Posted on August 30, 2010 in Sentencing

Federal criminal defense lawyers are often faced with the issue of “double counting” when dealing with white-collar crimes sentencing. Double counting occurs when “one part of the [Sentencing] Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of another part of the [Sentencing] Guidelines.” U.S. v. Pena, 339 F.3d 715, 719 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting U.S. v. Hipenbecker, 115 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1997)). However, a trial court does not double count for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines by enhancing an offense level for two or more reasons when those reasons “address conceptually separate sentencing notions.” U.S. v. Phillips, 506 F.3d 685, 688 (8th Cir. 2007).

Loss is broadly defined as the greater of actual loss or intended loss. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 commentary 3(A). Actual loss is “the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.” Id. Intended loss is (1) “the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense” and (2) “includes intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur.” Id.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 30, 2010 in Maryland DUI Penalties

Many defendants charged with DUI in Maryland are dismayed to find out that not only do they have to go to court and face criminal charges, but they must also fight the MVA in a separate proceeding. Even if the criminal defendant is found “not guilty” of all charges in criminal court, the MVA may still suspend the defendant’s driver’s license on separate grounds.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled in Johnson v. State (1991) that this DOES NOT amount to double jeopardy. The bases of the MVA administrative hearing is to determine if the driver “broke his agreement” with the state when he was issued his license and agreed not to “drink and drive.”

The Maryland DUI lawyers at Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC are experts in the area of Maryland DUI laws and welcome anyone with pending charges to contact us for a complimentary consultation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 28, 2010 in Proof

I recently had two similar DUI cases with very different results. Each case involved a drunk driver who was involved in a one car accident. One driver ran into a parked train and the other driver hit a tree. In each case the driver was alone and there were no witnesses to the accident.

The drunk driver of the vehicle that hit the train stayed at the scene long enough for the police arrive. He told the police when asked that he was driving and he agreed to submit to field sobriety tests. He was found to be intoxicated, went to court and was convicted based upon his admission to the police and the subsequent field sobriety tests.

In the case of the defendant who hit a tree, left the scene and his car behind, jumped in a cab and went home to sleep it off. The next day when the police tracked him down by his license plate, he refused to talk to them without a lawyer present. He did not admit to driving, causing the accident, or to drinking. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage, but not DUI. When he went to court, the State could not prove he was driving that night and the defendant was acquitted. His only repercussion was the costs to get his car out of the Baltimore City yard.

For more information on Maryland DUI and Drunk Driving laws, please contact us at 410-385-2225.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 28, 2010 in Trials

In this Maryland criminal case, Defendant Dillard was charged with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and related offenses. Detective Smith was the State’s primary witness. During trial, it was brought to the court’s attention that during a lunch break two jurors walked by Detective Smith, patted him on the back and said “good job.” The defense attorney moved for a mistrial. The State asserted a mistrial was not necessary because the jurors had not made a specific comment about their opinions of Dillard’s guilt. The trial judge denied the motion for mistrial and refused to replace one of the jurors with an alternate. The jury convicted Dillard. Dillard appealed to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed the trial judge. The Court of Appeals reversed Dillard’s conviction. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s failure to conduct a voir dire examination of the jurors to determine whether the jurors had reached a premature conclusion as to Dillard’s guilt or formed fixed opinions constituted an abuse of discretion.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 25, 2010 in Murder

It has become apparent from recent Freedom of Information Act disclosures that George Hugely had sent threatening emails shortly before his former girlfriend, Yeardley Love, was found murdered. After the incident, Hugely’s lawyer tried to characterize Love’s death as an “accident.” Hugely, of course, is facing first degree murder charges.

One of the prerequisites of murder in the first degree is premeditation. We knew that Hugely forced himself into Love’s apartment by literally breaking down her door. Now it has been confirmed that he previously sent Love threatening emails. The fact that he left the murder scene with Love’s laptop can only show he was trying to cover his email tracks.

A conviction for murder in the first degree is looking more and more like a slam dunk for the prosecution as the case unfolds.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 25, 2010 in Bicyclists Accidents

In a case eerily similar to the John Yates case, the Baltimore Sun is reporting that a Carrol County Cyclist was killed on Tuesday. Apparently John Martin Jr., 51, of New Windsor was riding his bike on Shepherds Mill road when a tractor-trailer driven by Anthony Edward Woodie made a right turn onto Route 75-directly in front of Mr. Martin.

