Uncategorized

Sexual Offender Registration

February 22, 2017 | Brian G. Thompson

As a former Assistant State’s Attorney and full time criminal attorney for over 20 years, I have both prosecuted and defended hundreds of individuals who have been charged with Sex Offenses. Many, indeed virtually all, people who are convicted with one of these offenses are required to register as a sex offender. The statute controlling sexual offender registry is complicated and, in recent years, has been amended several times. I have recently been retained by 3 separate clients who have had their Sexual Offender Registration Requirements retroactively changed as a result of these amendments. One was not required to register at all as a result of his conviction but is now being told he must, and two others who have had their registration terms changed from 10 years to life. We believe that these changes are in clear violation of the Ex post Facto Clause contained in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. We are filing what is called a Declaratory Judgment action in the Circuit Court in each one of these cases to request that the court issue and Order to the Department of Public Safety to remove these individuals from registry. Here is a brief synopsis of the law:

In 2009, the General Assembly passed a new law, effective October 1, 2009 changing the registration requirements. The new statute said an offender who committed an offense prior to October 1, 1995, but was convicted after, and had not previously been required to register, now had to register. In 2010, the statute was again amended changing the registration term for Tier III sex offenders from 10 years to lifetime registration.

In 2013 the Court of Appeal heard the case of Doe v. Department of Public Safety. In this case, Doe filed a civil proceeding, seeking declaratory judgment seeking removal of his name from the registry. That relief was denied by the Circuit Court and Doe appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. On appeal, he argued that requiring him to register violated his plea agreement and raised an ex post facto argument. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Court of Appeals took certiorari.

Experienced DWI/DUI Lawyers Avoid Mistakes

June 2, 2015 | Brian G. Thompson

The client did possess a commercial driver’s license but when he was pulled over for exceeding the speed limit by 15 miles per hour, he was operating his personal vehicle. When the Trooper approached the defendant he smelled of alcohol, had a flushed face and had slurred speech. The Trooper asked him to step out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. In the opinion of the officer, his performance on the field sobriety tests indicated that he was impaired by alcohol. He was taken into custody and once back at the barracks, agreed to take the breathalyzer. The test result was .11 grams of alcohol per 210 milliliters of breath. The case against the defendant was strong to be sure. The Trooper clearly had probable cause to pull him over as he was exceeding the speed limit by 15 miles per hour. Based on the smell of alcohol, his performance on the field sobriety tests and the Trooper’s other observations, it was also quite clear that the Trooper had probable cause to take him into custody and request that he take a breathalyzer. He blew a .11 which is above the legal limit of .08. The attorney pled his client guilty to the DUI “per se” charge under 21-902A2 of the Motor Vehicle Code. In mitigation, he explained his client’s circumstances to include that he was the father of 3 and the sole breadwinner for the family. He advised that he was a truck driver with a commercial driver’s license. The attorney then requested probation before judgment so that his client “would be able to maintain his CDL and his employment”. The judge granted the request, stuck the guilty verdict and entered probation before judgment. Both the client and the attorney walked out of the courtroom with looks of relief and satisfaction. But did the attorney really do a good job for his client? The answer is no because, presumably due to his lack of experience, he didn’t understand the law. What the inexperienced apparently didn’t understand is that under Maryland Vehicle Law 16-803, even a probation before judgment on 21-902A violation, Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, violation results in the mandatory revocation of a person’s commercial driver’s license for a year for the first offense and a permanent revocation for a second or subsequent offense. The fact that he received probation before judgment does not prevent the MVA from suspending his commercial driver’s license as the attorney apparently believed. The appropriate way to handle a case like this would have been to either try to convince the prosecutor to allow the client to plead to the lesser offense of 21-902(B). Under this subsection the defendant would not be subject to having his commercial license revoked. I have convinced prosecutors to do this in these types of cases many times simply because it is more often than not the right thing to do. If the State’s Attorney were unwilling to accommodate, as they usually are in these types of cases, then the case must be taken to trial. The attorney should have moved to suppress the test result and argued to the court that the evidence was sufficient only for the 21902B violation, but not the 21902A violation. These arguments are successfully made on a variety of grounds every day in the district courts of this state. Because this was not done, this client is going to have a rude awakening when he is notified by the MVA that his commercial license and therefore his livelihood will be taken away for a year. Had this client taken the time to do a little research and hired a DUI/DWI specialist, it is highly unlikely that this would have occurred.As an Aggressive and Experienced DUI Attorney, I have represented dozens of Defendants in DUI cases who have commercial driver’s license. These cases pose a unique set of challenges and considerations for Maryland DUI Attorneys as the administrative sanctions associated with commercial driver’s licenses are far different than the sanctions associated with standard Class C driver’s licenses. I have blogged often about the importance of selecting an attorney who specializes in DUI/DWI Defense when charged with this serious offense and this advice is even more applicable to cases involving commercial driver’s licenses. Unfortunately, all too often we see attorneys with little or no experience with these types of cases appearing in court to represent clients. Because of their lack of experience, these attorneys often make mistakes that can have serious consequences for their clients.
Often these attorneys make simple mistakes that no experienced DUI/DWI attorney would ever make. I was representing a client in the District Court of Baltimore County a few days ago. While waiting for my case to be called I witnessed an attorney whom I know not to be a Criminal/DUI Specialist representing a client in a DUI case involving a defendant with a commercial driver’s license. I found out later that this attorney was a so called “general practitioner who spends the majority of his time handle divorce and personal injury matters. In other words, he was NOT a DUI/DWI specialist. Here are the facts.
Continue reading ›

