Robbery

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.

What Happens When You are Convicted of a Crime in Maryland When that Crime Wasn’t Charged in Your Indictment

December 22, 2021 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Maryland, you have many rights in relation to criminal law. One of those is the right to know the charges against you. One very important side-effect of this right is that the state generally cannot charge you with one crime and then convict you of a similar, but different, crime that was not included. When it comes to protecting all of your rights, including this one, it pays to have legal representation from a knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense lawyer.

For example, your rights in Maryland may potentially protect you from being charged with an attempt and then convicted of the commission of the act if the commission crime was not a charged offense. That’s what happened to one Somerset County man, and he was able to use that error to get his armed robbery conviction overturned.

In this man’s case, it all allegedly started when the accused, L.F., and his girlfriend went to K.B.’s home. An argument erupted there and L.F. allegedly hit K.B. Additionally, L.F. allegedly had a gun and demanded that K.B. give him drugs.

When the Prosecution in Your Maryland Criminal Case Can — and Can’t — Get Evidence in Based on the ‘Opening the Door’ Doctrine

August 23, 2021 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

If you watch enough courtroom movies or TV shows then you’ve likely seen the following scene or something like it: Our star, an intrepid attorney, has unearthed enormously helpful evidence but it is not admissible. Then the other side makes an ill-considered comment or asks an unfortunate (for them) question. Our protagonist seizes the moment and moves to admit the key evidence. When the other side objects, our intrepid advocate confidently counters, “Your Honor, they opened the door!” and gets the proof before the jury. Of course, real life is often much more complex than TV dramas and movies, but being able to use (or to block) an “opening the door” argument can be extremely important to your real-life case. When it comes to getting all of your best evidence admitted at trial, you don’t need a gifted actor; you need a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney advocating for you.

So what exactly does “opening the door” look like… and not look like? A recent felony case that originated in Howard County helps us see. Police, who were investigating a string of burglaries and a robbery in late 2018, searched a Columbia home three times.

Ultimately, after finishing their searches and collecting evidence, the state charged R.D. with, among other things, armed robbery. At trial, the accused man admitted that he lied to the police about where he lived but said he did so to protect the woman who eventually became his wife. The prosecution then set about questioning R.D. about a “whole bunch of stolen goods and” property the police found inside the residence.

What an ‘Improper Inducement’ Is and What You Can Do If the Police Used It to Get You to Make a Self-Incriminating Statement in Maryland

May 20, 2020 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

We’ve almost all seen it on TV. The police obtain a criminal suspect and place her in interrogation. Once there, the police use a full array of tactics, from encouragement to intimidation to empathy, seeking to get the testimony they need. Because the police officers are often the beloved stars of the show, the techniques they use almost end up being proper and permissible. In real life, it’s more complicated. Sometimes, the police may say things the law considers to be an “improper inducement.” When you can show that that happened to you, it may help you get potentially damaging evidence excluded from your case. Of course, the best way to ensure you are not being lured by police to make an incriminating statement in an interrogation setting is to make sure you have an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney by your side before you say anything to the police.

A.H. was a woman caught in that kind of situation as a suspect in a murder case. While questioning A.H., Baltimore police told the woman many things, including that “honesty is the best policy” and that “this is the honesty you need to stay with to stay out of big trouble.” The police also told her that she was “either going to be a witness or… a defendant,” but that if the woman was “straight up” then “we’ll work with you.”

At that point, A.H. revealed that she was a sex worker who was on an appointment with the victim at the time of the murder. A.H.’s crack dealer, E, instructed her to take the appointment and to “leave the door unlocked.” Because she feared E and because she thought E and his partner would, at most, beat up the victim, A.H. did as she was told. The victim ultimately died of multiple stab wounds. Based on A.H.’s statements, the state went to trial against her on robbery and homicide charges.

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.

What You Do — and Don’t — Have to Say to Invoke Your Right to Legal Counsel in Maryland

October 11, 2019 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

It is that moment that is so common to TV police-and-prosecutors shows… and so very frustrating to those fictional law enforcement officers. It happens when the suspect the police are questioning looks the officers in the eyes and says, “I’m not talking without my lawyer here.”

If you are facing police questioning as a potential suspect in a criminal case, one of the most important things you, just like that fictional suspect, can do to help yourself is to bring that questioning to a temporary halt by invoking your right to counsel. Law enforcement officers are trained professionals skilled at manipulating suspects into giving them the answers they want to hear. Your knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense attorney is familiar with all of these techniques and with how to protect you in an interrogation setting.

