Posted on February 19, 2013 in Victim's Rights

As a Former Baltimore Prosecutor and current criminal attorney I have been involved in the prosecution of hundreds of child sex offenders. The disgraced and now deceased Johns Hopkins Gynecologist, Dr. Nikita Levy, would have likely faced prosecution under multiple federal and state criminal statutes had he not apparently committed suicide. The police are conducting an investigation that could potentially lead to charges against others if they either conspired with him to collect the images without the knowledge of the victims or if the materials were distributed to by others. In addition to many other areas of practice at STSW, we have a Practice Area Exclusively Dedicated to the Protection of Victim’s Rights.

Among the most serious charges that could have been filed against Dr. Levy and anyone who may have participated with him in these crimes, are charges involving the possession, distribution and manufacture of child pornography. According to news reports, many of his long time patients sent subsequently sent their daughters to him for gynecological care. Assuming any of the large cache of photos allegedly found in his home, turn out to be of minor victims, these statutes have undoubtedly been violated.

Under both Maryland and federal law it is a crime to possess. manufacture of distribute child pornography. Child pornography is generally defined as being images or video of the genitalia of a child under the age of 18 or depictions of that child participating in the commission of sexual acts either with adults or with other minors. Under Maryland state law a person can be incarcerated for up 10 years for violating the statute in any of the above described ways but there are no mandatory penalties. Under federal law the penalties are much more severe.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on February 19, 2013 in Medical Malpractice

Over the last few days, news reports have surfaced that a gynecologist / obstetrician who worked for Johns Hopkins, Dr. Nikita Levy, was improperly taking photographs and videos of patients.

Apparently, a co-worked reported Dr. Levy to a supervisor at Hopkins on 2/4/13 which resulted in Dr. Levy being fired by Hopkins on 2/8/13 and Hopkins notifying the police.

The police subsequently searched Dr. Levy’s home and found a large amount of "evidence." Presumably, this means that they found many photos and videos of his patients. After retaining a local lawyer, Dr. Levy committed suicide.

Surprisingly, patients are finding out about Dr. Levy’s misconduct through the news media instead of through Hopkins itself. Even the now disgraced St. Joseph Medical Center advised patients when its cardiologist Dr. Midei was found to have unnecessary implanted cardiac stents in hundreds of patients over years.

One major issue is who is responsible for Dr. Levy’s misconduct. He is certainly liable, but his malpractice insurance may exclude coverage for such misconduct and the extent of his assets are unknown. Hopkins, on the other hand, may be liable for the conduct of their employee.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 24, 2013 in Personal Injury

Recent developments and reports regarding the side effects of energy drinks are getting more and more attention in Maryland and national news. Reports are surfacing of several deaths and other serious medical conditions potentially resulting from the consumption of energy drinks or "dietary supplements" such as; Monster Energy, Red Bull, Amp, 5-Hour Energy, Rockstar, and Venom. Personal injury lawyers are taking notice.

A recent report filed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) revealed some alarming information of this rising concern. The report illustrates that the number of emergency department visits involving energy drinks, since 2007, has more than doubled in 2011. Further evidencing this growing issue, the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has reported that 13 deaths over the last four years have involved the small yet caffeine packed energy shot, 5-Hour Energy. Moreover, the F.D.A. has had the same energy drink mentioned in more than 90 filings. In an article by the New York Times, the F.D.A. is also cited as receiving five fatality filings referencing 5-Hour Energy’s main competitor – Monster Energy.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 18, 2013 in Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions

Sure, we’ve all heard that mobile software applications collect more personal data from our smart phones than they need to or should; and the mobile apps’ privacy policies are such a byzantine morass, none of us read them anyway. But the news that the most popular children’s mobile software apps are surreptitiously collecting and then selling to dozens, even hundreds, of marketers and third parties exactly where our children are at all times, what their mobile phone numbers are, and where exactly they go and what they do online, and that this all being done without notice to parent or child…well that creeps out even the most jaded adult.

Yesterday, December 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission released a detailed Report replete with research and data that demonstrates the most popular mobile software apps designed for, marketed to, and used by our children are doing all of this, and in so doing, may be running afoul of numerous federal and state consumer protection/deceptive advertising and privacy laws.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 18, 2013 in Administrative Law/Defense of Professionals

Jennifer O’Brien, a tenured New Jersey public school elementary teacher with 13 years of teaching experience and a master’s degree in education, was teaching a class of 23-first grade students (all of whom were minorities and mostly six-years old), when she posted on her own, private Facebook page these comments about her job to her 300+ Facebook friends and their friends of friends, "I’m not a teacher-I’m a warden for future criminals!" O’Brien didn’t stop there; she later posted to Facebook, "They had a scared straight program in school-why couldn’t [I] bring [first] graders?"

When NJ school officials came across the Facebook post and confronted O’Brien, she said she didn’t intend her comments to be offensive or racist statements, but otherwise she essentially was unrepentant. Parents were deeply concerned and angered by O’Brien’s Facebook posts; protests formed outside of the school attended by dozens; and parents demanded their children be removed from O’Brien’s classroom. O’Brien was dismissed from her position; her dismissal was affirmed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ); and ultimately, O’Brien appealed to a NJ state appellate court. O’Brien argued that her dismissal constituted a violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech because (1) her comments addressed a matter of legitimate public concern, i.e., school discipline, and (2) because her comments were made on her private Facebook page, they were protected speech.

