Articles Posted in Case law

| by

What happens when a criminal defendant learns that an expert who testified against him does not have the credentials he claimed to have at trial? In an interesting recent case a defendant discovered that a ballistics expert had embellished his credentials after his conviction for first-degree murder, first-degree sexual offense and use of a handgun while committing a violent crime.

The case arose when a woman was visiting her boyfriend’s house. Upstairs her boyfriend and his friend were smoking cocaine. She joined them. Early in the morning the woman told the men she needed to get ready for work. The defendant (her boyfriend’s friend) took out his gun and fired a shot into the floor, asking the boyfriend to give him the cocaine. The defendant hit the boyfriend in the head with the gun and fired another shot.

He tied up the boyfriend and sexually assaulted the woman at gunpoint. When the boyfriend protested, the defendant put him in a closet and continued the sexual assault. When the boyfriend continued to try to stop the assault by getting the closet door open, the defendant hit him again with a gun. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case a Maryland appellate court considered a case in which a defendant was convicted of criminally negligent manslaughter, reckless driving and more. The defendant was a commercial tractor-trailer driver who got lost on the freeway. He called another driver with the same company for directions with his hands-free headset. They talked for twenty minutes to try to get the defendant back on track.

At one point, the defendant pulled over to the shoulder and then tried to get back on. He looked ahead and saw the road was clear for 1/4 of a mile. However, he was looking across the road at the median while pulling out and a vehicle drive by Michael Neimus collided with his truck. He hung up the phone.

Later Neimus’ friend testified that he met him at 10 pm on October before he died. They talked and drank at a bar until 2 am. They planned to go to one of their houses to continue and were each driving in their respective cars on the freeway when the friend saw the defendant’s truck. He testified that the truck swung out as if it was going to make a wide turn, but the truck didn’t get in the right lane. Instead it blocked the highway. The friend and Neimus swerved to avoid the truck. Neimus hit the back of the truck before driving off the road. The friend pulled over and saw that Neimus’ truck had fire beneath it. Neimus died. Continue reading

| by

In a recent appellate case a defendant charged with a double murder challenged the evidence used against him on the grounds that it had been obtained through tainted consent. The police learned of the murders when a friend of Seth Aidoo reported he hadn’t seen Aidoo or his girlfriend in a few days. The police went to Aidoo’s home and found his body and his girlfriend’s body in the basement. They were dead.

Aidoo had been stabbed to death and his girlfriend had been shot in the head. The doctor pronounced both deaths were homicides. During the murder investigation it was determined they had been killed January 12, 2009. The detectives also discovered that Aidoo had lived with his wife and her brother and that the wife moved out when they separated. The brother moved shortly after that. The wife, brother and defendant lived together at the time of the murders.

Aidoo lived in a community with access gates controlled by transponders. The brother had gotten a transponder for these gates in March 2008. About two weeks before the murders, the defendant’s Mercedes Benz entered the community using the brother’s transponder. On the evening the murders occurred, the transponder was used again, except with a mini-van. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a Maryland appellate court considered two protections provided by the prohibition against double jeopardy. The first protection was the plea of autrefois acquit, which prevents a second prosecution of the defendant for the same offense after he’s been acquitted. The second was the doctrine of collateral estoppel, protecting against re-litigation of an issue of ultimate fact that was already determined in favor of the defendant.

The case arose when a police officer in uniform, driving a marked car, initiated a traffic stop of the defendant by turning on his emergency lights. The defendant stopped his car for a moment, but then drove around the police car and continued down the street. The officer pursued him for a half mile. The driver and passenger jumped out of the car at an apartment complex and ran. The officer didn’t follow, but waited for other officers to come.

The defendant’s car was owned by his girlfriend. An officer suspected as much. He filed an Application for Statement of Charges and the defendant was charged with multiple traffic offenses and also disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and four counts of fleeing and eluding police. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a man was shot and killed in the Malaska family’s front yard. The Malaskas and their neighbors (an unmarried couple) disagreed about their adjacent rural property. The couple used their property as a horse pasture. Both parties claimed they were the owners of trees that were between the pasture and the Malaska property. The man posted a “No Trespassing” sign in that area.

When they saw the sign, some of the Malaskas tore it up and threw the pieces into the man’s front lawn, which led to verbal fighting and a physical fight. As the fight was finishing up, the defendant (a 69-year-old Malaska family member) fired a shot from a rifle. The man’s girlfriend dropped to the ground while the man ran in the opposite direction and another person hid behind a tree. The defendant shot the man in the back and it punctured his aorta, killing him. Someone later testified that he was shouting “Die” and obscenities at the victim when he shot him.

