Posted on May 10, 2010 in Driving Under the Influence

Often times in Maryland DUI prosecutions, there is an issue of whether the defendant was actually behind the wheel or driving. This often comes up when the defendant pulls over to "sleep it off".

The term "drive" as used in the Maryland drunk driver statutes means to drive, operate, move or be in actual physical control over a vehicle. This includes control over the steering of a vehicle that is being towed.

The seminal Maryland case on this issue is Atkinson v. State, 331 Md 199 (1993). In Atkinson, Maryland court of Appeals has determined that in situations where the driver is simply using his car for shelter until sober enough to drive, the driver can not be prosecuted for DUI. As long as the occupant is totally passive and has not made any attempts to actively control the vehicle. he is immune from a DUI prosecution in Maryland.

What constitutes "actual physical control" includes 1) whether the vehicle is legally parked or on a public roadway, 2) whether the vehicle’s headlights are on, 3) whether the ignition is on and the engine is running, 4) whether the driver is awake, 5) where in the vehicle is the occupant (driver’s seat or back seat makes a significance difference), and 6) the physical location of the ignition key.

Although Maryland courts strive for consistency, the reality is that Maryland Judge’s will inevitably interpret these factors slightly different when applying the law to a similar fact pattern. This is another reason why it is critical for a defendant to be represented by an experienced DUI lawyer who knows the personalities, bias and quirks of all the judges. There is usually a legitimate and proper way to move a case away from a Judge that may not view a matter favorably, hence another reason to hire an experienced and knowledgeable Maryland DUI defense attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 07, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Based upon sources in Baltimore, it is confirmed that George Huguely brutally attacked a University of Virginia male lacrosse player in his sleep in 2009. Eerily similar to the alleged attack and murder of Yeardlay Love, Huguely bloodied the face and caused head trauma to his teammate. The attack, which occurred last year, apparently was a retaliatory act against the teammate for allegedly kissing Love. It is also reported that Huguely was intoxicated during this attack as well.

The prior incident was reported to the varsity lacrosse coach, but both players involved played in the next game. It is unclear if any discipline was imposed by the coach. As the events leading up to the tragic murder unfold, it is beginning to look like University of Virginia administration and/or officials knew or should have known that Huguely was a loose cannon. He previously had several run-ins with police, threatened to kill a Virginia female police officer, and beat a fellow student and teammate in his sleep in 2009. Recognizing that hindsight is 20-20, one still wonders whether the University of Virginia fell asleep at the wheel?

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 06, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Yesterday I posted a blog critical of George Huguely’s defense counsel for coming out of the gate and describing this murder an "accident with a tragic outcome". I suggested that such a statement, if not supported by the facts, would forever undermine the credibility of the defense. Newly disclosed developments have boldened my position.

Today it is being reported that Huguely has two (2) prior run-ins with the law in Florida dating back to 2007. First he was charged with possession of alcohol as a minor in Palm Beach, and then police were called to intervene in a "very heated" argument involving his father and cousin.

These incidents proceed a 2008 arrest and conviction in Lexington Virginia where he was Tasered by police while shouting "I’ll kill all you bitches" to a female officer.

A lawyer needs to be very carefull about what he says in the early stages of a high-profile murder case that has peeked a communities interet or rage. I was cognizent of this in my statements to the media after the bail review in the Nicholas Browning multiple homicide case. I am surprised the Huguely defense was not tempered as well. The Huguely defense team, by calling this an "accident" has done irreputable harm to the goals of the defense, but arguably not to the ultimte goal of justice.

