Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

Handgun violence in Maryland

August 20, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

What Effect Can a Maryland Judge’s Instruction to the Jury Have on a Criminal Trial?

August 9, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

Can You Use the Misconduct of Maryland Police Officers to Discredit Their Testimony?

August 5, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

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

What is the “rule of lenity” in Maryland?

July 25, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Gun violence in Baltimore has flared up. Accordingly, news that the Maryland Court of Appeals recently published a criminal law opinion that ruled in favor of a previously convicted defendant caused a big stir among city officials and the media. The Baltimore Sun published an editorial that expressed outrage that the state’s mandatory five years without parole for gun possession by convicted felons would not stand. However, in spite of the press given to this case, the ruling in this case is narrow.

In the case, a man who had a prior nonviolent conviction was arrested and charged with more than one count of possession of a regulated firearm and a statutory handgun carrying violation. The fact that the conviction was nonviolent wound up being critical in the eventual outcome of the case.

At a jury trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated he had been previously convicted of distribution of a controlled substance and that this prevented him from being permitted to possess a regulated firearm. Continue reading

When May a Maryland Court Vacate a Guilty Plea?

July 22, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

What is a plea agreement? Essentially it is a contract between a criminal defendant and the State in which the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere on a charge. The court may accept or reject the agreement, but if it approves the agreement it must follow the terms and interpret it such that the integrity of the agreement is preserved.

Plea agreements are advantageous for some defendants. They can reduce exposure, remove or limit the stress of hearings and trials, and start the correctional process. They can also be advantageous for the State because trials are expensive and if there is no significant issue of guilt, it does not make sense to expend judicial and prosecutorial resources on them.

When is a Maryland court allowed to vacate a guilty plea? There are occasions in which a guilty plea may be vacated by the court. One reason for vacating a guilty plea is that the defendant obtained the plea agreement via fraud or misrepresentation. This occurs, for example, when a defendant agrees to be honest with the government about his involvement, but instead lies and withholds information. Continue reading

Case Summary: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance charge dismissed due to the evidence collected by our criminal defense attorneys

July 17, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Our office was recently retained by a client who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the potential consequences she faced were far more serious than a $25,000.00 fine and 4 years in jail.

This client was originally from the Dominican Republic and was a Legal Permanent Resident (also known as a green card holder). Although she had been in the US for many years, she was unable to find steady full time employment. Her only source of income for the past several months was the money she had earned babysitting.

One day an acquaintance offered to pay her to come and clean his house and the client jumped at the chance to earn a little extra money to take care of her children. When the client got to the house, she realized that she was going to need more cleaning supplies so the owner of the house went to purchase what she needed while she stayed there and continued working.

Waiving Your Right to Jury Trial in Maryland

July 15, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

When accused of a crime in Maryland, you are entitled to a jury trial. Whether or not a jury trial is the best option for you depends upon the facts of your case. In certain cases there may be good reasons to waive a jury trial and your criminal defense attorney can explain the pros and cons to you. However, before a trial judge can accept a waiver, he or she will advise you about the charges brought against you, the possible penalties and the nature of a jury trial.

Under Maryland Rule 4-246(b), a trial court must first examine you in open court in order to determine that you made the waiver of your right to a jury trial “knowingly and voluntarily.” He or she will announce this finding on the record.

How Is Probable Cause Determined in Maryland?

July 9, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Most people are aware of the protections offered by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. One protection is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The other requires that police only get a warrant that is particular and supported by probable cause.

The Supreme Court has ruled that searches and seizures conducted without a judicial warrant are presumptively unreasonable. This is because a neutral magistrate has not determined, in those cases, that there is probable cause to search or seize a particular property. This broad requirement for a warrant has several well-established exceptions. For example, a police officer may make a warrantless arrest when he or she has probable cause to believe the arrestee has committed a felony or attempted to commit a felony.

In a recent case, the defendant was convicted for robbery, reckless endangerment, second-degree assault, and theft. The defendant was apprehended when an officer, driving up in a marked police vehicle, saw him abandon his bike and run away near the scene of a robbery that had taken place the day before. The man’s flight, to the officer, suggested a guilty conscience. Also, the defendant looked like the description of the perpetrator of the recent robbery: a black male between 6 ft. 1 inches and 6 foot 3 inches with cornrows. The defendant went by the nickname “B” and “B” was the initial given in a previous lineup for the robbery.

Supreme Court Upholds Maryland’s Routine DNA Sampling

July 5, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A few months ago, this blog featured a discussion on Maryland v. King, a case that was then only pending before the United States Supreme Court. To refresh readers’ memories: A criminal defendant appealed a rape conviction that occurred only because Maryland police were able to take a cheek swab of his DNA as part of his arrest for an assault. They matched this sample with DNA evidence gathered in a rape from six years before.

The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that these routine cheek swabs violated the Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. The State appealed the ruling. On June 3, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction and affirmed the State’s right to gather DNA on a routine basis.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, compared DNA sampling of the arrested to fingerprinting, which is legal. Justice Kennedy wrote that states could collect DNA from people arrested for “serious offenses.” The majority opinion also reasoned that Maryland’s law supported the “well established” governmental interest of identifying people in custody as opposed to solving crimes.

Three justices typically regarded as the Court’s liberal justices joined Justice Scalia in the dissent, and Justice Scalia even took the rare step of reading the dissent it from the bench. He warned, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” In his view, the majority ruling did not build in limits. While Maryland only allows fingerprinting for people suspected of violent crime or burglary right now, the ruling is so broad it could permit law enforcement to take DNA from someone suspected of a mere traffic violation in the future. Continue reading

The Voluntary Intoxication Instruction in Maryland

June 25, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Usually a defendant cannot blame drunkenness or intoxication for his or her criminal conduct. However, in Maryland, as in other states, a defendant can ask that the jury receive a voluntary intoxication instruction when he or she is charged with a specific intent crime. A specific intent crime is one in which the prosecution must show that the defendant intended to act in such a way that he or she would cause a specific result. One such crime is first-degree murder.

This instruction is appropriate if a defendant can show evidence of “great intoxication” sufficient to negate the element of specific intent. It is not enough for the defense to show the judge that a defendant drank alcohol before performing the actions that led to a criminal charge. Rather, the evidence of great intoxication must be sufficient for the judge to allow a jury to find that he did not have the necessary mental faculties to act with specific intent. Continue reading