Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
Published on:

By

courtroom-898931_1280-300x226Next week four defendants will be brought to trial at the Baltimore County Circuit Court for their alleged involvement in a stabbing that resulted in the death of a 45-year-old man.  The incident occurred in February of 2021 in the parking lot of a Dundalk restaurant and bar, though arrests were not made until April of 2022.  Six individuals were initially charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree assault, but one was cleared a short time later.  Two of the defendants were ultimately released from custody pending trial, and three remain held without bail.  One of the defendants who was released from custody has agreed to testify as a state’s witness, and this week, lawyers for the remaining four defendants engaged in heated arguments over late evidence and evidence that the State neglected to disclose.  Despite numerous evidentiary issues, the case remains on track to be tried beginning on May 1.  The cooperating witness’ trial is scheduled separately in June, and assuming he testifies per his agreement with the State, he will likely enter into a favorable plea agreement.

Despite the incident occurring in 2021 and being originally charged in 2022, state prosecutors decided to file a superseding indictment just two weeks ago that added charges of accessory after the fact to murder in the first degree for some of the defendants.  This became a major issue for the respective defense teams, who now have to scramble to adjust their defenses to account for the new charges.  The state claimed the late charges were due to unavoidable delays related to the FBI’s cell phone location data crime lab.  The state maintained that they turned over the evidence as soon as it became available, though far too late in the eyes of the defense lawyers.  Cell phone tracking data is often difficult in interpret and can require an expert to explain to

 laymen such as jurors in a criminal case.  Defense lawyers argued that securing an expert could take weeks if not months, and therefore the late cell phone data should be excluded.  Typically, when the state provides late evidence, the remedy would be to postpone the case, but when defendants are sitting in jail this becomes extremely prejudicial.  No defendant should have to sit in jail awaiting trial longer than necessary, and unfortunately in a Maryland murder case there is a low chance that the judge would consider releasing a defendant due to a state’s postponement.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

pistol-1350484_1280-300x200The House and Senate approved Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 824, and both will almost certainly become law on October 1, 2023.  House Bill 824 did not receive much fanfare, but will further tighten Maryland’s already strict gun laws.  The Bill, which was introduced by a Delegate who also serves as an Assistant State’s Attorney in Anne Arundel County, expands prohibitions on regulated firearm possession under the Public Safety Code.  Starting in the Fall anyone who is one supervised probation for an offense that carries a maximum penalty of 1 year or more in jail will not be able to possess a firearm.  The new prohibition also includes those on probation for DUI or DWI under the §21-902 (a) and (b) of the Transportation Article.  Defendants on probation for violating a protective order would also be prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm.  This provision only applies to individuals who are placed on supervised probation after being convicted, which means that those granted probation before judgment would not be subject to a charge under the Public Safety Code for possessing a firearm while on probation.  It is important to remember that those on supervised probation are typically prohibited from possessing firearms unless a judge specifically allows it.  This is standard condition of probation in Maryland, though a violation would be considered a technical probation violation and not a new offense.  Technical violations of probation carry a presumptive maximum penalty of 15 days in jail, while a violation of this new provision in the Public Safety Code would be a misdemeanor with a 5-year maximum penalty.

House Bill 824 also prohibits a person from obtaining a Maryland wear and carry license if he or she has been convicted of a violation of criminal law section 4-104, which prohibits storing or leaving a loaded firearm in a place where an unsupervised minor could gain access to the firearm, and an injury or death resulted.  If there was no injury the prohibition would only extend to a person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this provision.  Offenders who receive a conviction for child’s access to firearms after October 1, 2023 will have to wait five years from the date of the conviction to apply for a handgun permit.  The bill also raised the permit fee to $125, up from $75.

Senate Bill 1 received most of the media attention, and will likely continue to create news headlines after it becomes law in October.  We wrote about this bill previously, and the version that passed the General Assembly was not substantially altered from our last post.  This law will have major restrictions on where licensed individuals can possess firearms, including prohibiting possession at schools, concerts, sporting events, organized youth and adult sports leagues and state government buildings.  A violation under this new law would result in a misdemeanor that carries up to 90 days in jail for a first offense, and up to 15 months for each violation thereafter.  Firearm possession is already illegal in federal facilities and buildings in Maryland under federal law regardless if a person holds a Maryland concealed carry permit.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

jaguar-1366978_960_720-300x169Over the past week Prince George’s County Police officers arrested six boys in connection with two separate carjacking incidents.  The boys were also charged with illegal firearm possession after police located ghost guns in their possession.  The first arrest occurred at the end of last week when police located a vehicle that had been carjacked three days earlier.  After making a felony traffic stop, officers located four teenaged boys from Washington D.C. inside the vehicle and also recovered a loaded ghost gun.  All four were arrested and charged with multiple serious crimes, though it appears they will be charged as juveniles due to the fact that they were 15 at the time of the incident.  It is unclear whether the juveniles were released to their parents or remain detained at a secure juvenile facility.

