Posted on June 04, 2009 in Uncategorized

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney I am often retained for representation by offenders who have been charged and or convicted repeatedly in the past. An offender with a prior history of multiple DUI/DWI convictions presents an entirely different problem than that which faces the average first or even second offender. As I have discussed repeatedly here in this blog, even first and second offenses present the potential for incarceration these days, but if the case handled correctly this result can usually be avoided.

Offenders with two or more prior convictions, however, face almost certain incarceration if convicted in any jurisdiction in the state. As any experienced Maryland DUI/DWI lawyer will tell you, Harford County is among the strictest (if not the strictest) jurisdictions in Maryland for these types of cases which makes the risk even greater than if the offender were charged elsewhere.

I recently represented a woman on her fourth offense. Not only was she a repeat offender but the facts were bad. Several people had called in to 911 to report that a car being operated by a women on Route 40 in Harford County was driving in an extremely erratic and aggressive fashion. The callers claimed that she was swerving from lane to lane, tailgating and speeding. The police responded to the area and located the car just as it was pulling out of a gas station. The police immediately activated their emergency equipment and stopped the vehicle.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 29, 2009 in Probable Cause

To be a successful Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of what constitutes a legal or illegal stop of a motor vehicle by the police. Very often, the only plausible way to defend a DUI/DWI in Maryland is to attack the basis for the stop. The reason for this is that over the last decade or so the State Legislature has passed laws that make most DUI/DWI cases, in the words of former CIA Director George Tenant, “a slam dunk” for the prosecutor, once the prosecutor establishes that the police lawfully stopped the defendant.

This is especially true if the defendant took the breathalyzer and registered a reading of .08 or greater. This is because in Maryland, a person who is proven to have been operating a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater is “per se” guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Even if the defendant didn’t take the breathalyzer, however, most police officers write thorough enough reports detailing their observations of the defendant’s performance on the field sobriety tests and conduct throughout the booking process, for the State to secure a conviction at least as to driving while impaired if not to driving while under the influence. We successfully defended a case in Howard County last month that presented this exact situation. Here are the facts:

Our client was pulled over for on Interstate 95 South for, according to the police officer, “weaving within his lane” and for crossing over the white line separating the shoulder from the far right travel lane one time. The officer properly conducted the field sobriety tests (the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk and turn and the one leg stand) and detailed poor performance on each test in his report. He then arrested our client and offered him the opportunity to take a breathalyzer. Our client agreed to take the test and blew a reading of .13. In this situation, for the reasons noted above, there was no defense to this case other than to challenge the stop.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 28, 2009 in Attorney Qualifications

As a Maryland DUI/DWI Attorney who is in court on a daily basis, I am in a position fairly regularly to witness attorneys handling DUI/DWI cases who are clearly not qualified to do so. I am also regularly surprised that the clients that I meet with rarely ask me about my experience and background to determine my qualifications before agreeing to hire me. As a regular part of my initial consultation, I volunteer the information that I am a former Assistant State’s Attorney and that I am a 100% full time Maryland Criminal Attorney, but again, people rarely ask me these basic questions. This is a serious mistake that can have very serious consequences.

By way of example, and I could offer many others, I was in Baltimore County District Court recently when I witnessed the shocking mishandling of a DUI/DWI case. The client was a second offender so the stakes were a little higher than for a first offender but the case was still very manageable if handled correctly. The attorney that handled the case, whom I will not name, was an attorney whom I know to be primarily a domestic and civil attorney. I watched in disbelief as he mishandled the case from beginning to end.

The first mistake he made was to allow his client to appear in front of one of the most prosecution oriented judges on the bench. One of the most important services that an experienced criminal defense attorney can provide is a deep knowledge of the tendencies of the various judges. This particular judge, who was a former prosecutor, is known to all who regularly practice criminal, and particularly those who practice DUI/DWI law, to be among the harshest sentencing judges in the state. An experienced criminal attorney could have (and would have) very easily avoided this judge with one of several available procedural tactics.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 27, 2009 in Medication Malpractice

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I am frequently asked to comment on malpractice cases from around the county. Recently, a Chicago hospital settled a case for $3 million after it failed to properly treat a toddler for an allergic reaction to penicillin, which had been given to her for an ear infection despite previous signs of an allergy to the medication. The suit and an Illinois Appellate Court decision tied to the case suggest that efforts by the hospital’s risk manager, who is not employed there any longer, to investigate the girl’s death may have been obstructed by hospital administrators. Apparently, syringes, Intravenous tubes and other medical materials, which were physical evidence of the girl’s treatment that day , were tossed minutes after she died.

I have handled a number of medical malpractice cases in Baltimore, Maryland and other places involving medication errors. Most of the cases fall into two categories: giving a patient a medication they are allergic to or giving the patient the wrong medication. In fact, I am handling two such cases now. In this day and age of extensive documentation, these kind of medication errors shouldn’t happen. There is no excuse. To see some of the cases I have handled, click here .

