Maryland Criminal Attorney Blog

Legal Analysis of the Botched Early Defense of George Huguely

May 5, 2010 | Steven D. Silverman

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.

While leaving the scene, Huguely took off with Love’s computer-presumably to conceal the earlier email exchange. It should also be noted that Huguely never called the police. Instead, I have learned through reliable sources in the Baltimore community, Huguely knocked on the door of another fellow student around 2:00am and slept on his couch. Huguely was reported to have been drinking earlier.

Fast forward to Huguely’s Tuesday morning bail review. His lawyers tactically delayed the bail review because 1) there was no chance Huguely would get a bail and 2) they did not want additional facts aired in public before the defense lawyers could try to spin the facts . As a criminal defense lawyer who has handled many high-profile cases, I can not blame them for this tactic. What I do criticize is the defense attorney’s public statement that followed the waived hearing:

“Until more information becomes available, it is our hope that no conclusion will be drawn or judgment made about George or his case,” the defense lawyer said. “However, we are confident that Ms. Love’s death was not intended, but an accident with a tragic outcome.”
Continue reading ›

Court of Appeals Weighs in on Miranda Warnings

April 14, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

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.
Continue reading ›

Baltimore County Police have new Tacitc in Handgun Prosecution Cases

April 2, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

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.
Continue reading ›

Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney Qualifications – Have You Researched Your Attorney’s Background to be Sure that he is Qualified to Handle Your Case?

March 31, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300822.htmlAs 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.
Continue reading ›

Child Pornography Distribution – Lime Wire and Similar File Sharing Programs

March 30, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

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:
Continue reading ›

Maryland Cell Phone Ban, A Secondary Offense for How Long?

March 29, 2010 | Steven D. Silverman

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.

Client Successfully Defended in Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance Case in Baltimore County Circuit Court

March 26, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

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:
Continue reading ›

Suppression Hearings – Make Sure you have a Plan B in the Event that the Motion is Denied

March 12, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

Since I have been doing this Baltimore Maryland Criminal attorney/lawyer blog I have often been chided by my friends on the other side of the aisle (This is for you Joey D.) for only blogging about the cases that I win. So, in an attempt to show a little balance and humility, I will discuss a case that I lost the other day in this posting. The real reason I do this is to illustrate the point that a good criminal defense attorney always has a Plan B no matter how strong a case he believes he has. In other words, even in cases that I am confident that I will prevail, I always consider the possibility that we will lose and think about how to minimize the damage to the client if that should occur.

I had just such a case this week in Baltimore County Circuit Court. My client was charged with possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. I believed, and still believe, that I had an overwhelming case for suppression of the evidence because I believed the police had stopped my client without probable cause or even the lesser standard known as reasonable articulable suspicion, which allows police in certain circumstances to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes. The facts of the case were as follows:
Continue reading ›

Strip Searches – When Are The Police Allowed to Conduct a Strip Search

February 28, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

Baltimore County Criminal Defense Lawyers/Attorneys deal regularly with issues of illegal search and seizure. Generally speaking the issue in many cases is not so much whether or not the defendant is factually guilty but whether or not the police violated the person’s constitutional rights in the process of investigating an/or arresting him. One of the specific issues that comes up quite often is the issue of when or if the police may conduct a strip search or the functional equivalent of a strip search of a person who is suspected of a crime or under arrest.

I’m sure it will come as no surprise to most people that when a person has been arrested for a serious felony or for any charge that causes them to be processed into the jail, that person will almost without exception be subjected to a strip search. The instances that are less clear cut are those cases in which a person is only charged with misdemeanors or traffic offenses and is released either on their personal recognizance or bailed out without ever going to the detention center, as well as cases in which the police strip search (or conduct the equivalent of a strip search) prior to an arrest taking place. I am currently representing an individual in the latter category. Briefly, here are the facts:
Continue reading ›

Under Maryland Law, Fleeing the Accident is more Difficult than Fleeing the DUI

February 26, 2010 | Steven D. Silverman

I am experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney who has counseled hundreds of criminal defendants and DUI suspects charged with fleeing the seen of an accident, Whether the driver has run into a tree and ditched his car, or ran someone over and sped off, experience shows that 90% of the time the responsible driver flees the scene because he is impaired by alcohol or drugs.

It is very easy for the police to prove a vehicle was in an accident. Often there are paint, blood or hair follicles that can be matched to the object or person hit. In cases where the vehicle is not ditched, police are often able to track down enough evidence to make a case against the owner/ driver. Sometimes the investigation takes days or weeks.

In these instances, however, it is almost impossible to prove the operator of the vehicle was impaired. This is because in order to convict a person of drunk driving, the police need to establish that the person was 1) behind the wheel, 2) had alcohol or drugs in his system, and 3) was above the Maryland legal limit of .08 or otherwise impaired.
Continue reading ›

Assault/Sex Offense Sex Successfully Resolved

February 9, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney/Lawyer I have blogged many times on the issue of choosing the right lawyer for a given case. In criminal matters, it is particularly important to research the background of an attorney before hiring him or her to represent you given the high stakes that are generally involved in criminal cases. Unfortunately, many if not most people do not do any research into the background or experience level of an attorney before hiring him and this can often lead to catastrophic results for the client.

