Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog

Maryland Appellate Court Finds Abuse of Discretion, But Permits Conviction To Stand

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

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently addressed two interesting questions of criminal trial procedure. The first question was what kind of crime could be used to impeach (discredit) a witness. The second question was whether a trial court is permitted to refuse a re-cross examination once new testimony is given on an issue.

The case arose in early 2010 when a woman (the defendant) asked a man for a ride home from a strip club. The man agreed and when they got to the apartment where the defendant’s cousin lived, the defendant asked him to accompany her to the apartment. She said she would go home with him, but needed to tell her cousin where she was going.

As they walked to the apartment, the defendant pulled out a handgun and asked the man for his money and keys. She shot him as he got his keys from his pocket and then drove off in his car.

After the defendant left, the man called 911 and gave the police a report. When she was apprehended, the defendant was charged with numerous crimes. At trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense because she was afraid that the man was going to sexually assault her.

During a cross-examination of the man, defense counsel tried to impeach him by introducing evidence of his prior convictions, which included assault on a police officer, threat to do bodily harm and reckless endangerment. Continue reading

Maryland Appellate Court Finds A Competent Unanimous Jury Waiver in Stabbing Case

May 23, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A Maryland appellate court recently considered whether a defendant competently waived his constitutional right to have a jury decide his case unanimously. The case arose when the defendant stabbed and killed a man in 2009. After an investigation he was charged with first-degree murder and two related weapons offenses.

The prosecution called several witnesses at trial. One testified that the defendant and his victim were arguing on her lawn around 2:00 a.m. and when she told them to get away from her front door, the victim swung a switchblade at the defendant before leaving. The defendant then went into her house, grabbed a knife and followed him. The defendant returned several minutes later, brandishing a bloody knife and stating “this is what I do if somebody messes with me”.

Another witness had previously told the police she witnessed the murder. She admitted in court she had not witnessed it exactly and was under the influence of drugs during the murder. Continue reading

Maryland Appellate Court Rules Citizenship Question is Proper During Voir Dire

May 15, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Maryland, only United States citizens may serve on the jury for a state case. Recently, a criminal defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that a Maryland court did not ask potential jurors voir dire questions about their citizenship.

The criminal defendant had previously been convicted of a felony and in this case was indicted for multiple offenses relating to stealing a handgun. Before trial, both parties submitted proposals of voir dire questions. The criminal defendant presented fourteen questions. The State asked nineteen.

The trial court told the jurors that he would ask them questions in order to help the attorneys impanel a fair and impartial jury. He then asked about twenty questions, plus follow-up. The criminal defendant asked the court to ask questions related to citizenship. The court ultimately did not and the criminal defendant was convicted. He appealed. Continue reading

Maryland appellate court rules assault may occur even when victims are not present

May 10, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In Snyder v. State, the Maryland appellate court recently considered two indictments. In the first case, the defendant was indicted on thirty-seven counts based on shootings that took place at his neighbor’s properties. In the second indictment (called by the court, the “neighbor case”), the defendant was charged with similar violations, including assault, which happened on his former employer’s property.

In the second of two cases, the defendant appealed a first and second-degree assault conviction. The State showed at trial that the defendant went to the neighborhood of the victims. The victims’ neighbor saw the defendant’s pick-up truck there at 2:30 a.m. and heard gunshots. The neighbor saw the defendant leaving the victims’ house carrying firearms and also saw the defendant fire three gunshots at the victims’ house before leaving.

The male victim testified he had been away at the time of these events. When he got home, his windows had been shot out, the front door was off, and police were in the driveway. Similar events occurred in the other case, except the victims were actually home while the defendant was acting this way. Continue reading

Maryland Appellate Court Rules Against Defendant Who Cut a Police Dog

May 7, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

A Maryland appellate court recently decided a case involving a charge of aggravated cruelty to animals. This case arises from the defendant stabbing a fifteen-year-old in Baltimore, Maryland in July 2004. The police officer went to the house of the defendant’s aunt and saw him run away.

A K-9 officer and his dog responded to the first police officer’s call for backup. They discovered the defendant hiding in another backyard with his hands hidden. The officer ordered him to come out with his hands up and warned him he would release the dog if the defendant didn’t follow his instructions.

The defendant did not show both his hands. The officer repeated his warning. When the defendant refused and resisted another officer, the officer released the dog. The dog had been trained to bite once in order to catch a suspect and to release him only after he followed the officer’s instructions. In response to the dog’s attempt to catch him, the defendant cut the dog above his eye.

When the defendant again tried to escape, the officer again told the dog to catch him. The dog grabbed the defendant’s left side as he tried to climb over the fence. The officer eventually told the dog to release so that the defendant would not further harm the dog. Officers caught the defendant on the other side of the fence. Continue reading

Case Summary: Prostitution Charge Dismissed After Client’s Successful Completion of Diversion Program

April 22, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

Recently, our office represented a criminal defendant who had been charged with prostitution in Baltimore City, MD. She was facing up to one year in jail and a $500.00 fine if she was found guilty. However, the possible immigration consequences were even more severe – deportation from the U.S.

