MD Code Bus. Occ. & Prof. 10-212 Oath or affirmation for admission (Maryland Code (2013 Edition)) Provides the following language:
On admission to the Bar, a lawyer shall take the following oath or affirmation in open court:
"I do solemnly (swear) (affirm) that I will at all times demean myself fairly and honorably as an attorney and practitioner at law; that I will bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the laws and Constitution thereof, and that I will bear true allegiance to the United States, and that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution, laws and government thereof as the supreme law of the land; any law, or ordinance of this or any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
I took this oath in 1986 and try to adhere to its principles.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
County loses forfeiture claim against alleged drug dealer
My client made the unfortunate mistake of consoling a drug user and almost lost several thousand dollars for his efforts. No good deed goes unpunished.
My client was minding his own business when he pulled up to a convenience store. He saw a friend who he knew was having problems and began speaking with the friend. After a few minutes he went back into his own vehicle. This was under the watchful eyes of the police who concluded that a drug deal had just occurred. They stopped the friend who had a very small quantity of cocaine on him and claimed that my client just sold them to him for several hundred dollars. (Don't get me started on false confessions).
They stopped my client and found several thousand dollars in cash upon him. There were no drugs with my client or in his car. They charged him with distribution of drugs anyway. They also seized the cash. The distribution charges were eventually dismissed but they held onto the cash.
The county prosecutor offered me a deal: they keep 90% of the cash and my client keeps 10% of the cash. I told the county prosecutor we were on the same page but my client keeps 90% of the cash and the county gets 10% of the cash. We did not work out a deal.
At the forfeiture trial the county had the officers testify as to what they saw and what they recovered. The alleged buyer of the drugs was not available to testify but they had a written statement which came into evidence over my objection as a declaration against penal interest. In that statement it said that my client sold the buyer the drugs for several hundred dollars. The officers testified how they found the cash on my client in various packets and how that was consistent with drug dealing. Interestingly, none of the packets were for several hundred dollars. We presented evidence that my client was a businessman and we produced tax returns showing that he had a cash business. We were able to explain why he had several thousand dollars.
At the end of the trial the judge awarded the county 10% of the money and returned 90% of the money to my client.
If the government ever seizes your cash, car or house and attempts to forfeit it for the benefit of the state, you have rights. You should contact my office so that I can help protect your rights.
My client was minding his own business when he pulled up to a convenience store. He saw a friend who he knew was having problems and began speaking with the friend. After a few minutes he went back into his own vehicle. This was under the watchful eyes of the police who concluded that a drug deal had just occurred. They stopped the friend who had a very small quantity of cocaine on him and claimed that my client just sold them to him for several hundred dollars. (Don't get me started on false confessions).
They stopped my client and found several thousand dollars in cash upon him. There were no drugs with my client or in his car. They charged him with distribution of drugs anyway. They also seized the cash. The distribution charges were eventually dismissed but they held onto the cash.
The county prosecutor offered me a deal: they keep 90% of the cash and my client keeps 10% of the cash. I told the county prosecutor we were on the same page but my client keeps 90% of the cash and the county gets 10% of the cash. We did not work out a deal.
At the forfeiture trial the county had the officers testify as to what they saw and what they recovered. The alleged buyer of the drugs was not available to testify but they had a written statement which came into evidence over my objection as a declaration against penal interest. In that statement it said that my client sold the buyer the drugs for several hundred dollars. The officers testified how they found the cash on my client in various packets and how that was consistent with drug dealing. Interestingly, none of the packets were for several hundred dollars. We presented evidence that my client was a businessman and we produced tax returns showing that he had a cash business. We were able to explain why he had several thousand dollars.
At the end of the trial the judge awarded the county 10% of the money and returned 90% of the money to my client.
If the government ever seizes your cash, car or house and attempts to forfeit it for the benefit of the state, you have rights. You should contact my office so that I can help protect your rights.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Insurance Company Proved Wrong, Bicyclist Wins His Case after Trial
Kudos to the Washington Area Bicycle Association. They were kind enough to inform a fellow cyclist of my services after he was struck by a car and injured.
