Menu

Court Report

The prosecution appeals evidence suppression

gavel2  1

Ordinarily in criminal cases, the prosecution that loses a criminal case does not have the right to appeal, unless the trial Court prior to trial has granted a defense motion to suppress evidence.

What can happen when the State challenges a trial judge’s suppression of the key evidence in a criminal case is illustrated in an unreported opinion this month from Maryland’s intermediate appellate Court in a case called State of Maryland v. Jason Louis Friday.

Read more...

When the grandparents get custody

gavel2  1

The Courts go to great lengths to protect parental rights when making child custody decisions in divorce cases, with the presumption being that a parent should have custody of their child. Given the dynamics of modern family life, it is becoming more frequent that parties such as grandparents may ultimately be awarded custody. This is illustrated by an opinion this month from Maryland’s intermediate appellate court called Natasha Burak v. Mark Burak.

Read more...

'Hey I didn't do it - he did' defense

gavel2  1

In criminal cases, it is not unusual for the defendant to try to suggest that someone other than the defendant may have committed the crime. What is unusual is to try to call the other alleged potential perpetrator as a witness to try to suggest that person’s guilt. Such a scenario was explored by Maryland’s intermediate appellate Court in a recent case called Baldeo Taneja v. State.

The Court’s opinion indicates that in October 2013 Mr. Taneja’s ex-wife was shot down and killed in the street in Germantown. Witnesses heard gunshots, and then saw the victim fall in the street, and another woman running away. Police the next day arrested Taneja and his current wife Kaur in Tennessee, and found in their car a revolver that was proven to be the murder weapon. Taneja had purchased the gun 5 weeks before, and his DNA was found on the gun. Evidence was produced that Taneja and Kaur were in Maryland at the time of the shooting, and both were charged with murder and other charges.

Read more...

Defamation and the Burden of Proof

 

gavel2  1

Claims for damages for making false and defamatory statements have been the subject of much publicity recently. Such cases often involve public figures, and the requirement that to overcome First Amendment free speech protections the plaintiff bringing suit must prove actual malicious intent to make false statements.

What standards of proof apply in suits brought by private persons for defamation were explored by Maryland’s highest court in a case called Seley-Ratke v. Hosmane.

Read more...

Police shootings and gross negligence

gavel2  1

There have unfortunately been many instances of police shootings in recent years, some of which have led to civil suits against the police. One example of how Maryland law addresses such cases is a recent unreported opinion from Maryland’s intermediate appellate Court called William Torbit, Sr. v. Baltimore City Police Department.

The Court’s opinion indicates that Baltimore City police officers were called to the scene of a nightclub, where fights had broken out inside. The police Major decided to close the club, and a fight then broke out in the parking lot. A man wearing dark clothing was knocked to the ground, then pulled a weapon and began shooting at a group of people. Four officers fired their weapons, killing the man in dark clothing and one other persons and wounding two others. It later turned out that the man in dark clothing was a plainclothes police officer.

Read more...

The effect of plea bargains on post conviction DNA testing

 

gavel2  1

Last week we discussed a Maryland statute that provides that a person convicted of certain violent crimes may petition the trial Court to order DNA testing of evidence of the crime used against the defendant.

The law requires courts to order such testing where applicable if there is a reasonable probability that such testing has the scientific potential to exonerate the defendant or mitigate the offense.

Whether the law applies where the case was resolved by a plea was decided in a case this week from Maryland’s Court of Appeals called William Todd Jamison v. State of Maryland.

Read more...

And now post conviction DNA testing

gavel2  1

Maryland has adopted a statute that provides that a person convicted of certain crimes may petition the trial Court to order DNA testing of evidence of the crime used against the defendant. What crimes the law applies to was the subject of an opinion filed this month by Maryland’s Court of Appeals called Trendon Washington v. State of Maryland.

Read more...

Murder for hire and battered spouses

gavel2  1

Maryland has a statute that permits the introduction of evidence in a criminal case that at the time of committing crimes including murder or manslaughter the defendant was suffering from battered spouse syndrome. The law defines the syndrome as a psychological condition of repeated physical and psychological abuse which is recognized in medicine and science. Whether the syndrome may be part of self-defense in a murder for hire case was explored in a recent 2-1 opinion from Maryland’s intermediate appellate court in the case of Karla Louse Porter v. State.

Read more...

The ultimate question for potential jurors

gavel2  1

The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a criminal defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury. Part of the process to assure impartiality in a jury panel is the process of voir dire, whereby the trial judge asks questions of the prospective jurors to make sure they are qualified to serve, and to seek to uncover any reasons a juror could not be fair and impartial. One of the questions which must be asked, if requested, in a criminal case is the Defense Witness question.

Read more...

And it really is just money in the bank

gavel2  1

One of the legal tools law enforcement has available under Maryland law is the right to seek forfeiture to the government of the proceeds of illegal drug activity. One statute provides that within 90 days of seizure of tangible or intangible property, a petition can be filed for forfeiture of that property. Another provision of the law provides that within 90 days of the completion of criminal proceedings against a defendant, a petition may be filed to forfeit money. Maryland’s highest Court had the occasion to recently decide under this law just what constitutes “money,” in case called Daniela Bottini v. Department of Finance, Montgomery County.

Read more...