Your right to counsel is one of the strongest rights provided to you by the Constitution. On TV, suspects often make clear requests to the effect of “I want a lawyer.” In real life, suspects may feel nervous, intimidated, overwhelmed, or scared and often speak less clearly. As a recent case demonstrates, even if you don’t speak with the precision and clarity of an Ivy League law professor (or a trained Hollywood actor,) that lack of plainness does not take away the effectiveness of an invocation of your rights.

The ‘Missing Witness’ Jury Instruction and the Role it Can Play in Your Maryland Criminal Trial

April 19, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

As a defendant in a criminal trial, you have the right to testify or to forego testifying. You also have the right to call the witnesses whom you want and refrain from calling witnesses whom you don’t want on the stand. All of these decisions are made based upon carefully considering the overall strategic “pluses” and “minuses” of each choice. However, what happens when someone who seems like a key witness for the defense is never called to the stand? In some situations, a judge can instruct the jury to infer that the non-testifying non-witness would have given testimony harmful to the defense had she taken the stand. The set of circumstances in which a judge can give this jury instruction is extremely narrow, though, and improperly giving such an instruction can result in a reversal of any conviction. When it comes to all of these strategic trial choices, it pays to have a knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense attorney representing you.

In one recent case from Baltimore, the judge did give that instruction, and the giving of the instruction allowed the defendant to obtain a reversal of his conviction. The man on trial was Jerry, who stood accused of several crimes related to a home break-in and robbery. There was actually very little evidence tying Jerry to the crimes. The only thing the state had was latent fingerprint evidence on pill bottles found at the home that matched fingerprints on file for Jerry.

Jerry testified in the trial. He asserted that he wasn’t involved and had not been at the scene of the crimes. Jerry asserted that, at the time that the crimes took place, he was at home with his mother. In the defense opening statement, Jerry’s attorney stated that the mother would testify and would state that Jerry was at home with her. Jerry’s mom, however, did not testify for the defense.

How the Specificity of the Description of a Suspect Can Affect a Maryland Criminal Case

October 17, 2017 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In many criminal defense cases, one of the most important aspects of the case may be getting (or failing to get) evidence excluded. One way in which you may be entitled to suppression is if the police stopped you but did not have a reasonable suspicion to do so. One circumstance in which that can happen is when the description of the suspect the police use contains only a race and very general descriptive information. Arguing successfully these types of Fourth Amendment issues is something that can often benefit from the skill of an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney.

A recent case involved a robbery in Gaithersburg. As is normal, dispatch sent out a call about the robbery and information about the suspects. Initially, dispatch simply stated that the suspects were “three black males.” One officer, who was in the area, responded and spotted three black males in the area of the apartment where the robbery took place. According to the officer, the men he saw appeared to be together and were the only black males in the area.

At that point, he stopped one man and discovered various items on his person that were used in the robbery, including a knife and a mask. Based upon this evidence, the state charged the defendant with robbery and assault charges. At the trial, the defendant asked the trial judge to suppress the knife and mask evidence. The officer’s search, he argued, was illegal because he didn’t have the appropriate level of reasonable suspicion to stop him. The trial court disagreed, allowing the evidence into the case, and the jury convicted the defendant on multiple assault and robbery charges.

Double Jeopardy Law in Maryland and How it Can Help You in Your Criminal Case

January 5, 2017 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

There are a great many things that can be changed or altered in a criminal case. The prosecution and the defense can ask the court to amend or reverse many decisions made previously. One situation in which that isn’t true is a judgment of acquittal for insufficient evidence. Once the judge in your case makes that decision, it is the equivalent of a “not guilty” verdict, and the Constitution’s prohibition against double jeopardy means that you can no longer be convicted of that crime. This hard-and-fast rule proved to be the key to a Maryland man escaping an assault charge for an altercation at a Prince George’s County supermarket, as decided recently by the Court of Special Appeals.

What Happens When the State’s Expert Lies on the Stand in a Maryland Criminal Trial

November 4, 2016 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Anyone who’s watched enough episodes of the courtroom procedural shows on television has inevitably seen it at some point: the episode in which the prosecution’s star expert witness is, at some point, exposed as having lied on the witness stand. This situation of expert witnesses lying on the stand does occur in real life, and, when it does, it is important to understand what that means for a criminal case in Maryland. The state’s Court of Appeals recently ruled that, when a defendant discovers after a trial’s end that one of the state’s experts lied about his credentials, the trial court must analyze what the jury would have done had they known that the expert lied, rather than simply analyze what the jury would have done if they’d never heard the falsehoods.