Posted on September 01, 2010 in Criminal Defense

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.html Experienced Maryland Criminal Attorney’s probably handle more simple drug possession cases than just about any other kind of case in the system. On any given District Court Docket in any jurisdiction in Maryland, a large percentage of the cases will be simple possession cases. Although the majority of these cases so not result in incarceration of the defendant they nonetheless need to be taken seriously as a conviction for possession can result in a permanent criminal record even for first time offenders. Second or subsequent offenders are all but certain to end up with a permanent criminal record and possible jail time, as Maryland Law only allows a person to receive probation before judgment one time for a drug conviction whether it be possession of CDS or possession of CDS with the intent to distribute.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 01, 2010 in Criminal Defense

As a Baltimore Maryalnd Criminal Attorney I am often hired to try to secure a defendants’ release on bail. Generally speaking, when a person is arrested by the police and charged with a criminal offense in Maryland, the law requires that the person be brought before a court commissioner within 24 hours. The commissioner will conduct a hearing in which he or she will explain to the person what they are charged with, what the maximum penalties are and their right to an attorney. The commissioner will then set the conditions of the person’s pre-trial release to include bail.

Many people make the mistake of not hiring counsel at this point to advise them as to how the bail can be posted at this point or whether the person should wait to see a Judge at a bail review hearing. These hearings are required to take place on the the next day in which the courts are open so very often it is only a matter of hours until this hearing. The reason I say it is a mistake not have the advice of an experienced criminal attorney at this point is that the commissioners, who are not attorneys much less judges and generally speaking have little or no legal training, very often set bails that are much higher or much lower than the amount at which a judge is likely to set in the case. Many people are unaware that in Maryland a judge may not only lower the defendant’s bail at the bail review hearing but can also raise it. An experienced and aggressive attorney may even be able to determine which judge will be handling the bail review and know what that judge’s tendencies are. Sometimes the advice may be to bail the person out before the hearing. In other circumstances it may be to wait for the hearing if the attorney knows who the judge is and is confident that the bail will be lowered if the person is properly represented at the hearing.

I have seen many cases in which a person’s bail has been set very low by the commissioner and the family or friends of the person don’t bail the defendant out when any knowledgeable attorney would have been able to advise them that the judge was very likely to raise the bail. I have also seen the opposite situation where a client’s family posts far more bail then the would have had to post had then waited for the bail review and been properly represented at the hearing.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 01, 2010 in Medical Malpractice

A grand jury has indicted a cardiologist in Salsibury, Maryland, Dr. John McLean, accusing him of health care fraud for allegedly submitting insurance claims for inserting unnecessary cardiac stents, ordering unnecessary tests and procedures and falsely documenting patient records. In addition to jail time, the indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $519,000 and two real estate parcels. The indictment states that Dr. McLean performed cardiac catheterizations on patients at Peninsula Regional Medical Center from late 2003 to 2007, and that he falsely recorded that patients’ coronary arteries were 70 percent blocked when they were not. Generally, patients must have a 70 percent blockage before stents are considered medically necessary.

I am handling a number of cases of unnecessary cardiac stents placed by Dr. Mark Midei at Saint Joseph Medical Center. As set forth in earlier posts on this blog, I have been saying all along that it is only a matter of time until Dr. Midei is indicted for insurance fraud for what he did.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 30, 2010 in Criminal Defense

This criminal defense issue arises in situations where an unknown person makes a 911 call and the prosecutor tries to use the tape against a criminal defendant at trial. In State v. Parker, 365 Md. 299 (2001), the Maryland Court of Appeals confronted the issue of whether the statements of two unidentified declarants to a police officer following a shooting were admissible. In determining whether the statements of the unidentified declarants were properly admitted by the trial court under the excited utterance hearsay exception, the appellate court observed that:

Where the identity of the hearsay declarant is unknown, the courts hold that the party seeking to introduce the excited utterance carries a heavy burden to prove the requisite indicia of reliability. It is held that the burden of the proponent is heightened, primarily because it is more difficult to establish personal observation and spontaneity where the declarant is unknown. Id. at 314.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 30, 2010 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

Federal criminal defense lawyers are often faced with the issue of "double counting" when dealing with white-collar crimes sentencing. Double counting occurs when "one part of the [Sentencing] Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the [Sentencing] Guidelines." U.S. v. Pena, 339 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting U.S. v. Hipenbecker, 115 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1997)). However, a trial court does not double count for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines by enhancing an offense level for two or more reasons when those reasons "address conceptually separate sentencing notions." U.S. v. Phillips, 506 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir. 2007).