As I have noted in the past, it is important in most cases to ensure that the attorney is both experienced in criminal matters and that the attorney appears regularly in the jurisdiction in which the person is charged. This information is easy to acquire simply by reviewing the attorney’s case load on Maryland Judiciary Case Search. http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/processDisclaimer.jis. Most mistakes that criminal defendants’ make when selecting an attorney involve the first parameter – that is, not ensuring that the attorney is experienced in criminal matters- but the second parameter – experience in the jurisdiction in which a person is charged – can be equally important. I resolved a case last week that illustrates the importance of this second and oft overlooked component of an attorney’s qualification to handle a particular case. The facts in a moment but first some more general discussion about attorney qualifications.
Continue reading ›

Narcotics Distribution Repeat Offender’s Case Successfully Resolved with Health General Exception to Mandatory Sentence

February 1, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

Of all of the cases that Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorneys/Lawyers are called upon to handle, some of the most difficult are cases involving repeat offenders in drug distribution cases. In Maryland, if a person who has been previously convicted of a either possession with the intent to distribute a narcotic such as heroin, cocaine or prescription controlled dangerous substances, is again charged, he will likely face a mandatory jail sentence that must be served without the possibility of parole. Some jurisdiction such as Baltimore County, pursue these mandatory sentences in virtually every case. Other jurisdictions such as Baltimore City more often than not use the threat of invoking the mandatory sentence to pressure defendants into plea bargain on terms that prosecutors view as favorable.

In Maryland, in cases where a person is charged with distribution of or possession with intent to distribute narcotics such as cocaine, heroin or prescription drugs, a second offender will be subject to 10 years in prison without the possibility of parole. A third offender is subject to a mandatory 25 year sentence without parole and a person with 4 or more convictions faces 40 years. However, in cases involving second offenders, a defendant who is convicted may be eligible for a modification of that sentence if the person is found to be in need of drug treatment by the Department of Health and Mental Hygene and to be sufficiently motivated to take advantage of the opportunity to receive treatment.
Continue reading ›

Couple successfully defended in perverted practices/assault on police case in Baltimore County

January 7, 2010 | Brian G. Thompson

Maryland Criminal Attorneys/Lawyers are often called upon to defend people in cases involving assaults on police officers and in matters involving perverted practice charges. Rarely are we called upon to represent someone charged with both of these offenses in the same case. I had such a case in Baltimore County District Court this week. The facts of the case are really quite humorous, although until this week when the cases were stetted, my client’s failed to see the humor.

My client’s are a married couple whom I will refer to as John and Jane in this blog to protect their privacy. John is in his early forties and Jane, who never took his last name, is in her mid fifties. Neither has ever been in any trouble with the law in their lives. John is in the printing business and Jane has been a school teacher for 30 years. They have been happily married for about 15 years.
Continue reading ›

Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon Convicted of Fraudulent Misappropriation

December 1, 2009 | Brian G. Thompson

Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon Convicted of Fraudulent Misappropriation. Maryland Criminal Attorney discusses whether this count is a Misdemeanor or a Felony and whether or not the Mayor is subject to a mandatory minimum jail term of one year.

As many have now heard Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was convicted by a jury today of count four of the indictment that she was facing. This count was Embezzlement – Fraudulent Misappropriation by Fiduciary is a Misdemeanor although one that carries a maximum prison term of Five years in prison. The jury apparently acquitted her of all other counts including count one – Felony Theft which is a felony that carries a maximum penalty of fifteen years in prison. So what conduct constitutes Embezzlement – Fraudulent Misappropriation by Fiduciary?
Continue reading ›

YOU CAN FIGHT THE REVOCATION OF A SECURITY CLEARANCE !!!!

December 1, 2009 | Andrew C. White

I have recently received a number of inquiries from persons who have either been denied a security clearance or have had their clearances revoked by government officials on installations across the United States. The tenor of the conversations is almost always one of defeat. Persons who lose their clearances almost always believe that they have no power to fight back. Read on to learn about your rights when the government tries to take your clearance away.

Few things can be more intimidating than the prospect of fighting the United States Government regarding your security clearance. Contractors and federal employees who work for Government agencies depend on their security clearances for their livelihood. Loss of a clearance – or refusal to grant one in the first instance – can be a devastating and life-altering event. For most people, the prospect of taking on a federal agency about the revocation of a security clearance is a daunting one. Many believe that because an agency has revoked or denied a clearance, there is nothing they can do to fight back. After all, the agency knows best . . . right? WRONG!

The truth is that the decision to revoke or deny a security clearance is almost always made by persons who may be influenced by “workplace politics,” and personal issues or problems with an applicant. In some cases, decisions to revoke or deny a clearance have been based on an employee’s desire to disqualify a particular contractor because the employee does not like working with the contractor’s employees. The power vested in those making security clearance decisions is tremendous, and all too often the power is exercised for the wrong reasons, and having little to do with the established criteria governing these decisions.

Here’s what you need to know:

Decisions regarding security clearances are tremendously important and must be based on a fair, impartial, and commonsense review of all relevant information about an applicant. Instead of focusing on one perceived problem, a decision must be based on what has been termed the “whole person” concept. This review encompasses numerous factors that must be addressed by the government in making a decision regarding a clearance. The factors include such things as 1) the nature and seriousness of the alleged conduct, 2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct and the extent that such conduct was purposeful or intentional, 3) the timing of the conduct – was it recent? Did it happen more than once? 4) whether the applicant has taken rehabilitative steps to address underlying issues (such as drug use or accumulation of large debt), 5) the potential for exploitation or coercion in the future, and 6) the likelihood of recurrence.
Continue reading ›