Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

Highest Court in Maryland Reviews Motion to Suppress in Criminal Wiretapping Case

April 8, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In criminal cases, law enforcement personnel employ a variety of different methods to gather evidence against an alleged “suspect.” One such strategy includes the use of wiretapping and electronic surveillance in an effort to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications. Both federal and state laws govern the use of wiretapping surveillance in criminal cases. Under Maryland’s wiretapping law, citizens are afforded a greater degree of privacy than under the federal wiretap law. If evidence in your criminal case was obtained via a wiretap or other electronic surveillance, it is vitally important that the intercepted communication was obtained within the confines of the law. For help with this aspect of your case, as well as any other legal issue, you are encouraged to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible after an arrest.

In a recent Maryland Court of Appeals case, the petitioner challenged the State’s method of obtaining evidence from a recorded phone call (monitored by the alleged victim), with equipment provided by a detective with the Montgomery County Police. Here, the victim alleged that he had been sexually abused by his step-uncle (petitioner) during the summer of 1982. Thirty years after the alleged sexual abuse took place in Maryland, the victim (who now lives in West Virginia) sought help from staff at a police station in Rockville. After describing the abuse to a detective, the two made several calls to the alleged perpetrator in an attempt to elicit an admission or confession.

Maryland Legislators Propose Sweeping Reforms to Criminal Justice System

March 21, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Maryland’s criminal justice system may seem complicated and intimidating to a person who has been arrested or charged with a crime. It is important to remember, however, that you may be able to assert any number of valid defenses. For instance, there exist both substantive and procedural criminal defense strategies. Substantive defenses are aimed at negating an element of the crime (e.g., lack of intent), while procedural defenses focus on the circumstances surrounding the investigation of the alleged crime. For example, law enforcement activities must follow established legal procedures and any investigation may not violate an individual’s constitutional rights. For these reasons, anyone arrested or charged with a crime is strongly encouraged to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Despite the availability of various defense strategies, keep in mind that many crimes, whether categorized as a felony or a misdemeanor, carry a statutory minimum sentence. With respect to certain drug-related offenses, critics have argued that minimum sentences often exceed the nature of the crime, result in prison overcrowding, and waste taxpayer dollars. In an effort to address these concerns and many others, Maryland Governor, Larry Hogan, recently announced recommendations by the Justice Reinvestment Coordinating Council. According to the Governor’s press release, the recommendations are intended to safely reduce Maryland’s incarcerated population, control corrections spending, and reinvest in more effective, less expensive strategies to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.

Maryland Court Orders a New Trial in Criminal Case Due to Violation of Batson Ruling

March 8, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Sixth Amendment guarantees citizens who have been charged with a crime the right to a trial by an impartial jury. The jury selection process serves to ensure that a panel of jurors is chosen fairly. Accordingly, under Maryland criminal law, prosecutors (the state’s counsel) and defense counsel are each afforded a certain number of “peremptory” challenges to the selection of a prospective juror. Clearly, the impartiality of a jury can have a dramatic impact in the outcome of a criminal case. To ensure that this aspect of your case — as well as every issue that arises from the moment of arrest — is handled fairly and appropriately, you are encouraged to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Counsel in a criminal case may object to a prospective juror in one of two ways: 1) asserting a challenge “for cause,” or 2) employing a “peremptory” challenge – an objection without needing to give a reason. Peremptory challenges are limited and may not be invoked on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. In order to determine whether a peremptory challenge is fair and legitimate, Maryland courts apply a three-step process established by the United States Supreme Court in the Batson v. Kentucky decision.

Maryland Court Rules Second Indictment Violates Double Jeopardy Clause

February 18, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The state of Maryland has adopted the law of double jeopardy, as set forth in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Essentially, the law protects citizens from being tried twice for the same crime. It is important to understand that double jeopardy is not a defense to the merits of a criminal case, but instead it is considered a “plea in bar” to prevent a trial from ever taking place. Courts have addressed the issue of double jeopardy in many criminal cases and have identified when it may be invoked and the extent of the legal protection. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is critical that you are aware of any and all defenses or legal protections available. An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney would be able to assess your case to provide a strong defense to the charges brought.

