Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog

Craig’s List Sting Operations for Solicitation of Minors for Sex Cases on the Rise

March 6, 2012 | Brian G. Thompson

As a full time Maryland Criminal Lawyer and former Baltimore County Prosecutor practicing exclusively in the criminal arena for almost 20 years, I have handled more Sex Offense Cases (on both sides of the aisle) than I can recall. Recently we have seen an uptick in the number of Craig’s List initiated Solicitation of Minors for Sex cases being charged, particularly in Baltimore County. Most of us are familiar with this type of sting operation from the Chris Hanson “To Catch a Predator Series” on MSNBC. These are extremely serious cases that are prosecuted aggressively by both the State and Federal authorities. It is imperative that a person charged in one of these stings immediately retain the most experienced, aggressive and influential attorneys they can find.

My law partner former Federal Prosecutor Andrew C. White who directed the Child Sex Offense of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for over 7 years, and I have teamed up to successfully resolve dozens of these cases over the past decade or so when we first starting seeing these sting operations. It is imperative to have someone very experienced and influential in the federal system as there is dual federal and state jurisdiction to prosecute these cases. We were hired by someone caught up in one of these investigations just last week. I won’t go into the specifics of any of the cases for obvious privacy reasons, but here is an outline of a typical case such as this.
Continue reading ›

Should I Take the Breathalyzer if I am Pulled Over for DUI/DWI

February 28, 2012 | Brian G. Thompson

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am frequently asked by friends and acquaintences whether they should take the breathalyzer if they are stopped for suspicion of Driving Under the Influence . This question is almost invariably followed by the statement, “because I have always heard that you should never take it”.

I am not completely sure where this idea that one should never take the breathalyzer came from, although I suspect it is simply dated advice that is still being recirculated because in my view, under most circumstances, a person who is stopped by the police should take the breathalyzer if asked to do so. Here’s why:
Continue reading ›

Appeal to be Filed in False Statement Case

February 13, 2012 | Brian G. Thompson

Experienced Maryland Criminal Attorneys do not generally make it a practice to advertise cases we lose but I had one the other day that I think merits discussion, the outcome not withstanding, both because it was an interesting case and because it offers an opportunity to discuss the ” de novo” appeal process in the District Courts of Maryland. In English, that means that if a person who is convicted in the District Court is dissatisfied with either the verdict or the sentence, he has the right to a brand new trial in the Circuit Court. That’s right, the appeal is not “on the record” such as it is in cases that are appealed from the Circuit Court to the Court of Special Appeals. Instead, the case starts all over again in the Circuit Court.

This may sound incredibly inefficient to someone who is not acquainted with the system as it sounds as if every case has to be tried twice. In practice, the exact opposite is true. Indeed, it is the very fact that we have de novo appeals that affords litigants the opportunity to take a shot in the District Court, even if the posture of the case or the judge is not ideal. If you win the case, it is obviously over but even if you lose you get another shot at it in Circuit Court. Not only that, a record now exists of exactly what the State’s witnesses will say. This is an invaluable tool in a State where criminal depositions are almost never done. In practice, most litigants accept the decision of the District Court as even the majority of those who are convicted are not sent to prison. The result of all of this is that most of the cases docketed in District Court are resolved there instead of ending up in Circuit Court. I had a case in the District Court for Baltimore County last week that, for reasons I am confident will become clear to the reader, I decided to take a shot with even though the situation was not ideal. Here are the facts.
Continue reading ›

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously that Police may not Place GPS Tracking Device on Vehicle without a Search Warrant.

January 23, 2012 | Brian G. Thompson

Maryland Criminal Attorney -The Supreme Court today in a rare showing of unity among its liberal and conservative members, ruled that the police may not secretly place a GPS monitoring device on a suspect’s vehicle to track his movements without first obtaining a search and seizure warrant. The Roberts Court which has come to be defined in many people’s views by controversial 5-4 decisions ruled unanimously today that a person’s automobile is covered under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches of a person’s right to be secure in their houses, papers and “effects”. Here are details:
Continue reading ›

Possession of Marijuana Client Successfully Defended After Illegal Search Incident to Arrest

January 13, 2012 | Brian G. Thompson

Can the Police search your car without a warrant? As a Criminal Defense Attorney, this is one of the questions that I am asked most often. The answer to the question is generally speaking yes so long as the police have probable cause. This is an exception to the warrant requirement in the Constitution known as the Automobile Exception. The rationale is that unlike a person’s home for instance, automobiles are by their very nature movable objects creating a sort of inherent exigency that justifies allowing police to search without requiring them to leave the scene to obtain a warrant.

