Posted on March 31, 2010 in Proof

https://www.silvermanthompson.com/lawyer-attorney-1300822.htmlAs a full time Baltimore County Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am mindful of, and quite frankly troubled by, the fact that many attorneys handle criminal and serious traffic cases in spite of the fact that they are clearly not qualified to do so. I began to notice this fact when I was an Assistant State’s Attorney in Baltimore County where I regularly tried cases against attorneys who were in private practice. Many if these attorneys were highly experienced and effective criminal lawyers. Many were not.

Indeed at the time I was shocked at the level of incompetence of some of the attorneys. When I asked around, I found that many of these attorneys were domestic attorneys or had practices focusing on civil litigation. It seems that if one of their client’s came to them charged with a criminal or serious traffic offense, they would simply handle the case themselves instead of referring the matter to a criminal attorney. As I said, I prosecuted cases against these attorneys on a daily basis for five years and the clients were usually not well served. I have made the same observations from the other side of the aisle in 12 years I have spent as a full time criminal attorney and I witnessed a particularly egregious example last week.

The client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, driving while impaired by alcohol and negligent driving. I was out in the hall before the case and couldn’t help but overhear the client discussing (actually it was more like arguing) the case with his attorney. I had seen this particular attorney a few times but could not put a name with a face. Because of this, I was pretty sure he was not a full time criminal defense attorney. I overheard the attorney explaining to the client that he had to accept a plea because “he would definitely lose” if he took the case to trial. The attorney also explained to the client that he ” had a good judge” which he was actually correct about. I could tell that the client was not happy about pleading guilty but could not hear why. I found out why a few minutes later inside the courtroom.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 30, 2010 in Child Pornography

As a Baltimore Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer/Attorney I have represented many people charged with various offenses related to the possession, distribution and manufacturing of child pornography. Jurisdiction exists to prosecute these cases in both Federal Court by the US Attorney’s Office and the State Court system. As in the case in most crimes for which there is dual jurisdiction, the penalties are much harsher in the federal system. In fact, there are mandatory minimum sentences in Federal Court of 5 years for receiving, 10 years for distribution, and 15 years for manufacturing child pornography. There are mandatory sentences in the state system.

In recent years, these matters have received much higher priority from both state and federal prosecutors and the two authorities collaborate closely on these cases. In what many on the defense side see as an unfair tactic, state prosecutors often use the threat of federal prosecution to convince (some say coerce) a defendant charged in the state system, to plead guilty. I am currently representing a man who is charged with distribution of child pornography who finds himself facing this very situation. I have handled many cases like this as a Baltimore Criminal Defense Attorney but what makes this case different is that the State’s theory for proving my client’s intent to distribute is his use of a file sharing program called Limewire. Here are the facts:

My client is a 19 year old man with no prior criminal record. He came to me after the police raided his house and confiscated his computer. The basis for the warrant was that my client had visited a child pornography site that the police were watching and they traced the IP address from his computer to his residence. At the time of the execution of the search warrant, he was read his Miranda Rights and questioned about the case. He admitted to the police that he searched for child pornography on the Internet using known terms for you young gay male images. He further admitted that he used the program Limewire to facilitate his search but denied that he had ever intended to distribute or share the images with anyone else. He further advised the police that he was only interested in images of post pubescent teenagers (in other words, his peers) and would immediately erase any images of young children captured by the Limewire search.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 30, 2010 in Child Support

The pending bill to update the Maryland Child Support Guidelines passed in the Maryland House of Representatives this past Saturday, March 27, 2010 with a vote of 114 in favor and 25 votes against. However, the House did make a few changes to the bill, which will have to be reviewed. The House changed the date the Guidelines would go into effect from October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011. Also, the House revised the Guidelines to cap at a combined monthly income of $15,000.00 rather than $30,000.00. Currently, the Guidelines are capped at a combined monthly income of $10,000.00. Last, the House amended the bill to state that the new legislation would not qualify as a material change in circumstances for the purpose of requesting modification of child support.

For more information on Maryland child support laws contact an experienced Maryland domestic attorney.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 29, 2010 in Automobile Accident

Maryland lawyers who litigate car and truck accidents have a new tool at their disposal thanks to the Maryland Legislature’s imminent passage of a ban on handheld cell phones while driving. The new law will make it illegal for a motorist to text or talk on a cell phone while driving unless connected to a Bluetooth device.

Plaintiff’s lawyers can be expected to try to use violation of this statute as evidence of negligence. Defense attorneys will also focus on using violation of this statue to prove the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. One would suspect that defense attorneys and insurance companies will reap the most benefit from the new law.

It has often been the law in Maryland that violation of a statue is evidence of negligence. It has also been the law of Maryland that if a plaintiff is found to be one percent negligent, the plaintiff is one hundred percent barred from any recovery. This is called contributory negligence. Defense attorneys will likely focus on violation of this statue to salvage what may otherwise be a lost cause. In any event, I can see attorneys on both sides focusing on cell phone records and issuing thousands of subpoenas for records during discovery. The bill may help make Maryland roads safer but it is going to kill a lot of trees!

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 29, 2010 in Cell Phone Ban

Although the big news out of Annapolis this session is the likely passing of a ban on Maryland motorists using cell phones while driving, the reality is the bill has little teeth! Under the bill poised to pass, it is unlawful for a motorist on Maryland roads to hold a cell phone while talking on it, to text or otherwise use the device while driving. It will be lawful to use a blue-tooth device to talk on the phone remotely.

What makes the bill toothless is that it is a secondary offense. This means that the police are NOT allowed to stop a motorist if the officer sees an infraction. The officer can only write up a ticket if the motorist commits a primary infraction, such as speeding, and only then can the officer issue a citation for using a cell phone while driving. Upon conviction for the cell phone offense, the motorist will receive a whopping $40.00 fine and no points.