Correction: In my previous blog on this subject, I stated that Felony Murder stemming from burglary may result in the death penalty. Although true in Maryland, the maximum penalty for this type of felony murder in the State of Virginia is life imprisonment. Thank you for those who caught this. Notwithstanding, Huguely still faces the potential for the death penalty for First Degree Murder, if convicted.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 05, 2010 in Federal Crimes & White Collar Crimes

As a Maryland Federal Criminal Attorney/Lawyer and former Assistant United State’s Attorney for more than a decade, I have handled more than my share of Federal Wiretap Cases involving allegations of large scale distribution of narcotics. As a federal prosecutor, I prosecuted many of these cases and since leaving the United State’s Attorney’s Office, I have defended many more. These cases are among the most complicated criminal cases in the system. To defend these cases properly it is necessary to file carefully thought out motions along with meticulously researched and written legal memorandum. It takes years of experience to handle these high stakes cases properly. Here is an example of a brief that was filed and resulted in the suppression of all evidence in a Federal Wiretap Case here in Baltimore.:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

DARNELL DOE : Criminal No.:

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 05, 2010 in Criminal Defense

The Baltimore community, as well as the entire nation, is sickened by the senseless murder of Notre Dame Prep and University of Virginia student-athlete Yeardley Love. Although news reports are often inaccurate in the early stages of a criminal investigation, it appears from a reading of the application in support of the search and seizure warrant filed by the Charlottesville police, that the facts in this case are relatively straightforward.

At one time, Ms. Love, a women’s varsity lacrosse player, was dating a member of the men’s counterpart at the University of Virginia. The relationship went south and apparently Huguely was not happy with that development. He sent what will likely turn out to be incriminating emails to Love on the evening of the murder. He was so enraged by her responses, or lack thereof, that he felt compelled to pay her a visit in the early morning hours. He kicked in her door and repeatedly bashed her head against the wall with such force that he caused lethal injury. Hugely is a reported 6’2″ and 210 pounds.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 14, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Maryland Criminal/Civil Appeals Attorney discusses new opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals dealing with Miranda Warnings.

A new case was decided by Judge Barbera of the Maryland Court of Appeals on April 14, 2010 dealing with Miranda. The State alleged that Mr. Luckett believed his wife was having an affair with his son’s football coach. Mr. Luckett was alleged to have killed his wife and then went to the football coach’s place of business, a barber shop, and killed him.

Thereafter, Mr. Luckett attempted to take his life first by slitting his wrists and then by throwing himself in front of a Metro train. Detective Barba visited Luckett in the hospital and videotaped the interview. He read Luckett his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. Luckett asked if he would be "setting himself up" if he was going to discuss the case. Detective Barba responded that he didn’t need a lawyer if they were discussing matters "outside of the case." Luckett then gave a lengthy statement describing his belief that his wife had been having an affair with Mr. Scales, his activities during the
months leading up to the murders, and the murders them selves. The Circuit Court ruled that the exchange between Detective Barba and Luckett failed to convey to Luckett his right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation and granted the motion to suppress. The State appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court stating, " the unnecessarily lengthy and rambling discussion about the nature of the Miranda rights not only included specifically-questionable statements of the law but utterly failed effectively to communicate the message mandated by Miranda." The Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals held that Detective Barba did not inform Luckett that anything he said during interrogation could incriminate him. Detective Barba repeatedly advised Luckett that any of his statements that were not directly related to "the case" (whatever the detective meant by "the case") were outside the purview of the right to counsel. The Court held that Detective Barba’s repeated "explanations" of what Miranda does and does not protect during interrogation were incorrect as a matter of law. The Court held that a suspect is not properly informed of his or her Miranda rights when a statement of those rights, however correct the statement may be, is nullified by other incorrect statements concerning those rights.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 14, 2010 in Family Law

Maryland lawmakers passed the legislation that will update the Maryland child support guidelines for the first time in over twenty years on Monday. The new adjusted guidelines will go into effect October 1, 2010 and will only apply to new child support cases (i.e. establishments) or motions to modify child support after that date. The guidelines cap has been raised to $15,000 combined earnings per month, rather than the current $10,000. Most significantly, the new guidelines will adjust to the current increased cost of raising a child.

For more information on how this may affect your Maryland child support case contact an experienced Maryland child support attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 02, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Aggressive Baltimore County Maryland Criminal Lawyers like us handle cases involving illegal handgun possession on a regular basis. Handgun crimes are prioritized by Baltimore County Police and prosecutors, particularly cases involving possession of a handguns by convicted felons, the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence and cases involving the possession of a handgun while engaging in the trafficking of narcotics. Each of these offenses is a very serious crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of five years without the possibility of parole and maximum sentences of up to 20 years for the latter two offenses.

