Drug law

How a Prosecutor’s Misstatement of the Law in Closing Arguments Got One Maryland Man a New Trial

October 23, 2019 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

There may be certain things that you may know about criminal trials and criminal law. You may understand what hearsay is and that the prosecution can’t use most kinds of hearsay evidence against you. You may know that the prosecution can’t use irrelevant evidence or (in most situations) force your attorney (or past attorney) to testify against you.

However, giving yourself a truly complete defense goes well beyond that. There are many things that the law says that the state cannot do and, if one or more of those things does happen in your trial, you may be entitled to certain remedies as a result, such as a new trial. To make sure you have that kind of vigorous and complete protection, be sure you have retained an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney.

As noted above, some issues are more subtle and nuanced than, say, a prosecutor’s attempt to admit something that’s obviously irrelevant. For example, take the case of J.R., who was on trial for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. In the case, the marijuana in question had been found inside a backpack that was in the trunk of J.R.’s car.

An Important New Ruling from Maryland’s Highest Court Says that the Odor of Marijuana Alone Doesn’t Give the Police Cause for a Warrantless Search

August 26, 2019 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Many times, changes in the law are reflections of changes in society. That can be true both in case law and in statutory law. The landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said that all same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry is an example of the former. The significant changes many states, including Maryland, have made to their statutes regarding the decriminalization of marijuana are examples of the latter.

Today, possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana is not a crime in Maryland. Some of the benefits of that are very obvious. There are, however, other collateral benefits of this change in the law that are less obvious, but no less important. This change in the legal status of marijuana may impact your criminal case, whether or not drug charges were involved, as one very important Court of Appeals ruling recently illustrated. There are many things you can take away from this new case, but one of the main ones is: if you were arrested and drug-related evidence obtained based on a warrantless search, be sure to contact an experienced Maryland drug crime attorney about your rights and your options within the legal system.

In Maryland, the federal and state constitutions contain protections that safeguard you against warrantless searches and seizures. In order for the police to conduct a search without a warrant, they generally need probable cause for the search. That means they need a reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search was involved in a crime.

The ‘Exclusionary Rule’ for Illegally Obtained Evidence and How It Can Help You in Your Maryland Criminal Trial

December 20, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In this country and in this state, people are afforded certain rights, including the right to be free from being stopped by the police for no reason. That freedom is very important because, sometimes, a large amount of evidence that would otherwise be admissible in a criminal trial may be excluded if it was the result of an illegal stop. In other words, the “motion to suppress” can be one of the most important tools in your arsenal in a criminal case. To make sure that you’re only facing the evidence that the police acquired through legal and constitutional means, be sure that you have a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney one your side.

A recent case from Baltimore is yet another example of an illegal stop and the ways in which a defendant can use that illegality to his advantage. The case began after an officer observed M.W., who allegedly matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. A second officer arrived and conducted a pat-down search of M.W., checking for weapons. M.W. told the officer he had marijuana in his possession. The officer searched some more and found cocaine on the man. The officer then arrested M.W. and further searching uncovered a Glock handgun and 12 live rounds of ammo.

The state charged M.W. with gun and drug crimes. At his trial, M.W. asked the judge to suppress his statement that he was in possession of marijuana and all the evidence that the police uncovered after that statement. The basis for that argument was that the police didn’t have the required degree of reasonable suspicion necessary to stop M.W.

When a Baltimore Police Officer Put His Head in an Open Car Window, He Engaged in a Warrantless Search, According a Recent Maryland Court Ruling

September 20, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In many criminal defense cases, the difference between a conviction and an acquittal can come down to what evidence got presented to the jury, and what evidence did not. In that regard, one of the more important parts of your criminal defense can be your request that asks the judge to suppress evidence obtained through an illegal search. Both the federal and Maryland constitutions give citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is often vitally important to a person standing trial to use that right to his or her maximum impact. Whether it is arguing your motion to suppress or some other aspect of your defense, an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney can help you make the arguments you need in the most effective way possible.