Our client was originally from the Dominican Republic and had been in the U.S. for almost twenty years. She was a legal permanent resident (green card holder) and had never applied for her U.S. citizenship.

When she came to the office she was petrified about the possible immigration consequences she would face if she was convicted of prostitution. She also feared that because of this pending criminal charge, she would not be able to take a prescheduled trip to Dominican Republic this coming summer to visit with her extended family. The client came to our office specifically because she knew we handled both criminal and immigration matters and she understood that she needed help with both.

Maryland Court Rules Victim Not Need Be Aware of Sexual Abuse/Exploitation

April 19, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

In the recently filed case Edward Charles Schmitt v. State of Maryland, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals considered whether evidence was sufficient to convict a man of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor where the minor was not aware of the abuse or exploitation.

The defendant moved in with his girlfriend in October 2007. His girlfriend had two minor children. In 2009, the girlfriend noticed a memory card hidden behind a picture on a bookshelf where the defendant stored things. She also found a plastic camera the size of a pack of a chewing gum, into which the memory card fit. The girlfriend saw three files on the memory card. The third file was a video of her fifteen-year-old daughter’s bedroom, taken from inside the closet.

On the video, the defendant and his girlfriend’s daughter were each shown. The defendant was shown masturbating. He left. Next the girlfriend’s daughter was shown entering the room and changing her clothes. She testified later that she didn’t place the camera in the closet nor permit the defendant to place it there.

Maryland Considers Broad Criminal Law Bills to Protect Minors

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

Recently Maryland has been considering criminal bills related to the special protection of minors. This year, the “Misuse of Interactive Computer Service” bill, also known as “Grace’s Law”, is expected to be signed into law. Sponsored by Senator Allen Kittleman, it is a General Assembly bill named after a high school student who killed herself last year after getting harassed for months on social media. The bill makes it a misdemeanor to harass minors online, putting in place penalties in the form of a $500 fine or up to 1 year in jail.

The goal of the new law is to prohibit intentionally harassing and annoying speech towards a minor, but some critics have noted that these terms are not adequately defined within the new law. The ACLU has already stated that the cyberbullying bill is unconstitutional and will probably be struck down by a free speech challenge. An ACLU attorney says that part of the bill prohibits using a computer “in a course of conduct that inflicts serious emotional distress.”

Maryland Court Finds That Reduced Penalties in Effect at Time of Trial, Rather Than Time of Offense, Should Be Applied to Criminal Defendant’s Case

April 10, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Appeal recently considered a case, Waker v. State, which should be important to all criminal defendants. Prior to a 2009 amendment, a Maryland theft statute provided that theft of something worth not more than $500 was a misdemeanor not to be punished by more than 18 months in prison. If the stolen item was worth more than $500 it would be regarded as a felony with a higher prison sentence.

In 2009, the Maryland General Assembly amended the statute so that the theft of property valuing less than $1,000 was a misdemeanor, meaning that it could be punished by imprisonment of no more than 18 months. The theft statute was also amended to provide that theft of property worth more than $1000 but less than $10,000 is a felony. This law was signed by the Governor on May 19, 2009, and became effective October 1 of the same year.

In this case, Calvin Waker bought some items at Walmart using a fraudulent credit card in March 2009. He was caught and charged with stealing property valued at $615 and was set to go to trial in March 2009. After a postponement, his trial was held in December of 2009 instead. Waker waived his right to a jury trial and was tried on an “agreed not guilty statement of facts.” He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. At the time of the theft, Waker was subject to the earlier statute which said that anybody convicted of property or services valued at $500 or more is guilty of a felony, and he was sentenced accordingly. Continue reading

Maryland Court Rules No Double Jeopardy Attaches At Protective Order Hearing

April 3, 2013 | by Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently ruled in Tubaya v. State of Maryland, an appeal based on the prohibition against double jeopardy in our Constitution. The case arose on June 27, 2011, when Valencia Tubaya pushed into the home of her older parents. She held a “sharp metal object” against her mother’s neck and threatened that she would cut the woman’s dialysis tubes out. When the father demanded that his daughter stop, she pushed him back into the chair where he’d been seated. She spoke to her parents for a few minutes then left.

Later that day, the mother and her other daughter spoke to police officers. They also filed an application for a statement of charges and a petition for a protective order against Valencia. The State of Maryland was not a party to the protective order proceedings. In July 2011, the District Court issued a number of temporary protective orders. Later in August, however, they denied a final protective order on the grounds that there was a lack of clear and convincing evidence that the assault happened.

Meanwhile, the state moved forward with prosecuting Valencia’s criminal case. Valencia moved to dismiss the criminal charges against her, arguing that the District Court’s August 2011 denial of a final protective order created collateral estoppel such that the state could no longer prosecute the question of whether the assault had actually occurred.