In a recent Maryland case, the state brought charges against Wayne Warren, Jr., alleging the sexual abuse of a minor, shortly after he had already been tried and convicted on two of eight charges of the same crime. After the first case was resolved in 2014, the state discovered new photographic evidence in a storage facility, allegedly establishing the sexual abuse of a minor. The state decided to bring another action against him, using this new evidence, which had never been used against him. The new indictment, presented three months after the guilty verdicts were handed down at the first trial, included four counts, each charging precisely the same crime: sexual abuse of a minor.

Maryland Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Petition for Post Conviction Relief

February 5, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A person who is arrested or charged with a crime – whether it is classified as a felony or misdemeanor – is encouraged to seek the assistance of an experienced criminal defense attorney. The gathering of evidence and other circumstances surrounding the arrest and indictment are extremely important pieces of a case. Each step must be analyzed and evaluated in accordance with the Maryland laws that serve to protect a citizen’s constitutional and statutory rights. In addition to defenses one may assert at the point of arrest or indictment, there are other arguments that can be raised even after a conviction. No matter which stage of a criminal case one is facing, it is imperative that you have an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney to assert a solid defense or a strong petition for post conviction relief.

Under Maryland law, a person who has been convicted of a crime may file a petition for “writ of actual innocence” and seek a new trial. Section 8-301 of the State Criminal Procedure Code sets forth the circumstances under which such a petition (and new trial) may be granted. These are when a person claims that there is newly discovered evidence that: (1) creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different, and (2) could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.

Maryland Court Reviews Allegations of an “Illegal Sentence” in Criminal Case

January 22, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Depending on the facts of a criminal case, a person may invoke any number of claims to overturn his or her conviction. For one, under Maryland law, a defect in the return of a jury verdict could render a conviction illegal and therefore a nullity. But understanding the situation under which such a claim might be viable and successful is a significant part of the post-conviction relief process. An experienced criminal defense attorney from Maryland would be able to assess your case in order to determine whether you would be able to challenge a conviction.

Under Maryland Rule 4-345(a), a court has the authority to correct an illegal sentence at any time. This refers to a situation in which no sentence or sanction should have been imposed, which includes a verdict of conviction that has not been finalized properly. Article 21 of the State’s Declaration of Rights in its Constitution provides that every person is entitled to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, “without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.” Essentially, this means that a jury’s verdict must be unanimous in order to sustain a criminal conviction.

Maryland Court Denies Motion to Suppress – Affirms Finding of Probable Cause

January 12, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Maryland, and in states throughout the country, people are entitled to legal protections under the Fourth Amendment – namely, to be free from illegal searches and seizures of their person, homes, papers, and effects. When a person is arrested or charged with a crime, it is vitally important that the evidence forming the basis for the arrest was obtained in a legally permissible manner. That is, law enforcement officials are required to adhere to the law when executing a search and seizure of a person or property. Any evidence obtained via an unreasonable or illegal search and seizure may be suppressed (not used against the person charged with the crime). There are many defenses one can raise in a criminal case, depending on the circumstances. You are encouraged to contact an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible if you have been arrested or charged with a crime.

In a recent Maryland criminal case, a circuit court issued a search and seizure warrant for the appellant’s apartment, based on an affidavit provided by a Baltimore City Police Officer. The basis for the affidavit included assorted information from confidential informants, provided by an acquaintance of the appellant, and discovered through an on-going police investigation. Officers executed the warrant and searched the appellant’s apartment. The search began with a positive alert from a K-9 dog in the area in front of the appellant’s apartment door. Once the officers entered the apartment hallway, they found large quantities of heroin and drug paraphernalia.

