Maryland Criminal Attorneys Blog

The United States Supreme Court today ruled that criminal defendants have the constitutional right to effective representation when making the decision as to whether or not to accept a plea bargain. In two paired cases, Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the Court ruled that an attorney's mistakes at the plea bargain stage can render a defendant's plea ineffectual.

Our Annapolis criminal defense attorneys are experienced at giving our clients the right advice with regard to all of the client's available options, including plea deals. In today's legal climate, more often than not, criminal charges are resolved by way of plea bargains, rather than trials. Our attorneys are prepared to provide our clients with the proper guidance as to what will give the clients the best results possible.

In Cooper, Cooper's attorney informed him that he could not be convicted of assault with intent to murder, because of the attorney's belief that Michigan law did not permit a finding of intent to murder when the victim was shot below the waist; the attorney was wrong. As a result, Cooper rejected a plea deal, under which he would have received a recommended 51-to-85-month sentence. He was subsequently convicted at trial, and received the mandatory minimum 185-to-360-month sentence.

In Frye, the defendant was arrested for driving with a revoked license, the third time he had been arrested for that offense. Frye faced a maximum of four years in prison on the charge. The prosecutor in the case provided Frye's attorney with an offer to reduce the charge, making it a misdemeanor, with a 90 day jail sentence. Frye's attorney, however, did not bother to relay the offer to his client. Frye ultimately plead guilty to the charge, without the benefit of the offered plea bargain, and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Continue reading "Maryland Defendants Protected by Supreme Court Plea Deal Decision" »

In a case profiled here in October, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling this week reversing the conviction of Antoine Jones. The case held the potential to drastically alter the Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, but due to the very narrow grounds the Court based its ruling on, many of the issues related to warrantless electronic monitoring of suspects has been left to future cases.

While the Fourth Amendment may seem technical or scholastic to some, the meaning of the right to be secure in one's person and possessions has far-reaching effects in most criminal cases. The charges the State brings against a defendant, whether murder charges or drug possession, almost always implicate the Fourth Amendment. Our experienced Annapolis drug possession attorneys have the knowledge and understanding of the Fourth Amendment necessary to protect our clients' rights.

The Supreme Court held that the case was a "classic trespassory search" within the meaning originally provided by the framers of the Fourth Amendment, because of the nature of the police's action: "[t]he Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.". The earliest case law on the Fourth Amendment only addressed violations of privacy that involved physical trespass. For example, in Olmstead v. United States, decided in 1928, the Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation when a wiretap was attached to telephone wires on public streets; without a physical trespass to an individual's property or person, there was no search.

The Court altered its analysis of what a Fourth Amendment search was in Katz v. United States, a 1967 case in which a listening device was placed on the outside of a public telephone booth. With that case, the Court expanded the protections of the Fourth Amendment to include more than situations where there was a physical trespass to a person or his or her property. Under Katz, a Fourth Amendment violation occurred when the police violated an individual's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The Katz decision did not, however, get rid of the restrictions on traditional "trespassory" searches.

Thus, applied to this case, the Court held that the police's action in placing the GPS tracking device on Jones' vehicle constituted a Fourth Amendment search because there was a physical trespass to his property. Because the police did not have a valid warrant at the time they placed the tracking device, they violated the Fourth Amendment, and the Court reversed Jones' conviction.

What is perhaps most interesting to this decision is what it did not decide. Justice Scalia, along with Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy joined, provided what is considered to be the majority opinion, because Justice Sotomayor concurred with the opinion. Justice Sotomayor suggested that she wished the majority had expanded its opinion, pointing out that "[i]n cases of electronic or other novel modes of surveillance that do not depend upon a physical invasion on property, the majority opinion's trespassory test may provide little guidance."

Continue reading "Supreme Court Decides - But Doesn't Decide - Issue of GPS Tracking" »

Detroit Tigers first baseman Miguel Cabrera recently plead guilty to DUI in St. Lucie County, Florida. Notable in the case is the plea deal his attorney negotiated for him, avoiding jail time and allowing him to put the case behind him before spring training starts up.

Our experienced Maryland DUI attorneys have years of practice negotiating the best possible results for our clients, in legal representation ranging from DUIs to drug arrests and beyond. Our attorneys recognize that each case is different and requires particularized focus, both related to the facts of the case and the client's individual needs.

