Articles Posted in Uncategorized

I am very used to dealing with police tactics in my role as a criminal defense lawyer that some might consider to be overly aggressive. But the tactics I am seeing more and more of recently are going beyond aggressive and are, in my opinion, becoming down right counterproductive to the basic goals of law enforcement. What I mean by that is that the police are utilizing tactics that are breaking down the fundamental trust relationship between the police and the community that is necessary, indeed essential, for effective law enforcement – mostly in the pursuit of non-violent drug offenders.

Let me give you two examples from just the last hour. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

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.

Some of the more difficult cases that confront Aggressive Baltimore Criminal Attorneys are charges involving the possession of illegal firearms or possession of firearms by people who are prohibited to possess them due to a prior criminal conviction. Prosecutors in Baltimore City in particular are instructed to prosecute these cases under a zero tolerance policy and to seek incarceration in every cases.

Last week I successfully defended a man charged in a 10 count charging document of various charges alleging illegal possession and use of firearms. The charges included illegal possession of a short barrel shotgun, illegally discharging a firearm within the city limits, handgun on person, reckless endangerment and other related offenses. This case is a good example of how aggressively the State’s Attorney’s Office is prosecuting firearms cases, even in a situation like this one where the evidence was quite weak and the defendant had no prior criminal record. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

As Experienced and Aggressive Criminal Attorneys we often represent people charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Controlled Dangerous Substances such as Cocaine, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs. In these types of cases there are typically 2 categories of defenses that can be pursued – factual and legal defensese with legal defenses being more common. A factual defense usually involve claims that the person was not in fact in possession of the substance, that the substance was not in fact the illegal substance claimed by the police or that the amount is insufficient to be for the purpose of distribution.

Legal defenses involve claims that the police violated the defendant’s Constitutional rights while investigating the crime. Usually these claims relate to illegal search and seizure but sometime involve illegally obtained confessions. These claims are often referred to as “loopholes”. I successfully defended a defendant charged with possession over 10 pounds of marijuana in the Baltimore County Circuit Court. The case involved several hearings and dragged on for well over a year before we finally prevailed and had all charges dismissed. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Ashttps://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1301140.html for the last 15 years I have seen just about every factual scenario possible when it comes to people charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. I have blogged many times about the fact that it has become increasingly difficult over the last 15 years to secure a “not guilty” finding in a DUI case. The laws have become much stricter with the introduction of the “Per Se” violation and the reduction of the legal limit for DUI for .10 to .08. So in an increasing number of cases, experienced attorneys need to recognize quickly whether or not a case is defensible or whether to focus on mitigation instead.

Most not guilty results in DUI cases these days come by attacking the stop and suppressing the evidence. Even that has become more difficult over the years as groups such as MADD have begun monitoring court rooms and applying other grass roots pressure to persuade judges to get “tougher” on DUI’s. I had a case today in Howard County that was both a rare first factual scenario for me and also a reflection of the increasing intolerance for drinking and driving in Maryland courts. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

STSW attorneys Andrew White gained a high stakes victory in the Baltimore City Circuit Court in a case in which an STSW client was charged with multiple felony counts involving the possession of a handgun. The client had been charged after a car in which he was riding crashed on a northern Baltimore City roadway. According to witnesses at the scene, a handgun was thrown from the vehicle after the car flipped over multiple times and came to rest on its side. The witnesses described how the driver of the vehicle threw the gun from the car, which witnesses told police was being operated at a high rate of speed prior to the crash. The driver testified as a prosecution witness and testified that the STSW client gave her the firearm after the crash occurred. She also testified that the client possessed the firearm because he wanted to confront persons who had reportedly hurt his son. At trial, Mr. White and Ms. Murphy discredited the cooperating witnesses and used the physical evidence from the crash scene to show that the prosecution’s version of events was not possible. In issuing the “not guilty” verdict, the Circuit Court Judge agreed that the prosecution’s version of the case was undermined by the evidence adduced by Mr. White and Ms. Murphy at trial as well as by the extensive cross-examination of the cooperating witness.

The demise of the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines in 2005 has given rise to amazing opportunities for skilled federal criminal defense attorneys to achieve tremendous results for their clients. Nowhere is this truer than in federal bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud investigations and prosecutions. Federal “white collar” fraud prosecutions typically involve persons with little or no criminal background and with substantial ties to the community and strong family support. Surprisingly, many federal criminal defense attorneys do not take advantage of these factors in defending their clients. Under the old mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, family circumstances, family support, and community ties were generally prohibited as bases for sentencing reductions. Such circumstances were only to be considered if they were “extraordinary” and, even then, federal judges were hesitant to reduce sentences by any significant amount based on these factors.

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Booker invalidated the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines and changed the federal sentencing dynamic forever. In the Booker case, the Supreme Court made it clear that federal judges must impose sentences that are “reasonable” and consistent with the goals of federal sentencing as set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a). Many federal judges have come to realize that the protection of a defendant’s family is, in the right situation, a proper basis to impose probation instead of incarceration. But yet many federal defense attorneys are unaware of this powerful and emotional weapon to fight off prisons sentences in federal courts.
Continue reading ›

I recently had a criminal case in federal court where the Assistant US Attorney was arguing that the bouncing of checks by the defendant constituted federal bank fraud.

