Posted on February 24, 2015 in Criminal Defense

As an Aggressive and Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney, I have handled hundreds of cases involving the illegal possession of regulated firearms by disqualified persons. These are very serious offenses that can carry mandatory 5 year prison sentences depending upon why the person is disqualified. Over the past few years, detectives from the Baltimore County Police have been investigating people who have frequented Continental and Freestate gun ranges to see if the have criminal records that disqualify them from possessing handguns or other regulated firearms.

For those who are unaware, when a person goes to a gun range in Maryland, they are required to fill out a form that asks a number of questions. One of those questions asks if the person has ever been convicted of a crime that carries more than two years of imprisonment. The detectives procure these forms from the gun range and then run criminal background checks on everyone who frequented the range, including those who simply rented firearms as opposed to bringing one in with them. Those who have read my blog over the years know that I have been trying to warn people about these cynical and misguided cases for many years. These investigations are thinly veiled statistic building exercises that do nothing to advance the basic goals of law enforcement. Indeed they are, in my opinion, counterproductive to those goals as they cause people who live in the community that they are supposed to serve to become distrustful of the police and therefore less likely to assist them in legitimate criminal investigations. The police then compound the damage to the relationship between them and the community by these cases by utilizing a so called "ruse" technique to ensnare the targets of their investigation. I was recently retained in one of these cases by a boyfriend and girlfriend who shot at Continental. Here are the facts:

My clients are boyfriend and girlfriend who moved to Maryland a few years ago. I will refer to them as John and Jane Doe in this blog. Both John and Jane have minor criminal records. John has a "felony driving under the influence" charge from another State as well a misdemeanor assault charge that was classified by that State as "non-violent and non-repetitive". Jane had only a possession of CDS charge for which she was granted probation. She had been recently robbed at knife point in her neighborhood and became very fearful, even when in their home. John had been the victim of a vicious assault a number of years ago that left him in a medically induced coma for over 3 months.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 20, 2015 in Criminal Defense

As a former Assistant State’s Attorney and current Aggressive Criminal Defense Attorney with decades of experience, I have handled scores of cases involving the illegal Possession and Distribution of Child Pornography. These cases can be charged in state court or in federal court where the penalties are far more severe. For this reason, I always team up with my partner Andrew White to work these cases as Andy is a former Federal Prosecutor who headed up the sex offense unit for 7 years. He has been very successful over the years at convincing his former colleagues to defer prosecution in these matters to the state courts. Even in State court, however, These are serious crimes that carry the possibility of a felony conviction and extended prison sentences. It may come as a surprise to some to learn that a even a conviction for Misdemeanor Possession of Child Pornography requires mandatory registration as a Tier I Sex Offender for 15 years. A conviction for Felony Distribution or Possession with the Intent to Distribute Child Pornography requires registration as a Tier II Sex Offender for 25 years.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 13, 2015 in Administrative Law/Defense of Professionals

The Maryland Insurance Administration, or the MIA, is charged with regulating the insurance industry in Maryland. Its responsibilities include issuing licenses to insurance professionals, developing policy, and drafting regulations.

The MIA is also charged with investigating alleged violations of Maryland’s laws and regulations governing insurance. As part of this delegated authority, Section 2-206 of Maryland’s Insurance Article grants the MIA the power to "examine the accounts, records, documents, and transactions that relate to the insurance affairs or proposed insurance affairs" of insurance agents, insurance producers, adjusters, public adjusters, and surplus line brokers, among others. Frequently, the MIA will exercise this authority in the form of certain Orders, such as an Order to Produce Documents (similar to a subpoena) or an Order to Respond in writing to a specific inquiry received by the MIA, or perhaps both.

So, what should you do if you receive one of these Orders?

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 07, 2015 in Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions

Toward the end of last year, I attended a discovery conference in D.C. Throughout the panel discussions of the proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and various electronic discovery resources, I found myself thinking about the practical application to my current cases and future client representation. In other words, I was wondering how it applied to my legal practice and my clients.

"Discovery" is when the parties to a litigation exchange information related to the case. Unfortunately, the discovery process can be complicated, leading to both parties and their attorneys getting in trouble with the court. While outright discovery abuse is rare – though not unheard of – problems more often arise because the attorney does not sufficiently understand his client’s business and its functionalities.

Take, for example, the recent case of Brown v. Tellermate Holdings Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In this employment matter, Tellermate Holdings failed to produce to the Browns certain information that should have been turned over in discovery. This discovery failure stemmed from the attorney’s own failure to understand Tellermate’s business and how it worked. More specifically, Tellermate’s counsel did not uncover the existence of both an entire database of relevant and discoverable information and other relevant documents regarding a related employment dispute until long after Tellermate and its counsel had made untrue sworn statements to both the Browns and the court. Ultimately, the court imposed sanctions, prohibiting Tellermate from being able to use certain evidence that would have been a complete defense to the Browns’ lawsuit and ordering both the company and the attorneys to pay the Browns’ attorney’s fees related to the discovery failure.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 31, 2015 in Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions

Like many Eastern states, historically Maryland has not been a large producer of oil and gas. But that could change in the not so distant future. In the West, proponents of "fracking" are anxiously eying the new Hogan government to see what it will do while offshore, the Department of the Interior has announced that it will publish for public comment a draft proposed Five-Year Program for oil and gas leasing in the Mid-Atlantic. Development in either or both sectors could have a large impact on Maryland’s economy.

