Posted on December 05, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Trademark Counterfeiting is usually seen by Maryland Criminal Attorneys in Baltimore and throughout the State in the form of counterfeited movies and compact discs. Many people are surprised to hear that it is not only a serious criminal offense but can even be a felony depending upon the total retail value of the counterfeited merchandise possessed by the defendant.

I have a new client who was recently charged with possession of counterfeited movies in Baltimore County Maryland. He is a resident of Connecticut and was merely passing through Maryland when he was profiled by a Maryland Transportation Authority Police Officer just prior to entering the Harbor Tunnel. The client, who is a young African American man, acknowledges that he was speeding as alleged by the police officer but everyone knows that he wasn’t really pulled over for travelling 62 in a 55.

The MTA officer approached the car and in yet another example of a troubling pattern by Maryland law enforcement officers, claimed that he smelled the odor of burning marijuana. I have blogged about this issue several times but it really is getting to the point where it is almost a reflexive action for these cops to claim they smell marijuana to give them probable cause to search any vehicle they want – and the judges by and large let them get away with it. One would hope that sooner or later the judges are going to tire of hearing this testimony by police officers in cases where no burning marijuana was ever found.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 04, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal Attorney What exactly does it mean to be in "constructive possession" of contraband such as drugs or illegal weapons in Maryland? I was faced with this fairly common legal issue in a case in the District Court for Baltimore County in Catonsville this week. The facts of the case were as follows:

My client was operating a motor vehicle in the Catonsville area of Baltimore County one day this past summer. The police noted in their report that the car caught their attention because the operator was not wearing his seat belt. (I’m sure that the fact that he was a young black male had nothing to do with it). The officer’s turned around and followed the vehicle and made several other observations such as speeding and frequent lane changes. They pulled the vehicle over and identified my client as the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. My client produced a valid driver’s license as well as the registration which confirmed that the car was registered to his father.

The officer’s then claim that they smelled the odor of burning marijuana coming from the car. The Court of Appeals ruled long ago that the smell of burning marijuana alone constitutes probable cause to search a motor vehicle. Coincidentally, of course, the instances of police officer’s claiming to smell burning marijuana increased exponentially after that decision by the Court. It has always been curious to me that in many of these cases, including this one, the police officers never find any burning marijuana nor do they even claim that the driver was under the influence of marijuana.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 02, 2008 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal Attorney I had this issue in a case in the District Court in Baltimore City today. (The case was ultimately postponed so I will have to update the blog regarding the disposition of case). The facts of the case are that a police officer was travelling behind my client in her marked patrol unit. As my client approached a red light the officer noticed that the center brake light did not illuminate when the other two did. She activated her emergency equipment and pulled my client over for the purpose, according to her report, of issuing a repair order. She also ran my client’s license through the MVA computer and determined that his license was suspended at which time she placed him under arrest. Was this a legal stop?

The problem with the stop as I see it, is that under Maryland law, all motor vehicles are required to have TWO operating brake lights, not three. So the question is, does an officer have probable cause to pull someone over because the vehicle that that person is operating has an non-functioning but clearly optional equipment. In my view the answer is no. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals has not ruled yet on this precise issue but we can learn something about how they may rule by their rulings on some similar cases.

In a case called James Muse v. State, the Court of Appeals took up the similar situation of whether or not the police could pull a person over for operating a vehicle with a cracked windshield. The Court essentially said that even though there was no moving violation or other violation of the code committed by the driver, there was a safety issue and therefore the officer "was enititled to stop appellant’s vehicle to investigate the crack in his windshield and for the purpose of writing an equipment order".

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 01, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

There is a log of buzz in Maryland about medical malpractice cases against hospitals due to hospital infections, after an article in Maryland’s legal newspaper, The Daily Record, published an article that such lawsuits are on the rise. According to the article:

* On Nov. 6, a jury awarded $13.5 million in a medical malpractice case to the family of a Massachusetts woman who died of an infection caused by flesh-eating bacteria that she contracted during cancer treatment.

* On Nov. 14, a Utah woman reached a confidential settlement in a $16 million medical malpractice suit she filed, alleging that a hospital failed to detect necrotizing fasciitis, a flesh-eating bacteria, before and after she gave birth, causing her to lose three limbs and several organs.

