Justia Lawyer Rating
MSBA
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
AILA 2024 Member
ABA
Bar Association of Montgomery County, Maryland

| by

A recent appellate case arose from an armed carjacking. The defendant and a companion approached the victim in Baltimore City, pointed guns at him and told him to get on the ground. The victim obeyed while the defendant and his companion took his wallet and keys.

When the victim got up, a teenager joined the group that forced him into his car. They drove him to an ATM under threat of being shot. The defendant used the ATM card, but could only withdraw a small sum. The defendant told the companion to tie up the victim and they drove to try to withdraw money from other ATMs. Finally, they drove the victim to a location and told him to drive off.

A detective later testified against the defendant. He claimed the victim identified the defendant from an array of photographs, but didn’t mention any injuries. Continue reading

| by

You may be wondering whether a separate Maryland criminal case can have repercussions in your current criminal case. The older case can impact how you are sentenced in a current case. However, the penalties in the earlier case cannot be transferred willy-nilly from the older case to the current case. In a 2013 case a defendant appealed his conviction for violating the Maryland bad check law. He asked the appellate court to review whether it was appropriate for a judge to order a defendant to pay restitution arising from an unrelated case.

The defendant had committed various crimes in Maryland and Delaware. The first set involved violations of Maryland’s Home Improvement Law. He had contracted with come women to perform home improvement work and failed to complete that work. He was charged for these as criminal offenses. He pled guilty and was required to pay monetary restitution to the women. The second type of case had to do with his bad check.

The defendant didn’t pay restitution to the women. The court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended sentences in each of the cases and to pay fines of $1000 in each case, which would be served at $10 per day of confinement. These were consecutive sentences. The defendant appealed. Continue reading

| 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

In a recent case a defendant asked the Maryland Court of Appeals to review of a judge’s imposition of a 25 year mandatory, enhanced sentence. The defendant had been convicted of cocaine distribution and conspiracy. The State notified the defendant it would seek a mandatory 25-year sentence without possibility of parole.

The defendant was sentenced according to a subsequent offender statute for multiple drug convictions. Under section 5-608, a defendant can qualify for an enhanced sentence if he has served a prior term of confinement of at least 180 days and possesses two separate prior convictions that qualify.

At sentencing, the State submitted certified copies of docket entries regarding his two prior convictions. Various officers were asked to testify regarding the identity of the person who had been convicted and the fact that the fingerprint cards for each contained the same fingerprint. The defense attorney moved to strike one witness’s testimony because she wasn’t an expert. The sentencing judge, however, stated that it was not necessary to prove the prior offenses that way. 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
Florida Office
2255 Glades
Rd #324A
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801

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 © 2025, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design