Posted on May 13, 2010 in Personal Injury

Under relevant Maryland law, pedestrians generally have the right of way when in a crosswalk, and motorists generally have the right of way outside of a crosswalk. Maryland Transportation Article 21-502 requires a motorist to come to a stop when a pedestrian is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk. Additionally, motorists are required at intersections to look carefully ahead and keep and eye for pedestrians. Outside a crosswalk, motorists generally have the right of way over pedestrians, but still have a duty to avoid striking a pedestrian.

Every year, thousands of Marylanders are injured in pedestrian accidents. An experienced Maryland attorney, understands the law governing pedestrians on the road and can fight on their behalf to recover for injuries sustained in an accident.

For more information or a free consultation, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or contact Andrew G. Slutkin with further questions or inquiries at 410-385-2786

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 10, 2010 in Appeals

Most defendants charged with DUI, DWI and other drunk driving crimes in Maryland do not realise their right to appeal and have a brand new trial. All misdemeanor criminal and traffic charges in Maryland are first tried in the District Court. If a defendant is not satisfied with the judge’s decision, the defendant can appeal to the Circuit Court. Under the Maryland Rules, this is called an appeal de novo. An appeal de novo wipes the slate clean and is a brand new trial. Whether the appeal is a new trial heard by a jury or a plea bargain before a judge, it completely replaces the original decision in the District Court. Often times in difficult cases, it is sound strategy to take a shot in District court and if it is not favorable, appeal.

As experienced Maryland DUI lawyers, we have found that in difficult cases, our clients often fair much better on appeal than in the original trial. This is usually due to the fact that the higher court is used to dealing with the most serious crimes and a DUI is, relatively speaking, not as serious as murders, rapes, and other crimes the higher court is accustomed to dealing with. It may also have something to do with the fact that delay is always a friend of the defense for several reasons.

For more information on Maryland DUI defense, please contact our experienced Maryland DUI lawyers.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 10, 2010 in Probable Cause

Often times in Maryland DUI prosecutions, there is an issue of whether the defendant was actually behind the wheel or driving. This often comes up when the defendant pulls over to “sleep it off”.

The term “drive” as used in the Maryland drunk driver statutes means to drive, operate, move or be in actual physical control over a vehicle. This includes control over the steering of a vehicle that is being towed.

The seminal Maryland case on this issue is Atkinson v. State, 331 Md 199 (1993). In Atkinson, Maryland court of Appeals has determined that in situations where the driver is simply using his car for shelter until sober enough to drive, the driver can not be prosecuted for DUI. As long as the occupant is totally passive and has not made any attempts to actively control the vehicle. he is immune from a DUI prosecution in Maryland.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 07, 2010 in Murder

Based upon sources in Baltimore, it is confirmed that George Huguely brutally attacked a University of Virginia male lacrosse player in his sleep in 2009. Eerily similar to the alleged attack and murder of Yeardlay Love, Huguely bloodied the face and caused head trauma to his teammate. The attack, which occurred last year, apparently was a retaliatory act against the teammate for allegedly kissing Love. It is also reported that Huguely was intoxicated during this attack as well.

The prior incident was reported to the varsity lacrosse coach, but both players involved played in the next game. It is unclear if any discipline was imposed by the coach. As the events leading up to the tragic murder unfold, it is beginning to look like University of Virginia administration and/or officials knew or should have known that Huguely was a loose cannon. He previously had several run-ins with police, threatened to kill a Virginia female police officer, and beat a fellow student and teammate in his sleep in 2009. Recognizing that hindsight is 20-20, one still wonders whether the University of Virginia fell asleep at the wheel?

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 06, 2010 in Murder

Yesterday I posted a blog critical of George Huguely’s defense counsel for coming out of the gate and describing this murder an “accident with a tragic outcome”. I suggested that such a statement, if not supported by the facts, would forever undermine the credibility of the defense. Newly disclosed developments have boldened my position.

Today it is being reported that Huguely has two (2) prior run-ins with the law in Florida dating back to 2007. First he was charged with possession of alcohol as a minor in Palm Beach, and then police were called to intervene in a “very heated” argument involving his father and cousin.

These incidents proceed a 2008 arrest and conviction in Lexington Virginia where he was Tasered by police while shouting “I’ll kill all you bitches” to a female officer.

A lawyer needs to be very carefull about what he says in the early stages of a high-profile murder case that has peeked a communities interet or rage. I was cognizent of this in my statements to the media after the bail review in the Nicholas Browning multiple homicide case. I am surprised the Huguely defense was not tempered as well. The Huguely defense team, by calling this an “accident” has done irreputable harm to the goals of the defense, but arguably not to the ultimte goal of justice.

