Justia Lawyer Rating
MSBA
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
AILA 2024 Member
ABA
Bar Association of Montgomery County, Maryland

| by

Maryland law prohibits the intentional distribution, sale and possession of items identified by a counterfeit mark. In a recent case, the defendant was driving on Route 301 with two burned out tag lights when he was pulled over by a state trooper. The state trooper noticed that the defendant did not make eye contact and that there were four air freshening trees hanging in the car, including at the rear of the car.

He radioed to the station for a criminal history and traffic check on the defendant, which revealed the defendant’s license had expired and the defendant had been charged with drug possession. Accordingly he called for backup and began citing the defendant for driving on an expired license.

When the other trooper arrived, they spoke about the situation and asked the defendant and his companion to exit the car. A trained dog searched the vehicle for illegal substances. There were two marijuana cigarettes, which the defendant admitted belonged to him. Also recovered were more than 300 DVDs and CDs suspected to be counterfeits. The defendant was charged on numerous counts, including a charge of distributing, selling and possessing counterfeit items. Continue reading

| by

Maryland, like most states, takes drunk driving seriously. While the penalties vary, even a driver’s license suspension can significantly affect one’s life. It can impact one’s ability to go to one’s place of business or school, pick up the kids or buy groceries.

In a recent case, an officer responding to an accident noted the odor of alcohol coming from the breath of the defendant. He arrested the defendant and asked him to take a blood test to determine blood alcohol concentration. The defendant was taken to the hospital.

At the hospital the defendant was warned of consequences for refusing a chemical test for alcohol. He agreed to take the test. The specimen of his blood was found to be more than twice the legal limit and it was certified by the law enforcement officer. He noted that the reasonable grounds for his belief of the defendant’s intoxication was that he responded to the accident and smelled the alcohol. Continue reading

| by

Maryland jurors place a lot of trust in DNA evidence. However, DNA evidence is actually fairly technical and testimony or arguments related to the evidence may be confusing—so confusing it can affect the outcome of a trial. What happens, for example, if a prosecutor makes incorrect arguments about critical DNA evidence?

In a recent case, that was just what was at issue. In October 2008, police found a man who had been shot in his side lying on his back next to a pick-up truck. The sergeant who found him asked questions to figure out what the man knew about the person who shot him. The victim gave short answers to offer a description and later died.

The police discovered that the defendant and his cousin had been in the same neighborhood as the victim at the time of death. The cousin lost sight of the defendant while the defendant went to meet a woman he’d met on a chat line. During that time, the police believed, the defendant shot the victim. The defendant was indicted for first-degree murder, robbery, theft and use of a handgun while committing a crime of violence. Continue reading

| by

Recently, a client retained our services to assist with a serious criminal matter in which he was being investigated.   The day before he came to our office desperately seeking our help, he had received a telephone call from the Montgomery County Police Department (“MDPD”) and the officer informed him that he was being investigating for having committed sexual abuse many years earlier.

Not knowing what the officer was talking about and fearing the repercussions if he said the wrong thing, the client refused to discuss the alleged incident without speaking to a criminal defense attorney first.

Upon being retained, this case became top priority.  Our criminal defense attorneys immediately contacted the investigating officer to discuss the status of the investigation.  The officer was preparing the necessary paperwork to immediately charge the client with sexual offense in the third degree.

Continue reading

| by

How far is too far when Maryland police are trying to track criminal activity? Usually citizens are protected in their homes by the Fourth Amendment from unwarranted searches and seizures. But what happens if you consent to the entry and the search?

A recent appellate case arose when a high school junior was sitting at a bus stop talking on her cell phone. The defendant approached and told her to give him all her stuff or he would cut her. She saw him holding a knife. He took her possessions and ran away. The victim returned to school and spoke to the Baltimore police.

She described the man who attacked her as a black male with a salt and pepper beard. She told the detective her cell phone number and described the phone. The officer sent the police report to a unit that specializes in locating stolen cell phones. Continue reading

| by

Although Zimmerman was acquitted, the Trayvon Martin shooting is continuing to have a significant impact on lawmakers. By now most Maryland residents have heard of controversial “Stand Your Ground” laws in connection with George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the Trayvon Martin killing in Florida.