The Law:

18 U.S.C. § 1344 states that a person commits bank fraud when she knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice:

1. To defraud a financial institution; or
2. To obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.

Federal Case Law:

To obtain a conviction for bank fraud, the government must prove the following elements:

1. Defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution,
2. Defendant had the intent to defraud a financial institution, and
3. The bank involved was federally insured.

In U.S. v. Orr, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the federal bank fraud statute is not intended to create a federal “bad check” law. A routine bad check case does not fall under § 1344, but under the relevant state law. Mr. Orr, the defendant, opened a checking account under a false name and negotiated bad checks to merchants in exchange for merchandise. The bank subsequently dishonored the checks for insufficient funds. The court emphasized the fact that the bank was not defrauded when Mr. Orr wrote the bad checks because the bank did not suffer a loss, but that the losers were the payees. Additionally, the prosecution failed to show that Mr. Orr opened the bank account under a false name with the intent to defraud the bank.

However, courts have construed the rule in Orr narrowly. Orr establishes only that a “routine bad check” case is not within the scope of § 1344 when the defendant passes a check to a merchant from an account where the defendant is an authorized signatory and the bank dishonors the check for lack of sufficient funds. Orr has been distinguished in cases where the defendant artificially inflated his account balance through check kiting, and where the defendant negotiated stolen checks to merchants in exchange for merchandise. In U.S. v. Brandon, the defendant, Ms. Brandon, stole checks from legitimate account holders and negotiated the checks with forged endorsements. The court found that, in this instance, the bank was exposed to a risk of loss, which was sufficient to meet the elements of bank fraud.
Continue reading ›

Today the Maryland Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the proper use of voire dire in Maryland criminal trials.

Maryland Criminal Attorney reviews Miranda decision by Supreme Court. In its recent decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins the Supreme Court, in what some view as a paradoxical ruling, ruled that a defendant must affirmatively invoke his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney after being advised of his Miranda Rights. In other words, the Court ruled that a defendant must speak in order to invoke his right not to speak.

In this case, Thomkins was arrested for murder. He was taken into custody and read the Miranda Rights that are familiar to most all of us who have ever seen an episode of Law and Order. After being advised of his right to remain silent, Thomkins did just that; he remained silent throughout almost 3 hours of questioning by the detective. The detective finally broke Thomkins’ silence by asking him if he prayed to God to which he replied that he did. The Detective then asked him if he prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim in this case and Thompkins answered in the affirmative.
Continue reading ›

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlhttps://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAs A Maryland Criminal Attorney I am often retained after a defendant has gone to court and received what they perceive to be an unjust result. Some of these clients were represented by other attorneys when the bad result was obtained and some were foolish enough to have attempted to represent themselves in criminal court which is always a bad idea. In criminal court, the State is represented by a trained prosecutor who has spent years studying and practicing the law and is intimately familiar with the Maryland Rules as wells as the Criminal Procedure Article. Why someone would go to court facing the possibility of large fines, probation or even the loss of one’s freedom without retaining an attorney who is as at least as knowledgable and experienced as the State’s Attorney, is incomprehensible to me. Yet, I see it almost every day, usually with very bad results for the defendant. I represented a defendant today who had recently made this mistake and as a result spent 10 days in jail in a case that never would have resulted in jail time had she been represented by an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney. Here are the facts:

My client is a 19 year old young women with no prior record. She was the driver in a car when the police stopped her looking for her boyfriend for whom they had an arrest warrant. The police claimed that they saw a small amount of cocaine in plain view upon approaching the vehicle and based on that, searched the rest of the car. The police recovered 12 Oxycontin pills from my client’s purse. They placed her under arrest and charged her with possession of a controlled dangerous substance. A few months later she appeared in the District Court without an attorney. She requested a postponement which was denied. (Note: many clients express to me their belief that a person is always granted a postponement on their first trial date. While I believe that the law does require the court to grant a postponement on the first trial date in most circumstances, some judges view it differently and routinely deny these requests.) My client had no choice but to represent herself at trial. She was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months in jail – FOR HER FIRST OFFENSE!
Continue reading ›

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am often retained for representation by offenders who have been charged and or convicted repeatedly in the past. An offender with a prior history of multiple DUI/DWI convictions presents an entirely different problem than that which faces the average first or even second offender. As I have discussed repeatedly here in this blog, even first and second offenses present the potential for incarceration these days, but if the case handled correctly this result can usually be avoided.

Offenders with two or more prior convictions, however, face almost certain incarceration if convicted in any jurisdiction in the state. As any experienced Maryland DUI/DWI lawyer will tell you, Harford County is among the strictest (if not the strictest) jurisdictions in Maryland for these types of cases which makes the risk even greater than if the offender were charged elsewhere.
Continue reading ›