Loss is broadly defined as the greater of actual loss or intended loss. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 commentary 3(A). Actual loss is "the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense." Id. Intended loss is (1) "the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense" and (2) "includes intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur." Id.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 30, 2010 in Driving Under the Influence

Many defendants charged with DUI in Maryland are dismayed to find out that not only do they have to go to court and face criminal charges, but they must also fight the MVA in a separate proceeding. Even if the criminal defendant is found "not guilty" of all charges in criminal court, the MVA may still suspend the defendant’s driver’s license on separate grounds.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled in Johnson v. State (1991) that this DOES NOT amount to double jeopardy. The bases of the MVA administrative hearing is to determine if the driver "broke his agreement" with the state when he was issued his license and agreed not to "drink and drive."

The Maryland DUI lawyers at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC are experts in the area of Maryland DUI laws and welcome anyone with pending charges to contact us for a complimentary consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 28, 2010 in Driving Under the Influence

I recently had two similar DUI cases with very different results. Each case involved a drunk driver who was involved in a one car accident. One driver ran into a parked train and the other driver hit a tree. In each case the driver was alone and there were no witnesses to the accident.

The drunk driver of the vehicle that hit the train stayed at the scene long enough for the police arrive. He told the police when asked that he was driving and he agreed to submit to field sobriety tests. He was found to be intoxicated, went to court and was convicted based upon his admission to the police and the subsequent field sobriety tests.

In the case of the defendant who hit a tree, left the scene and his car behind, jumped in a cab and went home to sleep it off. The next day when the police tracked him down by his license plate, he refused to talk to them without a lawyer present. He did not admit to driving, causing the accident, or to drinking. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage, but not DUI. When he went to court, the State could not prove he was driving that night and the defendant was acquitted. His only repercussion was the costs to get his car out of the Baltimore City yard.

For more information on Maryland DUI and Drunk Driving laws, please contact us at 410-385-2225.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 28, 2010 in Appeals - State & Federal

In this Maryland criminal case, Defendant Dillard was charged with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and related offenses. Detective Smith was the State’s primary witness. During trial, it was brought to the court’s attention that during a lunch break two jurors walked by Detective Smith, patted him on the back and said "good job." The defense attorney moved for a mistrial. The State asserted a mistrial was not necessary because the jurors had not made a specific comment about their opinions of Dillard’s guilt. The trial judge denied the motion for mistrial and refused to replace one of the jurors with an alternate. The jury convicted Dillard. Dillard appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed the trial judge. The Court of Appeals reversed Dillard’s conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s failure to conduct a voir dire examination of the jurors to determine whether the jurors had reached a premature conclusion as to Dillard’s guilt or formed fixed opinions constituted an abuse of discretion.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 25, 2010 in Criminal Defense

It has become apparent from recent Freedom of Information Act disclosures that George Hugely had sent threatening emails shortly before his former girlfriend, Yeardley Love, was found murdered. After the incident, Hugely’s lawyer tried to characterize Love’s death as an "accident." Hugely, of course, is facing first degree murder charges.

One of the prerequisites of murder in the first degree is premeditation. We knew that Hugely forced himself into Love’s apartment by literally breaking down her door. Now it has been confirmed that he previously sent Love threatening emails. The fact that he left the murder scene with Love’s laptop can only show he was trying to cover his email tracks.

A conviction for murder in the first degree is looking more and more like a slam dunk for the prosecution as the case unfolds.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 25, 2010 in Personal Injury

In a case eerily similar to the John Yates case, the Baltimore Sun is reporting that a Carrol County Cyclist was killed on Tuesday. Apparently John Martin Jr., 51, of New Windsor was riding his bike on Shepherds Mill road when a tractor-trailer driven by Anthony Edward Woodie made a right turn onto Route 75-directly in front of Mr. Martin.

Early indications are that Woodie is considered by police to be at fault for failing to yield to the cyclist while turning. This law firm is currently in litigation on behalf of the estate of John Yates who was killed in Baltimore City by a turning truck that also failed to yield to the cyclist.

As a result of our representation of the Yates and as advocates for cyclist’s rights, we are proud to have played a part in the Maryland General Assembly recently passing a new law helping to clarify the rights of cyclists on the roadways. Our sympathies go out to the entire Martin family.

Continue Reading ››