* In July, a Missouri couple was awarded $2.58 million in a medical malpractice case after the husband contracted a potentially deadly type of staph infection, known as Methicillin-Resistant Staph Aureus (MRSA), when doctors inserted a pacemaker. As a result of the infection, the patient lost a kidney, and a leg and a foot had to be amputated.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 01, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

A Los Angeles County woman may receive more than $1.6 million to settle a malpractice lawsuit she brought against the county after being paralyzed during back surgery at a Los Angeles medical center. The L.A. county Claims Board is prepared to discuss the proposed medical malpractice settlement with legal counsel behind closed doors. If they give their go-ahead, the matter will then go before the county Board of Supervisors for final approval.

The lawsuit was brought by a woman who had two vertebrae fractured in a car accident in 2005. During surgery at the hospital, the woman, who was 20 years old at the time, was paralyzed. In her lawsuit, the woman claimed that no one explained the risks of the procedure to her and that the hospital’s staff failed to provide her with the necessary care. Although the medical center took the position that she received proper care, the settlement was proposed to avoid a potentially risky jury trial.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the county would pay $1.5 million to the woman and assume medical bills totaling $112,999. The county has already paid more than $217,000 in attorney fees in the case.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 25, 2008 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

I recently won a significant victory for a federal criminal client in United States District Court for the District of Maryland in a re-sentencing under Booker. https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1301200.html In the Booker case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines that apply to all criminal cases prosecuted in federal courts were no longer mandatory. The Court in Booker held that federal judges should consider the sentencing guidelines in fashioning a sentence, but that the guidelines were just one of many factors to be weighed in sentencing. These factors are laid out in federal law at 18 U.S.C.§3553(a) & (b). They include the nature and circumstances of the person, the need to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant, as well as the nature and circumstances of the offense.

While the Court’s decision in Booker was not retroactive, the case does apply to cases that were on appeal at the time of the decision. In my recent case, the client had been convicted prior to Booker and sentenced to 174 months incarceration for being part of a multi-state drug conspiracy. The client’s trial defense attorney did not ask the federal appeals court to remand the case for a new sentencing in light of the Booker decision. I represented the client in a federal habeus suit in Maryland seeking that the client be re-sentenced.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 11, 2008 in Personal Injury

Experienced personal injury attorneys know there is no question asked more often and as difficult to answer than; What is my case worth? The answer to this question is based upon many factors which an experienced personal injury lawyer can best answer.

Our system of civil justice is terrible at valuing the loss, but rather consistently values the lawsuit. For instance, there are many cases involving horrific tragedies such as the death of a child, the loss of which can never be compensated for. Nonetheless, our judicial system attempts to assign a value to such an incomprehensible losses. Hence, the value of most lawsuits never truly compensate for the irreplaceable loss of life or limb. So how do we lawyers come up with a value for injury cases? Understanding this is an imperfect science, lets get cracking.

Most experienced personal injury lawyers will consider the below factors, as well as personal experience, to provide clients with a range of what a case may be worth. The factors that determine value of a personal injury case include:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 10, 2008 in Personal Injury

LIST OF INSTRUCTIONS (Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions-Unless Otherwise Indicated)

1. Introduction 1:1
2. Questions of Law During Trial 1:2
3. Witness Testimony Consideration 1:3
4. Expert Opinion Testimony 1:4
5. Impartiality in Consideration 1:5
6. Inferences from Statements of Court 1:6
7. Burden of Proof-Preponderance of Evidence Standard 1:7
8. Case Submission on Issues 1:12
9. Conclusion-Unanimous Verdict 1:13
10. Introductory Statement on Damages 10:1
11. Compensatory Damages for Bodily Injury 10:2
12. Susceptibility to Injury 10:3
13. Damages – Collateral Source Rule 10:8
14. Mortality Table – Life Expectancy of Laura Moore 10:26
15. Standard of Care 18:1
16. Definition – Negligence 19:1
17. Definition – Causation 19:10
18. Contributory Negligence – Generally 19:11
19. Last Clear Chance 19:14
20. Definition of Pedestrian 23:1
21. Duty to Pedestrians – Generally 23:2