The four boys will  cclappear at the Prince George’s County Circuit Court for their respective trials.  While the cases will start out in the juvenile court, the State may choose to seek a discretionary waiver for some or all of the juveniles.  Maryland law allows a judge to order the transfer of a case to adult court for a 15-year-old defendant if a finding is made that the child is not fit for juvenile rehabilitative measures.  A child under 15 can only be prosecuted in adult court for an offense such as murder that carries life in prison.  Juvenile discretionary waivers are rare, and in all likelihood would not be utilized for a carjacking case unless the juvenile has an extensive history of violence.  Carjacking by definition is a serious offense, but if the facts are especially egregious the Court certainly could consider a discretionary waiver.

Just four days later Prince George’s County officers made yet another carjacking arrest.  The suspects in this case were also juveniles, with one being a 16-year-old from Fort Washington, and the other a 17-year-old from Temple Hills.  Police received a call for an attempted armed carjacking on April 3 at around 1:30 p.m. in District Heights.  When officers arrived, they observed two suspects running from the scene and were ultimately able to take them into custody.  Search incident to arrest revealed that both juveniles were in possession of loaded ghost guns.  In the first three months of 2023 alone 32 juveniles and 19 adults have been arrested for carjacking in Prince George’s County.  This alarming trend

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

prison-300x201Analyzing the yearly crime rates provides for quick talking points, but rarely provides enough data to make accurate conclusions about larger trends in crime.  Therefore, a more effective way to measure the direction of a state, county or city is to measure trends by the decade.  This can be a tedious process, but overall paints a better picture of where our communities stand.  Yearly crime data compiled by the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention is not officially released for a given year until about two years have passed.  Data from 2020 was recently released, and after examining trends from 2011 through 2020 the major takeaway is that overall crime has dropped, but certain violent crimes have not followed suit.

Property crimes such as burglary have steadily declined, with overall numbers decreasing from roughly 30,000 cases in 2011 to less than 15,000 in 2020.  Motor vehicle thefts have also decreased from about 16,000 cases in 2011 to about 10,500 in 2020.  Motor vehicle theft cases have been steadily decreasing over the past several decades due to technological advances in cars, but a 33% decrease in 10 years is still significant.  Overall, in 2011 there were a total of 114,871 reported theft cases in Maryland, and in 2020 there were 72,865.  This decrease in property crimes cannot be ignored, and is hopefully a sign of better times ahead.  On the other hand, there is still cause for concern about the number of violent offenses committed in Maryland each year.

In 2020 there were 573 homicide cases in Maryland, which is the highest number in almost 25 years when the state reported 588 homicides in 1996.  334 of these homicides were committed in Baltimore City, and 92% were committed with a firearm.  Also, less than half of these homicides (47%) resulted in an arrest, which is a staggering percentage.  There were significantly more reported rape case in 2020 than in 2011, and as a whole both the homicide and rape numbers seem to be steadily increasing over the last 5 years.  The rape numbers may have increased due to greater awareness and a higher percentage of these cases being reported to law enforcement.  Aggravated assault cases, including first degree assault by strangulation or assault with a firearm, have been decreasing slightly and robbery numbers are down throughout the state, but neither of these trends makes up for the increasing murder and rape numbers.  What is significant is that 2020 saw the fewest incidents of reported violent crime in Maryland since the beginning of the record keeping in 1980.  Part of this relatively low number in 2020 could be attributed to Covid and people staying at home, so it should be taken with a grain of salt, but the progress is undeniable.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

thirteen-bags-of-marijuana-found-in-taxi-cabThe legalization of marijuana in Maryland will have a much broader reach than simply eliminating the prosecution of marijuana possession cases.  Perhaps the largest collateral consequence of legalization is the effect it will have on law enforcement’s ability to search a vehicle.  Even after marijuana possession was decriminalized police officers in Maryland maintained the ability to search a car based on the odor of marijuana. Police lost the ability to search a person and his or her belongings, but vehicles have been fair game.  In fact, a police officer can technically initiate a traffic stop based on the odor of marijuana, without even observing a traffic violation.