Maryland Court Reviews Post-Conviction DNA Statute in Criminal Case

December 18, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Among the many defenses a person can assert in a criminal case, evidence relating to DNA has gained increasing attention over recent years. Not only do people present DNA evidence throughout the course of their trials, but also cases have even been re-opened when relevant DNA evidence comes to light. One of the primary reasons for the increased use of such evidence in a criminal case is the continuous technological and scientific advancements in the field. Of course, state laws applicable to criminal cases must also evolve to keep up with these changes.

In 2001, Maryland’s General Assembly enacted the post-conviction DNA testing statute to provide a way for people who have been convicted of certain crimes to gather mitigating or exculpatory evidence through DNA testing of items related to the conviction. To understand how this law could apply to your case, you are encouraged to contact a Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

In a recent case involving a request for post-conviction relief, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other related offenses in 1996. Many years later, in 2008, quite a while after the conviction became final, the appellant sought relief under the post-conviction DNA testing statute. He attempted to prove that under Section 8-201 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Article, one item of the prosecution’s case (socks allegedly worn at the time of the murders) failed to contain his DNA. However, the State responded by informing the appellant that the socks no longer existed and were destroyed along with other items related to the case, once the matter was deemed final. The appellant did not reply to this response and later unsuccessfully pursued additional post-conviction relief, claiming that the evidence was destroyed in bad faith.

Maryland Court Overturns Conviction Based on Error During Voir Dire (Jury Questioning)

December 4, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Voir dire, the process by which prospective jurors are questioned and examined to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist, is a significant part of any jury trial. Most states, like Maryland, have rules that govern this phase of a criminal trial in order to ensure that a fair and impartial jury is ultimately impaneled in accordance with the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. When a court finds error during this segment of a criminal prosecution, any ultimate conviction may be overturned. For this reason alone, if you have been arrested or charged with a crime, it is vitally important to protect your legal rights as vigorously as possible. An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney could evaluate your case with an eye to preparing the best possible defense under the circumstances.

In a recent criminal case, the defendant was charged with illegal possession of a regulated firearm and later convicted after a jury trial. The defendant appealed the conviction, raising several arguments, including whether the trial court erred in refusing to ask, during voir dire, the “police witness” questions. In this case, the defendant’s counsel submitted certain voir dire questions to be asked of the prospective jurors. Included among these items were two questions relating to police officer testimony. It is important to take note that most of the evidence presented in this case against the defendant was comprised of police officer testimony.

Essentially, counsel requested that the judge ask the prospective jurors whether they would be more or less likely to believe a police officer or deputy solely because he is an officer or deputy, and whether they would be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or deputy as opposed to the accused. The trial court failed to ask these two questions, and at the conclusion of the questions for the whole jury pool, the judge asked defense counsel and the prosecution if they had any issues to address. Defense counsel responded “no.” Later, during additional questioning of the remaining potential jurors (prior to the selection of a panel), the defendant’s counsel requested that the police witness questions be asked. The trial court denied the request.

Maryland Court Ruled Defendant Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Child Abuse Case

November 22, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A criminal arrest is a serious matter. Whether the underlying alleged crime is a felony or a misdemeanor, the consequences of a conviction can negatively affect a person’s life in many ways, including potential jail time and a lasting criminal record. There are many defenses one may be able to assert, depending on the circumstances surrounding the arrest. Keep in mind that citizens are entitled to the protections of the Constitution, including the right to be free from an illegal search and seizure, and the right to the effective assistance of counsel. Anyone arrested or charged with a crime is encouraged to consult with an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

A recent Maryland case addressed one man’s right to the effective assistance of counsel in a second-degree child abuse case. Here, the defendant was an Ecuadorian citizen and a legal, permanent resident of the United States. The trial court found him guilty of the charges and sentenced him to five years in prison. He did not appeal the court’s verdict. Six months after the end of his probationary period, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement came to arrest the defendant. He was deemed to be subject to deportation as a result of his conviction for second-degree child abuse.