Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog

The demise of the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines in 2005 has given rise to amazing opportunities for skilled federal criminal defense attorneys to achieve tremendous results for their clients. Nowhere is this truer than in federal bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud investigations and prosecutions. Federal “white collar” fraud prosecutions typically involve persons with little or no criminal background and with substantial ties to the community and strong family support. Surprisingly, many federal criminal defense attorneys do not take advantage of these factors in defending their clients. Under the old mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, family circumstances, family support, and community ties were generally prohibited as bases for sentencing reductions. Such circumstances were only to be considered if they were “extraordinary” and, even then, federal judges were hesitant to reduce sentences by any significant amount based on these factors.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Booker invalidated the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines and changed the federal sentencing dynamic forever. In the Booker case, the Supreme Court made it clear that federal judges must impose sentences that are “reasonable” and consistent with the goals of federal sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a). Many federal judges have come to realize that the protection of a defendant’s family is, in the right situation, a proper basis to impose probation instead of incarceration. But yet many federal defense attorneys are unaware of this powerful and emotional weapon to fight off prisons sentences in federal courts.

Continue reading " FAMILY MATTERS!!! FEDERAL WHITE COLLAR FRAUD SENTENCES CAN BE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED BY FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT ON A CLIENT’S FAMILY " »

As an Aggressive Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney, I have successfully defended hundreds of individuals who have been charged with assaulting police officers. The garden variety assault on a police officer case usually involves a defendant who is being arrested for another reason and the police officer claims that the defendant resisted that arrest and assaulted the officer in the process. These cases are usually relatively easy to deal with so long as the police officer was not seriously injured as most judges are aware of the tendency to exaggerate these incidents by the police.

I successfully defended a client who has charged in a not so typical assault on a police officer in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City this past week. The client was found not guilty in spite of the fact that my client had in fact punched a police officer who was sitting on a bar stool in a bar and the fact that the entire incident was caught on the establishment's security video system.http://www.mdattorney.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.html Here are the facts:

Continue reading " Defendant Charged with Assault on Police Officer Found Not Guilty " »

I recently had a criminal case in federal court where the Assistant US Attorney was arguing that the bouncing of checks by the defendant constituted federal bank fraud.

The Law:

18 U.S.C. § 1344 states that a person commits bank fraud when she knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice:

1. To defraud a financial institution; or
2. To obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

Federal Case Law:

To obtain a conviction for bank fraud, the government must prove the following elements:

1. Defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution,
2. Defendant had the intent to defraud a financial institution, and
3. The bank involved was federally insured.

In U.S. v. Orr, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the federal bank fraud statute is not intended to create a federal “bad check” law. A routine bad check case does not fall under § 1344, but under the relevant state law. Mr. Orr, the defendant, opened a checking account under a false name and negotiated bad checks to merchants in exchange for merchandise. The bank subsequently dishonored the checks for insufficient funds. The court emphasized the fact that the bank was not defrauded when Mr. Orr wrote the bad checks because the bank did not suffer a loss, but that the losers were the payees. Additionally, the prosecution failed to show that Mr. Orr opened the bank account under a false name with the intent to defraud the bank.

However, courts have construed the rule in Orr narrowly. Orr establishes only that a “routine bad check” case is not within the scope of § 1344 when the defendant passes a check to a merchant from an account where the defendant is an authorized signatory and the bank dishonors the check for lack of sufficient funds. Orr has been distinguished in cases where the defendant artificially inflated his account balance through check kiting, and where the defendant negotiated stolen checks to merchants in exchange for merchandise. In U.S. v. Brandon, the defendant, Ms. Brandon, stole checks from legitimate account holders and negotiated the checks with forged endorsements. The court found that, in this instance, the bank was exposed to a risk of loss, which was sufficient to meet the elements of bank fraud.

Continue reading " Does a Routine Bounced Check Constitute Federal Bank Fraud? " »