A massive number of criminal cases start with the search of a suspect’s vehicle.  Traffic stops are some of the only up-close encounters citizens ever have with police, and thus law enforcement agencies train their officers to take full advantage of these encounters.  Police are trained to identify individuals who are likely to be engaged in criminal activity, and then to continue to develop them as suspects.  Officers are permitted to initiate a traffic stop even if their ultimate goal is to obtain probable cause to search a vehicle.  Pretextual stops, where officers wait for a vehicle to commit a minor traffic infraction with the larger goal of investigating a more serious offense, have always survived constitutional challenges.  At the present time one of the most common ways to bridge pretextual and ordinary traffic stops to a probable cause search is the smell of marijuana.  These stops account for a great deal of arrests for gun and drug possession cases, but the legalization of marijuana looks to throw a wrench in this common law enforcement tactic.

When marijuana becomes legal in Maryland on July 1, 2023 it will no longer be considered contraband and thus cannot be used to justify a criminal detention and search.  This is something that law enforcement agencies and prosecutors have been planning for, but there is currently no policy in place that actually states a police officer will not be able to perform a search after smelling burnt or raw cannabis.  It would have been a major waste of resources to simply do nothing and wait for a defendant to challenge a search in court.  This path would have forced the Supreme Court of Maryland to establish the policy, but clearly having the legislature enact a law would be the preferred option.  House Bill 1071 does just that, and after passing easily (99-34) in the House is headed for a vote in the Senate.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

holster-648014__480-300x206Senate Bill 1 sparked heated debate when it was first introduced at the beginning of the 2023 Maryland Legislative Session.  The debate was heated for good reason, as the bill originally proposed massive restrictions on where a licensed individual could possess a firearm.  We were skeptical from the outset about some of the bill’s language, which included banning all otherwise legally owned and possessed firearms within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation.  The phrase public accommodation included basically all public indoor spaces such as restaurants, stores and shopping centers, and even included outdoor spaces where people gather to eat, shop or be entertained.  Possession of a lawfully owned firearm would have also been prohibited at hotels and inns under the original proposal.  The overly broad language in the first proposal would have never stood a chance at surviving constitutional challenges, and enforcement would have been a nightmare even if it did temporarily become law.  As such, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee did its job and drastically modified the bill in order to give it a shot of passing Constitutional scrutiny, and as of this week the bill has officially been approved in the Senate.

The revised version of Senate Bill 1 has several new restrictions that take the place of the original public accommodation language in the first draft of the bill.  If the current SB 1 becomes law, holders of a Maryland wear and carry permit would be prohibited from carrying in an area for children or vulnerable individuals.  This section would apply to daycares and public or private secondary schools, youth camps, health care facilities and shelters for runaway youth.  The proposal would also prohibit firearm possession in Government or Public Infrastructure areas, which include buildings owned or leased by the state or local government, college or university buildings, polling sites and electrical plants or storage facilities.  Additionally, the bill prohibits firearms at organized sporting or athletic activities between three or more individuals competing in the same league.  One of the broadest prohibitions would concern Special Purpose Areas, which include locations licensed to sell or dispense alcohol or cannabis for on-site consumption, and thus guns at bars would be outlawed.  Special purpose also includes stadiums, museums, live theater performances and concerts where the audience is required to pay or possess an admission ticket, fairs, carnivals, racetracks and video lottery facilities.

Law enforcement officers, active-duty military, correctional officers and even ROTC members are mostly excluded from these prohibitions, and not subject to the potential penalties that would include up to 90 days in jail and a $3,000 fine for a first offense and up to 15 months in prison and a $7,500 fine for subsequent violations.  Anyone who violates this law with the intent to injure another person faces the same 15-month penalty in addition to any other criminal violation found to have occurred.  There is also a provision in the bill that prohibits an individual from trespassing on another person’s property with a firearm after being warned that firearms are not allowed on the property.  Such a violation could bring misdemeanor charges that carry up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

keyboard-453795_1280-300x200A Howard County woman was recently found guilty of 19 counts of making a false statement to a government agency after a month-long jury trial in Baltimore.  The 50-year-old Elkridge woman owned and operated an information technology company that was retained by the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade in Howard County.  From 2011 to 2018 the defendant’s company provided services to the NSA including maintenance and support of computer systems in the Counter Terrorism Management Center and the National Security Operations Center.  Much of the contracted work required the handling of classified data, which meant the company performed the majority of its services on site at Fort Meade.  The work on base was carried out in secure, access-controlled locations in order to limit data breaches.  This also meant that the government was able to calculate approximately how much time the defendant and her employees spent working on the contract, which billed out at a rate of $150 per hour.  Per the contract, the defendant’s company was required to assign a Program Manager (PM) to oversee performance, keep tabs on billing and to communicate directly with the federal government.  According to facts presented at trial the defendant served as the PM for 17 months from March 14, 2016 to September 30, 2017.  During this time the defendant billed out over 2,600 hours at a total cost of almost $400k for her role as a Senior Program Manager, and the NSA paid this bill in full.  Problems began after an audit of the billing revealed that the defendant was not at Fort Meade during 90% of the hours she billed.

