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 ››

 Posted on March 30, 2010 in Family Law

The pending bill to update the Maryland Child Support Guidelines passed in the Maryland House of Representatives this past Saturday, March 27, 2010 with a vote of 114 in favor and 25 votes against. However, the House did make a few changes to the bill, which will have to be reviewed. The House changed the date the Guidelines would go into effect from October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011. Also, the House revised the Guidelines to cap at a combined monthly income of $15,000.00 rather than $30,000.00. Currently, the Guidelines are capped at a combined monthly income of $10,000.00. Last, the House amended the bill to state that the new legislation would not qualify as a material change in circumstances for the purpose of requesting modification of child support.

For more information on Maryland child support laws contact an experienced Maryland domestic attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 29, 2010 in Personal Injury

Maryland lawyers who litigate car and truck accidents have a new tool at their disposal thanks to the Maryland Legislature’s imminent passage of a ban on handheld cell phones while driving. The new law will make it illegal for a motorist to text or talk on a cell phone while driving unless connected to a Bluetooth device.

Plaintiff’s lawyers can be expected to try to use violation of this statute as evidence of negligence. Defense attorneys will also focus on using violation of this statue to prove the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. One would suspect that defense attorneys and insurance companies will reap the most benefit from the new law.

It has often been the law in Maryland that violation of a statue is evidence of negligence. It has also been the law of Maryland that if a plaintiff is found to be one percent negligent, the plaintiff is one hundred percent barred from any recovery. This is called contributory negligence. Defense attorneys will likely focus on violation of this statue to salvage what may otherwise be a lost cause. In any event, I can see attorneys on both sides focusing on cell phone records and issuing thousands of subpoenas for records during discovery. The bill may help make Maryland roads safer but it is going to kill a lot of trees!

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 29, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Although the big news out of Annapolis this session is the likely passing of a ban on Maryland motorists using cell phones while driving, the reality is the bill has little teeth! Under the bill poised to pass, it is unlawful for a motorist on Maryland roads to hold a cell phone while talking on it, to text or otherwise use the device while driving. It will be lawful to use a blue-tooth device to talk on the phone remotely.

What makes the bill toothless is that it is a secondary offense. This means that the police are NOT allowed to stop a motorist if the officer sees an infraction. The officer can only write up a ticket if the motorist commits a primary infraction, such as speeding, and only then can the officer issue a citation for using a cell phone while driving. Upon conviction for the cell phone offense, the motorist will receive a whopping $40.00 fine and no points.

The best guess is that it is only a matter of time before this becomes a primary offense. It was not too long ago in Maryland when proponents of the mandatory seat belt law agreed to make it a secondary offense to ensure passage by the legislature. Just a few years later, it became a primary offense with little fanfare. Now the police can pull anyone over by claiming the motorist was not wearing a seat-belt. As an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney, I am well aware of the significance this bill will likely have in further eroding civil liberties. It is only a matter of time until the cell phone law becomes a primary offense. Everyone has a cell phone, and everyone will soon be fair game for a traffic stop.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 26, 2010 in Criminal Defense

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys/Lawyers are often called upon to represent defendants who are charged with manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance. Most of these cases involve the growing of Marijuana as this one did, but some involve the manufacture of methamphetamines or other drugs.

The case I had last week occurred on the West side of Baltimore County. My client, who is a 40 year old father of 3 with a college degree and various professional licenses to protect, was accused of growing 6 marijuana plants in his back yard. Unfortunately, Maryland law does not differentiate between manufacturing controlled dangerous substances for personal use and manufacturing for the purpose of distribution. Any manufacturing activity, including the growing of just one or a few marijuana plants is a felony under Maryland Law. Needless to say, the stakes were very high for the client in spite of the very small number of plants involved because a conviction would result in him having a felony on his record which would have a devastating effect on his career even if he avoided jail. Here are the facts:

My client was at work one day last November when he received a call from his neighbor informing him that there had been a burglary attempt at his home. The neighbor advised him that he has seen a man attempting to break into the back of his home. The neighbor told my client that he had chased the man away and called the police. He advised my client that the police wanted him to come home to help them with their investigation.

Continue Reading ››