Posted on September 27, 2010 in Crimes

I have represented both businesses and individuals before the Maryland Securities Commissioner on both civil and criminal charges stemming from selling unregistered securities. Most are under the impression that these enforcement actions by the Commissioner are civil in nature. Although this is most often the case, a criminal prosecution could result as well.

Selling unregistered securities or acting as an unregistered sales agent in Maryland is potentially punishable both with fines and imprisonment. Such penalties are contained in Title 11, the Maryland Securities Act, in the Corporations and Associations Article of the Maryland Code rather than the Criminal Law Article. Criminal penalties, however, are only likely to be imposed when a person willfully violates a provision of the Maryland Securities Act or an order of the Attorney General Securities Commission. MD. CODE., CORPS. & ASS’NS § 11-705. The statute specifically points out that “a person may not be imprisoned for the violation of any rule or order if the person proves that the person had no knowledge of the rule or order.” MD. CODE., CORPS. & ASS’NS § 11-705(a)(3).

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 20, 2010 in Domestic Violence

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Attorney I have written frequently about the critical importance choosing the right lawyer if you find yourself charged with a serious felony. As I have noted in the past there are many lawyers out there who are primarily domestic or accident lawyers or have other specialties who occasionally take on a criminal case very often with tragic results for the client. These bad results for the client are usually the result of inexperience and lack of expertise by lawyers who don’t regularly operate in the criminal realm. These lawyers should not take these cases but the simple fact is that they do.

I don’t mean to impugn the integrity of these lawyers as I’m sure that they have convinced themselves that they are in fact qualified to handle criminal cases and may even have successfully resolved the majority of the few criminal cases they have handled. But it only takes one mistake to have devastating consequences on your life if that mistake is made on your case. I handled a domestic violence assault and handgun case in Baltimore County Circuit Court recently that illustrates this reality in rather stark terms. Here are the facts:

My client was driving in an automobile with his girlfriend one day when they got into a very heated argument. She pulled the car over and they both got out of the car to continue the argument. At some point she struck him in the head with an unknown object causing a laceration to his head. Shortly after this occurred a Maryland State Police Officer pulled up behind the car to investigate why it was stopped on the side of a pretty busy thoroughfare. The police officer did not witness an assaultive conduct by either party. What he saw was my client bleeding rather profusely from a recent head wound.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 17, 2010 in Domestic Violence

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlAggressive Maryland Criminal Attorneys handle a wide variety of criminal cases. Among the most common types of cases we see are domestic violence or family violence assaults. Prosecutors and Police categorize a case as domestic violence if it involves people who are involved in a romantic relationship whether or not they are married or children.

As noted, these cases are increasingly common in the District and Circuit courts primarily because the police and prosecutors have become increasingly aggressive over the past few years in investigating, charging and prosecuting these matters. In many cases by the time these matters make it to court the parties have reconciled and the alleged victim will not cooperate with the authorities in the prosecution of the case. In other cases the alleged victim exaggerates or even fabricates the incident entirely because of some other motivation such as child custody or simple revenge. I tried a case falling into this latter category this week in the District Court for Baltimore County. Here are the facts:

My client is a 22 year old man with no prior criminal record or history of domestic abuse. At the time of the incident he was living with his girlfriend and their 1 year old daughter as well as her five year old son from a previous relationship. He came home one evening after work to find the house in a state of disarray as well as the children to be dirty and hungry. His girlfriend was talking on the telephone and essentially ignored him when he entered the home. Needless to say this made him a little angry.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 10, 2010 in Other Torts

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is very difficult to establish under Maryland personal injury law.

In order to prove a prima facie case of IIED in Maryland, the Plaintiff must show:

1. That the conduct was intentional or reckless;
2. The conduct is extreme and outrageous;
3. There is a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress;
4. The emotional distress is severe.

To meet the fourth element, the emotional distress must be “severely disabling,” such that “no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.” Being “upset” and “embarrassed” is not sufficient to show severe emotional distress. Evidence that the Plaintiff could continue with his normal life activities or that he did not seek professional treatment can show that the distress is not “severe.”

In Green v. Shoemaker, the Maryland Court of Appeals determined that a plaintiff cannot recover for emotional distress unless a “physical injury” results from the tort. Later, the court expanded a “physical injury” to include injuries “manifested by an external condition or by symptoms clearly indicative of a resultant pathological, physiological, or mental state.” The physical injury can be proven through evidence of an “external condition or by symptoms of a pathological or physiological state.” Also, it can be proven through evidence that indicates a “mental state.” However, medical testimony is not required in order to show mental distress.

For more information on Maryland Personal Injury law and Maryland tort law, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 10, 2010 in Arbitration

Many savvy corporations and other entities in Maryland are slyly slipping in arbitration clauses in agreements between parties. Many times these arbitration clauses force victims of personal injury to forgo their right to a jury trial and and undergo binding arbitration. Many times consumers do not even realize what they have agreed to because the arbitration clause is buried in the fine print of a document or contract.

