Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog

Trafficking Narcotics With a Firearm – What Must the State Prove and What are the Penalties?

October 23, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

As A Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney/Lawyer I represent many people charged with either handgun offenses or violations of the State’s narcotics aka controlled dangerous substance laws. More often than not, so long as the defendant does not have an extensive criminal history, these matters can be resolved without the defendant having to serve much or any time in prison, even assuming that the State can prove the case. However, when a person gets charged with possession of firearms and felony narcotics offenses at the same time, things get a lot trickier.

This is because under Maryland Law and Federal Law there are minimum mandatory sentences that must be served without the possibility of parole associated with trafficking narcotics with a firearm – even for first offenders. Perhaps more surprisingly, these laws apply to the possession of any firearm and not simply handguns or regulated firearms such as assault weapons. So while a convicted felon may be in possession of a shotgun without violating Maryland Law (shotgun possession by a convicted felon is a violation of Federal Law) a person with no record who is caught trafficking narcotics with a shotgun would be in violation of these laws and face the mandatory penalties just the same as if he were caught with a handgun or an assault weapon; and the penalty is a stiff one indeed. Any person in Maryland who is convicted of trafficking narcotics with a firearm faces a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison but the real meat in the statute is that the convicted defendant faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison without the possibility of parole. I currently represent a person who finds himself in this exact predicament. I will explain the facts and then get into what exactly the State must prove to convict my client or any other similarly situated defendant of this charge.
Continue reading ›

ATTACK THE CAREER OFFENDER LABEL !!!

October 16, 2009 | Andrew C. White

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAs a Maryland Federal Criminal Attorney I know that nothing in the federal sentencing guidelines strikes more fear into the hearts of defendants and defense attorneys than the Career Offender provisions, found at section 4B1.1. This section is the most overused and perhaps least understood of all components of the guidelines.

In a nutshell, a criminal defendant is considered a Career Offender if he is currently charged with a violent crime or controlled substance offense and has previously been convicted twice of “a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” It is basically the federal version of a “third strike” rule. The consequences of being labeled as a career offender are disastrous. First, a defendant’s criminal history category is automatically raised to Category VI-the most serious category in federal law. Second, the offense level for the current charge is also automatically inflated to some of the highest in the guidelines system. In most cases, the level is raised to 37. To give some perspective, level 43 is the highest designation in the sentencing guidelines, and applies to crimes such as 1st degree murder!

Moreover, federal courts have adopted a very wide “strike zone” in determining what constitutes a “controlled substance felony.” While most logical thinkers understand that a controlled substance felony means drug distribution or dealing, federal courts have ruled that a state drug possession conviction can qualify as long as the offense carries a maximum possible punishment of greater than one year. In Maryland, possession of cocaine carries a maximum possible punishment of four years, making it a “felony” for federal purposes, even though the crime is classified as a misdemeanor under state law. So an individual in Maryland who has been twice convicted of cocaine possession will be treated as a career offender if he thereafter is charged in federal court with drug dealing or conspiracy to deal drugs. The results are significant.

A defendant classified as a career offender in a federal drug case will typically face a sentencing range of 30 years – life! Facing such a monstrous guideline range forces many defendants to accept guilty pleas in defensible cases as well as cases where the defendant is actually innocent!
Continue reading ›

Carroll County Maryland Assault Case Demonstrates Need to Win the Race to the Courthouse

October 14, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

As a Maryland Criminal Lawyer/Attorney I often counsel people that they must ” win the race to the courthouse”. What I mean by that is very often inexperienced or inept prosecutors will reflexively side with whomever earns the title “victim” (actually it is really complaining witness) by winning the race to the courthouse to file charges. The typical example is a bar fight or an altercation at some other location that is broken up or otherwise ceases prior to police arriving on the scene. Unless a weapon was used or someone was seriously injured, the police do not have the legal authority to make an arrest. This is because without a weapon or serious injury the only crime would that could be charged is second degree assault which is a misdemeanor in Maryland. The police can only arrest in misdemeanor cases if they actually witness the events. Otherwise, the police are supposed to simply write a report and advise the combatants as to the procedures for filing charges against one another.

I had a case like this in Carroll County earlier this week. The facts were that our client was riding his motorcycle and he got caught behind a slow moving tractor trailer. He rode behind the truck for between 2 to 3 miles and a line of cars developed behind my client. Although there were several places where the driver of the truck could have moved partially onto the shoulder to allow our client and the other cars to pass, he never did so. Needless to say, our client began to get impatient.
Continue reading ›

Client Successfully Defended on Child Abuse Assault Case in Prince Georges County Maryland

October 12, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

Maryland Criminal Lawyers/Attorneys are often called upon to defend people who are charged with Assault or Child Abuse as a result of incidents of parental discipline with their children. I have blogged about this issue in the past but it is worth repeating that prosecutors and police are far more aggressive today in terms of initiating criminal prosecutions in cases that were traditionally viewed as legitimate parental discipline.