This isn't so much a case about winning. It is more a case about the prejudice that bicyclists suffer on an almost constant basis.
My client was bicycling to work as he usually does. He was in Washington DC heading straight on one of the avenues. The Avenue had to travel lanes and to parked car lanes. As is legal in Washington DC at the time he was passing the parked cars and in the traveled portion of the roadway. Traffic was medium and sometimes cars were passing him and sometimes he was passing cars. One of the cars decided to either pass or at least make a right turn directly into my client. It was an impact between the right front quarter panel and my client bicycle. He was thrown off his bicycle onto the ground.
The driver of the car apologized. That was very nice of her but he was still suffering from a shoulder injury.
The initial prejudice began when the police officer arrived. He gave my client a ticket for riding his bicycle in an improper manner. The police officer thought that it is illegal to pass cars in the same lane. The District of Columbia municipal regulations which regulate the flow of traffic both for cars and bicyclists make it very clear that it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to pass vehicles in the same lane if it is safe to do so. In this particular case my client was simply heading straight down the Avenue. It was the car that made the right turn when it was not safe to do so.(My clients ticket was eventually dismissed).
This was argued to the insurance company and the specific statutes were provided to the insurance company. The insurance company continued the prejudice by denying the claim without even giving a legitimate reason.
We filed suit in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County because the defendant lived in Maryland. That is an important thing to consider. The case was not a large case and filing suit in Washington DC for anything over $5000 involves a great deal of pretrial discovery and court time. Filing suit in the District Court for $15,000 assures that the case will stay in District Court and that discovery is limited and usually you can take care of it in one court trip.
The case was called for trial and my client testified very effectively and credibly. The defendant testified on cross-examination that she never saw the bicyclist before she made the turn.
In my mind the case was very clear in terms of negligence on the defendant. The defendant has a duty to look before changing lanes and clearly she did not do that. The cyclist had a right to ride his bicycle in the lane and clearly he did that.
The judge agreed with this analysis and awarded damages in favor of the cyclist. I was pleased with the result. The defendant insurance company never offered any money on the case. I made a demand to the insurance company which was less than the judgment of the court.
I am a longtime cyclist and an experienced trial attorney. If you get hurt while riding your bicycle please contact me and I might be able to help you.
This isn't so much a case about winning. It is more a case about the prejudice that bicyclists suffer on an almost constant basis.
My client was bicycling to work as he usually does. He was in Washington DC heading straight on one of the avenues. The Avenue had to travel lanes and to parked car lanes. As is legal in Washington DC at the time he was passing the parked cars and in the traveled portion of the roadway. Traffic was medium and sometimes cars were passing him and sometimes he was passing cars. One of the cars decided to either pass or at least make a right turn directly into my client. It was an impact between the right front quarter panel and my client bicycle. He was thrown off his bicycle onto the ground.
The driver of the car apologized. That was very nice of her but he was still suffering from a shoulder injury.
The initial prejudice began when the police officer arrived. He gave my client a ticket for riding his bicycle in an improper manner. The police officer thought that it is illegal to pass cars in the same lane. The District of Columbia municipal regulations which regulate the flow of traffic both for cars and bicyclists make it very clear that it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to pass vehicles in the same lane if it is safe to do so. In this particular case my client was simply heading straight down the Avenue. It was the car that made the right turn when it was not safe to do so.(My clients ticket was eventually dismissed).
This was argued to the insurance company and the specific statutes were provided to the insurance company. The insurance company continued the prejudice by denying the claim without even giving a legitimate reason.
We filed suit in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County because the defendant lived in Maryland. That is an important thing to consider. The case was not a large case and filing suit in Washington DC for anything over $5000 involves a great deal of pretrial discovery and court time. Filing suit in the District Court for $15,000 assures that the case will stay in District Court and that discovery is limited and usually you can take care of it in one court trip.
The case was called for trial and my client testified very effectively and credibly. The defendant testified on cross-examination that she never saw the bicyclist before she made the turn.
In my mind the case was very clear in terms of negligence on the defendant. The defendant has a duty to look before changing lanes and clearly she did not do that. The cyclist had a right to ride his bicycle in the lane and clearly he did that.
