DNA Evidence

How a Rapper’s Trial in Georgia May Fuel a Change in Evidentiary Standards in Maryland Criminal Cases

May 10, 2024 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The “rules of the game” in criminal trials are constantly evolving to one degree or another. New decisions from the Appellate Court or Supreme Court — as well as new laws from the legislature — can impact an array of issues relevant to criminal cases, including things like what constitutes a custodial police interrogation (as it relates to a defendant’s constitutional right to counsel,) what degree of reasonable suspicion is necessary for the police to stop someone on the street (in terms of that person’s search and seizure rights,) or what level of blood toxicity is required to constitute legal intoxication. Ensuring that your rights are protected to the fullest is about more than simply having any Maryland criminal defense lawyer, but rather having a skilled and knowledgeable one who is fully up-to-date on all recent changes to the law and how they impact your case.

If one Baltimore delegate has his way, the rules will be changing again — this time, to limit the use of “creative expressions” in criminal trials. This bill comes in the wake of a well-publicized racketeering trial to our south.

Young Thug is a Grammy Award-winning rapper. According to prosecutors in Georgia, he is also the head of an Atlanta-based criminal street gang. The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office put the rapper and 28 associates on trial for 56 criminal counts, including racketeering.

DNA Analysis Reports and What it Means to Your Defense When the Person Who Testifies Isn’t the One Who Created the Report

March 10, 2023 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Television has popularized and glamorized the work of police crime lab workers. However, just like the actors on your favorite crime scene investigation shows, workers in real-life police crime labs come and go. This means that, sometimes, the person who creates a DNA analysis report may not be the one whom the state uses to testify in a criminal trial. When that happens, it creates the potential for a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights to occur… specifically, the accused’s right to confront witnesses. Whether your case calls for examining a report author or challenging a Confrontation Clause violation (or both), a skilled Maryland criminal defense lawyer can be crucial to protecting your rights fully, and putting on the most effective defense possible.

A homicide case from Prince George’s County illustrates what you can do when the process does not function correctly.

The victim was an 18-year-old whom police officers found shot dead inside a Greenbelt apartment. No witnesses saw the shooting. Nevertheless, the state brought first-degree murder charges against T.B. The prosecution asserted that, when the gun went off, the shooter suffered a nick and left his blood at the scene…and that the DNA sample from that blood matched T.B.’s DNA.

DNA Evidence, Forensic Scientist Testimony, and a Defendant’s Right to Cross-Examination in a Maryland Criminal Trial

August 9, 2021 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives each person on trial the right to confront his/her accusers and to cross-examine them. In Maryland, this state’s Article 21 gives an accused person even more protection when it comes to cross-examination. This is very important because effective cross-examination is often essential to diminishing or destroying the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence. Of course, it is important not simply to engage in cross-examination, but to engage in genuinely powerful cross-examination that’s carefully engineered to chip away at the state’s case. For that kind of effective cross-examination, you should rely on an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney.

The right to cross-examination has never been more important than it is today, when cutting-edge technology and scientific reports may be the key pieces of evidence on which the prosecution relies. Getting that report’s author on the stand and taking the necessary steps to minimize his/her credibility may be essential to your getting an acquittal.

Consider J.L., who was on trial for multiple crimes in connection with a Washington County burglary. In the ensuing criminal trial, one of the key pieces of evidence in the prosecution’s case was DNA proof. The police took a swab from blood located on a window frame and a curtain of the burglarized home and created a DNA profile from that swab. A Maryland State Police forensic scientist analyzed the sample and generated a report that named J.L. as a possible DNA match.

How a Baltimore Man Got His Convictions Reversed After the Prosecution Sent His Defense Lawyer Critical DNA Evidence in an ‘Inaccessible Digital Format’

January 10, 2020 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

One of the most basic concepts of a criminal trial is that, while each side should advocate zealously, the trial should be conducted with ultimate fairness. If the prosecution in your case discovers but then hides evidence that could disprove your guilt, that is unfair and a violation of the rules. If the state provides you with certain evidence, but gives it to you in a way that is unusable or nearly so, this also runs counter to the idea of fairness.

When these kinds of things happen, you may be able to use these bits of unfairness to gain beneficial outcomes like a new trial or a reversal of a conviction. Of course, you first have to spot the violation and then know how to go about presenting that issue and arguing for your new trial in the right way. In other words, these are just a few examples of times when it pays to an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney on your side.

C.B. was a man on trial who experienced this kind of unfairness. The state accused him of nearly a dozen various crimes related to a carjacking and robbery. As part of its case, the prosecution sought to use DNA evidence taken from a pellet gun, which the police had discovered when they searched a van in C.B.’s possession. A state lab technician performed DNA analysis on the gun.

Maryland Man’s Alford Plea Costs Him the Opportunity to Request DNA Testing of New Evidence

November 22, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

When you or a loved one is facing criminal charges, there are many vitally important choices to make. Do you take your chances and go to trial? Do you plead guilty? Do you make some other sort of plea, such as an Alford plea? In one recent case before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the high court concluded that a man’s Alford plea functioned similarly to a guilty plea and prevented him from requesting DNA testing on newly discovered evidence.

Maryland Court Reviews Post-Conviction DNA Statute in Criminal Case

December 18, 2015 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Among the many defenses a person can assert in a criminal case, evidence relating to DNA has gained increasing attention over recent years. Not only do people present DNA evidence throughout the course of their trials, but also cases have even been re-opened when relevant DNA evidence comes to light. One of the primary reasons for the increased use of such evidence in a criminal case is the continuous technological and scientific advancements in the field. Of course, state laws applicable to criminal cases must also evolve to keep up with these changes.

In 2001, Maryland’s General Assembly enacted the post-conviction DNA testing statute to provide a way for people who have been convicted of certain crimes to gather mitigating or exculpatory evidence through DNA testing of items related to the conviction. To understand how this law could apply to your case, you are encouraged to contact a Maryland criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

In a recent case involving a request for post-conviction relief, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other related offenses in 1996. Many years later, in 2008, quite a while after the conviction became final, the appellant sought relief under the post-conviction DNA testing statute. He attempted to prove that under Section 8-201 of the Maryland Criminal Procedure Article, one item of the prosecution’s case (socks allegedly worn at the time of the murders) failed to contain his DNA. However, the State responded by informing the appellant that the socks no longer existed and were destroyed along with other items related to the case, once the matter was deemed final. The appellant did not reply to this response and later unsuccessfully pursued additional post-conviction relief, claiming that the evidence was destroyed in bad faith.