History of Arbitration in Maryland:

In 1973, the Maryland Legislature adopted the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act (hereinafter, “MUAA”). See MD. CODE ANN. CRTS. & JUD. PROC. §§ 3-201, et seq. (West 2010). Arbitration is the process whereby parties voluntarily agree to substitute a private tribunal (e.g. the arbitrators) for the public tribunal (e.g. the courts) otherwise available to them. Gold Coast Mall, Inc. v. Larmar Corp., 298 Md. 96, 103, 468 A.2d 91, 95 (1983). Parties may agree to arbitrate disputes pursuant to a contract between them, commonly known as an Arbitration Agreement. Id.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 10, 2010 in Crimes

Maryland criminal defense attorneys are seeing more prosecutions involving the exploitation of vulnerable adults. Section 8-801 of the Maryland Code Annotated, Criminal Law provides for a criminal action against a person who exploits a vulnerable adult. The elements are:

1. The victim is a vulnerable adult
a. A vulnerable adult, as defined in § 3-604 of the Criminal Law Article is an adult who lacks the physical or mental capacity to provide for the adult’s daily needs.
b. § 8-801(b)(2) prohibits exploitation of an individual who is “at least 68 years old” and does not appear to require the victim in this case to be classified as a “vulnerable adult”
2. The defendant knew or should have known that the victim was a vulnerable adult 3. The defendant knowingly and willfully obtained possession to the victim’s property by deception, intimidation, or undue influence, and a. Undue influence does not include the normal influence that one member of a family has over another member of the family, but means domination and influence amounting to force and coercion such that the vulnerable adult of individual over 68 years old was prevented from exercising free judgment and choice.
b. Deception is defined in § 7-101 and states that deception occurs when “a person knowingly either creates or confirms in another a false impression that the offender does not believe to be true or fails to correct a false impression that the offender previously has created or confirmed.
4. The defendant intended to deprive the victim of her property.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 01, 2010 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300820.htmlExperienced Maryland Criminal Attorney’s probably handle more simple drug possession cases than just about any other kind of case in the system. On any given District Court Docket in any jurisdiction in Maryland, a large percentage of the cases will be simple possession cases. Although the majority of these cases so not result in incarceration of the defendant they nonetheless need to be taken seriously as a conviction for possession can result in a permanent criminal record even for first time offenders. Second or subsequent offenders are all but certain to end up with a permanent criminal record and possible jail time, as Maryland Law only allows a person to receive probation before judgment one time for a drug conviction whether it be possession of CDS or possession of CDS with the intent to distribute.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 01, 2010 in Bail

As a Baltimore Maryalnd Criminal Attorney I am often hired to try to secure a defendants’ release on bail. Generally speaking, when a person is arrested by the police and charged with a criminal offense in Maryland, the law requires that the person be brought before a court commissioner within 24 hours. The commissioner will conduct a hearing in which he or she will explain to the person what they are charged with, what the maximum penalties are and their right to an attorney. The commissioner will then set the conditions of the person’s pre-trial release to include bail.

Many people make the mistake of not hiring counsel at this point to advise them as to how the bail can be posted at this point or whether the person should wait to see a Judge at a bail review hearing. These hearings are required to take place on the the next day in which the courts are open so very often it is only a matter of hours until this hearing. The reason I say it is a mistake not have the advice of an experienced criminal attorney at this point is that the commissioners, who are not attorneys much less judges and generally speaking have little or no legal training, very often set bails that are much higher or much lower than the amount at which a judge is likely to set in the case. Many people are unaware that in Maryland a judge may not only lower the defendant’s bail at the bail review hearing but can also raise it. An experienced and aggressive attorney may even be able to determine which judge will be handling the bail review and know what that judge’s tendencies are. Sometimes the advice may be to bail the person out before the hearing. In other circumstances it may be to wait for the hearing if the attorney knows who the judge is and is confident that the bail will be lowered if the person is properly represented at the hearing.

I have seen many cases in which a person’s bail has been set very low by the commissioner and the family or friends of the person don’t bail the defendant out when any knowledgeable attorney would have been able to advise them that the judge was very likely to raise the bail. I have also seen the opposite situation where a client’s family posts far more bail then the would have had to post had then waited for the bail review and been properly represented at the hearing.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on September 01, 2010 in Cardiac Malpractice

A grand jury has indicted a cardiologist in Salsibury, Maryland, Dr. John McLean, accusing him of health care fraud for allegedly submitting insurance claims for inserting unnecessary cardiac stents, ordering unnecessary tests and procedures and falsely documenting patient records. In addition to jail time, the indictment seeks forfeiture of more than $519,000 and two real estate parcels. The indictment states that Dr. McLean performed cardiac catheterizations on patients at Peninsula Regional Medical Center from late 2003 to 2007, and that he falsely recorded that patients’ coronary arteries were 70 percent blocked when they were not. Generally, patients must have a 70 percent blockage before stents are considered medically necessary.

I am handling a number of cases of unnecessary cardiac stents placed by Dr. Mark Midei at Saint Joseph Medical Center. As set forth in earlier posts on this blog, I have been saying all along that it is only a matter of time until Dr. Midei is indicted for insurance fraud for what he did.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 30, 2010 in Evidence

This criminal defense issue arises in situations where an unknown person makes a 911 call and the prosecutor tries to use the tape against a criminal defendant at trial. In State v. Parker, 365 Md. 299 (2001), the Maryland Court of Appeals confronted the issue of whether the statements of two unidentified declarants to a police officer following a shooting were admissible. In determining whether the statements of the unidentified declarants were properly admitted by the trial court under the excited utterance hearsay exception, the appellate court observed that:

Where the identity of the hearsay declarant is unknown, the courts hold that the party seeking to introduce the excited utterance carries a heavy burden to prove the requisite indicia of reliability. It is held that the burden of the proponent is heightened, primarily because it is more difficult to establish personal observation and spontaneity where the declarant is unknown. Id. at 314.

Continue Reading ››