Posted on November 04, 2008 in Criminal Defense

The answer to the question is no. In fact the answer is that the police may not stop a person based on an anonymous tip in any state in the country because the law on this issue comes from a Supreme Court of the United States decision, as opposed to a state appellate court decision, and thus applies to all of the states. I used this issue to win a post conviction motion that I filed on behalf of a client in the Baltimore County Circuit Court. As some are aware, post convictions are rarely granted in Maryland, but this one was because, among other issues, the attorney who represented my client at trial had failed to raise this well settled issue in a case where it clearly applied.

The case that controls this issue is Florida v. J.L. In that case the police received an anonymous telephone tip that a young black male dressed a certain way and standing at a specific corner, was armed with a handgun. The police responded to the area and observed a young black male matching the description given by the anonymous tipster. The police stopped the young man (actually he was a juvenile, hence the use of his initials in the case in place of his name). In an extremely rare unanimous decision the Court ruled that the police had violated JL’s Fourth Amendment rights and laid down the rule that an anonymous tip alone was insufficient to give the police probable cause to stop and search a person.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 31, 2008 in Criminal Defense

The answer to the question is yes, in Maryland a 16 or 17 year old can be charged as an adult. In fact if the if it is alleged that the juvenile committed the robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, original jurisdiction lies with the adult system in the Circuit Court. If there is no allegation that a weapon was used, the juvenile could only be charged as an adult upon the granting of a motion filed by the State to do so.

I had a case that illustrated this jurisdictional issue this week in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. My client, who was just 16 years, 8 days old at the time of the alleged offense is charged with robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, robbery, assault and wear carry or transport a deadly weapon. He and three co-defendants were all charged with the alleged knife robbery of a man in his mid forties. I will explain the facts in a moment, but a brief overview of the juvenile versus adult jurisdiction, a topic about which I have blogged in the past, should be helpful.

In Maryland, a juvenile can be, actually must be, charged as an adult in the first instance (that is original jurisdiction vests with the Circuit Court) if the child is charged with any of the following crimes:
Second degree murder, second or third degree sex offenses, second or third degree rape, most handgun charges, armed robbery, kidnapping, involuntary manslaughter, carjacking, first degree assault, attempted murder, robbery or rape or any other felony if the juvenile has been previously adjudicated as an adult.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 22, 2008 in Personal Injury

Our firm has recently had considerable success against automobile manufacturers for defective airbags. We are familiar with the technical issues involving airbags that deploy with excessive force, untimely deployment, and airbags that do not deploy at all.

We represent client’s with airbag cases throughout the United States. Our expert network is highly skilled and effective. We offer free consultations and ask that you at least obtain a police report and vehicle photographs as soon as possible. In addition, we are interested in knowing:

1. Year, make and model of the vehicle 2. Whether any air bags deployed (driver, passenger, rollover air bags, side air bags, etc.)?
3. What were the injuries?
4. Date and description of accident, including what part of the vehicle was involved (front, side, rear) and what was hit (another car, pole, tree, etc.)
5. Do they have photographs of the vehicle damage?
6. Is the vehicle available? Where is it stored?
7. Description of any prior accidents with that vehicle 8. Was the person wearing their seat belt?
9. Were alcohol or drugs involved?

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 21, 2008 in Criminal Defense

The Probation Before Judgement Statute, Criminal Procedure 6-220, was updated several years ago to allow a person to be sentenced to a period of incarceration as a condition of the Probation Before Judgement. Why you ask, would a Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney think that amending a statute to allow for someone to be incarcerated when the previous iteration of the statute did not allow for incarceration, is a good thing?

To understand the answer it is important to first understand what Probation Before Judgement is. The best way to explain what Probation Before Judgement is, is to explain what it is not. Probation Before Judgement is NOT a conviction under Maryland Law. Under the statute a judge has the authority to strike out the guilty finding in most any criminal case. (There are a few crimes for which probation before judgement is not available including first, second and third degree sex offenses, first degree murder as well as second or subsequent convictions for DUI or CDS cases if the first conviction resulted in Probation Before Judgement).

The benefit of Probation Before Judgement is that a person who receives Probation Before Judgement can honestly say or, for instance put on a job application, that the person was not convicted in the case and has no criminal record. A person who receives Probation Before Judgement is also entitled by law to have the matter expunged in three years or, for good cause shown, sooner. Prior to the amendment the statute only allowed for a judge to incarcerate a person who received Probation Before Judgement in a few of the counties in the State. The reason I say that it is a good thing that the judges are now allowed to incarcerate someone is that it will and has resulted in more people receiving Probation Before Judgement instead of having permanent criminal records that can never be expunged.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 20, 2008 in Personal Injury

Nissan recently decided to recall 204,361 vehicles from its 2007 and 2008 model years in the United States due to the possibility that a passenger side airbag could fail to deploy properly in an accident. The recall covers 2007 and 2008 Nissan Altima, Altima Coupe, 350Z, Murano and Rogue; and Infiniti G35 Sedan, G37 Coupe and EX35 built from March 12, 2007 to May 27, 2008. Please click here for the full article.

The defect was in the passenger side "Occupant Classification System," which figures out whether the front passenger is present, and if so, whether it’s a child or small adult. Apparently, the problem is with Nissan’s "Occupant Classification System," which didn’t work properly since it was out of spec. As a consequence, the passenger airbag may not deploy in a serious crash.

