Silverman Thompson attorneys Brian Thompson, Riane White, and Patrick Seidel recently scored a major victory for a married couple facing a 30-count indictment for serious felonies, including armed robbery, extortion, and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. They faced maximum sentences of over 100 years if convicted on all counts. To make matters worse, the entire incident was caught on surveillance video. Silverman Thompson represented the husband and coordinated closely with the wife’s defense team.
The facts of this case were unusual. Our client and his wife were defrauded out of over $500,000 by someone they considered a friend. The money was supposed to be used for a business investment. Instead of investing the money, their former friend used the funds for expensive vacations and luxury purchases including nine cars, two of which were valued at almost $200,000 each.
Once they realized that they had been scammed, our client and his wife hired an attorney who informed them that they likely could not recoup the funds in civil court because the con artist already had in excess of $3 million in judgments against him from other victims of his scams.
Out of frustration, our client and his wife concocted a misguided plan to intimidate the fraudster into paying them at least some of what he owed them. They invited him to their business for a meeting. The wife was in the office alone with him when our client showed up with three large men. The plan was only to scare him but matters escalated when our client heard the fraudster call his wife a “bitch.”
The four men assaulted him, emptied his pockets, and then dragged him onto a linen sheet to make him believe he was about to be killed. They held him against his will for 78 minutes and took $600, his computer, Air Pods, and shoes before releasing him. Although the victim’s only diagnosed injury was a closed fracture of his upper cheekbone, which quickly healed on its own, the surveillance footage of the incident depicted a violent assault and would certainly have been sufficient to secure a conviction at trial.
Although our client and his wife are both hardworking business owners in their late forties, have no prior criminal records, and were themselves victims of a habitual con artist, the only plea offer the State would convey in this case involved a binding sentence of 45 years suspending all but 10 years to serve in the Department of Corrections.
The prosecutors refused our repeated requests to make a non-binding plea offer and allow a neutral judge to determine the appropriate penalty. It appeared to our client that he and his wife were being strong-armed into taking the case to trial so that upon their inevitable conviction, the State could demand an even longer sentence by claiming that they refused to accept responsibility. Again, given the video evidence, the couple easily could have received a decades-long sentence under this scenario.
We responded to the prosecutors’ aggressive tactics with extremely aggressive discovery demands, including demanding all communications between them, the police, and any other parties regarding our clients. In response, the State provided nearly 500 pages of heavily redacted emails, over which they asserted a dubious claim of attorney work product privilege. In response, we advised of our intention to file a motion to compel the State to produce the emails in their unredacted form. Upon learning of this plan, the State was suddenly amenable to conveying a non-binding offer that did not require our client to plead guilty to a firearms offense. The couple ultimately pled guilty to one count of armed robbery (with a baton) and one amended, lesser count of extortion.
Prior to sentencing, we filed a 60-page, 71-exhibit memorandum in support of our request for leniency. The sentencing guidelines were 4-9 years, and at sentencing, the State argued passionately for a sentence of 30 years suspending all but 10 years of executed jail time, 7.5 years for armed robbery followed by a consecutive 2.5 years for extortion.
The Court ultimately sentenced our client to 4 years on each count, to be served concurrently. His wife received concurrent 2-year sentences. Over the State’s objection, the Court also credited them 253 days of time served, much of which was served on home detention. The wife will likely be out on parole before the end of the year and our client will be eligible for parole in less than 15 months.
Potential clients often ask us what percentage of our cases we win. But in criminal defense, winning is a relative term and often does not involve a full trial on the merits. Given the evidence in this case and the maximum penalties associated with the charges, this was an incredible victory for our client.
For more information or a free consultation, please contact the Maryland criminal lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or call Brian Thompson at 410-659-9930 for a free consultation.
Disclaimer: This blog is informative in nature. The information contained herein is not to be considered legal advice and there is no attorney-client relationship formed between Silverman Thompson and the reader.