My case last week in Prince Georges’ County Maryland involved an incident between my client and his 14 year old son at a restaurant. The facts were that my client’s son was graduating from middle school this past June. Originally the ceremony was scheduled to take place at 3:00pm. However a change in the time was made by the school a few weeks prior to the scheduled date. The time was moved up to 1:00pm. My client’s estranged wife, with whom my he is currently entrenched in a bitter custody dispute, decided not to pass this information on to my client and as a result he missed the graduation.
Continue reading ›

Domestic Violence Defendant Successfully Defended With Constitutional Defense

October 2, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

Maryland Criminal Attorneys represent people accused of domestic violence assaults more and more often these days. As I have noted in the past, the numbers of these cases that are being pursued by the police and prosecutors have increased exponentially over the last decade and a half after the acquittal of OJ Simpson of the murder of his wife.

Very often in domestic violence cases the alleged victim refuses to cooperate with the prosecution. Alleged victims will often recant their allegations, evade service of process and refuse to appear in court or, if the couple is married, invoke the marital privilege and refuse to testify. There are many reasons why alleged victims do this including that the couple has reconciled their relationship, the defendant is the primary breadwinner in the family and his incarceration would cause economic hardship for the family, or that the charges were fabricated in the first place which, believe it or not, happens quite often and, I believe, it is what happened in the case I had this week in the District Court for Baltimore County.
Continue reading ›

Fifth Time DUI/DWI Repeat Offender Successfully Defended

September 24, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1301140.html https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1301140.htmlSome of the most difficult Maryland DUI/DWI cases that Maryland DUI/DWI Attorneys are called upon to handle are cases in which the offender has prior convictions for Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Impaired. These people are known as “repeat offenders” and are, as one would expect, generally treated far more harshly than people charged for the first time. State’s Attorney’s typically seek jail terms for people with one or more prior convictions and file enhanced penalties which allow for sentences of up to 3 years instead of just 1 year which is the maximum penalty if the State has not filed the enhanced penalties. This week I kept an offender with four prior convictions out of jail in spite of the fact that the State had a virtually bullet proof case against him. I will explain momentarily but first a few general observations about representing repeat offenders in Maryland.
Continue reading ›

Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: Why do Police Officers Request People Who Are Suspected of DUI/DWI To Perform Them?

September 4, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300822.htmlAs a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I have become very accustomed to analyzing a client’s performance on the standardized field sobriety tests (at least the police officer’s version of that performance) to determine its legal significance. There are two reasons why police officers request that people suspected of DUI or DWI request the suspect to the perform the standardized field sobriety tests which are the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN), the Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. There are certainly other tests that police officers asks suspect to perform in these situations such as alphabet, counting and finger dexterity tests but the three listed above are the standardized tests recommended by the NTSB.

The primary reason that police officers ask suspects to perform these tests is to allow the officer to develop probable cause to arrest the suspect or at least take him or her into custody and charge them accordingly. The reason for this is that the smell of alcohol alone is not generally considered to be enough to establish probable cause. The police officer will typically run the suspect through the tests and based on his assessment of the person’s performance, either take the person into custody or release him.
Continue reading ›

Maryland Criminal Attorney Successfully Defends Client in Domestic Assault

August 28, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

Maryland Criminal Attorneys are commonly called upon to represent defendants who are charged with domestic violence assaults. As I have noted in previous blogs on the subject of domestic violence, there was an explosion of new domestic violence arrests in this country after the OJ Simpson acquittal in 1994. Police officers were encouraged to aggressively enforce the law in domestic cases where they previously might have considered these cases family matters and not law enforcement matters.

Additionally special domestic violence police units and prosecution teams were created throughout the country and new laws were enacted to allow the police and prosecutor to more aggressively pursue perpetrators of domestic violence. For instance in Maryland, new laws were enacted to allow for the warrant-less arrest of those suspected of domestic assaults under certain circumstances – even when the defendant is only suspected of committing a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, some people have taken advantage of these new laws and the new tactics of the police and prosecutors to have others falsely arrested. I had just such a case in Baltimore County Circuit Court this week.
Continue reading ›

DOJ Eliminates Crack Cocaine Disparity

August 11, 2009 | Andrew C. White

I recently wrote a blog about the recent and dramatic change in the federal DOJ policy regarding the disparity between federal sentencing guidelines for crack and powder cocaine. https://www.marylandcriminalattorneyblog.com/2009/06/the_disparity_between_federal.html On May 1, 2009, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) released a Memorandum to all U.S. Attorney’s Offices instructing all federal prosecutors to inform sentencing courts “that the Administration believes Congress and the Commission should eliminate the crack/powder disparity . . .” and that prosecutors should not object to variances in sentencing to achieve that result.

The new DOJ memorandum gives federal criminal defense lawyers a powerful new tool to fight the draconian sentences that clients have faced for federal crack cocaine offenses.