The judge agreed with this analysis and awarded damages in favor of the cyclist. I was pleased with the result. The defendant insurance company never offered any money on the case. I made a demand to the insurance company which was less than the judgment of the court.
I am a longtime cyclist and an experienced trial attorney. If you get hurt while riding your bicycle please contact me and I might be able to help you.
Monday, March 30, 2015
Preliminary Injunction Civil Protective Order in Washington DC
Washington DC does have a vehicle for a civil protective order. It is a straightforward procedure if the victim and defendant are related by blood, adoption, marriage, domestic partnership, have a child in common, share or have shared the same home, or have previously had a dating relationship. Additionally, if the person you are currently in a relationship with has an former partner who is threatening you you can get a civil protection order also. It also protects people not in the above type relationships who are victims of stalking, sexual assault or sexual abuse.
The procedure is fairly straightforward and the DC code tells you how to do it. Refer to DC code section 16-1000 etc.
But what happens if you don't fit into that category and are being threatened. The procedure is more complicated. The district allows you to file a civil complaint requesting a temporary restraining order followed up by a request for an injunction. The steps are more involved and the process can take several court hearings. I recently had such a case and share some very basic observations:
Based on my legal research it is my opinion that in order to succeed with the injunction the following four factors need to be proved:
1. Likelihood of irreparable harm if request is not granted (this is the most important factor)
2. Likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action
3. The "balance of injuries" favors giving injunction
4. Public interest would be served by granting the injunction
The burden of proof that you as the petitioner must overcome is clear and convincing proof. That is the second highest level of proof in the American justice system only somewhat below "beyond reasonable doubt".
In this particular case I call the victim who testified as to the threats made by the defendant. The victim testified very credibly and consistently. The defendant took the stand and his testimony was not presented well. I made a tactical decision not to cross-examine the defendant because I did not think that he hurt my client's case and he did not help his case.
Thereafter I put on a rebuttal witness who basically confirmed what the victim said and further rebutted what the defendant said.
The judge was able to make a decision without hearing closing argument. He favored my client's testimony and granted the preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from having any contact with my client, the victim, for one year.
If you are in a situation where you need a civil protective order or a Temporary Restraining Order I have both prosecuted and defended these in the Superior Court for Washington DC.
The procedure is fairly straightforward and the DC code tells you how to do it. Refer to DC code section 16-1000 etc.
But what happens if you don't fit into that category and are being threatened. The procedure is more complicated. The district allows you to file a civil complaint requesting a temporary restraining order followed up by a request for an injunction. The steps are more involved and the process can take several court hearings. I recently had such a case and share some very basic observations:
Based on my legal research it is my opinion that in order to succeed with the injunction the following four factors need to be proved:
1. Likelihood of irreparable harm if request is not granted (this is the most important factor)
2. Likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying action
3. The "balance of injuries" favors giving injunction
4. Public interest would be served by granting the injunction
The burden of proof that you as the petitioner must overcome is clear and convincing proof. That is the second highest level of proof in the American justice system only somewhat below "beyond reasonable doubt".
In this particular case I call the victim who testified as to the threats made by the defendant. The victim testified very credibly and consistently. The defendant took the stand and his testimony was not presented well. I made a tactical decision not to cross-examine the defendant because I did not think that he hurt my client's case and he did not help his case.
Thereafter I put on a rebuttal witness who basically confirmed what the victim said and further rebutted what the defendant said.
The judge was able to make a decision without hearing closing argument. He favored my client's testimony and granted the preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from having any contact with my client, the victim, for one year.
If you are in a situation where you need a civil protective order or a Temporary Restraining Order I have both prosecuted and defended these in the Superior Court for Washington DC.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Brief Observation on DNA Evidence
Recently I was at a DNA seminar and there was a point well made. Consider the following matrix:
Offense: Rape
Activity: Intercourse
Source: Linens from the bed
Substance: DNA
The offense in the case is rape, the activity is intercourse, the source are the sheets and the substance found is the defendant's DNA.