The facts of Cabrera's arrest show that his February 2011 arrest was not a run-of-the-mill DUI. After arguing with and threatening a manager and a police officer at a bar when he was refused service, Cabrera took off in his Land Rover before other Fort Pierce, Florida police arrived on the scene. Later that night, a sheriff's deputy came across Cabrera's truck, which had smoke rising from the engine. The police noted that Cabrera had bloodshot, watery eyes, and slurred speech. With officers on the scene, Cabrera grabbed a bottle of scotch and took a drink - a move that probably did not help his cause!

Cabrera actually faced a number of charges, including the DUI, two resisting an officer charges, and an open container violation, which his attorney was able to negotiate into the plea deal. As a result of the deal, Cabrera must comply with a number of sanctions: he was fined $500, had to pay about $1400 in court costs, is on probation for a year, must attend a couple of classes and perform 50 hours of community service, and had his driver's license suspended for six months. Despite the sanctions imposed, none of which appear to be especially onerous to Cabrera, the plea deal benefited him because it allowed him to focus his time and energy on the upcoming baseball season, and avoided any possibility of jail time. While "celebrity justice" probably played a bit of a role in the outcome, it looks like the attorney obtained a very favorable deal for his client under the circumstances.

Our attorneys are experienced in defending DUI, DWI, and other drunk-driving charges in Baltimore, Annapolis, and throughout Maryland. Each case is different, but our experienced attorneys work to achieve the best possible deal for each of our clients' particular circumstances.

This morning, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that, under the Public Defender Act, all indigent defendants have a right to representation at the initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner.

Our experienced Baltimore criminal defense attorneys can handle client representation at all stages of criminal proceedings, from the initial appearance through to a court or jury trial.

The initial appearance before the District Court Commissioner is an important stage of a defendant's exposure to the criminal justice system. At this appearance, the Commissioner tells the defendant of the charge(s) and the allowable penalties, and provides the defendant with a copy of the statement of charges. The Commissioner advises the defendant of his or her right to counsel, and of the right to a preliminary hearing. Thereafter, the Commissioner, in cases where a defendant was arrested without a warrant, determines whether there was probable cause to support the defendant's arrest.

If the Commissioner determines that the defendant's arrest was supported by probable cause, the Commissioner then determines whether the defendant is eligible for release or whether bail should be set. This determination can be vital to a defendant, as a Commissioner's decision to impose bail, as the Court found, is summarily confirmed by a Judge at a subsequent bail review hearing. Under Maryland Rule 2-416, the Commissioner considers (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense (including the supporting evidence at the potential sentence upon conviction), (2) the defendant's prior record of appearance at court proceedings; (3) the defendant's family ties, employment status and history, financial resources, reputation, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community, and length of residence in this State*; (4) any recommendation of an agency that conducts pretrial release investigations; (5) any recommendation of the State's Attorney; (6) any information presented by the defendant or defendant's counsel; (7) the danger of the defendant to the community; (8) the danger of the defendant to himself or herself; and (9) any other relevant factor factor related to the defendant's likelihood of appearance at trial and the risk to the safety of others, such as prior convictions. The Commissioner, applying this Rule, can and often does determine that bail should be set. If the defendant is unable to meet his bail, he or she will be held in jail until a bail review hearing, and possibly until his or her trial date.

The "Public Defender Act" is codified at section 16-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code. The Court relied on two provisions of the Public Defender Act to find the right to representation. The Court noted that under section 16-204(b)(1)(i), indigent defendants are entitled to representation in proceedings where they are alleged to have committed a "serious offense." In section 16-204(b)(1)(iv), indigent defendants are statutorily guaranteed the right to an attorney at any other proceeding in which they face the possibility of commitment to jail. Between the two sections, all hearings before the Commissioner are covered. The former section addresses serious crime, and the latter section encompasses all other defendants, because the hearing is a determination of whether or not bail will be set; by definition, as the Commissioner may decline to release an individual on his or her own recognizance, jail is a possibility when a defendant appears before the Commissioner.