I have blogged about the tactics of the police in pursuing handgun cases in the past. Detectives in the firearms unit have for some time checked the criminal records of people purchasing weapons or ammunition at stores such as Dick’s Sporting Goods and K-Mart to see if they are convicted felons or otherwise prohibited from owning or possession handguns. In recent weeks I have been hired by two people in cases that reveal a new tactic my the police.

It appears that detectives are now checking the records of shooting ranges to determine if people who are frequenting these businesses are convicted felons or otherwise prohibited persons. Basically, when a person goes into a handgun range in Maryland that person is required to produce identification in order to access the range. The range employee records the person’s personal information including their driver’s license number on a form that the person is required to sign. The form also has a clause in it that states that person’s who have been convicted of certain crimes may not possess handguns. The person is told to read the form and only to sign it if they understand the information in it.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 31, 2010 in Driving Under the Influence

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300822.html As a full time Baltimore County Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am mindful of, and quite frankly troubled by, the fact that many attorneys handle criminal and serious traffic cases in spite of the fact that they are clearly not qualified to do so. I began to notice this fact when I was an Assistant State’s Attorney in Baltimore County where I regularly tried cases against attorneys who were in private practice. Many if these attorneys were highly experienced and effective criminal lawyers. Many were not.

Indeed at the time I was shocked at the level of incompetence of some of the attorneys. When I asked around, I found that many of these attorneys were domestic attorneys or had practices focusing on civil litigation. It seems that if one of their client’s came to them charged with a criminal or serious traffic offense, they would simply handle the case themselves instead of referring the matter to a criminal attorney. As I said, I prosecuted cases against these attorneys on a daily basis for five years and the clients were usually not well served. I have made the same observations from the other side of the aisle in 12 years I have spent as a full time criminal attorney and I witnessed a particularly egregious example last week.

The client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol and negligent driving. I was out in the hall before the case and couldn’t help but overhear the client discussing (actually it was more like arguing) the case with his attorney. I had seen this particular attorney a few times but could not put a name with a face. Because of this, I was pretty sure he was not a full time criminal defense attorney. I overheard the attorney explaining to the client that he had to accept a plea because "he would definitely lose" if he took the case to trial. The attorney also explained to the client that he " had a good judge" which he was actually correct about. I could tell that the client was not happy about pleading guilty but could not hear why. I found out why a few minutes later inside the courtroom.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 30, 2010 in Criminal Defense

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer/Attorney I have represented many people charged with various offenses related to the possession, distribution and manufacturing of child pornography. Jurisdiction exists to prosecute these cases in both Federal Court by the US Attorney’s Office and the State Court system. As in the case in most crimes for which there is dual jurisdiction, the penalties are much harsher in the federal system. In fact, there are mandatory minimum sentences in Federal Court of 5 years for receiving, 10 years for distribution, and 15 years for manufacturing child pornography. There are mandatory sentences in the state system.

In recent years, these matters have received much higher priority from both state and federal prosecutors and the two authorities collaborate closely on these cases. In what many on the defense side see as an unfair tactic, state prosecutors often use the threat of federal prosecution to convince (some say coerce) a defendant charged in the state system, to plead guilty. I am currently representing a man who is charged with distribution of child pornography who finds himself facing this very situation. I have handled many cases like this as a Baltimore Criminal Defense Attorney but what makes this case different is that the State’s theory for proving my client’s intent to distribute is his use of a file sharing program called Limewire. Here are the facts:

My client is a 19 year old man with no prior criminal record. He came to me after the police raided his house and confiscated his computer. The basis for the warrant was that my client had visited a child pornography site that the police were watching and they traced the IP address from his computer to his residence. At the time of the execution of the search warrant, he was read his Miranda Rights and questioned about the case. He admitted to the police that he searched for child pornography on the Internet using known terms for you young gay male images. He further admitted that he used the program Limewire to facilitate his search but denied that he had ever intended to distribute or share the images with anyone else. He further advised the police that he was only interested in images of post pubescent teenagers (in other words, his peers) and would immediately erase any images of young children captured by the Limewire search.

Continue Reading ››