For an example of this issue of illegal searches, consider the facts of one Baltimore man’s recent case. While patrolling northwest Baltimore, two police officers spotted a gray sedan that was allegedly speeding and weaving through a two-lane street. The officers concluded they had grounds to make a stop for erratic driving, speeding and unsafe lane changing. So they did.

During the stop, one officer spotted an orange prescription bottle with no lid in a cup holder. The officer leaned into the vehicle, moved the bottle around and spotted five white pills inside and a name on the bottle that belonged to neither the driver nor the passenger. The officer kept investigating inside the center console and found a Styrofoam cup with bullets for a .38 handgun. At that point, the officers arrested the driver, A.W., and began searching the entire vehicle. They found a .38 in the back seat under some clothes and a bag containing suspected cocaine in the driver’s pants pocket. The bottle contained five Oxycodone pills.

Can the Violation of a Witness’ Fifth Amendment Rights Give You a New Trial in Your Maryland Criminal Case?

August 13, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

There are lots of good reasons to retain an experienced Maryland drug crime attorney to handle your case. Your knowledgeable defense attorney will probably know the law better than you, and they will probably know the rules of court procedure better than you. A skilled attorney will also be able to spot circumstances in which your rights have been violated, and be able to use that violation to get your conviction overturned.Take, as an example, the case of S.A. S.A. was on trial for one count of attempted manufacture of meth and two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. At the trial on those charges, the state sought to call to the witness stand R.S. R.S., who was the prosecution’s only non-law enforcement witness, was good friends with S.A. The state sought to elicit testimony from the friend that she had told an officer that S.A. lived in a particular trailer and made meth in that trailer.

As the prosecutor asked more and more questions about what R.S. saw in the trailer (regarding the manufacture of meth), the judge became concerned about R.S.’ right not to incriminate herself. The judge instructed the woman about her right to refuse to answer on Fifth Amendment grounds. Despite the objections lodged by S.A.’s lawyer, and also despite several expressions of hesitancy by R.S., the court allowed R.S. to give several pieces of testimony, even though she did not have legal representation in the courtroom at the time.

The court eventually found S.A. guilty.

The State’s Reliance on Only an Anonymous 911 Tip Wasn’t Enough in a Baltimore Man’s Criminal Trial

June 12, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Most people, including non-lawyers, are aware that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A non-lawyer, including even a very knowledgeable one, however, might not be aware of what a “Terry stop” is and what that phrase can potentially mean with regard to a warrantless search conducted by police. In many criminal cases, the difference between conviction and acquittal may be the ability to get certain important evidence excluded, which is where concepts like a Terry stop can play a very important role. This legal terminology demonstrates just how important it is to have knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense counsel on your side in order to take the law and use its protections to their fullest extent to protect your rights in your criminal case.

A recent case from Baltimore was one in which the law of searches and seizures led to the exclusion of key evidence. What would eventually become Maurice’s criminal case began with an anonymous tip phoned in to a 911 operator. The tipster said that two African-American men were selling drugs from a silver Honda Accord at a specific location in Baltimore.

Two police units responded to the scene and found two African-American men sitting in a silver Honda Accord with its engine running. The officers positioned their vehicles with one in front of the Honda and one behind it, effectively blocking it from leaving the area. The officers ordered Maurice out of the car and began to frisk him. While searching Maurice, the police found a bag of drugs tucked inside his underwear. After finding that, the police searched the car and found a handgun.

The Very High Importance of Proof of Legal Causation in a Maryland Criminal Case

April 9, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A very famous television courtroom drama show once depicted an outraged Assistant District Attorney responding to a mass shooting with multiple deaths by prosecuting the men at the head of a gun manufacturing company for homicide. The jury returned a guilty verdict, but the trial judge threw out that verdict and declared the defendants not guilty. “It’s not about being right… it’s about doing right,” the judge explained to the prosecutor in ruling for the defense. The fictional judge’s point was this: no matter how we may feel viscerally about a person’s conduct, justice still requires the state to follow the law, and that means that prosecutors still must meet their burden of proof, which includes establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of a victim’s death. That principle was on display in a recent Court of Special Appeals ruling overturning an alleged drug dealer’s manslaughter conviction. To ensure that your rights or the rights of your loved one are fully protected at trial, make sure you have the representation of an experienced Maryland homicide defense attorney.

