Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

How an Expert Witness’s Improper Testimony About the Truthfulness of Another Witness May Help You Get a New Trial in Your Maryland Case

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

When you find yourself as the defendant in a criminal trial, your very freedom often hangs in the balance. As a result, it is vitally important to be sure you have a Maryland criminal attorney on your side who knows how to put together an effective defense. “Effective defense” means many things, including making sure that potentially harmful expert witness evidence that is inadmissible is kept out of your case and prevented from causing you to endure a conviction as a result of an unfair trial process.

Expert witnesses can be very powerfully impactful on your case, whether they are prosecution experts negatively impacting your case or defense experts favorably influencing your case. Juries may often see experts as particularly credible and give their statements a high degree of weight. That means that, whenever possible, you should take advantage of opportunities to exclude expert evidence offered by the state. There are multiple different ways that an expert’s evidence can be inadmissible. E.M.’s sex-crime case was an example of one such scenario.

The state had charged the man with sex crimes related to contact with a minor. The state called a licensed social worker to testify about child sex abuse, grooming and a victim’s delayed reporting of abuse. E.M.’s legal team did not object to the social worker’s status as an expert. Instead, the defense used its cross-examination opportunity to quiz the social worker about false assertions of child sexual abuse, thereby raising seeking to raise a possible reasonable doubt regarding the truth of the alleged victim’s allegations. The social worker indicated, while on the witness stand, that only 2% of child sex abuse allegations were false.

A Silver Spring Defendant Gets an Opportunity for Re-sentencing after a Trial Judge’s Misinterpretation of the Law and the Defendant’s Successful Appeal

October 22, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

There are many things that may be worth challenging in court in your criminal case. You may need to contest improperly admitted evidence or you may need to dispute a legally erroneous sentence. Many of these things may require you to make that challenge to the trial judge and, if not successful in the trial court, again on appeal. Raising these challenges in the right way is very important in order to make sure your appeal is not thrown out on procedural grounds, such as a “failure to preserve” an issue for appeal. All of these things are among the many reasons why an in-depth knowledge of proper trial practice is so important, and why you should retain a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney for your case.

Some family gatherings are cheerful events. Regrettably, not all are; some become contentious and even violent. A father gathering in Silver Spring was an example of the latter. A dispute erupted into a physical altercation between two men at the party. D.P., the son of one of the combatants, pulled a gun and started shooting. One man was grazed on his elbow and another was hit, with the bullet lodging near his stomach.

The state brought charges against D.P., including two counts of first-degree assault and two counts of “use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence.” At trial, the state’s evidence was strong. The prosecution had five witnesses who testified that they saw D.P. pull a small gun from his waistband and begin shooting at one man and then firing numerous more shots into the backyard. The state also had two forensics experts who gave testimony that all of the bullets found at the scene were consistent with having come from the same .38 handgun.

The Legal Doctrine of ‘Merger’ Helps a Maryland Defendant Obtain a Re-Sentencing

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

In a criminal case, it is important to have skilled Maryland defense counsel on your side to help you make sure that you’ve advanced all available arguments regarding errors made by the prosecution and/or by the trial court in your case. Sometimes, the best possible outcome, if you’ve been convicted, is a reversal of that conviction. In other cases, the evidence is just too extensive, and a reduction of your sentence is the best possible result. Even if you can’t get a reversal of your conviction, that does not mean that your case is not still worth fighting for – it is. Sometimes, a successful argument seeking a reduction in a sentence may cut many, many years off the total time you might have otherwise spent incarcerated.

As an example of this notion, take E.B.’s case. The underlying event leading to E.B.’s trial was a domestic dispute. Based on the girlfriend’s statement to police, they obtained a search warrant for E.B.’s residence and, inside, they found the knife used in the alleged attack and some clothes E.B. allegedly cut off the girlfriend’s body during the dispute.

The state charged E.B. with first-degree assault, second-degree assault and reckless endangerment. During the state’s closing argument, the prosecutor referenced the knife and asked the jury, “Can you imagine being choked and having this thing put at your neck?” The jury convicted the man on both assault charges and the reckless endangerment charge.

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.

When a Crime Does Not Qualify as a ‘Lesser Included Offense’ and How that Can Affect the Outcome of Your Maryland Criminal Case

September 6, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney can benefit you and your case in a number of ways. Obviously, a skilled defense attorney can present your defense in a clear and persuasive manner to convince a jury to return a verdict of “not guilty.” However, a skilled defense lawyer can go beyond that, because there is more than one way to avoid conviction. In the interest of fairness, the law places certain restrictions on the prosecution. If the state violates any of those rules, that violation may entitle you to have your conviction thrown out.

An example of using these rules to achieve a successful result was the case of D.M. D.M. was one of several teens arrested in connection with a fatal attack in Baltimore. In the attack, the group allegedly stomped and kicked the victim. A 15-year-old juvenile, P.G., had a knife and stabbed the victim 11 times. (The victim died from blood loss less than 24 hours after the attack.) The state charged D.M. with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery and theft, among other charges.

At the end of D.M.’s trial, the court did not find him guilty on the murder charges. The court did, however, find him guilty of first-degree assault based upon the stomping/kicking of the victim. D.M. received 13 years on the assault conviction.

Wrongfully Excluded Evidence of an Alleged Victim’s Dishonesty and Threats to Get the Accused ‘In Trouble’ Result in a New Trial for One Maryland Man

August 30, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Television courtroom shows often include dramatic moments when lawyers object to the other side’s evidence and the judge issues a ruling. Of course, these shows are often oversimplified or fictitious and designed for good storytelling, rather than factual accuracy. In reality, would you know when, and how, to object to prosecution evidence that the state sought to bring against you? Would you know what to do if the trial judge wrongfully granted an objection regarding the evidence you sought to bring in? Knowing how to handle these situations and more are just a few examples of how it pays to have skilled Maryland criminal defense on your side.