Most recently, I convinced a federal judge in Maryland that the new DOJ Memo not only reduced the sentencing “regular” 2D1.1 guidelines for crack cocaine offenses, but it also reduced the Career Offender Guidelines under section 4B1.1. I argued that the DOJ Memo applied across the board to all disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Because my client was charged with conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack, the maximum possible punishment for the offense was life under 18 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A). The maximum possible penalty, however, for a similar offense involving powder cocaine was only 20 years under §841(b)(1)(C). This difference caused the career offender guidelines to drop from level 37, to level 32 because the career offender guidelines are keyed directly to maximum possible sentence for the charged offense.
Continue reading ›

Man Chargd with Possession With Intent to Distribute Own Prescriptions

August 5, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Lawyer. I blogged last week about cases in which narcotics detectives essentially manufacture felony drug cases by asking defendants caught with prescription drugs if they intended to give or share the pills with someone else and if they answered in the affirmative, charging them with possession with the intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS). In that blog I posited the question, “are the police really looking to make progress in the war on drugs or just stat to further their own careers?” I was retained in case recently that caused me again to think the detective’s goal may be the latter.

In this case the police arrested an individual for possessing illegal prescription drugs. Instead of just charging the individual and moving on to the next case they chose to make him an informant and offer him the opportunity to “work off his charge”. I certainly don’t have a problem with what the police did up to this point. Informants are an essential investigative tool that have been used by law enforcement since the beginning of time. The problem I have is the way in which they used this informant which was to get him to set someone up who was otherwise not predisposed to sell drugs.
Continue reading ›

Are Police Really Looking to Make Progress in the War on Drugs or Just Stats to furhter their own careers?

July 30, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAs a Maryland Criminal Lawyer/Attorney I often have cases that make me wonder what it is exactly that the police are attempting to accomplish. Are they really attempting to win the so called war on drugs or is their strategy (or lack thereof) more cynical than that? Is it just to make as many felony drug arrests as possible regardless of whether the people arrested are really involved in the actual distribution of narcotics in order to give the false impression of progress? I have had several cases recently that have reluctantly made me think that it is the latter.

I have had several cases recently that have followed a very similar pattern:
Continue reading ›

Was the Professor Gates Sgt. Crowley Affair as Case of Racial Profiling or Just a Standard Contempt of Cop Case?

July 29, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

As a Maryland Criminal Attorney I am often confronted with cases in which a white police officer stops an African American (usally a man). In many, if not most, of these cases the person stopped believes that he was racially profiled or that at the very least, his race played a part in the officer’s decision to stop and/or arrest him.

First Offender Represents Herself in Witness Intimidation Case and Goes to Jail

July 3, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAs a Maryland Criminal Attorney I am often hired by people who have made the very big mistake of trying to represent themselves in a criminal case. I have blogged about this topic in the past but I had a case today that vividly illustrates the peril one places oneself in by appearing in criminal court without an experienced, aggressive criminal defense attorney.

My client is a 53 year old mother and grandmother with absolutely no criminal record. She is the mother of another one of my clients so I had met her several times in the past. She was charged with witness intimidation by her estranged daughter in law and the ex-girlfriend of her son. In fact, the alleged witness intimidation occurred during the trial in which I successfully defended her son against assault charges filed by the ex-girlfriend. Essentially, she was accused of making a phone call in which she threatened the victim telling her that she better not come to court. She was also accused of standing in her way as she tried to enter the court house on the day of trial and nudging her as she walked by.
Continue reading ›

Racial Profiling Still Happening in the US According to ACLU

July 1, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney – Lawyers for the ACLU filed a report with the United Nations Committee to End Racial Discrimination yesterday stating that despite efforts by senior law enforcement and government officials to stop it, racial profiling still persists in this country.

Federal Crack & Powder Cocaine Guidelines Disparity is Gone!!

June 25, 2009 | Andrew C. White

The tremendous and unfair disparity between crack and powder cocaine in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is no more! For many years, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for offenses involving the possession or sale of crack cocaine were exponentially more severe than the guidelines for offenses involving only powder cocaine. For example, a defendant with no prior criminal record who possessed a kilo of crack cocaine would face a guidelines sentence of between 15 – 20 years without parole. That same defendant would face a sentencing range of between 5 – 6 years if he possessed a kilo of cocaine powder.

For years, criminal defense attorneys, interest groups, and even many federal judges objected to the disparity, noting that there was no rational basis to treat crack cocaine differently from powder cocaine. Statistics revealed that the disparity adversely affected African Americans, who were most often charged with offenses involving the crack cocaine guidelines.

On December 12, 2007, the United States Sentencing Commission announced that it was retroactively reducing the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine offenses. While there was still a substantial disparity between crack and powder cocaine, the Sentencing Commission’s actions were promising and were the first official recognition that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine was a problem that needed to be resolved.

On May 1, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) did just that. In a memorandum to all United States Attorney’s offices across the country, the DOJ instructed all federal prosecutors to “inform courts that the Administration believes Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission should eliminate the crack powder disparity . . .” That is, federal prosecutors are now instructed to inform sentencing courts that they agree that the disparity between crack and powder cocaine should be eliminated. The impact of this new policy is going to be dramatic.
Continue reading ›