Second-Degree Murder

Police Comments About a Suspect’s Credibility: What an Officer Can Say in the Interrogation Room Versus What a Jury Can Hear in a Trial

January 31, 2024 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Maryland law gives law enforcement officers extensive leeway in the interrogation tactics they use. Officers may permissibly manipulate, deceive, and even outright lie to a suspect; those are all valid investigative tactics. This reality is one of the reasons why refusing to speak with officers without a qualified Maryland criminal defense lawyer present is almost always a good idea. Your seasoned attorney may recognize when an officer is employing the “tools of the trade” to get you to say something incriminating, and protect you from making statements that could later harm you at trial.

However, the statements an officer can make in an interrogation setting are very different from statements the state can introduce into evidence in a criminal trial. And, as a recent murder case shows, while the police can tell a suspect “your story defies belief” in the interrogation room, the state generally can’t admit that opinion commentary into evidence in the suspect’s trial.

The murder case arose from an alcohol-fueled dispute between two friends. Police arrived at a Montgomery County apartment to find a man, Y.R., dead. They took a woman, S.N., into custody and interrogated her. That interrogation was recorded on video.

What Maryland Law Says About the Admissibility of an Accused Person’s Prior Bad Acts

November 30, 2023 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In a Maryland criminal trial, a jury should only convict the accused if the prosecution has presented evidence proving the accused’s commission of that specific crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Often, the people on trial are folks without spotless records; they may have had multiple prior encounters with the criminal judicial system. Those facts alone don’t make them guilty, though those facts might tempt a jury to find that defendant guilty simply because the jurors decide they dislike the accused. If you’re someone with a criminal past who is on trial again, it is crucial to ensure that you get inadmissible evidence of your past excluded from your case. This is just one of many areas where it pays to have representation from an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer.

These limitations on what the prosecution can do are necessary to avoid confusing jurors, prejudicing them against the accused, and predisposing them to believe the accused is guilty. In other words, the evidence might lead the jury to convict just because they think the accused is a bad person, not because the state offered sufficient proof of the crime charged.

As an example, there’s the Maryland Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the case of F.B., a Baltimore man on trial for felony child abuse.

‘No-Communication’ Orders During Court Recesses and the Right to Counsel in Maryland

October 31, 2023 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

One of the most important fundamental rights each person in Maryland has is the right to legal representation in criminal matters. This right acknowledges just how important a robust defense is to a fair criminal process and how life-altering a criminal conviction can be. If you are facing a criminal charge (or under suspicion of a crime,) it is important to retain not just any attorney but rather the right Maryland criminal defense lawyer with the knowledge and experience necessary to provide you with the effective advocacy you need.

Because the right to counsel is so fundamental, a trial court order impinging it can be illegal and the basis for a successful appeal. Take, for example, the criminal trial arising from a Christmas night altercation at a Columbia convenience store.

The dispute turned into a stabbing that left one man injured, one man dead, and a Baltimore man on trial for second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder. The accused asserted that he acted in self-defense.

A Maryland Man Accused of Murder is Granted a New Trial… for the Second Time

September 29, 2023 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

When you’re accused of a crime, achieving a successful result may involve many procedural steps. These could include things like pretrial motions (such as a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence,) in-trial objections (such as opposing the admission of inadmissible hearsay evidence,) post-trial motions, and appeals. To ensure that your rights are protected to the fullest, you need to be sure you have representation from a Maryland criminal defense lawyer with the skills and experience to handle these procedural elements effectively.

A murder case from Montgomery County is a good example. The defendant, H.A.Z., stood accused of killing his married lover’s husband. The state also charged the woman with the murder.

The prosecution chose to try the two together. The Maryland rules allow for this kind of trial if the two defendants are “alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” Sometimes, though, a joint trial would result in unfair prejudice to one or both defendants, in which case the defendants should be tried separately.

Juvenile Suspects, Police Interrogation, and When a Confession is (Or Isn’t) Voluntary Under Maryland Law

May 24, 2022 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

For an agreement to be legally binding, certain things must be true. Generally, both sides must have agreed to the agreement’s terms knowingly and voluntarily, free from improper coercion, duress, or fraud. That’s true whether you’re entering into a commercial sales contract, a marital settlement agreement, a plea deal, or an agreement to give the police a statement or confession (and waive your constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona.) In each scenario, the standard for invalidating an agreement is different. If the police or a prosecutor deceived your underage child to get you to waive your Miranda rights then, with the help of a skillful Maryland criminal defense lawyer, you may be able to get your agreement or statement thrown out.

Situations involving juvenile suspects are particularly complex and present unique opportunities to get the statement tossed, as one Edgewood homicide case demonstrates.

Three days after the victim’s death, the Harford County Sheriff’s Office arrested 15-year-old J.B. The teen’s parents asked five times to meet with their son, but they were turned down each time.

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.”