While the automobile exception is certainly a long recognized exception to the warrant requirement, it does not mean that the police can search a person’s car without a warrant in every situation. As I said, the police must have probable cause or some other basis upon which to rely to search the vehicle. One common situation in which police search a person’s vehicle without probable cause is the so called “search incident to arrest”. However, the Supreme Court recently changed the rules regarding searches incident to arrest in a very significant way in a case called Arizona v. Gant. Prior to Gant the police would routinely search a person’s car after affecting a lawful arrest, even if the arrest was for relatively minor traffic offenses such as driving while on a suspended license. In the Gant case, the Court limited the searches incident to arrest to situations in which the person arrested was within reaching distance of the passenger compartment a the time of the search and it was reasonable to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of the offense for which the person was being arrested. I successfully defended a client charged with Possession with the Intent to Distribute Marijuana utilizing this new case in Baltimore City Circuit Court last week. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Domestic Assault Defendants Very Poorly Represented

December 5, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

Any Experienced Baltimore Criminal Defense Attorney will tell you that it is a very bad idea indeed to take your divorce lawyer ( or personal injury lawyer, or real estate lawyer or…) with you to criminal court. I have blogged many times about this issue but it still never ceases to amaze me how many people do just that, in spite of the stakes.

Legal situations obviously don’t get more serious or perilous than ones in which your very freedom is on the line. Unfortunately, too often people in these situations tend to simply call the only attorney they know or retain whoever their Aunt Lucy or Uncle Joe tells them to call. For whatever reason people rarely investigate an attorney’s background or qualifications prior to retaining the attorney. This is in most instances a colossal mistake that can have devastating consequences for the client. I was retained last week by a client in exactly this situation in a https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.html case. Here are the facts.
Continue reading ›

Jerry Sandusky’s Lawyer Drops the Ball: All Doubt Removed

November 15, 2011 | Steven D. Silverman

From a criminal defense attorney’s view, it is incomprehensible that Sandusky’s lawyer allowed his client to be interviewed by Bob Costs yesterday. As a father of two children, I am so glad he did because this “alleged” child predator all but guaranteed he will spend the rest of his life behind bars. Based on what I heard, Sandusky all but admitted his guilt. Consider this:

COSTAS: Innocent? Completely innocent and falsely accused in every aspect?

SANDUSKY: Well I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them and I have touched their leg. Without intent of sexual contact. But – so if you look at it that way – there are things that wouldn’t – you know, would be accurate.
Continue reading ›

Defendant with 9 Ounces of Cocaine and no Defense gets Probation

October 21, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney discusses case evaluation and the plea bargain process. The ability to objectively and dispassionately evaluate a case is critical to being an effective criminal defense attorney. Far too often I witness inexperienced or simply ineffective attorneys taking cases to trial only to pursue defenses that have no realistic chance of success. The unavoidable fact of this business is that sometimes your client is guilty as charged and the State can easily prove it. In defense attorney parlance these are known as “dead up cases”. Criminal defense attorneys need to recognize and accept that this is true when confronted with such a case and advise their clients honestly as to their situation.

This is not to say that there is nothing an attorney can do for their client in a situation like this – far from it. I have represented thousands of clients throughout my career who have been able to significantly reduce the consequences of a conviction by recognizing that trial was not an option and pursuing an effective strategy to minimize the damage. I had a case last week that is a terrific example of this in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. The client accepted the situation as I explained it to him and did what I told him to do and it worked out extremely favorably by any measure. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Violation of Probation Dismissed on Speedy Trial Grounds

September 2, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

Most Experienced and Aggressive Criminal Defense Attorneys handle many cases in which the client is charged with Violation of Probation. Typically when a judge places a criminal defendant on probation, the judge will require the person to do certain things while on probation such as report to an agent, perform community service, participate in drug treatment. The probation also requires the defendant to remain law abiding and very often to be randomly tested for drug use.

If a defendant violates any of these conditions, the agent will notify the judge who will usually order a hearing to determine if he probation has been violated and very often issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. Many judges routinely order that the defendant be held without bail until such hearing takes place. Many attorneys wrongly assume that violations of probation are not defensible since there is no prohibition on the use of hearsay testimony and the State must only prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt as is the case in criminal trials. Many defenses are in fact viable in violations of probation including speedy trial type defenses. I successfully defended a client in a violation of probation hearing this week in Baltimore County District Court using this type of defense. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

DUI and the Commercial Driver’s License

August 19, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

Defendants in DUI cases who have commercial driver’s license pose a unique set of challenges and considerations for Maryland DUI Attorneys. I have blogged often about the importance of selecting an attorney who specializes in DUI/DWI defense. Unfortunately, all too often we see attorneys with little or no experience with these of cases appearing in court with their clients.