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 27, 2009 in Emergency Room Malpractice

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I am frequently asked to comment on malpractice cases from around the county. Recently, a Philadelphia jury awarded $2.185 million in a medical malpractice case in which it was alleged that a hospital and two emergency room doctors failed to timely read x-rays. The patient came to the ER at 8:35 am after experiencing chest, back and leg pains. He was quickly seen by a doctor, who ordered x-rays. After the x-rays were done, the emergency room doctor should have reviewed them before they were sent to radiology, but that did not happen. Because no one looked x-rays that day, no one realized that they showed a dissecting aortic aneurysm, a condition in which blood gets between the layers of the aorta wall and fills up the sac surrounding the heart, tightening it until the heart is not able to pump. The patient died at 7:05 pm from the undiagnosed condition.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 27, 2009 in Surgery Malpractice

As an experienced Baltimore, Maryland medical malpractice lawyer, I am frequently asked to comment on malpractice cases from around the county. Recently, a Rhode Island jury awarded a former truck driver $4 million in an orthopedic negligence case. The man filed suit in 2002 alleging that the doctor negligently performed surgery on his hand by slicing a nerve. This allegedly caused his hand to hurt, change color and temperature, and sweat. He eventually was diagnosed with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome, a chronic neurological disorder that causes severe pain. His hand since has become claw-like, and continues to have pain. As a result, he has become addicted to pain medication and relies on drugs to fall asleep each night.

This was a major verdict in a difficult case. While it would have been easy to show the jury the disfigured hand, juries sometimes have difficulty understanding Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, which is a chronic pain syndrome. The defense usually claims the person is exaggerating, and juries have difficulty grasping that a limb that may look ok is causing severe pain. Brining is experts to explain RSD to the jury is key.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 27, 2009 in Personal Injury

As an experienced Maryland trial lawyer, I have handled a number of cases when a store clerk has attacked a customer. One case involved a male cashier attacking a pregnant women. Another case involved a cashier arguing over price with an elderly lady and jumping the counter and beating her. Under these circumstances, personal injury lawyers struggle over who to sue and who pays? Although the law is complex, I have found that when properly pled, most of the time the company or employer can be found responsible.

Under Maryland law, “an employer is ordinarily responsible for the tortuous conduct of [an] employee committed while the servant was acting within the scope of the employment relationship.” An employer is responsible for willful and reckless wrongful employee acts if that act is performed within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer’s business. The Maryland courts have held that “[A]n act may be within the scope of employment, even though forbidden or done in a forbidden manner…, or consciously… tortious (sic).”

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 27, 2009 in Federal Criminal Defense

Aggressive Maryland criminal defense attorneys know that the best way to attack a search warrant is by attacking the affidavit in support of the warrant. This is commonly referred to as a Franks Hearing.

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), the Supreme Court held that in certain defined circumstances a defendant can attack a facially sufficient affidavit. The Franks Court recognized a “presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant”, and thus created a rule of “limited scope”.

The rule created by the Franks decision requires that a dual showing be made before a court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit’s integrity. This showing incorporates both a subjective and an objective threshold component. In order to obtain an evidentiary hearing on the affidavit’s integrity, a defendant must first make “a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit.” This showing “must be more than conclusory” and must be accompanied by a detailed offer of proof.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 26, 2009 in Personal Injury

Maryland plaintiff’s lawyers and defense lawyers are always fighting over venue. Venue in Maryland simply refers to the physical location of the trial. Although it may not seem just, different cases have different values depending on where the lawsuit is brought. Some areas of Maryland have a jury pool which is very conservative while others have a more liberal jury pool. The value of the lawsuit, as opposed to the loss, is drastically affected by venue. The differential in lawsuit value, based upon venue, holds truest in personal injury case. The same case, with the same facts and injuries, is worth substantially less on the Maryland Eastern Shore versus Prince George’s County, for example. We know this because we can track jury verdicts over time and determine a pattern.

A sharp Maryland personal injury lawyer will recognize the importance of venue, recognize the best venue for his client, and file the lawsuit in the best venue for his client. The hard part is often keeping the case in the plaintiff’s venue of choice. Often times a good defense attorney will ask the Judge to move the case to a different venue or court because of inconvenience to the witnesses. This is called a motion for forum non conveniens. I recently had a case involving the wrongful death of a minor which occurred in Carroll County, Maryland. Venue was also proper in Baltimore City because one of several defendants conducted business in Baltimore City. I filled suit in Baltimore City and the defense attorney immediately moved to transfer the case to Carroll County arguing that the trial in Baltimore City would be inconvenient to the witnesses. We won and the value of our lawsuit rose dramatically, even though the facts of the case had not changed.

In that case, the defendants filed their Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-327(c), claiming that the appropriate forum is in Carroll County, Maryland under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Defendants alleged in support of their motion that (1) the Circuit Court for Carroll County would be the most convenient forum for the trial of this case; (2) an evaluation of private interests suggest conducting the trial in Carroll County would be “easy, expeditious and inexpensive”; and (3) “public interests weigh in favor of transferring the matter the Circuit Court for Carroll County[,]” including court congestion, burdens on jury duty, and that the “citizens of Baltimore City have few if any ties to the circumstances surrounding the death.”

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 26, 2009 in Federal Criminal Defense

Although our federal criminal defense attorneys practice nationally, the majority of our cases are in the mid-Atlantic which falls into the Federal Fourth Circuit. Historically known as a conservative Circuit, the Court, which sits in Richmond, Virginia has directed the District Judges on a specific procedure they want followed in all post Booker federal sentencing
The Fourth Circuit has prescribed the steps the District Court must follow in imposing a sentence. First, the Court should calculate the proper guideline range after making appropriate findings of fact. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007)(citing Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596); see also Hughes, 401 F.3d at 546. “After calculating the Guidelines range, the sentencing court must give both the government and the defendant an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate.” Id. The Court should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the requested sentence. Id. If the guideline range does not serve the factors set forth in § 3553(a), then the Court may impose a non-guideline or “variance” sentence. United States v. Hampton, 441 F.3d 284, 287 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). The Court must articulate reasons for the sentence it imposes, particularly a variance sentence, by reference to the § 3553(a) factors and its factual findings. Id.

For more information on federal criminal matters and appeals in the Fourth Circuit, please contact us for a complimentary consultation.

Continue Reading ››