MPJI-Cv 1:1 INTRODUCTION
a. Instructions at Beginning of Trial
(i) Explanation of Trial Procedure
Members of the jury, in this case the plaintiff, (name), has sued the defendant, (name), claiming damages for (brief description of claim).
The trial will proceed in the following way. You will first hear opening statements by the lawyers. Each party has the right to make an opening statement for the purpose of outlining for you what the party expects to prove. The plaintiff’s lawyer will make the first opening statement and then the defendant’s lawyer may choose whether to make an opening statement.
The plaintiff will then present evidence. After the plaintiff’s case has been presented through witnesses and exhibits, the defendant will then have an opportunity to present evidence. Each witness is first examined by the party who calls the witness to testify and then the opposing party is permitted to cross-examine the witness.
During the trial the lawyers may make objections to the introduction of evidence, or make motions concerning the law. Arguments in connection with objections or motions are usually made out of the hearing of the jury, either here at the bench or after the jury has been excused from the courtroom. This is because questions of law and admissibility of evidence do not involve the jury; they are decided by the judge. It is the duty of a lawyer to make objections and motions which the lawyer believes are proper. You should not be influenced by the fact that a lawyer has made objections or by the number of objections which have been made. You should draw no conclusions from my rulings, either as to the merits of the case or as to my views regarding any witness or the case itself.
After the conclusion of all of the evidence, I will instruct you as to the law which is applicable to this case. You must follow and apply the law as I will explain it to you. After these instructions, the lawyers will make their closing arguments. In their arguments, the lawyers will point out to you what they contend the evidence has shown and the conclusions they would like you to draw from the evidence. The plaintiff’s lawyer will make the first closing argument, then the defendant’s lawyer will make a closing argument. After the defendant’s argument, the plaintiff will have an opportunity to make an argument in rebuttal to the defendant’s argument. What the lawyers say in their opening statements, in their closing arguments, and in making objections or motions during the trial, is not evidence. The reason the plaintiff goes first in each instance is because the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
After closing arguments, you will retire to the jury room and begin your deliberations. It will then be your function and responsibility to decide the facts. You must base your findings only upon the testimony, the exhibits received and the stipulation(s) of the parties and any conclusions which may fairly be drawn from that evidence.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 10, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

As a service to our clients, we are posting the following standard instructions for Maryland DUI/ DWI cases.

1. Contact alcohol counselor to set up evaluation and treatment. (List of Counselors enclosed).

2. Sign authorization for release of information with counselor and instruct counselor to send copies of evaluation and treatment plan to your attorney.

3. Respond to MVA Express office and get copy of complete driving record and send to attorney. (Copy can also be obtained on line http://mva.state.md.us/default.htm). There is a $10 charge and the record will be sent to the address that MVA has on file.

4. Prior to court or MVA hearing contact alcohol counselor for updated treatment summary. Instruct counselor to send/fax copy of update to our office and bring copy with you to MVA and court hearings.

5. If counselor has ordered AA or NA meetings procure attendance slips for all meetings and bring slips with you to all MVA and court hearings. If meetings will not provide attendance slips, create log of all meetings attended. Include date, time and location of meeting.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 10, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Maryland drunk driving offenses are charged as either DUI, DWI or both.

-DUI: Under Maryland law, driving under the influence (DUI) can be proven by a test result of .08% alcohol or more or by evidence showing that the driver’s normal coordination has been substantially impaired as a result of the consumption of alcohol. The maximum penalties are 1 year and $1000 for a first offense, 2 years and $2000 for a second offense, and 3 years and $3000 for a third offense. DUI also carries 12 points with the MVA and at a hearing the driver’s license may be revoked.

-DWI: Driving while impaired (DWI), although a lesser offense under Maryland law, is still a serious crime and can be established by evidence showing that the driver’s normal coordination was impaired to some extent as a result of the consumption of alcohol. This offense can be proved by evidence of a test result of .01% or more, but less than .08%. The maximum penalty is 60 days and $500 for a first offense and one year and $500 for a subsequent offense. DWI also carries 8 points with the MVA and at a hearing the driver’s license may be suspended.

Continue Reading ››