The best guess is that it is only a matter of time before this becomes a primary offense. It was not too long ago in Maryland when proponents of the mandatory seat belt law agreed to make it a secondary offense to ensure passage by the legislature. Just a few years later, it became a primary offense with little fanfare. Now the police can pull anyone over by claiming the motorist was not wearing a seat-belt. As an experienced Maryland criminal defense attorney, I am well aware of the significance this bill will likely have in further eroding civil liberties. It is only a matter of time until the cell phone law becomes a primary offense. Everyone has a cell phone, and everyone will soon be fair game for a traffic stop.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 26, 2010 in Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS)

Baltimore Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys/Lawyers are often called upon to represent defendants who are charged with manufacturing a controlled dangerous substance. Most of these cases involve the growing of Marijuana as this one did, but some involve the manufacture of methamphetamines or other drugs.

The case I had last week occurred on the West side of Baltimore County. My client, who is a 40 year old father of 3 with a college degree and various professional licenses to protect, was accused of growing 6 marijuana plants in his back yard. Unfortunately, Maryland law does not differentiate between manufacturing controlled dangerous substances for personal use and manufacturing for the purpose of distribution. Any manufacturing activity, including the growing of just one or a few marijuana plants is a felony under Maryland Law. Needless to say, the stakes were very high for the client in spite of the very small number of plants involved because a conviction would result in him having a felony on his record which would have a devastating effect on his career even if he avoided jail. Here are the facts:

My client was at work one day last November when he received a call from his neighbor informing him that there had been a burglary attempt at his home. The neighbor advised him that he has seen a man attempting to break into the back of his home. The neighbor told my client that he had chased the man away and called the police. He advised my client that the police wanted him to come home to help them with their investigation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 22, 2010 in Automobile Accident

In the case of Pfeifer v. Phoenix Insurance Co, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals has recently affirmed that the statute of limitations for UM coverage or UIM coverage suit is three years from the date of denial of coverage, orthe exhaustion of the tortfeasors coverage occurs. Practically speaking, if you are involved in an accident on 1/1/06, and the tortfeasor offers their policy on 1/1/07, the statute of limitations would begin to run on 1/1/07, giving you until 1/1/10 to file a claim against the UM/UIM carrier.

Oftentimes, I come across clients who suffer injury at the hands of an uninsured or underinsured driver. Understanding the process of collecting under your UM/UIM means the difference between collecting what is fair or being at the mercy of the insurance companies. Should you be involved in a motor vehicle accident with an uninsured driver, or a driver who has a small policy, 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 March 19, 2010 in Divorce

It is common for one to be unaware that there are two types of divorce in Maryland. An absolute divorce is typically what one thinks of when thinking of a “divorce.” See February 28, 2010 Blog. On the other hand, a limited divorce merely legalizes a separation. A limited divorce is generally sought when the parties do not have grounds for an absolute divorce yet and are unable to come up with a settlement agreement, but a party is in need of financial relief or child custody and access needs to be established.

Under Maryland law, the Judge may grant a limited divorce on grounds of: “(1) cruelty of treatment of the filing party or of a minor child of the filing party, (2) excessively vicious conduct to the filing party or to a minor child of the filing party; (3) desertion (actual or constructive); or (4) voluntary separation, if the parties are living separate and apart without cohabitation and there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation.” Maryland Code, Family Law § 7-102. In contrast to an absolute divorce, there is no time period that the parties need to be living separate and apart in order for the judge to grant a limited divorce on the grounds of voluntary separation.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2010 in Trucking Accidents

A California jury has awarded an Oregon girl $24.3 million in damages for being run over by a tractor trailer truck. The defendant was a transport company that was the carrier, insurer and guarantor of delivery for the truck’s contents.
At the time of the accident, the girl was 14. She was run over when the truck driver, who actually was the girl’s father drove away from a rest break without realizing that his daughter was still outside the truck. The girl was caught under the truck’s rear wheels and suffered severe injuries to her entire lower body that will require many future surgeries. Interestingly, the judge in the case ruled that the jury would not be told that it was the girl’s father who caused the accident, as that fact was irrelevant to the issue of negligence and damages. A copy of an article regarding the case can be found here.

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland attorney who specializes in catastrophic injury cases, I have successfully handled a number of truck accident cases. These cases require aggressive representation as the insurers and attorneys for the trucks almost always fight these cases tooth and nail. Knowledge of the insurance regulations and federal regulations regarding trucks also is important. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on March 16, 2010 in Fall Malpractice

The family of an 86-year-old Massachusetts woman has settled their medical malpractice case arising from the death of the woman after she fell from an operating table following hip surgery. The case settled for $800,000. The woman died seven days after she suffered a severe head injury during the negligent fall, as she was being prepared for transfer to her hospital bed. The fall caused severe internal bleeding and fractured her skull. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health investigated the case and concluded that the fall led to the woman’s death. It found deficiencies in procedure which led to the fall.

My name is Andrew Slutkin. As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I have successfully handled a significant number of medical malpractice / negligence cases involving falls that cause severe injury or even death. All of the cases involve people who are in a vulnerable position – such as being elderly or sick – and cannot take care of themselves. It’s always important to carefully examine the medical records to see what happened. But because these are the types of injuries where the injury is known to the health care providers at the time it happens, the medical records frequently make it seem like the heath care providers did everything correctly yet the fall somehow occurred. That is why witness and family accounts frequently help to determine what really happened. It also is important to check the health care provider’s policies and procedures to determine if rules and regulations were followed. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here.

Continue Reading ››