Continue reading "Maryland Court Finds a Right to Represenation at Initial Appearance" »

While the mental image we all conjure of a "criminal" might be someone in handcuffs being stuffed into the back of an Anne Arundel squad car, hundreds of thousands of people, many of them in Maryland, find themselves in the crosshairs of the "Feds" instead. And not always for the reasons you might expect, such as drug running, murder, or counterfeiting. The list of Federal crimes (which is much longer than what is shown through that link), has grown to include tax crimes, immigration violations, and environmental crimes. Every year on average, over 50 new Federal crimes are added to the books.

Our experienced Maryland criminal law attorneys are not just members of the Maryland Bar; our attorneys are admitted to practice before the Federal Courts in Maryland as well. Our attorneys can assist you in facing criminal charges ranging from the most notorious to the criminal charges that you might not even understand, such as when you are charged with a crime for doing exactly what you thought was the correct thing to do.

A Maryland man named Lawrence Lewis recently learned that criminal penalties can apply even when you believe that you are doing the right thing. Mr. Lewis, working as a custodian for at a military retirement home, had to decide what to do when rising sewage waters threatened to flood an area full of sick residents. He did what custodians at the home always did, and what they thought they were supposed to do - he diverted the sewage into an outside storm drain, one he thought was connected to the local water treatment facility. As it turns out, the sewage flowed directly into the Potomac River, and Mr. Lewis found himself facing Federal charges for violating the Clean Water Act.

Typically, criminal activity consists of two parts: a mens rea, that is, a "guilty mind," and an actus reus, or the "guilty act." The "guilty act" is fairly self-explanatory: it means the action that violated the law. But typically, for someone to be guilty of a crime, there must also be evidence that there was an intent to commit the crime. Mens rea suggests that the person who is guilty of a criminal act acted in some sort of culpable fashion. But as Mr. Lewis learned, not all crimes require a guilty mind. Sometimes, you can be found guilty even when you believe that you are not only not breaking the law, but when you believe you are doing something absolutely necessary for the public well-being.

Mr. Lewis' "crime" had no mens rea. In the end, it did not matter what he thought was right. Rather than facing a trial and possible jail time, Mr. Lewis' attorney (not affiliated with Brassel, Alexander & Rice) worked with the Federal prosecutor to set up a plea deal, under which Mr. Lewis accepted a year of probation.

Our Maryland criminal attorneys are well-versed in assisting clients reach the right decision when it comes to fighting charges or accepting plea deals. Each case is different, whether there are allegations that a defendant committed murder, was caught with a bag of marijuana, or even violated an obscure law when he thought he was doing the right thing. Each case needs its own analysis, and an advocate that will fight for the best resolution for the client.

Recently the highest court in Maryland reinstated the murder conviction (link requires Daily Record login) of a defendant whose conviction had been overturned by the Court of Special Appeals. In White v. State, the defendant was charged in Maryland with a murder in which the body was actually discovered in Washington, D.C.. The Court held that the State's Attorney's argument to the jury as to what a hypothetical D.C. jury would do with the case if the Maryland jury acquitted and he was then retried in D.C. - and what the defense's arguments would be if the case got that far - was not an improper argument.

The Court of Appeals' decision demonstrates just how important it is to develop a strong case for trial; the State is given tremendous leeway to make arguments that create an unfair bias for the criminal defendant facing trial. An experienced attorney is necessary both to develop that trial strategy, and to push back against the State's power.

At trial, White's counsel argued with regard to the murder charge that his client faced, that there was no evidence as to where the fatal gunshots actually occurred; the shots could have been fired in Maryland or in the District of Columbia. As such, according to White, since it is the State's burden of proving that the fatal shot occurred in Maryland, the jury was required to convict.

The State countered White, essentially arguing that the defendant would argue to a D.C. jury the opposite - that there was no evidence that the crime occurred in D.C. - and that a D.C. jury might not convict because of the same argument. The State's Attorney argued:

Continue reading "Maryland Court of Appeals Reinstates Murder Conviction" »

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled yesterday in McGurk v. State that an overnight guest was entitled to 4th Amendment protections when on a second-floor balcony at a friend's home in Ocean City, Maryland. The decision is notable because of the Court's analysis of the extent to which the 4th Amendment protections apply in an area that is arguably within the public view.

The application of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution to a particular set of facts in a criminal proceeding often involves a complex analysis of a convoluted area of the law. Fourth Amendment protections have evolved significantly over time, frequently changing with the evolution of the United States Supreme Court, as well as the Maryland appellate courts. An attorney experienced at presenting technical arguments to the Maryland Courts is essential for an individual who finds himself or herself facing criminal charges.

