I take the opposite approach and employ a scorched earth policy of fighting every case on every level before even considering a plea to include attacking the validity of search warrants which many attorneys never even consider. Here is a written motion to suppress we filed in a case recently attacking the warrant and moving to suppress the evidence.

Facts: Charles & Drake were tried together on charges stemming from the death of Bryant Jones. Both were convicted of second degree murder. Prior to the trial, the State submitted 3 voir dire questions concerning “CSI type” scientific evidence. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial judge asked a single question which he drafted stating that he assumed the jurors watched TV such as CSI and Law and Order and that those shows relied on scientific evidence to convict- therefore, if “you are currently of the opinion or belief that you cannot convict a defendant without scientific evidence, please rise.” The Court of Special Appeals ruled that the question was appropriate. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Ruling: The Court noted that the language of the voir dire question suggested that the jury’s only option was to convict, regardless of the evidence presented. This suggestive question poisoned the jury thereby depriving the defendant of the right to a fair trial.

In this case, Thomkins was arrested for murder. He was taken into custody and read the Miranda Rights that are familiar to most all of us who have ever seen an episode of Law and Order. After being advised of his right to remain silent, Thomkins did just that; he remained silent throughout almost 3 hours of questioning by the detective. The detective finally broke Thomkins' silence by asking him if he prayed to God to which he replied that he did. The Detective then asked him if he prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim in this case and Thompkins answered in the affirmative.

The Facts:

Baltimore County police see a drug transaction conducted from a Lincoln navigator. The police stop the buyer who says he bought drugs from the vehicle. The police lose sight of the vehicle. Four hours later, the police stop the car with guns drawn. The defense argued there was no probable cause to stop the vehicle four hours later because the police had no description of the sellers of narcotics four hours before. Judge Dana Levitz of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County said there was probable cause and sentenced the defendant to ten years without parole.

The Court of Special Appeals vacated the conviction and agreed that there was no probable cause to arrest the occupants of the vehicle when there was no reason to believe that the same persons who operated the vehicle earlier were occupying the vehicle at the time of the arrest. Criminal appeals specialist Erin Murphy briefed and argued the appeal.

Facts:

The victim was stabbed in Hagerstown Maryland. Based on a review of images captured by security cameras, Adams was a suspect. Adams fled the scene but was picked up on a parole violation in Baltimore. He was brought back to Hagerstown for questioning. He was advised of his rights per Miranda, executed a waiver and made inculpatory statements. Adams was then charged with first degree murder and counsel entered his appearance. Months later, the prosecutor asked the detective to serve on Adams the notice seeking life without parole. The detective went to the detention center. Criminal defense counsel was not present. After seeing the notice, Adams said “why is the state going after me so hard?” The detective said “because you stabbed a guy 32 times.” Adams responded that he only stabbed the guy seven times and then went into detail about where he stabbed him. Defense counsel moved to suppress the statements. The trial court denied his motion.

Ruling:

The Court of Appeals, citing Edwards v. Arizona and other cases, noted that there were no Miranda warnings given at the second meeting and therefore there was no intentional knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to have counsel of record present. The Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, any reasonable police officer would have reasonably anticipated Adams would respond to the detective’s accusation and that regardless if the detective acted in good faith, this encounter was the functional equivalent of interrogation.

In Graham, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that juvenile offenders could not face a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for crimes other than murder. The 6-3 spread is a little deceiving as Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the result in the Graham case but did not concur with the blanket prohibition on life without parole sentence adopted by the majority. Instead, Roberts opined that the sentences should be looked at on a "case by case" basis. Here are the facts of the Graham case:

Introduction:

• Please state your name and address for the record
• How far did you go in school?
• Can you read and write the English language?
• Are you presently under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs, or prescription drugs?
• Have you ever been a patient in a mental hospital or received psychiatric care?
• Is your mind clear and do you understand what you are doing here today?

The Crime and Terms of the Plea

• It is my understanding that you are electing to plead guilty to one count of (charge)
• The elements of (charge) the state has to prove for you to be found guilty are (name elements of charge)
• In exchange for your guilty plea the terms of the plea agreement are as follows: [choose 1] a) the state has agreed to recommend_________ or the Court has bound itself to a sentence of ______________.
• By proceeding in this manner, you are waiving your right to a trial.

Waiving of Trial Rights

• You have the right to a jury trial. A jury trial consists of 12 individuals, chosen from the motor and voter rolls of (Baltimore City or County).
• Those 12 individuals will listen to the facts of your case and determine your guilt or innocence based upon a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. That is 12-0 guilty or 12-0 not guilty. Any split in the vote is what we call a hung jury. In the event of a hung jury, the assistant state’s attorney, at his/her discretion could keep retrying your case, over and over, until there was a unanimous decision one way or the other.
• You also could waive your right to a trial by jury and have a court trial before this judge or another judge of this court. In the event of a court trial, the judge would listen to the facts of your case and determine your guilt or innocence based upon the same standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Regardless of whether you chose a court trial or a jury trial, during a trial you have an absolute right to testify. You can take the witness stand-under oath-and tell the judge or the jury your side of the story.
• If you chose not to testify, in a jury trial, this judge would instruct the jury that they are absolutely prohibited from holding your silence against you. In the event of a court trial I assure you that no judge in this courthouse would ever hold your silence against you.
• By pleading guilty and waiving your right to a trial you are also waiving several more important constitutional rights, the first of which is confrontation of your accuser.
• It is my understanding that one or more would be called by the state to testify against you in this case. I as your attorney would have the absolute right to cross-examine those witnesses and ask them any legal or factually relevant questions.
• You would have the right to call any witness to the stand to testify on your behalf. If any witness was reluctant to testify, we can ask the sheriff to bring that witness to court.
• Also by pleading guilty you are waiving your right to all factual and legal defenses.
• By factual defenses I mean for example the drugs were not mine, or I was in Alaska when the crime occurred in Maryland
• By waiving all legal defenses you are giving up your right to complain, for example, that certain evidence or statements should be suppressed.

