Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

A Maryland appellate court recently considered whether a defendant competently waived his constitutional right to have a jury decide his case unanimously. The case arose when the defendant stabbed and killed a man in 2009. After an investigation he was charged with first-degree murder and two related weapons offenses.

The prosecution called several witnesses at trial. One testified that the defendant and his victim were arguing on her lawn around 2:00 a.m. and when she told them to get away from her front door, the victim swung a switchblade at the defendant before leaving. The defendant then went into her house, grabbed a knife and followed him. The defendant returned several minutes later, brandishing a bloody knife and stating “this is what I do if somebody messes with me”.

Another witness had previously told the police she witnessed the murder. She admitted in court she had not witnessed it exactly and was under the influence of drugs during the murder. Continue reading

In Maryland, only United States citizens may serve on the jury for a state case. Recently, a criminal defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that a Maryland court did not ask potential jurors voir dire questions about their citizenship.

The criminal defendant had previously been convicted of a felony and in this case was indicted for multiple offenses relating to stealing a handgun. Before trial, both parties submitted proposals of voir dire questions. The criminal defendant presented fourteen questions. The State asked nineteen.

The trial court told the jurors that he would ask them questions in order to help the attorneys impanel a fair and impartial jury. He then asked about twenty questions, plus follow-up. The criminal defendant asked the court to ask questions related to citizenship. The court ultimately did not and the criminal defendant was convicted. He appealed. Continue reading

A Maryland appellate court recently decided a case involving a charge of aggravated cruelty to animals. This case arises from the defendant stabbing a fifteen-year-old in Baltimore, Maryland in July 2004. The police officer went to the house of the defendant’s aunt and saw him run away.

A K-9 officer and his dog responded to the first police officer’s call for backup. They discovered the defendant hiding in another backyard with his hands hidden. The officer ordered him to come out with his hands up and warned him he would release the dog if the defendant didn’t follow his instructions.

The defendant did not show both his hands. The officer repeated his warning. When the defendant refused and resisted another officer, the officer released the dog. The dog had been trained to bite once in order to catch a suspect and to release him only after he followed the officer’s instructions. In response to the dog’s attempt to catch him, the defendant cut the dog above his eye.

When the defendant again tried to escape, the officer again told the dog to catch him. The dog grabbed the defendant’s left side as he tried to climb over the fence. The officer eventually told the dog to release so that the defendant would not further harm the dog. Officers caught the defendant on the other side of the fence. Continue reading

In the recently filed case Edward Charles Schmitt v. State of Maryland, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered whether evidence was sufficient to convict a man of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor where the minor was not aware of the abuse or exploitation.

The defendant moved in with his girlfriend in October 2007. His girlfriend had two minor children. In 2009, the girlfriend noticed a memory card hidden behind a picture on a bookshelf where the defendant stored things. She also found a plastic camera the size of a pack of a chewing gum, into which the memory card fit. The girlfriend saw three files on the memory card. The third file was a video of her fifteen-year-old daughter’s bedroom, taken from inside the closet.

On the video, the defendant and his girlfriend’s daughter were each shown. The defendant was shown masturbating. He left. Next the girlfriend’s daughter was shown entering the room and changing her clothes. She testified later that she didn’t place the camera in the closet nor permit the defendant to place it there.

Continue reading

The Maryland Court of Appeal recently considered a case, Waker v. State, which should be important to all criminal defendants. Prior to a 2009 amendment, a Maryland theft statute provided that theft of something worth not more than $500 was a misdemeanor not to be punished by more than 18 months in prison. If the stolen item was worth more than $500 it would be regarded as a felony with a higher prison sentence.

In 2009, the Maryland General Assembly amended the statute so that the theft of property valuing less than $1,000 was a misdemeanor, meaning that it could be punished by imprisonment of no more than 18 months. The theft statute was also amended to provide that theft of property worth more than $1000 but less than $10,000 is a felony. This law was signed by the Governor on May 19, 2009, and became effective October 1 of the same year.

In this case, Calvin Waker bought some items at Walmart using a fraudulent credit card in March 2009. He was caught and charged with stealing property valued at $615 and was set to go to trial in March 2009. After a postponement, his trial was held in December of 2009 instead. Waker waived his right to a jury trial and was tried on an “agreed not guilty statement of facts.” He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. At the time of the theft, Waker was subject to the earlier statute which said that anybody convicted of property or services valued at $500 or more is guilty of a felony, and he was sentenced accordingly. Continue reading