“Stand your ground” is one of four legal concepts related to self-defense. The other three are “Duty to retreat,” “castle doctrine,” and “self-defense.” The last of these is designed to protect an innocent person who is attacked—it is what was applied to the Trayvon Martin case, even though “stand your ground” was associated with the case. The castle doctrine is like self-defense, but it only applies to home, place of work, vehicle and real property.

The state of Maryland follows the “duty to retreat” law. A “duty to retreat” means that someone who might be being attacked cannot resort to deadly force or self-defense if it is possible to safely avoid the harm. Continue reading

| by

What is Maryland’s de novo system? It is a system that allows review of decisions rendered in courts of limited jurisdiction by a trial court of general jurisdiction. A defendant who is convicted in a District Court of Maryland can appeal the conviction de novo to a circuit court. The reason de novo appeals were originally allowed was to permit people who cannot afford a transcript of the record to have a member of the judiciary take a second look.

Allowing a trial de novo means that a criminal defendant is permitted a “new bite at the apple,” as if the charges hadn’t previously been heard and no decision had been made. The State must produce evidence as if it hadn’t already been produced.

In a recent case, a defendant exercised his de novo right, but was convicted again on the basis of evidence from the first trial. The defendant was convicted for the first time for second-degree assault after attacking someone in the elevator of his apartment building in Silver Springs. The victim testified that the defendant was already in the elevator when he entered the elevator. But before the victim could hit the button for his floor, the defendant punched his face and hit him. The victim, who was injured, next remembered getting up and looking for his wife. The police responded before the victim could call them. Continue reading

| by

Maryland takes handgun offenses seriously. As such, if you are arrested for a handgun offense, it is important to retain a good trial lawyer who can mount strong challenges to the prosecution’s evidence. A recent case illustrates the importance of presenting a strong case at trial, rather than relying on appellate procedures in the event something goes wrong.

The case arose when a man (who eventually became a victim) drove to visit his father in Baltimore City, Maryland. Later the man visited his father’s friend. A group was gathered there. While at the house, the man decided to use the computer. The defendant knocked at the front door and entered. The defendant asked the man was he was doing. The man explained he was looking at a website with girls.

The defendant sat down next to the man and asked him questions, which made him uncomfortable. Finally the man confronted him and told him to sit by the front door where he was sitting before. The defendant refused. The man threatened to beat him up. The defendant got up and calmly left. He came back, however, with a revolver, with which he threatened the man. Continue reading

| by

As we’ve mentioned in earlier posts, Maryland takes a criminal’s right to trial by jury very seriously. While deliberating, however, jurors may need instruction from the trial judge. If a question is asked of the trial judge, any answer the judge gives must accurately state the law, respond to the jury’s question, but still permit the jury to decide the case.

Often a juror’s question concerns the law related to the evidence. However, a jury may also ask about the absence of something in the evidence. In a recent case, a man was on trial for second degree assault, committed against his girlfriend. The girlfriend testified that the man often came home drunk and hit her. On the day in question, he cursed at her, threw a glass at her, started hitting her with his fists and kicked her until she ran outside and hid.

She called 911 and in the call stated he had hit her in the head and was throwing her things into the street. When the police came they ordered the man to leave the property and told the woman to go back inside. Later the man returned and beat her again. She again ran and called 911. Continue reading

| by

In a recent criminal case, the Maryland Court of Appeals considered whether it was permissible to look into internal files related to the misconduct of two detectives and use the information to challenge their credibility in a criminal trial.

The case arose when two men were tried jointly and convicted after a shooting in Baltimore, Maryland. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments and a new trial followed. They were tried again and convicted. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the more serious judgments.

The men petitioned the Court of Appeals to review several questions. One of the questions for review was whether the trial court had made a mistake in refusing to let the defense inspect internal investigation division files related to officer misconduct and refusing to let them be cross-examined regarding the misconduct.

The shooting occurred in 2003 and was motivated by revenge. The jury found one of the petitioners guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and handgun offenses. The jury found the other petitioner guilty of conspiracy to murder and handgun offenses. Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
18310 Montgomery Village
Ave #250
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801Phone: (301) 519-2801Fax: (301) 519-2802
Florida Office
2255 Glades
Rd #324A
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design