Finding O’Brien’s arguments unpersuasive, on January 11, 2013, the NJ court affirmed the ALJ’s findings, stating, "the posting of such derogatory and demeaning comments about first-grade students showed a lack of self-control, insensitivity and a lack of professionalism."[1] Pointing out the young age of the first-grade students, the fact that O’Brien’s students were all minorities, and the nature of Social Media, the NJ appellate court applied an earlier United States Supreme Court decision, Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968), on teachers and free speech, and concluded that O’Brien’s right to her express comments on Facebook "was outweighed by the district’s interest in the efficient operation of its schools."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 18, 2013 in Criminal Defense

In a media-generating stunt, the Journal News, a suburban paper in Westchester County, NY, accessed state public gun permit records, compiled the names and addresses of gun owners in three New York Counties, and then posted an online map identifying and marking on the map all of the gun permit holders in each county, with their home addresses. (New York state law requires that the identity of gun permit holders be made public.) Wisely citing safety concerns, Putnam County officials, however, refused to release to the Journal News their gun permit holders’ personal information.

Although the Journal News correctly points out that New York law makes the information available public and the Journal News seems to suggest that its motives are altruistic and done in response to the horrific massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, there are serious and potentially catastrophic privacy and safety problems with the law and the newspaper’s actions. First, the law was written prior to social media and Google maps-which have enabled the identity and home address of thousands of gun owners to be made public to millions in a matter of seconds. Second, the Internet "gun map" creates an online roadmap to the location of thousands and thousands of guns-and that roadmap is available to every Tom, Dick and Harry who has access to the Internet (regardless of their mental status). Can’t get a gun because of a criminal conviction? Don’t worry… thanks to the Journal News, every criminal, every stalker, every disturbed individual now can easily locate you, your home and your gun. A little surveillance-no one’s home, a quick break and enter-and presto, you have a free gun. And stalkers now know whether the targeted victim has a gun to protect him or herself.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 18, 2013 in Victim's Rights

I am and have been involved in a number of cases where law enforcement and criminal defendants attempt to punish victims of violent crime for reporting the crime and seeking justice. Sara Reedy’s case, discussed here is an excellent example of precisely how survivors, victim advocates and their lawyers should respond-by going on the offensive.

Sara Reedy was assaulted at gunpoint at the gas station where she was working as a cashier. The perpetrator pulled a gun on her, emptied the till and forced her to perform a sex act on him. The detective who interviewed Sara and thought she invented the story to steal money from her employer. While pregnant, she was arrested on theft and false reporting charges. Her perpetrator later admitted to committing a similar sexual assault not long before Sara’s assault and the charges against Sara did not stick.

Sara sued the detective and, after a protracted legal battle, won a $1.5 million settlement. I commend Sara and her legal team for having the courage and fortitude to fight this clear injustice and I believe all of us who advocate for victims of crime should heed the lesson that the only way to really change victim-blaming behavior is to fight back and wins.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 17, 2013 in Medical Malpractice

In Maryland, the doctrine of informed consent requires a physician, before a patient undergoes a non-emergency medical procedure, to explain the proposed medical procedure to the patient including warning the patient of the benefits, risks and alternatives. The District Court for the District of Maryland recently had the occasion to review this law in the case of Robertson v. Iuliano, et al.

In that case, Robertson underwent back surgery at St. Agnes Hospital in 2006 following an accident. After the surgery, Robertson developed an infection and two additional surgeries were required. The surgery was performed by Luliano, a doctor employed by Nuerosurgery Services, LLC. Robertson signed informed consent forms for the second and third surgery, but not for the initial surgery. Robertson subsequently filed suit against Luliano, Neurosurgery Services and St. Agnes claiming that he would not have undergone the surgery if he had known of the risk of infection and seeking damages from, among other things, loss of income and medical bills.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 16, 2013 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

Recently there have been unprecedented fines and prison terms handed down by judges in Maryland and nationwide for Clean Water Act violations and other environmental crimes. On December 5, 2012, Judge Stagg of the Western District of Louisiana sentenced John Tuma, a former general manager of Arkla Disposal Services, to 60 months in prison, 36 months probation thereafter, and a $100,000 fine for violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). Tuma worked at Arkla’s Shreveport, Louisiana wastewater treatment facility where he allegedly oversaw the discharge of untreated wastewater. Based on those allegations, a federal jury convicted Tuma on 3 counts of violating the CWA, 1 count of conspiracy to violate the CWA, and 1 count of obstructing justice with respect to the EPA’s inspection of the Arkla facility. Tuma has appealed the conviction and sentencing.

Tuma’s sentencing follows on the heels of an unprecedented environmental criminal penalty leveled at Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, the world’s largest marketer of residential use pesticides. On September 7, the Southern District of Ohio sentenced Scotts to pay a $4 million fine for 11 criminal violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"). In a separate consent agreement, Scotts agreed to pay more than $6 million in civil penalties, spend $2 million on environmental projects, and contribute another $500,000 to organizations that protect bird habitat. According to Ignacia Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, the total criminal and civil penalty of $12.5 million is the largest payment in FIFRA’s history.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on January 02, 2013 in Criminal Defense

As Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorneys, the Criminal Defense Team at STSW represents scores of defendants each year who face Mandatory Sentences that must be served without parole for violating Narcotics and Firearms Laws. I have written about many of these cases in the past as they tend to be among the most difficult cases that criminal defense attorneys confront. A few weeks ago I represented three members of a family who had been charged with Trafficking Narcotics with a Firearm.

In addition to this count, the father was also charged with being a Felon in Possession of a Handgun. Both of these counts carry Minimum Mandatory Penalties of five years in prison without the possibility of parole. Needless to say it was a very serious case. Here are the facts:

My client is a 56 year old man who up until 4 years ago had no prior criminal record. He married with two grown children and has worked the same job for 25 years. Hardly the profile of dangerous armed drug dealer for which these harsh criminal statutes were written. On my initial review of the case I was quite concerned as the case appeared strong, particularly with respect to the Felon in Possession of a Handgun Count.

Continue Reading ››