The balcony in question in McGurk was a second-floor balcony with a wooden railing. There were plants, a glass table, and chairs on the balcony. A set of stairs led from the balcony down to the sidewalk in front of the house, and there was no gate blocking the entrance to the stairs or the balcony. Notably, the balcony was not the primary entrance to the residence. At 3:15 a.m. on a summer morning, an officer walked up the stairs to the balcony where McGurk and another individual were sitting because he was searching for the source of an odor of burnt marijuana. After questioning and ultimately searching McGurk and the other individual on the balcony, the officer found marijuana, cocaine, and a large amount of cash in McGurk's possession. McGurk was found guilty after her attempts to suppress the evidence were futile, and she appealed.

In perhaps the most famous case addressing the protections provided by the 4th Amendment, the United States Supreme Court in Katz v. United States said that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

The McGurk case turned primarily on an analysis of what part of the area surrounding a dwelling is part of the "curtilage" of that dwelling, and thus whether there was an expectation that the balcony in question was open to the public or preserved as private. The United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Dunn that an area is considered to be part of the curtilage of a dwelling house if it is "intimately tied to the home itself." For an area to be part of the curtilage of a home such that the 4th Amendment protections should apply, there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy. There is a two-part test to determining whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy - an individual must demonstrate that he had an actual subjective expectation of privacy, and society must be willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable."

Continue reading "Maryland Court Retains 4th Amendment Protections in Building Curtilage" »

The Court of Appeals ruled in Atkins v. State that a Court's instruction concerning the evidence presented by the State unfairly commented on the evidence. As a result, the Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction. One notable aspect of its opinion, however, was the necessity of the Defendant's attorney to preserve the issue of the impropriety of the instruction for appeal.

A Maryland defense attorney with years of experience in preserving arguments at the trial level is vital to an individual facing criminal charges. Through the preservation of potential appellate arguments, a defendant retains all available chances to preserve his or her freedom.

In Atkins, the Defendant admittedly used a knife in a fight, but his assertion was that it was in self defense, and the knife he used was only a pocket knife. The State, in an effort to make the crime appear more serious than if a small pocket knife was used, argued that the knife used was a 12-inch knife that was recovered in Defendant's bedroom. Notably, there was no link between the 12-inch knife and the victims' wounds, but the pocket knife was not available at the time of trial because the Defendant said that he had thrown it into a lake following the incident.

At trial, the defense attorney extensively cross-examined the police detective about the fact that there was no blood visible on the knife the State alleged was used in the stabbing, and that no tests were performed on the knife to determine if there were any substances on the knife that could link it to the stabbing. The defense attorney was able to get the detective to acknowledge that the State had various tests available to it that could have been used to test the knife for any evidence linking it to the alleged crime scene.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Court provided the following instruction, which the Defendant's attorney objected to:

During this trial, you have heard testimony of witnesses and may hear argument of counsel that the State did not utilize a specific investigative technique or scientific test. You may consider these facts in deciding whether the State has met its burden of proof. You should consider all of the evidence or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However, I instruct you that there is no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case.

Continue reading "Maryland Attorney Preserves Issue of Improper Jury Instruction for Appeal" »

Most people's image of the classic criminal defense attorney is that of Johnnie Cochran defending O.J. Simpson, Clarence Darrow's famous closing argument in the case of Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold, or Shawn Holley Chapman's ongoing attempt to help Lindsey Lohan stay out of jail. The day-to-day reality of what a defense lawyer does, though, is much less likely to make the headlines of Entertainment Tonight or the Baltimore Sun. Most often, the criminal defense attorney's hardest work comes behind the scenes, where frequently the most benefit for the client can be had. This is especially true when a criminal defendant is facing charges that have highly inflamed the public and are drawing a lot of attention from the media.

In order to obtain the best representation possible - for cases in the media or just of concern to the defendant and his or her family - individuals facing criminal charges should seek representation by experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys. At Brassel, Alexander & Rice, our criminal defense attorneys are highly experienced, and always seek to obtain the best possible results for our clients, whether that result can be found in the courtroom or through negotiation with the prosecutor.

