Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

What Constitutes “Contempt of Court” in Maryland Criminal Court?

December 12, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In a recent case, the defendant tore up a copy of his probation papers after his criminal trial. He was on trial for second-degree assault after hitting and kicking his girlfriend during an argument. After the guilty verdict, the girlfriend claimed financial hardship and said she wanted to be left alone. The defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison with most of it suspended, plus three years probation.

He was given a probation order with standard conditions, including obeying all laws. A week later, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. The State based its request for revocation on ripping up his probation papers and making loud threatening statements about witnesses like, “She don’t know it, but she just signed her death warrant.”

The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation, finding him in contempt for ripping up the papers and making threats. An intermediate appellate court held that the ruling wasn’t clearly erroneous. The controlling statute did not require the threats be made directly to a witness or victim. Continue reading

The “CSI Effect” in Maryland Criminal Cases

December 6, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

People in Maryland and elsewhere are often curious about how realistic television shows involving lawyers are. How television affects jurors and trials, however, is less often explored. One phenomenon in the latter category, the “CSI effect” has led to some interesting scholarship and legal rulings over the past decade.

The “CSI effect” allegedly occurs in response to the television show, leading jurors to expect they will be given forensic evidence such as DNA during a criminal trial. In earlier cases, the appellate court addressed whether or not it was appropriate to give an instruction to counter the CSI effect (an “anti-CSI effect instruction”).

In a recent case the trial judge instructed the jury that there was no legal requirement that the prosecution use a specific type of investigative or scientific technique to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He also noted that the defense argued there was no scientific link connecting the defendant to the crime. Continue reading

Obstruction of a Maryland Police Officer’s Investigation

November 26, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Maryland, it is illegal to obstruct or hinder a law enforcement officer trying to perform his duties. There are three kinds of obstruction: direct obstruction (physical resistance), passive direct obstruction (refusal to act as required), and positive indirect obstruction (where police officer are acting against other citizens and a citizen not involved prevents their ability to prevent or detect crime).

In a 2011 obstruction case, a motorcyclist and friend were traveling parallel in the southbound lane. Someone from the sheriff’s department saw one of them cross the double yellow line several times. He initiated a stop and ran the vehicle information to get the motorcycle’s registration information. He discovered the motorcycle belonged to someone named Titus. The motorcyclist presented him with a driver’s license from another state and a name different from Titus.

At some point the sheriff found Titus’s license had been suspended and revoked. The person driving the vehicle claimed that Titus was his roommate and he borrowed the vehicle. The sheriff smelled alcohol on his breath and saw his eyes were glassy. He asked the motorcyclist what he’d been doing that evening. The motorcyclist claimed he drank two beers earlier. A Standardized Field Sobriety Test was performed. The motorcyclist claimed to have bad ankles, but agreed to the test. Continue reading

Is Self-Defense an Available Defense in a Charge of Affray?

November 18, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

What is an “affray?” An affray in Maryland happens when two people fight (either with each other’s consent or without) in a public place “to the terror of the people.” The elements of “public place” and “terror of the people” can be controversial because it begs the question of whether there can be a terror of the people if two people fight in a public place without anyone else around. In a recent case, an appellate court considered whether a circuit court erred in its jury instruction regarding self-defense in an affray case.

The case arose when a husband and wife entertained family at a Fourth of July cookout on their back porch. The defendant called the wife’s sister and learning of the cookout, drove over. The sister left with her kids after the defendant’s arrival, but he stayed. The witnesses differed in what happened next. But they all agreed significant alcohol consumption occurred.

The husband and the defendant started a playful wrestling match that turned into a fistfight that was eventually broken up. The wife tripped and the husband believed the defendant caused her fall. The husband got angry that the defendant wouldn’t shake his hand and kicked the defendant’s moped and swung at the defendant first. However, the defendant punched him until he fell unconscious. The husband died. Continue reading

Issues of Credibility and Prejudicial Evidence in a Maryland Murder Case

November 11, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A recent case arose when the defendant drove his Mitsubishi with two passengers onto southbound I-95. The defendant and one of the passengers (Jackson) planned to rob the other passenger. However, the two passengers got into a fight at some point and Jackson got shot. The defendant pulled over and Jackson shot and killed the other passenger. The defendant drove the injured passenger to the hospital and left.

The police found the dead passenger’s body on the same day. The defendant was arrested and at the barracks where he was taken. While there, he made statements to three officers, including a recorded statement where he described the fight as a robbery that had gone bad.