The alleged drug dealer was a man named Patrick. In the early morning hours of June 26, 2015, a man named Colton was found dead in his mother’s bathroom of an apparent heroin overdose. By his body, police found four empty bags with the word “Banshee” and a blue emblem on them. Police later arrested Patrick in his home. At the home, they found several dozen bags of heroin with the word “Banshee” and the same blue emblem on them. Based on that evidence, the state prosecuted Patrick for heroin distribution, reckless endangerment, and manslaughter. At the end of the trial, Patrick was convicted on all three counts.

The Court of Special Appeals threw out the manslaughter conviction. No matter how much negative influence illegal drugs and those who sell them might have, criminal convictions must rest on proof of certain things, including “legal causation.” The acts that the state proved that Patrick committed were not enough to establish that he legally caused Colton’s death. Patrick merely sold Colton four bags of heroin. He did not tell Colton how much to use; the deceased man chose the amount that he injected into his bloodstream, which he did at a later time and in another place. Patrick also did not tell Colton to use the heroin with alcohol, which the dead man did.

When Having the Charges Dropped in Your Maryland Criminal Case Isn’t the Best Available Outcome

December 29, 2017 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges related to controlled substances, it is extremely important to have skilled Maryland drug crime counsel by your side representing you at every step along the process. The lawyers working for the state are experienced in the rules of law and procedure. The law provides you with certain rights and certain ways to utilize those rights to your advantage in your court case, so you need to make sure you have legal knowledge and experience on your side in the form of a skilled attorney to protect your rights.

A recent drug crime case serves as a clear example of why having quality representation matters. Leonard was charged with conspiracy to distribute methlenedioxymethamphetamine (a popular party drug better known as MDMA, “Molly,” or ecstasy). Leonard’s case went through the entire trial process. Leonard was convicted and sentenced for violating Maryland’s controlled dangerous substance laws.

Leonard filed an appeal of his conviction in a timely manner. The attorneys for the state apparently recognized that they had a problem. The basis of Leonard’s appeal, that the state lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction of violating the controlled dangerous substance laws, was valid. Seeking to avoid an unfavorable outcome in the Court of Special Appeals, the state nol prossed the case in the trial court.

Using Proof of Valid Prescriptions to Construct a Defense Against Drug Charges in Maryland

December 7, 2017 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In your criminal case, there are several things that are of vital importance. One of these, obviously, is getting all of your items of proof admitted into evidence. You may face many hurdles in this process, including arguments from the prosecution that your proof is not admissible under the Rules of Evidence. Effectively representing you and protecting your rights in situations like these is one of many ways in which a skilled Maryland drug crime lawyer can provide essential benefits to you.

One example of a case focused upon the defendant’s evidence and the Rules of Evidence was that of Steven, who faced multiple drug charges. The case began with police surveillance of a house in Baltimore. After several weeks, the police obtained a search warrant and, during the search, found evidence of various drugs, including oxycodone, methadone, and alprazolam (a/k/a Xanax). Steven had told the police that he had some drugs in his bedroom, and the officers found Xanax, methadone, and heroin. They found the oxycodone in the kitchen.

The police claimed that Steven gave them no valid prescriptions for any of the drugs. Steven argued in court that this was false. He contended that he and his wife had valid prescriptions for Xanax, methadone, and oxycodone and that he attempted to provide them at the time of the search. The prosecution, to try to defeat Steven’s arguments that he legally possessed those drugs, asked the trial judge to exclude any document evidence regarding the prescriptions. The documents, according to the state, were not admissible because they were hearsay under evidence rules.

What Happens When Police in Maryland Find Evidence of Drugs on One of Your Passengers?

May 5, 2017 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In many criminal cases, especially ones involving drug charges, one of the most important issues is the collection of evidence by the police and compliance with protections guaranteed by the U.S. and Maryland Constitutions. In a recent case of a driver stopped for a non-functioning tail light, the fact that the police found illegal drugs on a passenger in the vehicle (pursuant to a valid search) did not automatically give them probable cause to search the driver’s trunk in pursuit of more drug evidence, according to the Court of Special Appeals‘ ruling.