When the media spotlight focuses on a case, the defendant in the case is at an extreme disadvantage. When public attention stays on the facts of a case, not only does the potential jury pool become tainted with significant amounts of inadmissible statements and evidence, but the State's Attorney begins to feel a lot of political pressure as well. State's Attorneys are elected officials in Maryland, and it is inevitable that they will listen to what their constituencies have to say on a matter that has a high public profile.

A case in point was the recent plea deal for Teonna Brown, the young woman charged with the beating of Chrissy Polis, a transgendered woman, at a local McDonald's. The episode caught significant regional media attention, was viewed on video millions of times around the world, and was also used by advocates for transgendered people to strengthen calls for legal protection for the transgendered.

Under such public scrutiny, obtaining a fair trial for Ms. Brown in the case would have been very difficult, and the importance for the criminal defense attorney to press the case behind the scenes became paramount. Charged with first degree assault and other crimes, Ms. Brown faced a minimum of 25 years in prison, with the possibility of having an additional ten years of prison time tacked on because of hate crime charges. Ms. Brown's defense attorney, however, was able to work out a plea deal in which Ms. Brown would only face a ten-year sentence, with five of those years suspended. Thus, while the defense attorney's work was done behind the scenes in this case, it was in all likelihood much more effective than anything that he could have accomplished in front of a jury in a courtroom.

It is vital for criminal defendants to hire experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys immediately when faced with criminal charges. When the public is focused on a particular crime and calling for a heavy punishment, experienced legal representation can be the difference between a very difficult trial and a positive result in plea negotiations.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held last week that a conviction for felony theft over $500 for the theft of a computer could not be upheld, because the testimony regarding the value of the computer stolen was not sufficient to prove the value of the computer at the time of the theft. The case, Champagne v. State, was a reminder of the necessity that criminal defendants force the State to prove all aspects of their case beyond a reasonable doubt, without reliance on supposition or guesswork by the jury.

In order to present the strongest defense available, individuals facing criminal charges should seek representation by experienced Maryland criminal defense attorneys. At Brassel, Alexander & Rice, our criminal defense attorneys are highly experienced, and always seek to obtain the best possible results for our clients.

In Champagne v. State, the defendant was charged with theft of property worth $500 or more based on an allegation that Champagne had stolen a computer. (The Maryland felony theft statute now applies to thefts of over $1,000, due to a change in the law). The prosecution presented testimony by the owner of the computer that he purchased the computer three years before for either $1,600 or $1,800. There was no other evidence as to the value of the computer at the time of the theft.

Although Champagne was convicted of theft over $500 at trial, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the testimony concerning the purchase price, while relevant, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the computer was worth more than $500 at the time of the theft. The Court noted that with some thefts, such as the theft of a one-year-old car, it may be possible to meet the felony standard without specific evidence of the value at the time of the theft, but with an item such as a computer, especially considering the rapid change in technology, such an assumption was impermissible.

While it might not seem significant, the distinction between whether the value of the property was more or less than $500 was the determining factor as to whether Champagne was convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor, and in all likelihood made all the difference as to whether he would face additional time in prison. An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney is vital to protect the rights of individuals charged with criminal acts. The rules governing evidence are complex, and an attorney with the knowledge and experience to use these rules to fight for the client can make the difference between conviction and acquittal.

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution requires that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him...." With it's decision last week in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, the Supreme Court strengthened the Confrontation Clause when it ruled that a criminal defendant has the right to cross examine the actual analyst who performed crime lab testing on evidence in the case, rather than a surrogate witness.

The effect of cross examining the State's witnesses can make or break a defendant's case. Whether the issue is cross examining the analyst who read the defendant's breathalyzer results in a drunk driving case, or asking questions of the individual who analyzed DNA samples from the crime scene in a murder case, cross examination is the defense's most effective tool. A Maryland criminal defense attorney experienced at using cross examination effectively can be the central factor to whether a criminal defendant is convicted or acquitted of the charges he or she faces.

In the New Mexico case, the defendant, Donald Bullcoming, was found guilty at trial of driving while intoxicated. The focus of the prosecution's case was a crime lab report which showed that his blood-alcohol level was above New Mexico's legal limit for driving. The prosecution in the Bullcoming case called an analyst to testify about the results of the lab test which showed Bullcoming's blood-alcohol content, but called a different analyst than the analyst who actually performed the analysis.