The defendant testified as to a different version of events in which the girlfriend was beating his son with a cane and the man hitting his son with fists. He fired a warning shot because his son was sitting limp with his arms down. This led to one of the men, not the victim, saying “Do you want a piece of this?” and charging him. He claimed the shots prompted the victim to run and testified he didn’t know he had killed the victim. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a man was found guilty of assault. The court decided he was not criminal responsible and committed him to the Department of Health and Mental Health under Maryland Code (1994 Repl. Vol.) § 12-111 of the Health-General Article.

The court issued an order of conditional release, but he was subsequently indicted for robbery, assault and use of a handgun while committing a felony or violent crime. The judge rescinded the order of conditional release and recommitted him to Department of Health and Mental Health (DHMH).

A jury found the defendant guilty but not criminally responsible for the robbery and use of handgun charges. The court recommitted him to the care of DHMH. Another conditional release haring was held and the circuit court granted the defendant’s request for conditional release. Continue reading

| by

A person convicted of a crime may file a petition for writ of actual innocence if there is newly discovered evidence that (1) creates a substantial possibility of a different result and (2) could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial. The petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the merits when asking for this type of relief.

In a recent case a defendant challenged his conviction in connection with an attempted armed robbery. The case arose from 2-3 hours of ethnic conflict between a group of Hispanic American victims and a group of African American men. The victims were sitting in front of an apartment drinking beer, when the African American group confronted them. The Hispanic American group went inside and the African American men knocked to try to get in.

About a half hour later, the Hispanic American group went outside but encountered the African American group inside. The former went back inside and this time, the African American group tried to get inside. When the Hispanic Americans went outside again, the African American group once again confronted them. Though they all tried to get away, one of the men got shot. The wound was fatal. Continue reading

| by

Criminal harassment charges in Maryland are not limited to instances in which someone harasses another person in person by following them or committing physical acts against his or her body. In a recent complicated criminal case, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered an email harassment case. The defendant in the case had tried to harass a pub owner and the pub’s security. It started because he had offered to sell a pub’s employee marijuana and when the employee tried to remove him, the defendant punched and bit him. A police officer came to the scene and arrested the defendant for marijuana possession and other related offenses.

Later a police officer received an email alleging that somebody in the area was involved in a marijuana grow operation. The police began an investigation, but found nothing. More than a week later, someone called 911 to report a drug dealer. He claimed that he was the neighbor of the owner of the security company and that the owner was a drug dealer growing marijuana on the steps outside his house.

A detective watched the area mentioned in the call and spotted a van that looked suspicious. Someone drove the van up and down the street. Another officer came to the scene to investigate. The police identified the defendant as the van’s driver. He told the officers he was looking for something to eat. Continue reading

| by

In an interesting recent case, the defendant was charged with theft of property worth more than $100,000 and related offenses after occupying a home without permission for 7 months. The home was an expensive single-family dwelling. The owner had moved out and offered the property for sale with a Coldwell Banker realtor. When she moved out, the doors and windows were secured and the property was in good condition.

The defendant did not know the owner, but pretended he had a lease with the owner to rent the property. The defendant had been a former client of the same real estate agent who listed the owner’s house. He claimed to be interested in buying the house, but when a sales contract was prepared, told the agent he wouldn’t purchase.

The general counsel for the bank from which the owner had obtained a mortgage was notified a tenant occupied the property. She thought the lease the tenant presented was legitimate and filed a motion with the circuit court to possess the property. At that point, she noticed that the lease term began after foreclosure had already started and let the court know. She thought the owner and defendant had a fraudulent scheme against the bank. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, the defendant was driving with five others when they came upon a man who was standing in the middle of the road. They swerved to avoid hitting him. The defendant and another passenger came back to the man, who seemed to be drunk. The man came up to the defendant and tried to hug him; the defendant almost knocked him into a car that was passing by.

The other passenger hit the drunken man in the face knocking him into the street. Then the defendant and passenger drove off. A car came by and ran over the drunken man, killing him. The reckless endangerment count was filed using statutory “short form.” This means that it didn’t state the factual basis for the crime.

Accordingly, the defendant asked the State to give him a “bill of particulars” that specified what in the defendant’s conduct constituted reckless endangerment, what the defendant had done to act recklessly, what the defendant had done to create a substantial risk of death or serious injury, and what facts showed the defendant had disregarded this risk. Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
18310 Montgomery Village
Ave #250
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801Phone: (301) 519-2801Fax: (301) 519-2802

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design