Constitutional Law

The Fifth Amendment, The Maryland Declaration of Rights, and a Defendant’s Decision Not to Testify at Trial

September 17, 2025 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects accused people from being forced to give testimony that could tend to incriminate them. In Maryland, defendants have even greater protection under Article 22 of the Declaration of Rights. Under state law, any prosecutorial comment that implies to jurors that they should hold a defendant’s silence against them is improper. Having a skilled Maryland criminal defense lawyer on your side when a prosecutor crosses this line (or other lines) is often crucial to protecting your rights.

A 2021 attempted murder case here in Montgomery County serves as an example of this protection in action. In the early morning hours of April 18, 2021, a man wearing khaki pants shot F.G. outside a local restaurant and bar. The state put two men, J.D. and A.C., on trial for attempted murder in connection with the shooting.

At the men’s trial, several witnesses offered testimony, but some key figures did not testify. The victim, who survived his injuries, did not take the stand, and neither did J.D.

The Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial and Maryland Law’s ‘Hicks Rule’

August 18, 2025 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees many rights to criminal defendants, including a speedy and public trial. Maryland’s Declaration of Rights also guarantees a speedy trial, and state law has specific procedural safeguards in place to ensure an accused person receives a speedy trial. When the state fails to meet its obligations to try a case within the required timeframe, the accused person may be entitled to a dismissal of all charges. If you are facing charges or under suspicion and you have questions about your speedy trial rights, be sure to get reliable answers by speaking to an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer.

Generally speaking, Maryland criminal defendants are entitled to a trial that takes place within 180 days of the date an attorney makes an appearance on behalf of the accused or the date that the accused first appears in court. This 180-day requirement is known as the “Hicks rule,” based on the 1979 case of State v. Hicks.

On its surface, this might sound very black-and-white and cut-and-dried. In reality, it often is not, as a recent shoplifting case from Queen Anne’s County illustrates. The reality — that Hicks rule cases may be nuanced and complex — should serve as a reminder of the importance of knowledgeable legal counsel.

The Sixth Amendment’s Guarantee of a ‘Public’ Trial — and How It May Help You in Your Maryland Case

June 16, 2025 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Sometimes, the key to a successful acquittal (or, in some matters, a successful reversal of a conviction) may have nothing to do with the facts of your case or the law of the crime charged. Your assault case may come down to things wholly unrelated to who struck whom with what and have no connection to the law of assault in Maryland. Many times, these issues relate to whether the police, the state, or the court violated your constitutional rights. Protecting your constitutional rights is one of the essential things a defense attorney can do for you when you are suspected or accused of a crime. So, whether you are being questioned or being tried, make sure you have an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer working for you.

Often, these violations relate to the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. As a Silver Spring robbery case shows, your Sixth Amendment rights may also be vital to a successful appeal.

The Silver Spring case involved two men who allegedly robbed D.B. at gunpoint. The state tried both robbers together. As the trial began in Montgomery County in 2014, the judge decided to close the courtroom during the jury selection process. The judge made this decision “due to space limitations,” although the lawyers for both accused men stated their opposition to the closure.

How a Search of Your Social Media Accounts Can Become a Fourth Amendment Violation

August 11, 2023 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Some things that are ubiquitous parts of our lives today probably would’ve seemed unimaginable 40, 30, or even 20 years ago. That includes developments like smartphones and social media. As technology evolves, so do the methods law enforcement officers use to pursue criminal suspects. Just as with anything else, though, a search of a social media account has the potential to represent a violation of the accused’s Fourth Amendment rights if it wasn’t backed by a valid search warrant. When it comes to getting illegally obtained evidence suppressed (whether that evidence was housed in something as old-fashioned as a bedroom closet or as modern as a TikTok account,) having representation from an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer often can enhance your chances of success.

Many times, this blog covers criminal issues arising from the Maryland courts. Today, we look at a federal criminal case for its insight into police searches of social media accounts.

According to federal prosecutors, T.R. was a member of the Cruddy Conniving Crutballs (a/k/a “Triple C,”) a Baltimore street gang. In the spring of 2021, federal prosecutors charged T.R. and 14 alleged Triple C members with various racketeering, conspiracy, drug, and gun crimes.

When a Legal Traffic Stops Being Legal: Unconstitutional Seizures Under Maryland Law

February 7, 2023 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The phrase “mission creep,” which pertains to “the gradual broadening of the original objectives” beyond a task’s original scope, goals, or focus, originated in military circles but has been adopted by much of the business world. A type of mission creep can occur in a police traffic stop, as well. While mission creep in business may cost time or money, mission creep in a traffic stop may cost the suspect his/her constitutional rights. If you were arrested because the police stretched the boundaries of their interaction with you beyond what the law allows, then an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer may be an essential part of getting evidence seized in that stop suppressed.

These sorts of movaing-target traffic stops are regrettably common. A recent drug case from Carroll County shows how a person’s rights can be violated.

On Aug. 11, 2020, a Carroll County sheriff’s deputy was conducting a traffic patrol of Route 140 in Finksburg. Shortly after noon, the deputy observed a car with two men in the front seat both of whom “sat stiff as a board” while avoiding making eye contact with the deputy. Thinking this suspicious, the deputy began following the vehicle to “look for a motor vehicle violation.” The deputy soon thereafter pulled them over for an unsafe lane change.

