drug Possession Case Successfully Defended in Baltimore County District Court - Evidence Suppressed" »

Aggressive Maryland criminal defense attorneys know that the best way to attack a search warrant is by attacking the affidavit in support of the warrant. This is commonly referred to as a Franks Hearing.

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Supreme Court held that in certain defined circumstances a defendant can attack a facially sufficient affidavit. The Franks Court recognized a "presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant", and thus created a rule of "limited scope".

The rule created by the Franks decision requires that a dual showing be made before a court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit's integrity. This showing incorporates both a subjective and an objective threshold component. In order to obtain an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit's integrity, a defendant must first make "a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit." This showing "must be more than conclusory" and must be accompanied by a detailed offer of proof.

In addition to showing that the affidavit contains false information, a defendant must show that the false information is essential to the probable cause determination. That is, if a court finds that “when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required."

Continue reading "Franks Hearing is Key to Attacking Search Warrant" »

Although our federal criminal defense attorneys practice nationally, the majority of our cases are in the mid-Atlantic which falls into the Federal Fourth Circuit. Historically known as a conservative Circuit, the Court, which sits in Richmond, Virginia has directed the District Judges on a specific procedure they want followed in all post Booker federal sentencing

The Fourth Circuit has prescribed the steps the District Court must follow in imposing a sentence. First, the Court should calculate the proper guideline range after making appropriate findings of fact. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007)(citing Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596); see also Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. “After calculating the Guidelines range, the sentencing court must give both the government and the defendant an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate.” Id. The Court should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the requested sentence. Id. If the guideline range does not serve the factors set forth in § 3553(a), then the Court may impose a non-guideline or “variance” sentence. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court must articulate reasons for the sentence it imposes, particularly a variance sentence, by reference to the § 3553(a) factors and its factual findings. Id.

Continue reading "Federal Criminal Sentences in the Fourth Circuit" »

The federal criminal sentencing has changed dramatically since the landmark case of United States v. Booker in 2005. Federal criminal defense attorneys have significantly more room for creativity and advocacy. Federal Judges are no longer handcuffed by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. For decades decades the power in sentencing, and most federal prosecutions, rested with the prosecutor. Booker has shifted the stables-somewhat, in favor of the criminal defense lawyer and given Federal Judges a more "human" role at sentencing.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) requires the Court to fashion a sentence “sufficient but not greater than necessary” to achieve the statutory purposes of punishment. In Booker, the Supreme Court restored this Court’s ability to fashion a sentence tailored to the unique circumstances of each case and each criminal defendant by requiring courts to consider factors other than the sentencing range prescribed by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Thus, although the Federal Judge still must take the Sentencing Guidelines into account, Booker rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007). The sentencing guideline range is not binding on the Court, but is only one of several factors in §3553 (a) to be considered in determining the sentence. Booker, 543 U.S. at 258-60.

In fact, the sentencing guidelines do not even enjoy a presumption of reasonableness. Nelson v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 890, 892 (2009)(“The guidelines are not only not mandatory on sentencing courts; they are also not to be presumed reasonable.”)(emphasis in original). See also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007). The “overarching” command of § 3553(a) is the Parsimony Clause, which “instruct[s] district courts to ‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary’ to accomplish the goals of sentencing.” Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. 558, 563 (2007)(quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 600).

As a result, since 2005, our attorneys have been able to secure probationary sentences in federal criminal cases-which previously would have been unthinkable. For more information on the changes in the landscape post Booker and other Federal Criminal issues, please contact the criminal defense attorneys at our firm.

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney, I receive inquiries on a daily basis by people who want to have their criminal records expunged. Unfortunately, most of the people who contact me for this purpose are dissapointed to hear that they cannot have their records expunged. The rules in Maryland are relatively straightforward although they have been modified slightly a few times in recent years.

The first thing that everyone who is considering expungement needs to understand is that if the case at issue resulted in a criminal conviction, whether it be for a misdemeanor or a felony, that conviction is permanent and cannot be expunged from that person's record without a pardon from the Governor. As I said, many people are extremely surprised and dissapointed to hear that they do not qualify for expungement even in cases in which the conviction was for a misdemeanor and occurred 15 or 20 years in the past, but that in fact, is the law in Maryland.

Continue reading "Expungment - What can and can't be expunged from one's record in Maryland" »

Ever since the OJ Simpson verdict (the first one) Maryland Criminal Attorneys and criminal attorneys across the nation have seen a steady increase in the number of domestic violence cases charged as well as substantial increase in the vigor with which these cases are prosecuted. It seems that no prosecutor or judge wants to be asked "why didn't you do something when you had a chance?" after an alleged domestic violence victim is killed in a subsequent incident.

Not only are prosecutors pursuing these cases with ever increasing vigor, they are also charging many of what used to be considered routine or garden variety misdemeanor cases as first degree felony assaults or even as attempted first degree murder cases. Many of these cases are charged this way based simply on the allegations of the complaining witness are without any medical evidence to corroborate the allegations. An allegation that a victim was choked or strangled can cause a case such as this to be charged as a felony. I have had three such cases in the last year, two are which are still pending.

Continue reading "Domestic Violence Assault Cases - Strangulation" »

Maryland Criminal Attorneys are often called upon to represent represent women charged with prostitution. Today, I defended a young women who was charged with solicitation for the purpose of prostitution after a police officer answered the advertisement that she had posted on Craigslist. Ordinarily I wouldn't blog about such a common and unremarkable case, but the case took on added significance to me in light of the Craigslist murder case in Boston that is receiving national and international attention.

The Boston Craigslist murder case reminded all of us who work in the legal profession just how much risk these girls undertake when they agree to have sex with strangers for money whether they advertise on the internet or stand on the street corner. Indeed the judge today commented at length on that issue during the sentencing phase of the case and specifically referenced the Boston murder case.

Continue reading "Craig's List prositution case successfully resolved" »

As a Maryland Criminal Attorney, I often represent people charged with Internet crimes such as solicitation of a minor for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. I was recently retained in such a case in Baltimore County Circuit Court wherein my client is charged not with soliciting a minor on the Internet, but instead with soliciting an undercover detective posing as a minor. These types of cases have become priorities for state and federal authorities in recent years and are taken very seriously. My client has been offered a plea bargain wherein the state would seek five years in prison. My client has been advised that if he fails to accept this plea agreement he will be indicted federally where he will face a mandatory 10 year, non-parolable sentence if convicted. To further complicate matters, my client is a foreign national who is married to an American citizen and has two American born children. Although he does have a green card, he never bothered to become an American citizen and is thus subject to deportation should he be convicted.

This is certainly not the first time I've ever had a case like this but I recall that the first time I did have such a case that my first thought were that defenses of impossibility and/or entrapment may very well apply. Well, according to the Maryland Court of Appeals, the impossibility defense does not apply in this cases and entrapment will be difficult to prove. More on the law shortly but first, here are the facts of the case:

Continue reading "Solicitation of a Minor on Internet for Sexual Activity " »