The Supreme Court said that the substitute analyst was not sufficient under its prior holding in Crawford v. Washington. In the courtroom, evidence typically must be submitted through a witness with personal knowledge of the substance of the evidence. Then, the defense must be given the opportunity to cross examine that witness. Justice Ginsberg, writing for the Court, stated that "[t]he Sixth Amendment does not tolerate dispensing with confrontation simply because a court believes that questioning one witness about another's testimonial statements provides a fair enough opportunity for cross-examination."

The importance of a defense attorney that is experienced in the local criminal courtrooms cannot be overstated. Our Maryland criminal defense attorneys, including two former State's Attorneys, are experienced at using effective cross examination techniques to defend our clients in criminal courts.

The Miranda warnings that a police officer is required to provide to an arrested individual, including the fact that the suspect is entitled to an attorney and has the right to remain silent, are ingrained in American culture through their frequent depictions in movies and television. The reality of the Miranda warnings was strengthened today when the Supreme Court ruled in J.D.B. v. North Carolina that a police officer interrogating a juvenile must take youth's age into consideration when determining whether to give the individual a "Miranda warning."

The effect of this ruling will be to expand protection for all juveniles suspected of criminal activity, including those faced with possible criminal charges in Maryland. Unfortunately, as the underlying facts of this case demonstrate, the rights of criminal suspects are often violated during police investigations. An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney can stand up for the rights a person charged with a crime, and protect the constitutional rights that a defendant is entitled to.

In the J.D.B. v. North Carolina case, a 13-year-old suspected in a string of local burglaries. A police officer came to the boy's school and took the young man out of the classroom to a closed-door conference room where the boy was questioned for 30 minutes. The police officer did not provide J.D.B. with a Miranda warning. Likewise, he was not given the opportunity to call his grandmother or legal guardian. North Carolina argued that the officer's questioning of J.D.B. was not an interrogation, and J.D.B. was not under arrest, because he could have left the room at any time.

The Supreme Court overturned J.D.B.'s conviction, based on the fact that he had not been provided the proper Miranda warnings. The Court held that sometimes Miranda warnings are required even when an individual is not technically detained, if that person would not understand that he or she was free to leave. Here, the Court felt that the 13-year-old, sitting in a closed-door conference room at his school in the presence of school officials and a police officer, without the assistance of his guardian, might not have understand what his rights were.

The Court held that J.D.B. was essentially in custody, and that interrogation of an individual in police custody creates "inherently compelling pressures." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 467 (1966). The Court pointed out that these pressures can induce individuals to wrongly confess to crimes they never committed at a "frighteningly high" rate. Specifically, the Court's ruling required that a police officer must take a person's age into account when determining whether to read to that person his or her Miranda rights. This decision could lead to a dramatic proliferation of Miranda warnings; "the practical effect of the ruling may be that officers, to be on the safe side legally, would give warnings to any suspect who does not appear to be close to age 18."

Continue reading "Miranda Warning Requirement Strengthened for Juvenile Suspects" »

The Maryland Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in Blake v. State reemphasizing the requirements for the State in responding to post-conviction requests for DNA testing. The Court held that in entertaining a petition, a Circuit Court must "(1) identif[y] the most likely places where the evidence might be found, (2) require[] a thorough search of each place that should be searched, and (3) provide[] for an "on-the-record" determination of whether the search conformed to the requirements" of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.

Although the Court's opinion addresses access to DNA evidence in a post-conviction setting, the appropriate use of DNA evidence - or the exclusion of DNA evidence - is vital in the pre-trial stage, as well as while a criminal trial is ongoing. A Maryland criminal defense attorney experienced with the use of DNA evidence can be the difference between a conviction or an acquittal in cases where DNA evidence is central to the prosecution's case.

DNA evidence can take on a number of identities in the legal system. DNA evidence can be a sword for the prosecution, because a positive DNA match to a criminal defendant is extremely effective in convincing a jury of that defendant's guilt. DNA evidence can also be a shield in certain circumstances, however, using the same force it carries with a jury to show a defendant's innocence. In other circumstances, DNA testing results can be inconclusive, a result that can also act as a tool in a defense attorney's arsenal.