Very often these attorneys make simple mistakes, that no experienced DUI/DWI attorney would ever make, with devastating consequences for their clients. I witnessed one such mistake in the District Court of Baltimore County a few days ago involving a defendant with a commercial driver’s license. The attorney who handled the case was an attorney who has been practicing for many years, mostly doing divorce and personal injury cases. In other words, he was NOT a DUI/DWI specialist. Here are the facts.
Continue reading ›

CDS Possesion Case Successfully Defended

July 11, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

As an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Attorney, I represent people charged with violations of the controlled dangerous substance laws virtually every day in Maryland courts. I have blogged many times in the past about the importance of hiring an experienced full time criminal attorney if one finds him or herself charged in a criminal case. As I have noted in the past, I witness far too many instances in which accident or divorce lawyers represent (or should I say misrepresent) people in criminal cases and it usually doesn’t work out very well for the person charged.

I had an a case today in Baltimore County Circuit Court that was an excellent example of a person realizing before it was too late that her attorney was not really qualified to represent her. This is unusual. More often than not, people don’t figure it out until they suffer a very bad result. Here are the facts of the case.
Continue reading ›

STSW WINS RARE MOTION TO DISMISS FELONY INDICMENT

June 30, 2011 | Steven D. Silverman

This week, a judge sitting in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland ruled after a lengthy motion’s hearing that the prosecutor violated my client’s due process rights. The result was that all charges including attempted murder and first degree assault were dismissed. This case involved some unique facts and circumstances that if appealed, may garner some attention by the appellate courts.

Pertinent Facts:

On May 22, 2009, a district court charging document was issued by the Harford County police charging the Defendant with assaulting his wife on May 20, 2009 and charging him with the attempted murder of his brother in law on May 21, 2009. The Defendant was held without bail from May 22, 2009 until June 10, 2009 when bail was set at $25,000. The Defendant paid a bondsman and was released. On that date, the charges with respect to the incident with his brother-in-law were dismissed. At that time, the State dismissed the charges because the brother-in-law was on active duty and soon to be deployed out of the country. Thereafter, in October, 2009, the Defendant’s wife invoked her marital privilege and the Defendant was found not guilty of assaulting her.

Sixteen months passed and the Defendant had no other criminal arrests. Despite the fact that the Defendant had no further contacts with law enforcement, at the time of the filing of the indictment in the above captioned matter, the prosecutor requested a no bail warrant. The Defendant was arrested on October 7, 2010 and held without bail. On October 13, 2010, a bail review was held and his bond was set at $250,000. The Defendant paid a bondsman a second time and was released.
Continue reading ›

Domestic Violence Defendant Found Not Guilty

June 21, 2011 | Brian G. Thompson

As an Aggressive Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney, I have represented hundreds of people over the last 15 years who were charged with domestic violence assaults. Before that, I prosecuted hundreds more as an Assistant State’s Attorney. These cases are among the most difficult cases criminal defense lawyershandle because prosecutors are under tremendous pressure to prosecute these cases aggressively. There is simply no quicker way for a prosecutor to find him or herself out of a job than failing to prosecute one of cases only to have the defendant assault the victim again.

For this reason, even seemingly minor cases resulting in little or no injury are often prioritized by Assistant State’s Attorneys for aggressive prosecution. I had a case falling into this category last week in the District Court in Baltimore County. Here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

CASTLE DOCTRINE – Invited Guests vs. Uninvited Trespassers

June 20, 2011 | Steven D. Silverman

Maryland criminal lawyers, both defense attorneys and prosecutors, have a difficult time understanding the application of the Castle Doctrine. The answer is simple: A person’s status as an invited guest or uninvited trespasser does not impact an occupant’s right to reasonably defend their property. Under the Castle Doctrine, “a man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker.” Regardless of whether the attacker is an uninvited trespasser, or an invited guest-turned aggressor, the law protects an occupant’s right to use force reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate an intruder’s entry into the home.

With respect trespassers and other uninvited aggressors, “Castle Doctrine” jurisdictions uniformly hold that a person unlawfully attacked by an uninvited intruder may stand their ground and use whatever force is reasonably necessary to repel the intruder.
Continue reading ›

Spousal Privilege in the Context of a Maryland Criminal Case

June 20, 2011 | Steven D. Silverman

The “spousal privilege” under Maryland criminal law precludes a person from being compelled to testify against their spouse who is charged with a crime. Even if the two are estranged at the time of trial, the privilege remains applicable until the marriage is officially annulled or dissolved. The only exceptions, where a person can be compelled to testify against their spouse, are when: 1) the defendant/spouse is charged with abuse of a child under 18; and 2) the defendant/spouse is charged with assault of the other spouse and, in a previous trial of the same nature, the other spouse invoked the spousal privilege and refused to testify.

It’s important to note that invocation of the spousal privilege does not require the exclusion of an otherwise admissible out-of-court statement by that spouse. Even if wife invokes the privilege and refuses to testify, her out-of-court statements may nonetheless be deemed admissible if the State can successfully argue that they fall under a particular hearsay exception.

In a situation where the wife has previously inked her privilege as a victim, affect her ability to invoke the privilege and refuse to testify against husband in the trial when she is not a victim but rather is called as a witness against her husband.
Continue reading ›