An example of these types of evidence battles, and the importance they can have on an outcome, was a recent case from Cecil County. J.D. was a man facing some very serious felony charges. J.D. and Y.D. had become romantically involved and moved in together at J.D.’s Maryland home. The household included J.D., his three children, Y.D., her son and her daughter. In 2015, Y.D.’s daughter made allegations against J.D. of repeated instances of sexual abuse over a period of several years. She asserted that she did not come forward sooner because she feared physical harm to herself and she worried it would adversely affect her mother’s relationship with J.D.

At his trial, J.D. sought to put his son on the witness stand. The son testified that the alleged victim was a disciplinary problem at home did not like living under the rules that J.D. imposed. The son testified that, after an allegedly stolen cell phone, the alleged victim became angry with the disciplinary decision J.D. made and was “yelling and screaming and saying things that she could do that would get him in trouble.” The son also sought to testify that the alleged victim was argumentative and “would not tell the truth about certain things.”

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.

When the Prosecution Can (and Cannot) use Opinion Evidence about a Witness’ Truthfulness in a Maryland Criminal Trial

August 2, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In any criminal jury trial, it is the job of the jury to determine whether or not the accused person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes assessing the credibility of various types of evidence, including the testimony of an alleged victim. In other words, the jury must decide which testimony is believable and which isn’t. That responsibility falls solely on the jury and any trial where that task gets shifted to someone else is improper and may allow a convicted defendant to obtain a new trial. Whether it is improper expert opinion testimony or other inadmissible evidence, it is important to be armed with the arguments you need to keep out such proof, which is why it pays to have skilled Maryland criminal defense counsel in your corner.

An example of such an improper process occurred in the trial of a man in Charles County. J.F. was accused of sexually abusing his daughter three times when the girl was between five and eight years old. The first trial ended in a hung jury. In the second trial, the vast majority of the evidence the state had against the father was out-of-court statements by the daughter and the daughter’s trial testimony.

This wasn’t all of the evidence that the state presented, though. The state also called a counselor as an expert witness. The examiner testified that the girl displayed no “signs of fabrication” and that she had no concerns that the girl’s out-of-court statements accusing the father were the result of coaching or otherwise weren’t true. The jury eventually convicted the father.

Prosecution’s Evidence of Accused Maryland Man’s ‘Other Bad Acts’ Allows Accused to Get a New Trial

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

The law has some very clear and strict limitations on using what’s called “other bad acts” against a defendant in a criminal trial. The reason for this is very sensible: the interests of justice are not served if a jury decides to convict a person, not because the evidence proves the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but because the jury hears about prior bad acts and decides that the accused is a bad person. Generally, a person’s other, unrelated bad acts from his past are not relevant to whether or not he committed the current crime, so they should not be admissible. When it comes to keeping out evidence that should not be admissible in your trial, be sure you have experienced Maryland defense counsel on your side to protect your rights.

Take, as an example, the case of N., who was out a bar in Baltimore one night in September 2014. An acquaintance managed to get thrown out of the bar by four employees, including two bouncers. Several people, including N., spilled outside and the bouncing turned into another fracas where the bouncers, according to N., attacked him. N. allegedly attempted to defend himself with a knife. One bouncer received a facial cut, the other was slashed in the throat. The second bouncer died.

The state charged N. with first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder. At the trial, the prosecution played a statement in which N. admitted that he went to the bar that night intending to sell cocaine. The jury acquitted N. of the murder and attempted murder charges, but convicted him on two lesser charges.

Maryland Man Gets His Murder Conviction Reversed Due to Improper Police Questioning After He Invoked His Right to an Attorney

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

Judges may cite to popular songs, books, or movies in their legal opinions for various reasons. Sometimes, it’s to enliven a tedious process. Sometimes, it is to rebuke a lawyer who did a poor job. Other times, though, these references are especially insightful and relevant to a specific issue. A recent Court of Special Appeals opinion opened with a quote from the popular lawyer drama Better Call Saul. The character in the quoted passage advises his listener that the time when people most need a lawyer is when “they find themselves in a little room with a detective who acts like he’s their best friend. ‘Talk to me,’ he says, ‘Help me clear this thing up. You don’t need a lawyer, only guilty people need lawyers’ and BOOM! … that’s when it all goes south.” While this passage is fiction, it does offer some very good real-life advice. The time to contact a criminal defense lawyer is NOT after you’ve waived your rights, started talking to the police, and said something that they potentially can use against you to incriminate you. The time to invoke your right to counsel and obtain a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney is from the very beginning of law enforcement’s questioning of you.

The recent court opinion quoting that TV show episode was one that focused on the very important process of invoking your rights when faced with a police interrogation. The case involved the murder by stabbing of a man in Langley Park. The police apprehended Mynor and took him into interrogation. Several questions into the process, Mynor said, in Spanish, a sentence that the police translated as “That’s all I have to say to you. And if you accuse me of something, I better want an attorney.” Despite this statement, the interview continued. The police even acknowledged at one point that Mynor said he “wanted a lawyer,” but the interrogation kept going. Eventually, the man made potentially incriminating statements. The state took the case to trial and obtained a conviction on second-degree murder.

The accused man appealed. His argument, essentially, was that he invoked his right to remain silent and also his right to counsel, that the police improperly continued the interrogation, and that the trial court wrongfully allowed his incriminating post-invocation statements into his trial.