Correction: In my previous blog on this subject, I stated that Felony Murder stemming from burglary may result in the death penalty. Although true in Maryland, the maximum penalty for this type of felony murder in the State of Virginia is life imprisonment. Thank you for those who caught this. Notwithstanding, Huguely still faces the potential for the death penalty for First Degree Murder, if convicted.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 05, 2010 in Wiretap

As a Maryland Federal Criminal Attorney/Lawyer and former Assistant United State’s Attorney for more than a decade, I have handled more than my share of Federal Wiretap Cases involving allegations of large scale distribution of narcotics. As a federal prosecutor, I prosecuted many of these cases and since leaving the United State’s Attorney’s Office, I have defended many more. These cases are among the most complicated criminal cases in the system. To defend these cases properly it is necessary to file carefully thought out motions along with meticulously researched and written legal memorandum. It takes years of experience to handle these high stakes cases properly. Here is an example of a brief that was filed and resulted in the suppression of all evidence in a Federal Wiretap Case here in Baltimore.:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 05, 2010 in Murder

The Baltimore community, as well as the entire nation, is sickened by the senseless murder of Notre Dame Prep and University of Virginia student-athlete Yeardley Love. Although news reports are often inaccurate in the early stages of a criminal investigation, it appears from a reading of the application in support of the search and seizure warrant filed by the Charlottesville police, that the facts in this case are relatively straightforward.

At one time, Ms. Love, a women’s varsity lacrosse player, was dating a member of the men’s counterpart at the University of Virginia. The relationship went south and apparently Huguely was not happy with that development. He sent what will likely turn out to be incriminating emails to Love on the evening of the murder. He was so enraged by her responses, or lack thereof, that he felt compelled to pay her a visit in the early morning hours. He kicked in her door and repeatedly bashed her head against the wall with such force that he caused lethal injury. Hugely is a reported 6’2″ and 210 pounds.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 14, 2010 in Constitutional Violations

Maryland Criminal/Civil Appeals Attorney discusses new opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals dealing with Miranda Warnings.

A new case was decided by Judge Barbera of the Maryland Court of Appeals on April 14, 2010 dealing with Miranda. The State alleged that Mr. Luckett believed his wife was having an affair with his son’s football coach. Mr. Luckett was alleged to have killed his wife and then went to the football coach’s place of business, a barber shop, and killed him.

Thereafter, Mr. Luckett attempted to take his life first by slitting his wrists and then by throwing himself in front of a Metro train. Detective Barba visited Luckett in the hospital and videotaped the interview. He read Luckett his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. Luckett asked if he would be “setting himself up” if he was going to discuss the case. Detective Barba responded that he didn’t need a lawyer if they were discussing matters “outside of the case.” Luckett then gave a lengthy statement describing his belief that his wife had been having an affair with Mr. Scales, his activities during the
months leading up to the murders, and the murders them selves. The Circuit Court ruled that the exchange between Detective Barba and Luckett failed to convey to Luckett his right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation and granted the motion to suppress. The State appealed. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court stating, ” the unnecessarily lengthy and rambling discussion about the nature of the Miranda rights not only included specifically-questionable statements of the law but utterly failed effectively to communicate the message mandated by Miranda.” The Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals held that Detective Barba did not inform Luckett that anything he said during interrogation could incriminate him. Detective Barba repeatedly advised Luckett that any of his statements that were not directly related to “the case” (whatever the detective meant by “the case”) were outside the purview of the right to counsel. The Court held that Detective Barba’s repeated “explanations” of what Miranda does and does not protect during interrogation were incorrect as a matter of law. The Court held that a suspect is not properly informed of his or her Miranda rights when a statement of those rights, however correct the statement may be, is nullified by other incorrect statements concerning those rights.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 14, 2010 in Child Custody

Maryland lawmakers passed the legislation that will update the Maryland child support guidelines for the first time in over twenty years on Monday. The new adjusted guidelines will go into effect October 1, 2010 and will only apply to new child support cases (i.e. establishments) or motions to modify child support after that date. The guidelines cap has been raised to $15,000 combined earnings per month, rather than the current $10,000. Most significantly, the new guidelines will adjust to the current increased cost of raising a child.

For more information on how this may affect your Maryland child support case contact an experienced Maryland child support attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 02, 2010 in Handgun Offenses

Aggressive Baltimore County Maryland Criminal Lawyers like us handle cases involving illegal handgun possession on a regular basis. Handgun crimes are prioritized by Baltimore County Police and prosecutors, particularly cases involving possession of a handguns by convicted felons, the use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence and cases involving the possession of a handgun while engaging in the trafficking of narcotics. Each of these offenses is a very serious crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of five years without the possibility of parole and maximum sentences of up to 20 years for the latter two offenses.

I have blogged about the tactics of the police in pursuing handgun cases in the past. Detectives in the firearms unit have for some time checked the criminal records of people purchasing weapons or ammunition at stores such as Dick’s Sporting Goods and K-Mart to see if they are convicted felons or otherwise prohibited from owning or possession handguns. In recent weeks I have been hired by two people in cases that reveal a new tactic my the police.

It appears that detectives are now checking the records of shooting ranges to determine if people who are frequenting these businesses are convicted felons or otherwise prohibited persons. Basically, when a person goes into a handgun range in Maryland that person is required to produce identification in order to access the range. The range employee records the person’s personal information including their driver’s license number on a form that the person is required to sign. The form also has a clause in it that states that person’s who have been convicted of certain crimes may not possess handguns. The person is told to read the form and only to sign it if they understand the information in it.

Continue Reading ››