Out West, Maryland has had a de facto ban on "fracking," a process that allows for the development of natural gas that otherwise cannot economically be removed from the ground, since the O’Malley administration began assessing the risks associated with fracking in 2011. Three long years later, the group doing the study published a report with proposed regulations that would allow for drilling but which set the "gold standard" for how to do so. But that report now has a new administration at the helm, that of Republican Governor Larry Hogan, who has endorsed fracking so long as it can be done safely. All eyes are on Governor Hogan to see if he moves forward with the proposed regulations in their current form.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 26, 2015 in Complex Civil Litigation

Over the law few months, we have been getting calls every week from Internet subscribers who think they’re about to lose their homes, their entire life savings, or in one particular instance, their freedom (one woman was terribly afraid that she and her husband were going to be sent to prison).

It has been over a year since we last addressed the Malibu Media issue in our post Malibu Media Makes Marylanders Miserable, but the onslaught of copyright infringement cases filed by Malibu Media in the mid-Atlantic has not slowed. At last count, Malibu Media had filed over two thousand alleged copyright infringement cases in the United States, with over 355 cases right here in STSW’s home state of Maryland. The semi-boilerplate "Complaint" that Malibu Media files with the Court in these cases is usually a frightening, lengthy, confusing document that seeks hundreds of thousands in dollars in supposed damages from the Internet subscriber, who is the "Defendant." Each Malibu Media Complaint has an "Exhibit A" attached that lists sexually graphic video titles, and Malibu Media alleges the Defendant unlawfully downloaded and watched these sexually graphic videos with lewd titles.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 16, 2015 in Complex Civil Litigation

Courts across the country haven’t taken too kindly to insurers using technicalities or blaming their insureds to deny coverage and Maryland is no exception. Legislatures’ displeasure with insurers’ knack for finding devils in details sharpens where insurers deny coverage even though the insured’s mistakes caused no real problems. The Maryland General Assembly has therefore encoded (and the state courts have adopted) the so-called "prejudice rule" – an insurer can’t deny coverage without showing it was actually prejudiced by whatever the insured supposedly didn’t do.

Specifically, Md. Code, Ins. ("IN") § 19-110 states:

An insurer may disclaim coverage on a liability insurance policy on the ground that the insured or a person claiming the benefits of the policy through the insured has breached the policy by failing to cooperate with the insurer or by not giving the insurer the required notice only if the insurer establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the lack of cooperation or notice has resulted in actual prejudice to the insurer.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 29, 2014 in Personal Injury

Sadly, another bicycle rider has been killed by a driver, this time in Roland Park.

I have handled two high-profile bicycle death cases in Maryland in the last few years, and both of them were tragic. The first involved a bicyclist who was run over by a commercial vehicle in Baltimore City. That case also involved a hit and run, though the driver in that case never came back to the scene.

The second involved a Johns Hopkins student who was run over by an elderly woman.

These two cases were complicated matters on the issues of liability. What often can seem like clear cut cases to clients at first, often turn out to be more complicated, requiring the skills of someone seasoned at handling catastrophic injury cases. For example, the defense in these cases usually raise questions about whether the cyclist was properly and lawfully riding his bicycle, even when in a bicycle lane. This requires a reconstruction of the events to demonstrate that bicycle riders were not at fault. In these cases, we rely upon collision reconstruction experts and expect bicyclists to testify on such issues.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 11, 2014 in Criminal Defense

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney, I regularly represent defendants who are charged with Assault in the First Degree and Assault in the Second Degree. These are extremely serious offenses under Maryland Law carrying maximum sentences of 25 year for the felony and up to 10 years for the misdemeanor charge.

As I have discussed in previous blogs, it is a common misperception amongst many of my clients that the doctrine of self defense is not recognized under Maryland Law. This is simply untrue. The doctrines of self-defense, and its close cousin, "defense of others", are recognized in Maryland as well as every other State in the Union. In fact, I successfully defended a client in Baltimore City District Court utilizing both of these defenses just last week. My client was charged with Second Degree Assault resulting from an altercation he had with another motorist after a traffic incident. Here are the facts:

My client traveling eastbound on Boston Street in Baltimore City one afternoon this past summer. His wife was driving and he was seated in the front passenger seat. My client’s mother in law was traveling behind them in her vehicle. At some point, he noticed a large pick up truck in his rear view mirror pass his mother in law in a very aggressive manner. The pick up crossed the double yellow lane and accelerated to a high rate of speed. Once it overtook his mother in law’s vehicle, it swerved sharply back into the eastbound travel lanes nearly striking her. The vehicle then began to tailgate my client and his wife and made several attempts to pass them in the same aggressive manner. After the second such attempt, my client instructed his wife to pull over and allow the truck to pass, which she did.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on November 07, 2014 in Criminal Defense

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney for almost 20 years I have long recognized that when defending people you must not let the perfect result become the enemy of the good result, particularly when dealing with serious felonies such as possession with the intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances. I watch far too many inexperienced or simply ineffective attorneys treat criminal defense as if it is a zero sum game in which every case must result in either total vindication or total devastation for the client.

The truth of the matter is that in many cases, a properly prepared defense attorney with a well analyzed and prepared defense, can negotiate a resolution that is more than satisfactory to the client without exposing her to the risks of taking the case to trial. In many cases, if the prosecutor can be convinced that there are legitimate defenses to the case that may cause her to lose her case entirely, she may reduce her plea offer to something the defendant is willing to accept or even dismiss the case altogether. I had an excellent example of just such a situation play out last week in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Here are the facts:

My client is a young woman in her early twenties. She came from a troubled background living most of her teen years in foster care. Predictably she got into some trouble as a juvenile and found herself both a mother and a drug addict before her twenty first birthday. She was charged with possession with the intent to distribute CDS and related offenses resulting from a traffic stop last spring. She was pulled over in what is known as a "pretext stop". This term describes a situation in which a police officer uses a minor traffic violation as the basis to pull someone over when the actual reason for the stop is to conduct a drug investigation. Pretext stops are legal under both Maryland and Federal law.

Continue Reading ››