Suspicious Bulges, Unusual Walking Gaits, and What Does (or Does Not) Qualify as Reasonable Suspicion in Maryland

November 9, 2022 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Courts, as well as the legal community, are keenly aware of the challenging job that police officers have, Officers daily make split-second decisions while seeking to keep the neighborhoods they serve safe. They also, however, are charged with “respecting the dignity and Constitutional rights of persons they confront.” Sometimes, even skillful officers acting in good faith can step over the line and stop and/or search someone without a proper legal basis. When that happens and criminal charges come from that stop, knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense lawyers are here to vindicate the rights of those accused people.

This is especially true in neighborhoods that are home to high levels of crime, as a recent weapons case from Southwest Baltimore demonstrates.

Two city police officers, while on foot patrol in a high-crime area, spotted a man who they thought was acting suspiciously. Essentially, what they knew was this: the man, L.B., walked with his right arm swinging “freely” while he kept his left arm “braced against his side.” While the man was inside a convenience store, they spotted a “bulge in the front of his waistband.”

What Maryland Prosecutors Can — and Can’t — Say During Your Trial About Your Invoking Your Right to Silence

May 10, 2022 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Most people are aware that the Constitution gives criminal suspects the right to remain silent or to refuse to speak to the police. When a suspect tells the police “I’m not saying anything” or “I’m finished talking,” he’s invoking his constitutional rights. What you may not immediately realize, however, is that the protections related to this right don’t end at the police station. It also can play a role in your criminal trial, as well. This right limits what you have to say, and also restricts what the prosecution can say about your silence. Whether you’re facing questions from a police detective or are standing trial, one of the best ways to protect yourself and your rights is to have an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer by your side.

Your constitutional rights give you the prerogative to refuse to talk to the police or to talk for a while and then refuse to say anything more. They also allow you to refuse to testify at your trial. What’s more, though, these rights also prohibit the prosecutor from implying or flat-out telling the jury that your utilizing your right of silence is a sign of your guilt.

That right took center stage in a recent appeal of a Baltimore man’s murder conviction. The defendant, M.A., was on trial for the brutal murder of his longtime girlfriend. The suspect told Baltimore Homicide detectives that he had been out walking his dog and had returned to find the woman covered in blood. Once the police continued pressing M.A., he stated that he wasn’t “going to answer no more questions. I told you what happened, and I’m going to shut my mouth.”

How a Change in a Maryland Health Statute Gave One Man a Winning Ex Post Facto Violation Argument

October 22, 2020 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

“Ex post facto” is a phrase that often gets overused… and misused. Many people may recall learning about ex post facto laws in junior high or high school civics and government classes, but may not really understand what the phrase truly means. Unskilled “jailhouse lawyers” often apply it incorrectly in appeals they file. On the other hand, a valid ex post facto argument, when in the hands of a skillful Maryland criminal defense attorney, can be a powerful constitutional claim in your criminal case.

To get an idea what a valid ex post facto situation looks like, there’s the case of E.H. from Prince George’s County. In 2011, E.H. was convicted of first-degree assault and weapons charges. He received a sentence of 25 years.

Under Section 8-507 of Maryland’s Health General Article, the inmate had, at that time, an “essentially unrestricted right” to seek commitment to the Department of Health for substance abuse treatment. In December 2017, E.H. applied for such a commitment. The judge denied the man’s request, but told him to try back in about a year. “I fully intend to grant this petition at some point,” the judge said from the bench.

Protecting Your Right to Remain Silent in Maryland, Especially When There’s a Language Barrier Involved

September 23, 2020 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Here in Maryland, our state constitution and the U.S. constitution give everyone certain rights. As you may already know, especially if you watch all of those TV police shows, you have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer the police’s questions. What happens, though, when you’re advised of your rights in a language that is not your native one? Depending on the exact circumstances, this evidence may be critical in getting certain incriminating statements you made to the police excluded from your trial. Whether or not you speak English, make sure you have someone ready to speak for you. In other words, be sure you have the services of a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney.

J.S. was one of those people where a language barrier was an issue. In J.S.’s criminal case, the police found drugs inside the man’s home. They charged J.S. with possession of cocaine and other related crimes.

The police transported J.S. to the station house, where a detective questioned him. During that interrogation, J.S. stated with regard to the drugs: “It’s only my problem. My wife is nothing to do with it.”

What Constitutes an Unconstitutional Search or Seizure, as Opposed to a ‘Consensual’ Interaction With Police in Maryland?

December 9, 2019 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Both the U.S. and Maryland courts include protections against law enforcement officers conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Maryland law also has some clear guideposts about the circumstances that do (or do not) constitute a search or seizure, and they include some scenarios you might not necessarily have associated with illegal searches unless you were keenly familiar with the law.

That’s why you need a knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense attorney handling your case. Your knowledgeable attorney does have that kind of extremely in-depth knowledge of search-and-seizure law, in addition to many other essential aspects of Maryland criminal law.

The situation that led to K.C.’s trial is a good example of what we mean. While Maryland Transit Authority officers were performing a sweep looking for fare dodgers aboard a light rail train, one passenger, K.C., informed an officer that he had no ticket to ride. The officer ordered K.C. to exit the train and sit on a bench. The MTA officers began running a check on K.C. for outstanding warrants. While officers ran that warrants check, K.C. tried to escape and three officers tackled him. During that interaction, one officer discovered a gun and another subsequently searched K.C., finding multiple bags of cocaine.