The prosecution would have the jury believe that the DNA is from semen and therefore a rape was committed. The defense must challenge where that DNA came from. It could've come from a skin cell, hair, or blood. It did not necessarily come from semen. It would likely establish that the defendant was there but it does not conclusively prove that the defendant provided DNA from his semen. If there is no semen there may be reasonable doubt that intercourse let alone rape occurred.
The point is, just because DNA is present doesn't mean that the defendant did something illegal.
Offense: Rape
Activity: Intercourse
Source: Linens from the bed
Substance: DNA
The offense in the case is rape, the activity is intercourse, the source are the sheets and the substance found is the defendant's DNA.
The prosecution would have the jury believe that the DNA is from semen and therefore a rape was committed. The defense must challenge where that DNA came from. It could've come from a skin cell, hair, or blood. It did not necessarily come from semen. It would likely establish that the defendant was there but it does not conclusively prove that the defendant provided DNA from his semen. If there is no semen there may be reasonable doubt that intercourse let alone rape occurred.
The point is, just because DNA is present doesn't mean that the defendant did something illegal.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Violation of Probation Dismissed
My client was on probation in the District Court of Maryland. His probation was from January 2013 through January 2014. While he was on probation in the District Court it was alleged by the department of parole and probation that he failed to report as required, that he committed new crimes, that he failed to pay restitution, that he failed to pay probation fees. In short, he did about as badly as one can imagine on probation. The case was heard in the District Court (With a different attorney) and the judge found him in violation of probation and sentenced him to 18 months in jail.
In Maryland the defendant has the right to appeal such a finding to the Circuit Court and have a new hearing on violation of probation. It was at this point that he hired me. I reviewed the facts in the file and it became clear to me that the petition for violation of probation was filed some 20 days after the defendant's probation had expired. In Maryland, in the District Court, at the current time, a petition for violation of probation must be filed during the time that probation is active or within 30 days of the violation, whichever is later. In this case the petition was filed substantially after probation had closed. In my opinion the petition was not timely filed and should be dismissed.
When the appealed case was presented in the Circuit Court I made this five-minute argument. The circuit court judge was very familiar with the statute and the petition was dismissed. Rather than spending 18 months in jail my client was able to go about his business.
When facing a violation of probation it is very easy to lose and lose badly. It is important to have an attorney who is familiar with the various aspects of this specialized area of the law.
In Maryland the defendant has the right to appeal such a finding to the Circuit Court and have a new hearing on violation of probation. It was at this point that he hired me. I reviewed the facts in the file and it became clear to me that the petition for violation of probation was filed some 20 days after the defendant's probation had expired. In Maryland, in the District Court, at the current time, a petition for violation of probation must be filed during the time that probation is active or within 30 days of the violation, whichever is later. In this case the petition was filed substantially after probation had closed. In my opinion the petition was not timely filed and should be dismissed.
When the appealed case was presented in the Circuit Court I made this five-minute argument. The circuit court judge was very familiar with the statute and the petition was dismissed. Rather than spending 18 months in jail my client was able to go about his business.
When facing a violation of probation it is very easy to lose and lose badly. It is important to have an attorney who is familiar with the various aspects of this specialized area of the law.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Prosecution of red light camera tickets in Montgomery County
I recently received a red light camera ticket in Montgomery County and thought that I would share my experience. Repeating what is generally in the notice that the registered owner receives, you cannot get points and the ticket cannot be used to increase your insurance rates. The tickets are annoying and somewhat expensive. The suggested charge was $75 for my alleged failure to stop for a red light.
I sent in the form and requested a trial. On the trial date I had a conflict. They were very civilized about it and I contacted the Rockville city Police Department by telephone and they told me they would postpone the case. Initially I thought I needed to file a continuance in the District Court which is normal but the District Court doesn't seem to accept those motions.
Regardless, I received a new trial date.
In preparing for your trial you should check your ticket carefully. It will give you the ability to review full-color images and a moving video at a website listed on the top right part of your ticket. Put in the citation number and the pin number and you can watch your actions in living color. In my case the video clearly showed me stopping past a faded white line. There was no question that my vehicle came to a complete stop. Not a rolling stop or a California stop.