Continental Arms Handun Possession Case Demonstrates that in Criminal Cases, As In Medicine, An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure

November 25, 2013 | Brian G. Thompson

As an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorneys https://criminal.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1741744.html we often witness people make the big mistake of representing themselves in criminal court. The old adage is, “he who represents himself, has a fool for a client”. Truer words have never been spoken, particularly when dealing with criminal charges

The typical scenario is that someone is arrested and charged in a case that that they view as minor or at least something that they can handle themselves. Sometimes it actually works out and the person gets away with the mistake. Sometimes it blows up in their face immediately and they know it. But sometimes the mistake is latent and the person doesn’t realize how badly he messed up his life until years later. I had a case last week in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in which my client was charged with Illegal Handgun Possession that fell into this last category. Fortunately, I was able to successfully resolve the current case but not before it cost the defendant far more than it would have cost to resolve the original matter had he contacted me then. And I was unable to undue the original conviction which will continue to cause collateral consequences for my client for many years to come and perhaps for the rest of his life. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Domestic Violence Assault Cases in Maryland Examined

August 8, 2013 | Brian G. Thompson

It seems that Maryland Criminal Attorneys represent people charged in Domestic Violence Assaults with ever increasing frequency these days. As I have noted in the past, police and prosecutors seem to get more and more aggressive in charging and prosecuting these case by the day. In many of these Domestic Violence Assault cases, the alleged victim refuses to cooperate with the prosecution. Alleged victims will often recant the allegations that they made on the date of the incident, refuse to come to court, even when they have be summonsed or, if the couple is married, invoke the marital privilege and refuse to testify.

There are many reasons why alleged victims do this including that the couple has reconciled their relationship, the defendant is the primary breadwinner in the family which often means if he goes to jail his family is devastated financially, or that the charges were fabricated in the first place. It is hard for some to believe that someone would fabricate charges against another person but unfortunately it happens all the time. And I believe that that is exactly what happened in a case I recently had had in the District Court for Baltimore County. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Are the Police Working for the Community or Against it? You decide.

May 9, 2013 | Brian G. Thompson

I am very used to dealing with police tactics in my role as a criminal defense lawyer that some might consider to be overly aggressive. But the tactics I am seeing more and more of recently are going beyond aggressive and are, in my opinion, becoming down right counterproductive to the basic goals of law enforcement. What I mean by that is that the police are utilizing tactics that are breaking down the fundamental trust relationship between the police and the community that is necessary, indeed essential, for effective law enforcement – mostly in the pursuit of non-violent drug offenders.

Let me give you two examples from just the last hour. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Fighting Back: One Survivor’s Triumph over Victim Blaming

January 18, 2013 | Steven D. Silverman

I am and have been involved in a number of cases where law enforcement and criminal defendants attempt to punish victims of violent crime for reporting the crime and seeking justice. Sara Reedy’s case, discussed here is an excellent example of precisely how survivors, victim advocates and their lawyers should respond-by going on the offensive.