In October of 2017 the defendant participated in a voluntary interview with NSA officials who were investigating a whistleblower claim that the defendant was charging the government for work she did not perform.  The defendant denied these claims, and maintained the billing was legitimate for work actually performed.  She also stated that her timesheets were accurate and her billing for consistent 8-hour days was truthful.  The jury thought otherwise, and sided with the government after almost on month of evidence and argument.

The defendant was convicted making a false statement to an agent or agency of the federal government under 18 U.S. Code §1001.  This statute is routinely used by the feds to prosecute individuals in all types of cases ranging from complex financial frauds to less complicated gun and drug cases.  Anyone who makes statements or submits writings or another type of communications that he or she knows are false could be prosecuted under this statute, but there are certain limitations.  The government can only prosecute statements that are material and made in connection with a federal matter.  The statement(s) must also be knowingly and willfully.  Simply denying involvement in criminal activity or lying about an immaterial fact such as what a person had for dinner would not be prosecuted under this statute, but most everything else is fair game under the False Statement Accountability Act.  This offense is generally punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison for each offense, though the penalty can increase to up to 8 years for certain offenses such as human trafficking or certain sex crimes.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

medpot-300x188Marijuana will be legalized for adult recreational use this summer, but until recently there was no indication when it would actually be available to purchase.  Those following marijuana policy closely in Maryland are well aware that the first medical marijuana sales occurred almost five years after medical cannabis was signed into law by the governor.  The delay was extremely frustrating for patients, lawmakers, government officials and investors, and not something anyone wanted to repeat.  Considering much of the infrastructure already exists for selling cannabis, the delay for recreational sales to begin was never expected to approach five years.  But would it take 1 or 2 years?  Would there be a lengthy limbo period like in New York City or Washington D.C., where pot is legal but difficult or impossible to purchase lawfully?  The referendum for legalization in Maryland easily passed in November of 2022, but it did not provide any clarity as to when recreational sales would actually begin.  During the last couple of weeks though lawmakers in Annapolis have worked hard to instill confidence that on or about July 1 recreational marijuana will be available to adults over the age of 21.

Senate Bill 516 was recently introduced in the form of an 88-page behemoth that lays out a comprehensive plan for the state’s recreational cannabis plan.  The companion bill, House Bill 556 is also 88 pages and is set for a hearing on February 17.  Both bills aim to have recreational cannabis up and running this summer, and both would authorize at least 500 dispensary licenses as well as 50 on-site consumption licenses.  If the bill becomes law there will soon be numerous establishments where any adult over the age of 21 could purchase and smoke marijuana in the state of Maryland.  The bills also distinguish standard grower, processor and dispensary licenses from micro-licenses, which have smaller space limitations.

The bills also preserve the medical cannabis program by authorizing those under the age of 21 and over to purchase and possess up to 120 grams of cannabis or 36 grams of THC infused products.  School personnel would be permitted to administer medical cannabis to a student as long as it is obtained from, and administered per a certified caregiver’s instructions.  Students may be administered medical cannabis at school activities and on school busses.  Medical cannabis would not subject to the same sales tax as recreational cannabis, which would start out at 6 percent and rise to 10 percent.  Other provisions include prohibiting local governments  from assessing their own taxes and from establishing zoning requirements that unduly burden cannabis licensees.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

holster-648014__480-300x206Nearly eight months ago the Supreme Court ruled that the carrying a handgun in public is a constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment.  In fashioning this ruling, the court declared that state and local governments shall issue concealed carry permits to qualified individuals who can satisfy objective requirements such as background checks and completion of gun safety courses.  The flip side is that the court did away with laws that gave state and local governments the ability to arbitrarily decide who may receive a concealed carry permit.  These “may issue” laws required a person to prove to the government that they were worthy of a permit, and denials were routinely handed out without further explanation.