Early indications are that Woodie is considered by police to be at fault for failing to yield to the cyclist while turning. This law firm is currently in litigation on behalf of the estate of John Yates who was killed in Baltimore City by a turning truck that also failed to yield to the cyclist.

As a result of our representation of the Yates and as advocates for cyclist’s rights, we are proud to have played a part in the Maryland General Assembly recently passing a new law helping to clarify the rights of cyclists on the roadways. Our sympathies go out to the entire Martin family.

For more information or a free consultation, please contact the Maryland personal injury lawyers of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White, LLC. or call Steve Silverman at 410-385-2226.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 07, 2010 in Protective Orders

Effective October 1, 2010, in the State of Maryland a victim of domestic violence who has obtained a final protective order may terminate a residential lease without penalty. For more information on protective orders, see our August 16, 2009 blog. The tenant is given thirty days to leave the property, and will be responsible for the rent during the thirty day period. This legislation was introduced in an effort to aid victims of domestic violence if a change of housing is necessary. Further, this law creates a rebuttable presumption that the victim has not breached the lease agreement if the landlord attempts to evict the domestic violence victim as a result of the abuser’s behavior. If a tenant does not choose to leave the leased property, they may request that the landlord change the locks. In that event, the tenant will be responsible for the fee.

For more information on domestic violence proceedings contact an experienced Maryland family law attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 06, 2010 in Cancer Malpractice

A Connecticut jury has awarded more than $1.3 million in a medical malpractice case. In the case, the plaintiff sued her oncologists alleging that they treated her for years for the wrong form of cancer, which led to the removal of part of her intestines and colon.

What makes the case especially unusual is that the case included a claim for damages on behalf of the woman’s longtime partner who had joined the woman in a civil union . In the litigation, a judge threw out the partner’s claims, holding that while the woman had been partners for more than 20 years they were not legally joined at the time of the alleged negligence.

If such a case is brought in Maryland, it will be interesting to see what the result is. Maryland’s wrongful death statute, section 3-904 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, a copy of which is below, allows claims for by a parent, spouse or child of the deceased person. The claim is for emotional distress and financial loss due to the death of family member. These are the most common type of wrongful death claim, as there is frequently a parent, spouse or child of the deceased alive to pursue such a case. The term “spouse” is not defined in the section where the statute is contained, so one certainly could argue that a person who participates in a lawful civil union ceremony is a “spouse” for purposes of the wrongful death act. If that argument doesn’t work, the Maryland wrongful death act includes a provision to allow for economic losses by certain people if there is no parent, spouse or child of the deceased. Those claims are for people related to the deceased by blood or marriage. Again, it can be argued that “marriage” is not defined, so that could cover a person who participates in a lawful civil union ceremony. It’s only a matter of time before this is tested.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 05, 2010 in Infection Malpractice

A South Carolina jury has awarded a $3 million verdict in a medical malpractice case against a South Carolina hospital and emergency room doctor. The case was filed by the husband of a woman who died after being improperly discharged from the hospital.

The woman was seen in the emergency room with complaints of stomach and back pain. Instead of being admitted, the woman was diagnosed with a kidney stone, given pain pills and asked to return several days later. But the woman didn’t make it to the future appointment. Instead, she died of septic shock, otherwise known as sepsis, approximately 2 days hours after she was discharged. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical negligence cases against doctors and hospitals for failure to timely and properly treat infections. These cases sometimes require an expert in the field of the doctor accused of malpractice and an infectious disease expert. A central issue always is casuation – in other words, whether there was enough time to reverse the person’s infection prior to serious injuries or death. Damages usually ragnge from severe and permanent injury to death. Sometimes, limbs are lost due to the effect of the infection on the body. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 04, 2010 in Hospital Malpractice

An Ohio jury has awarded $1.5 million dollars to a in a medical malpractice case against two doctors. The jury found that a doctor committed malpractice during a bone marrow biopsy in which a nerve was nicked and an artery was damaged. Apparently, the problem went undiscovered for five days and doctors had to remove two large hematomas from the hip and pelvis. The other doctor was called two days after the procedure but declined to examine the patient. The negligence caused the man to lose he use of his right leg below the knee, and resulted in chronic pain. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases involving vascular injuries and nerve injuries. These can be difficult cases because the defense is that the procedure is done relatively blindly and injury to a blood vessels and nerves and this can happen, but there are procedures to minimize the risk of such injuries and they clearly were not followed in this case. Moreover, the failure of the subsequent treating doctor to see the patient was clear malpractice.

Continue Reading ››