Sara Reedy was assaulted at gunpoint at the gas station where she was working as a cashier. The perpetrator pulled a gun on her, emptied the till and forced her to perform a sex act on him. The detective who interviewed Sara and thought she invented the story to steal money from her employer. While pregnant, she was arrested on theft and false reporting charges. Her perpetrator later admitted to committing a similar sexual assault not long before Sara’s assault and the charges against Sara did not stick.

Sara sued the detective and, after a protracted legal battle, won a $1.5 million settlement. I commend Sara and her legal team for having the courage and fortitude to fight this clear injustice and I believe all of us who advocate for victims of crime should heed the lesson that the only way to really change victim-blaming behavior is to fight back and wins.

Illegal Possession of a Firearm Defendant Found Not Guilty

September 24, 2012 | Brian G. Thompson

Some of the more difficult cases that confront Aggressive Baltimore Criminal Attorneys are charges involving the possession of illegal firearms or possession of firearms by people who are prohibited to possess them due to a prior criminal conviction. Prosecutors in Baltimore City in particular are instructed to prosecute these cases under a zero tolerance policy and to seek incarceration in every cases.

Last week I successfully defended a man charged in a 10 count charging document of various charges alleging illegal possession and use of firearms. The charges included illegal possession of a short barrel shotgun, illegally discharging a firearm within the city limits, handgun on person, reckless endangerment and other related offenses. This case is a good example of how aggressively the State’s Attorney’s Office is prosecuting firearms cases, even in a situation like this one where the evidence was quite weak and the defendant had no prior criminal record. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Felony Marijuana Case Successfully Defended

August 9, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

As Experienced and Aggressive Criminal Attorneys we often represent people charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substances such as Cocaine, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs. In these types of cases there are typically 2 categories of defenses that can be pursued – factual and legal defensese with legal defenses being more common. A factual defense usually involve claims that the person was not in fact in possession of the substance, that the substance was not in fact the illegal substance claimed by the police or that the amount is insufficient to be for the purpose of distribution.

Legal defenses involve claims that the police violated the defendant’s Constitutional rights while investigating the crime. Usually these claims relate to illegal search and seizure but sometime involve illegally obtained confessions. These claims are often referred to as “loopholes”. I successfully defended a defendant charged with possession over 10 pounds of marijuana in the Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case involved several hearings and dragged on for well over a year before we finally prevailed and had all charges dismissed. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Howard County DUI Defendant Receives Unsupervised Probation

June 3, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

Ashttps://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1301140.html for the last 15 years I have seen just about every factual scenario possible when it comes to people charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. I have blogged many times about the fact that it has become increasingly difficult over the last 15 years to secure a “not guilty” finding in a DUI case. The laws have become much stricter with the introduction of the “Per Se” violation and the reduction of the legal limit for DUI for .10 to .08. So in an increasing number of cases, experienced attorneys need to recognize quickly whether or not a case is defensible or whether to focus on mitigation instead.

Most not guilty results in DUI cases these days come by attacking the stop and suppressing the evidence. Even that has become more difficult over the years as groups such as MADD have begun monitoring court rooms and applying other grass roots pressure to persuade judges to get “tougher” on DUI’s. I had a case today in Howard County that was both a rare first factual scenario for me and also a reflection of the increasing intolerance for drinking and driving in Maryland courts. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

STSW Partner Andy White Gains Major Victory in Baltimore City Circuit Court – Not guilty verdict on all counts lodged against STSW client facing multiple felony handgun charges

April 21, 2011 | Steven D. Silverman

STSW attorneys Andrew White gained a high stakes victory in the Baltimore City Circuit Court in a case in which an STSW client was charged with multiple felony counts involving the possession of a handgun. The client had been charged after a car in which he was riding crashed on a northern Baltimore City roadway. According to witnesses at the scene, a handgun was thrown from the vehicle after the car flipped over multiple times and came to rest on its side. The witnesses described how the driver of the vehicle threw the gun from the car, which witnesses told police was being operated at a high rate of speed prior to the crash. The driver testified as a prosecution witness and testified that the STSW client gave her the firearm after the crash occurred. She also testified that the client possessed the firearm because he wanted to confront persons who had reportedly hurt his son. At trial, Mr. White and Ms. Murphy discredited the cooperating witnesses and used the physical evidence from the crash scene to show that the prosecution’s version of events was not possible. In issuing the “not guilty” verdict, the Circuit Court Judge agreed that the prosecution’s version of the case was undermined by the evidence adduced by Mr. White and Ms. Murphy at trial as well as by the extensive cross-examination of the cooperating witness.