Armed with this knowledge I went to court.
When you get the court representatives from the city of Rockville will be present prosecuting the case. They will have a computer and a large video screen. They will have the videos that were recorded available to play for the court. Apparently no matter how you plead the judge wants to see the video to determine the extent of your guilt. Frankly, everybody ran the red light quite clearly. Most people slow down significantly but absolutely nobody stopped. Based on the situation the court usually reduced the fine but did add court costs. Usually people got out of there spending about $65 total rather than $75. The docket took about 1 1/2 hours so it might not be worth your time. I did not see a single acquittal.
Onto my personal case. I will say they ran the docket in alphabetical order and they use the person's first name. Thomas is pretty far down the alphabet so I was able to watch what was happening with everybody else. I appear in court for a living so my approach was somewhat different.
Initially I argued that the citation they mailed me was fatally defective because it did not comply with the language required by the transportation article. The judge did not consider that argument very long and rejected it.
Thereafter we went through the video. It was quite clear that the stop line was not "clearly marked" as required by the statute. It was also clear that I went over the stop mark before coming to a full stop. I argued to the court that the line was not properly painted and more strongly argued that obviously my vehicle did come to a complete stop. The court took the argument well and did not impose a fine upon me, it still imposed $22.50 in court costs.
Not sure if it's worth going back if something like this happens again. It bothers me somewhat that I received a ticket from a machine that a police officer would not have written. I received a ticket for a hypertechnical violation. It is also somewhat bothersome that the ticket was issued for an event that occurred in almost Gaithersburg and the trial was held in Silver Spring. I don't know why the trial would not be held in Rockville.
I can't imagine the upside of having the services of an attorney in a case of this nature. I think that I did better because the facts were on my side, not so much the law.
I sent in the form and requested a trial. On the trial date I had a conflict. They were very civilized about it and I contacted the Rockville city Police Department by telephone and they told me they would postpone the case. Initially I thought I needed to file a continuance in the District Court which is normal but the District Court doesn't seem to accept those motions.
Regardless, I received a new trial date.
In preparing for your trial you should check your ticket carefully. It will give you the ability to review full-color images and a moving video at a website listed on the top right part of your ticket. Put in the citation number and the pin number and you can watch your actions in living color. In my case the video clearly showed me stopping past a faded white line. There was no question that my vehicle came to a complete stop. Not a rolling stop or a California stop.
Armed with this knowledge I went to court.
When you get the court representatives from the city of Rockville will be present prosecuting the case. They will have a computer and a large video screen. They will have the videos that were recorded available to play for the court. Apparently no matter how you plead the judge wants to see the video to determine the extent of your guilt. Frankly, everybody ran the red light quite clearly. Most people slow down significantly but absolutely nobody stopped. Based on the situation the court usually reduced the fine but did add court costs. Usually people got out of there spending about $65 total rather than $75. The docket took about 1 1/2 hours so it might not be worth your time. I did not see a single acquittal.
Onto my personal case. I will say they ran the docket in alphabetical order and they use the person's first name. Thomas is pretty far down the alphabet so I was able to watch what was happening with everybody else. I appear in court for a living so my approach was somewhat different.
Initially I argued that the citation they mailed me was fatally defective because it did not comply with the language required by the transportation article. The judge did not consider that argument very long and rejected it.
Thereafter we went through the video. It was quite clear that the stop line was not "clearly marked" as required by the statute. It was also clear that I went over the stop mark before coming to a full stop. I argued to the court that the line was not properly painted and more strongly argued that obviously my vehicle did come to a complete stop. The court took the argument well and did not impose a fine upon me, it still imposed $22.50 in court costs.
Not sure if it's worth going back if something like this happens again. It bothers me somewhat that I received a ticket from a machine that a police officer would not have written. I received a ticket for a hypertechnical violation. It is also somewhat bothersome that the ticket was issued for an event that occurred in almost Gaithersburg and the trial was held in Silver Spring. I don't know why the trial would not be held in Rockville.
I can't imagine the upside of having the services of an attorney in a case of this nature. I think that I did better because the facts were on my side, not so much the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