After that, he was advised of his Miranda rights. Although he invoked his right to remain silent, he continued to talk. The officers cut him off and told him they couldn’t talk to him until he waived his Miranda rights. Ten minutes later he signed a form waiving his rights. Continue reading

Reasonable Suspicion for an Investigatory Stop in Maryland

November 5, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

When is a reasonable suspicion truly a reasonable suspicion and not just a hunch in Maryland? A law enforcement officer can conduct an investigatory stop only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion and not a mere hunch that the person being stopped is committing some kind of infraction or criminal activity.

In a recent case, a violent crime unit of the Baltimore Police Department was investigating a man (Blue) known for distributing raw heroin. They spied on a meeting between the Blue and another individual (Townsend) on a street corner, taping it with a surveillance camera. Two detectives were part of the surveillance, but did not observe the meeting live, only on tape.

Blue arrived in his car and looked around nervously after getting out of his car. He took an object out of his pocket, still looking around, and handed it to Townsend. Townsend put the object in his pocket and soon Blue went back to his car and drove away. Continue reading

Maryland Appellate Court Again Considers “King v. State”

October 25, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reversed a Maryland appellate court on the subject of the Maryland DNA Collection Act. It held that it was constitutional for Maryland to allow law enforcement officers to take a DNA sample from individuals arrested for violent crimes. It explained that DNA identification was similar to fingerprinting or photographing and should be considered a “reasonable search.” Therefore, the DNA collection was considered not to violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights and the defendant’s conviction for rape was upheld.

The case was remanded (returned) to the appellate court to consider questions left unanswered in the original appeal including whether the DNA collection violated the defendant’s rights under Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and whether it was improper for the trial judge to shift the burden of proof to the defendant to show the search and seizure was reasonable.

The defendant argued that the Act authorized general searches without requiring the reasonable suspicion that is typically required for a search and seizure. He asked the Maryland appellate court to suppress the evidence on the grounds that this violated Article 26. Continue reading

What Happens if a Maryland Judge Erroneously Advises a Defendant Waiving His Right to Jury?

October 17, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Criminal defendants in Maryland have a right to jury trial and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In a recent case, the court was asked to consider whether a waiver was valid where the trial judge offered the defendant advice that was erroneous.

The case was a murder case in which the defendant was charged for the murder of his father. He entered a plea of not guilty and not criminally responsible, but was interested in a bench trial (one in which the judge rules on guilt or innocence.)

In Maryland, judges are required to ask a defendant waiving his or her right to a jury trial specific questions. The judge in this case asked whether the defendant wanted to waive a jury. He also asked about his schooling, substance use, and physical illness.

The Impact of a Defendant’s Signed Statement in Maryland

October 12, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

If you are suspected of a crime, you should always ask to talk to an attorney before answering questions from the police. You also should not sign anything the police give you nor write your own statement without advice of counsel. In a recent case, the issue of confession arose in connection with multiple arson attempts. A man, his wife, and their daughter returned home at about 1:00 a.m. one night. The man noticed lights coming through his blinds. He saw a fire coming out of the front of his garage and alerted his family before telephoning the fire department.

The man tried to contain the fire with a garden hose. The firemen asked him to move out of the way and proceeded to spray down the place. The police investigated the cause of the fire. An arson investigator determined someone had set the fire. Shortly thereafter, the man awoke at 3:00 a.m. and found the house filled with smoke. The roof was on fire. They called 911. The Fire Marshall smelled accelerant on the roof.

The police collected roofing and other materials for testing. They determined there was gasoline in the samples. The family put up 12 cameras for surveillance and the couple slept in shifts so they could monitor what was happening. A month later, during the wife’s shift, she noticed someone walking down the street carrying a container. The person poured liquid on her car. Continue reading

Sale of Counterfeits in Maryland

October 11, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Maryland law prohibits the intentional distribution, sale and possession of items identified by a counterfeit mark. In a recent case, the defendant was driving on Route 301 with two burned out tag lights when he was pulled over by a state trooper. The state trooper noticed that the defendant did not make eye contact and that there were four air freshening trees hanging in the car, including at the rear of the car.

He radioed to the station for a criminal history and traffic check on the defendant, which revealed the defendant’s license had expired and the defendant had been charged with drug possession. Accordingly he called for backup and began citing the defendant for driving on an expired license.

When the other trooper arrived, they spoke about the situation and asked the defendant and his companion to exit the car. A trained dog searched the vehicle for illegal substances. There were two marijuana cigarettes, which the defendant admitted belonged to him. Also recovered were more than 300 DVDs and CDs suspected to be counterfeits. The defendant was charged on numerous counts, including a charge of distributing, selling and possessing counterfeit items. Continue reading