First of all, the fact that the case was overcharged will almost invariably result in a much higher bail than would have otherwise been set had the case been properly charged as a misdemeanor. The increased bail amount will at best cost the defendant additional money to secure bail and at worst, cause the person to have to remain in jail until the case is set in for the preliminary hearing or even until the trial which could be months in the future. Also, the expungement statute precludes a person from having any count in a charging document expunged if the person is eventually convicted of any count. With criminal records so readily available these days on the Internet, having felony charges on one's record, even if they are eventually dismissed, can cause serious problems for people in a variety of areas including employment, especially in today's job market. I recently represented a person who was charged with attempted first degree murder for what was nothing more than a misdemeanor second degree assault. As in most cases, the overcharging of the case caused severe repercussions for the client. Here are the facts of the case:

We have successfully defended a large number of these cases many of which having occurred on or around one of the numerous college campuses in the area. We recently defended an individual in just such as case and were able to have all charges against him dismissed prior to trial. This particular individual did not retain us until after he was charged which was a mistake on his part as we have successfully prevented many similarly situated individuals from ever being charged. Here are the facts of the case:

The prior incident was reported to the varsity lacrosse coach, but both players involved played in the next game. It is unclear if any discipline was imposed by the coach. As the events leading up to the tragic murder unfold, it is beginning to look like University of Virginia administration and/or officials knew or should have known that Huguely was a loose cannon. He previously had several run-ins with police, threatened to kill a Virginia female police officer, and beat a fellow student and teammate in his sleep in 2009. Recognizing that hindsight is 20-20, one still wonders whether the University of Virginia fell asleep at the wheel?

Today it is being reported that Huguely has two (2) prior run-ins with the law in Florida dating back to 2007. First he was charged with possession of alcohol as a minor in Palm Beach, and then police were called to intervene in a "very heated" argument involving his father and cousin.

These incidents proceed a 2008 arrest and conviction in Lexington Virginia where he was Tasered by police while shouting "I'll kill all you bitches" to a female officer.

A lawyer needs to be very carefull about what he says in the early stages of a high-profile murder case that has peeked a communities interet or rage. I was cognizent of this in my statements to the media after the bail review in the Nicholas Browning multiple homicide case. I am surprised the Huguely defense was not tempered as well. The Huguely defense team, by calling this an "accident" has done irreputable harm to the goals of the defense, but arguably not to the ultimte goal of justice.

At one time, Ms. Love, a women's varsity lacrosse player, was dating a member of the men's counterpart at the University of Virginia. The relationship went south and apparently Huguely was not happy with that development. He sent what will likely turn out to be incriminating emails to Love on the evening of the murder. He was so enraged by her responses, or lack thereof, that he felt compelled to pay her a visit in the early morning hours. He kicked in her door and repeatedly bashed her head against the wall with such force that he caused lethal injury. Hugely is a reported 6'2" and 210 pounds.

While leaving the scene, Huguely took off with Love's computer-presumably to conceal the earlier email exchange. It should also be noted that Huguely never called the police. Instead, I have learned through reliable sources in the Baltimore community, Huguely knocked on the door of another fellow student around 2:00am and slept on his couch. Huguely was reported to have been drinking earlier.

Fast forward to Huguely's Tuesday morning bail review. His lawyers tactically delayed the bail review because 1) there was no chance Huguely would get a bail and 2) they did not want additional facts aired in public before the defense lawyers could try to spin the facts . As a criminal defense lawyer who has handled many high-profile cases, I can not blame them for this tactic. What I do criticize is the defense attorney's public statement that followed the waived hearing:

"Until more information becomes available, it is our hope that no conclusion will be drawn or judgment made about George or his case," the defense lawyer said. "However, we are confident that Ms. Love's death was not intended, but an accident with a tragic outcome."

A new case was decided by Judge Barbera of the Maryland Court of Appeals on April 14, 2010 dealing with Miranda. The State alleged that Mr. Luckett believed his wife was having an affair with his son's football coach. Mr. Luckett was alleged to have killed his wife and then went to the football coach's place of business, a barber shop, and killed him.

I have blogged about the tactics of the police in pursuing handgun cases in the past. Detectives in the firearms unit have for some time checked the criminal records of people purchasing weapons or ammunition at stores such as Dick's Sporting Goods and K-Mart to see if they are convicted felons or otherwise prohibited from owning or possession handguns. In recent weeks I have been hired by two people in cases that reveal a new tactic my the police.