For more information regarding Nissan’s recall, or to speak with a trial attorney with experience litigating similar product liability claims against automobile manufacturers, please contact us for a free consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 20, 2008 in Driving Under the Influence

Lawyers wear many hats including advocate, counselor and legal strategist. Often times, the many roles of a lawyer conflict with one another. Not so when it comes to advising DUI defendants to seek an alcohol evaluation and/or treatment. Not only does such a referral help the client on a personal level, but it assists the lawyer before both the criminal judge and the administrative judge (MVA hearing).

Every DUI defendant who consults with our law firm is provided a list of court certified alcohol education and treatment facilities. It is recommended that the client schedule an immediate appointment, answer the evaluators questions honestly and follow the recommendations of the counselor. If a person is deemed to have an alcohol dependency, in-patient and out-patient options will be discussed. Most problem drinkers will benefit from an out-patient program which may span from 12-48 weeks. In-patient treatment referrals are common for egregious cases and repeat offenders. The length varies.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 19, 2008 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

Many federal criminal defense attorneys are not aware of the pitfalls of the federal safety valve provisions. Persons charged with federal drug crimes need to retain an experienced criminal attorney familiar with all aspects of federal criminal law. An inexperienced or unknowing lawyer can expose a client to catastrophic risks. Here is why.

As we are all keenly aware, the federal government’s "war on drugs" is ensnaring hundreds of people with little or no criminal records who are caught up, for a myriad of reasons, with the distribution of drugs. This can range from a person carrying cash for a friend to pay for an airline ticket, to delivering a package to another person in exchange for cash to pay the rent or feed a child. Because of very harsh federal sentencing laws, the smallest players in a drug ring often end up being the most harshly treated. Most of time this is because the leaders of drug operations very often end up cooperating against others – including those below them whose "loyalty" they often gained through fear and threats of harm. Oftentimes, those persons caught on the lowest rungs of a drug conspiracy find themselves with few alternatives because they do not have significant information to provide to federal prosecutors, who retain exclusive control over who gets cooperation departures under the federal sentencing guidelines. As a result, defendants with minor or minimal culpability in a drug operation frequently end up on the receiving end of prosecutions involving tremendously high sentencing guidelines and, more critically, large minimum mandatory sentences.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 19, 2008 in Medical Malpractice

Last week, a Chicago man settled a medical malpractice case for $10 million against two groups representing doctors that he sued. In 2003, the man, a 33-year-old vice president at one of the country’s largest information technology staffing firms, was doing great. One year earlier, he had been diagnosed with a routine heart valve condition, a murmur and bicuspid heart valve, leaving him at risk of infective endocarditis, a buildup of bacteria around the heart valve
The heart condition led to the infection in his heart, but doctors with a local hospital repeatedly misdiagnosed it, sending the man home with allergy medication once and instructions on visiting a back specialist another time. The undiagnosed infection led to a piece of the infection breaking free and traveling to the man’s brain, according to the lawsuit. That caused a stroke that left the man with severe physical and mental disabilities, including severe damage to his language center. The man, a father of two children, still suffers from seizures, has no use of one of his hands and has difficulty walking, talking and reading.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 17, 2008 in Personal Injury

Homeowners insurance, depending upon the exact language, normally excludes intentional acts by insured that cause injury. A policy that excludes coverage for "damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured," has been interpreted as excluding coverage for results that were subjectively intended by insured’s act. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sparks, 63 Md. App. 738, 742 (1985). Moreover, the court has interpreted "intent" within the insurance policy as, "…desires to cause consequences…or believes that such consequences are substantially certain to result from his conduct." Id. at 744 (emphasis added). However, the court has distinguished "intentional" from "wanton," in noting that "wanton" conduct is described as consequences probably certain to result. Id. (emphasis added). Under such analysis, homeowners insurance would cover for an insured’s wanton conduct causing injury to a trespasser.

A federal case, using Maryland law, discussed a policy excluding coverage for acts by the insured that "reasonably expected or intended to cause a loss." The court stated the exclusion language applied to insured’s conduct of kicking in bathroom stall door that resulted in the door hitting the plaintiff and causing injuries. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Puig, 64 F. Supp.2d 514 (1999). The court in Blue Ridge Ins. Co., distinguished the case with Allstate Ins. Co., on the fact that the insurance policy in Blue Ridge Ins. Co., excluded acts "reasonably expected…to cause a loss" as opposed to the language contained in the policy in Allstate Ins. Co. (excluding coverage for damage which is either expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.)

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 17, 2008 in Personal Injury

As leading Maryland personal injury lawyers, we are often asked to explain Maryland law regarding wrongful death lawsuits.

Generally, a wrongful death claim is brought by a surviving spouse, child or parent. A Survival claim is brought by the personal representative of an estate.

To recover for a Wrongful Death cause of action, plaintiff must prove: 1) death; 2) negligence of the defendant; and 3) defendant’s negligence proximately caused death of decedent. Weimer v. Hetrick, 309 Md. 536, 547 (1987). In addition to the elements set out by case law, the Wrongful Death statute provides that the plaintiff must be within a category of defined beneficiaries under the statute and the claim must be brought within the applicable time period, 3 years after death of decedent. Md. Cts & Jud. Proc. Art. § 3-904.

To recover for a Survival cause of action, plaintiff must prove: 1) defendant’s negligence was direct and proximate cause of decedent’s injuries; 2) decedent lived after the injury; and 3) between time of injury and time of death, decedent experienced conscious pain. Tri-state Poultry Coop. v. Carey, 190 Md. 116, 125 (1948).

Continue Reading ››