Maryland was once a “may issue” state that required residents to prove a good and substantial reason to carry a gun, but since June the State Police has been ordered to issue permits to all qualified applicants.  Since the ruling there have been upwards of 80,000 concealed carry applications compared to 12,000 in all of 2021.  The spike in applications has been a major source of concern for some lawmakers in Annapolis who are now attempting to chip away at the Supreme Court’s ruling.  Citing the exponential rise in gun violence and a suspected connection between an increase in legal gun purchasing with an increase in illegal guns on the street, so called public safety advocates have sponsored a bill that would restrict where a licensed individual can carry a firearm.  Senate Bill 1, which was debated this week, would criminalize the possession of a firearm within 100 feet of a place of public accommodation.  This new misdemeanor offense would carry a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail, and apply to all citizens regardless of permit status.  The new law would be codified under 4-111 and 4-112 of the criminal law article, rather than the Maryland public safety code where many gun laws are listed.

The obvious question is how the legislature will attempt to define “place of public accommodation”, as the law rests entirely on this arbitrary definition.  As of now the definition of public accommodation includes inns, hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, sports arenas, concert halls and all other entertainment venues.  It would also include all retail establishments that offer goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation.  Basically, the bills authors tried to include all public indoor spaces and outdoor spaces where people gather to eat, shop or be entertained.  Anyone with time to kill could probably think of a place that the authors missed, but the definition seems comprehensive.  It might be more productive to think of the places that were left out, as the main ones appear to be parks and anywhere a person is in transit such as driving on a highway or walking down a sidewalk.  On the other hand, the provision that you cannot be within 100 feet of one of these establishments will create a host of issues.  You could hypothetically be breaking the law if you have your legal firearm in your vehicle while driving past a store, going to pick up food at and even walking down the sidewalk.  For this reason, the law as written stands very little chance of hitting the governor’s desk.  Regardless, gun rights advocates showed up in force in Annapolis this week to protest, and the protests will only grow stronger if the law progresses.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

annapolis-237078_960_720-300x195The 2023 Maryland legislative session is underway, and there are currently dozens of criminal law bills that are being debated in Annapolis.  Guns, marijuana and juvenile justice reform are three of the main issues this year, but there are numerous other proposals that could significantly alter the way crimes are policed and prosecuted.  One of the issues at the forefront of media coverage is increasing the penalty for Maryland’s main gun possession law.  Wearing, transporting or carrying a handgun currently has a maximum penalty of three years incarceration and a $2,500 fine upon conviction.  This offense also carries a 30-day mandatory jail sentence that becomes 90 days if the offense occurred on public school property.  The mandatory jail term is rarely imposed though, as it is not normal practice for the State to file a notice to seek mandatory incarceration in these cases.  Additionally, a judge may grant probation before judgment, which effectively erases any requirement to impose mandatory jail.  For comparison, probation before judgment is not available to anyone found guilty of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person or by a convicted felon, so the mandatory time is actually mandatory.  Some lawmakers and the Baltimore City State’s Attorney are lobbying to increase the maximum penalty for possession of a handgun to 5 years of incarceration, which would mirror the maximum penalty for possession of a firearm by a minor under the public safety article.

There does not seem to be an overly persuasive argument to increase the penalty for wear, transport or carry of a handgun to 5 years.  Anyone with more than a minor criminal record who is found with a gun will likely be charged with possession by a prohibited person and thus face a mandatory 5-year sentence.  Additionally, anyone who uses a handgun in a crime will face a significantly harsher punishment for  other offenses such as use of a handgun in a crime of violence.  Those with minor or no criminal record will not and should not serve anywhere near the current maximum of 3 years.  If uniformity is the ultimate goal, lawmakers should look to decrease the penalty for minor in possession of a firearm to 3 years rather than seek to add more time, which ultimately is only used as leverage in plea bargaining.  In reality it’s much easier for a lawmakers in this current climate to say they fought for tougher guns laws, even if said laws have literally no effect on crime deterrence and public safety.

Lawmakers are also seeking to change laws related to certain sex crimes, with one proposal expanding the definition of a 4th degree sexual offense for persons in a position of authority.  Under Maryland law it is considered a sex offense in the 4thdegree if a school employee such as a teacher, coach or administrator to have a sexual relationship or have sexual contact with a minor who is a student at the same school.  This is a strict liability offense that applies specifically to students who are 16 or 17, and thus past the age of consent in Maryland.  If the bill passes it would also subject volunteers, interns or basically any adult in a supervisory role with an institution, program or activity to criminal prosecution for having sexual contact with a minor who is a participant of the institution, program or activity.  Under Maryland law, 4th degree sexual offense carries a maximum jail sentence of 1 year, but could potentially lead to mandatory registration as a tier 1 sex offender for 15 years.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Baltimore Office
400 E Pratt St 8th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 207-2598

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, Benjamin Herbst, Esq.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design