What a Shocking Death in Bethesda Can Teach When It Comes to the Criminal Charges You’re Facing in Maryland

February 7, 2022 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Most people, when they think of “murder,” think of an intentional killing. However, here in Maryland, that is only one of two kinds of second-degree murder the law recognizes. In addition to intentional murder, there’s also what the law calls “depraved-heart” murder, where you can be just as culpable (and face equally severe punishments,) even though you had no intent to kill anyone. Sometimes, though, prosecutors in this state will charge “depraved-heart” murder in cases where the facts or the law actually don’t add up to murder. As a defendant, getting justice means, even if you don’t get an acquittal on all charges, you defeat those alleged crimes that the state overcharged. To best protect yourself if you’ve been overcharged, you need representation from an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer.

A well-known recent second-degree murder case, which involved an eccentric millionaire and the house fire that killed the man who worked for him, is a good example of this issue of the state overcharging depraved heart murder.

D.B., a wealthy man in his 20s living in Bethesda, had a strong fear of a North Korean nuclear strike. To protect himself, he hired men to dig a series of tunnels and a bunker beneath his home.

How to Get an Expert’s Testimony Excluded from Your Maryland Criminal Case When that Expert is Not Sufficiently Reliable

March 5, 2021 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

If you’re on trial, one thing you may find exceptionally intimidating is when the prosecution puts on a scientific expert witness to testify. You may fear that the jury will give great importance to what this person says and, if his/her testimony seems to indicate that you’re guilty, then the jury will say so, too. However, what if there was a way to keep the jury from hearing anything at all from this expert witness? There is and, with the help of a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney, you too may be able to accomplish it and reap the benefits of a stronger defense as a result.

One way to block the prosecution from putting an expert witness’s testimony before a jury lies within something called Rule 5-702. That’s a rule of evidence that says that all expert testimony must have “a sufficient factual basis … to support” it and, if not, then you are entitled to make a motion objecting to the expert, and the trial judge should exclude that expert’s evidence.

A recent murder case illustrates how this process works. K.M. was on trial in connection with the deaths of two people shot multiple times at close range.

An Overturned Murder Conviction in Alaska Highlights an Important Concept in Maryland Law About Prosecutors’ Closing Arguments

June 5, 2019 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Sometimes, even cases going on out-of-state can shed some important light on the way Maryland criminal defense law works. A recent ruling from Alaska that threw out a man’s murder conviction due to a prosecutor’s closing argument is particularly interesting for Marylanders as, among the cases the Alaska court took note of, and quoted from, was a very significant 1992 Maryland ruling whose impact continues to this day.

Making sure that the arguments made against you are only those things that the law allows is one area where skilled Maryland criminal defense counsel can help. Not only can your experienced defense attorney identify what the prosecution can (and, more importantly, cannot) get away with, your knowledgeable attorney will also know how to go about taking the proper steps keep those improper harmful arguments out of your case.

In the Alaska case, J.A. was on trial for stabbing a man to death. At closing arguments, the prosecutor went to some length to point out that, even if the jury convicted the man, the accused would still have recourse, such as asking the trial judge to set aside the verdict or appealing the conviction to the Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court after that.) The Court of Appeals in that state threw out the conviction as a result of that argument. By “assuring the jurors that, if they made a mistake, the trial judge or an appellate court would fix it later,” the prosecutor misled the jury about the finality and importance of their decision.

Maryland Man Gets His Murder Conviction Reversed Due to Improper Police Questioning After He Invoked His Right to an Attorney

June 20, 2018 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Judges may cite to popular songs, books, or movies in their legal opinions for various reasons. Sometimes, it’s to enliven a tedious process. Sometimes, it is to rebuke a lawyer who did a poor job. Other times, though, these references are especially insightful and relevant to a specific issue. A recent Court of Special Appeals opinion opened with a quote from the popular lawyer drama Better Call Saul. The character in the quoted passage advises his listener that the time when people most need a lawyer is when “they find themselves in a little room with a detective who acts like he’s their best friend. ‘Talk to me,’ he says, ‘Help me clear this thing up. You don’t need a lawyer, only guilty people need lawyers’ and BOOM! … that’s when it all goes south.” While this passage is fiction, it does offer some very good real-life advice. The time to contact a criminal defense lawyer is NOT after you’ve waived your rights, started talking to the police, and said something that they potentially can use against you to incriminate you. The time to invoke your right to counsel and obtain a skilled Maryland criminal defense attorney is from the very beginning of law enforcement’s questioning of you.

The recent court opinion quoting that TV show episode was one that focused on the very important process of invoking your rights when faced with a police interrogation. The case involved the murder by stabbing of a man in Langley Park. The police apprehended Mynor and took him into interrogation. Several questions into the process, Mynor said, in Spanish, a sentence that the police translated as “That’s all I have to say to you. And if you accuse me of something, I better want an attorney.” Despite this statement, the interview continued. The police even acknowledged at one point that Mynor said he “wanted a lawyer,” but the interrogation kept going. Eventually, the man made potentially incriminating statements. The state took the case to trial and obtained a conviction on second-degree murder.

The accused man appealed. His argument, essentially, was that he invoked his right to remain silent and also his right to counsel, that the police improperly continued the interrogation, and that the trial court wrongfully allowed his incriminating post-invocation statements into his trial.