Maryland has long been at the center of the use of DNA evidence to prove an accused's innocence. Kirk Bloodsworth, convicted of rape and murder of a young girl in Rosedale, Maryland, was sentenced to death row in 1985, and served nearly nine years in prison. In 1993, Bloodsworth obtained his release after petitioning for DNA testing, a then-novel science, to prove that he was not the perpetrator of the crime for which he was convicted. Since that time, DNA testing has shown that hundreds of individuals have been improperly convicted, and the proper use of DNA testing at trial has prevented the wrongful conviction of many more.

State's Attorneys are well-versed in the use of DNA evidence to convict defendants charged with crimes in Maryland. An experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney can fight to exclude DNA evidence that should not be permitted, and can fight to obtain DNA evidence where testing will exonerate the defendant. In other words, having a defense attorney that knows the ins and outs of this complicated science can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.

In McLennan v. State, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a circuit court's decision to bar a defendant's use of two alibi witnesses because defense counsel did not provide notice to the State of the required witness under the time requirements of the Maryland Rules. The Rules note a distinction between a defendant's impeachment witnesses and his or her alibi witnesses, and require disclosure of alibi witnesses at least 30 days prior to trial.

As many defendants learn too late in the process, the failure to comply with the Maryland Rules of Criminal Procedure, especially with regard to discovery issues, can bar the defendant from presenting a defense, even if that defense would completely exonerate the accused. Obtaining the services of a Maryland criminal defense attorney that is experienced in the intricacies of the rules of criminal procedure should be the first step for any individual accused of a crime.

In McLennan, the defendant was accused of robbing a pizza deliveryman, and then leaving the scene in a truck driven by a co-defendant. On the day of trial, the defendant learned of two witnesses that could support his claims of innocence by describing where the defendant was before the crime allegedly occurred. Defense counsel informed the Court that the two witnesses would be called, but the Court determined that the witnesses were alibi witnesses, and held that because the rules governing discovery of alibi witnesses were not followed, the witnesses would not be permitted to testify.

The Court of Appeals adopted the Alaska Supreme Court's definition of an alibi witness, holding that "an 'alibi' witness as a witness whose testimony "must tend to prove that it was impossible or highly improbable that [the defendant] was at the scene of the crime when it was alleged to have occurred.'" The Court, in noting that the Maryland Rules lays out a particular procedure for alibi witnesses, rules that the defendant was not denied a fair trial by the circuit court's decision to exclude the witnesses.

In order to present the strongest defense possible to a judge or jury, it is essential to have experienced Maryland criminal defense counsel on the job early. An experienced defense counsel can both to fully investigate the case to determine what possible evidence - alibi or otherwise - might be available for a defense, and to ensure compliance with the Maryland Rules so that client can use every potential defense available.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled last month that "reach-in" strip searches by the police were not a violation of a suspect's rights, if the searches were reasonable in scope, manner, and place, and the initiation of the search was justified. The holding permitted the introduction of evidence of the defendants' drug possession, which had been obtained when the police reached into the defendants' boxers on a public street and removed baggies containing drugs from the defendants' buttocks.

The nature of a police search of an individual's body by necessity involves questions of privacy and an individual's Constitutional rights. When these rights are implicated, the services of an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney is vital to ensuring that those rights are protected.

The Court cited a holding by the United States Supreme Court, which set out four reasonableness factors for consideration, as the standard for determining whether a strip search incident to arrest violated the Fourth Amendment:

The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979).

The Court concluded with regard for the justification factor that "when a person is arrested for drug dealing, the nature of the offense provides reasonable suspicion to believe that the arrestee is concealing drugs on his or her person." The manner of the search was reasonable because the police merely pulled the defendants' boxers away from their bodies, rather than fully exposing the "private areas" of the defendants' bodies to the public. For the same reason, the scope of the search was reasonable. The location was reasonable, because, despite being on a public street, there were no civilians present at the time of the search who could observe what was going on.

In practice, the police are frequently given a lot of leeway in their determinations of what is "reasonable," and arguing to suppress evidence based on the unreasonableness of a search is often an uphill battle for a criminal defendant. The evaluation and presentation of each of these four factors by an attorney that is experienced in representing criminal defendants in Maryland criminal courts can be the difference between winning and losing a case.