The Criminal Law Reporter

I had an interesting day last week that I want to share with you. I was hired by a client to deal with an outstanding warrant that has been issued due to a pending violation of probation. Long story short, she wanted me to try and get rid of the warrant if possible, and to represent her in connection with the related case.

Before I could file any Motions to deal with the Warrant, she was arrested and appeared in front of the Commissioner that same day. She was under the impression that she would have her bail decision (which was to be held on no bail) reviewed in District Court the next day, a fact that was not true since the Judge who had put her on probation would have to deal with the matter herself. Nonetheless, I was in Baltimore County District Court the next day for an unrelated matter and decided to observe the bail reviews taking place in the upstairs courtroom. Which leads me to the point of this post.

On that day, 25 Defendants were having their bails reviewed by way of closed circuit television. The Judge was in her chair, her clerk was in her place, the Sheriff was standing by, and the televisions and cameras were in place.

And there was me. 25 Defendants and me. Mind you, I was not there representing anyone at the time, only observing since I was already in the Courthouse. I asked the Sheriff why not one of these Defendants has a private attorney to assist them in getting a positive bail decision. The reasons were familiar: the economy, families are tired of helping their relatives, the hearing is scheduled too quickly to find and hire a private lawyer.

The fact remained, however, that I would have been there, ready and waiting, had my client’s bail review been heard that day. I was ready to help her because she had contacted me as soon as she knew she was in trouble and needed the help of a lawyer. As a result, as soon as she was arrested, I was able to follow the progress of her case and step in when and where I was needed.

The decision of the District Court Judge at a bail review can set the tone for an entire prosecution of a case. Clearly, the Judge’s decision determined whether the Defendant will spend the time leading up to trial incarcerated or home with his or her family. And once a bail decision is made, it is relatively difficult to get that determination changed.

The moral of this story is that, if it is at all possible, arrange to have a lawyer represent you at your District Court bail review. It takes some forethought and planning and obviously it is not always easy to know when one is going to be arrested and charged with a crime.

However, if you know that a warrant has been issued for your arrest, you also know that, most likely, you will be appearing before a Commissioner and then a District Court Judge to determine your bail. With such an important decision being made, it only makes sense to give yourself the best chance possible to be released and return home.

Out of the 25 Defendants who appeared on the television screen in that Courtroom that day, only 2 had the bail determined by the Commissioner reduced. And yet, I whole heartedly believe that had those individuals had an experienced defense lawyer there to present the Court with a persuasive argument for release, many of those would have been headed home later that day.

So, if you or someone you care about is facing an imminent arrest or knows that they will be appearing in front of a District Court Judge for a bail review, give us a call immediately to discuss your case with a Baltimore Bail Review Lawyer. We are available 24/7 to arrange representation for your loved one and to present his or her case to the Judge.

Baltimore Criminal Lawyer Marc G. Snyder discusses a creative approach to having Armed Robbery charges thrown out in a preliminary hearing in Maryland’s District Court by having the victim verify through identification process that his client was not the assailant.

When you owe money to your creditor, it should be first and foremost liability to pay it off on time. Even if you enroll in debt settlement service you have to pay as per settlement. But, due to many reasons, this could make it hard for you to pay your debt. Now, whatever legitimate your reason may be, your creditor would supposedly show less tolerance to you for not paying his money. And, he is within his legitimate right to take legal action against you to recoup his money. He can either sell your default account to a collection agency or file a lawsuit in the court and obtain a judgment against you. However, default account can not result in a criminal case against you unless the debt is borne out of criminal fraud. All credit related problems are solved under civil law. Criminal law does not come in the way of it. Credit companies are supposed to sue you in the small claims court.

However, when legalities are getting their way into your debt related matter, it is better to understand the commonly technical terms like ‘court summon’ and ‘complaint’ and what they refer to. Summon is a paper document carrying notification of a lawsuit taken by your creditor. It is delivered by a Sheriff’s deputy to the concerned person in hand. A compliant is the actual lawsuit. When a ‘summon’ is dispatched, it is generally sent to the personal residence or the office of the concerned person. Sometime, it is also sent via certified e-mail. In the document of a ‘summon’ is given clear instructions of responding to the lawsuit either by filing written response or by physically appearing before the court.

The difference between a criminal law suit and a civil lawsuit is distinctly felt. With a civil lawsuit, you are sent only the ‘summon’. But, with criminal lawsuit, you may be arrested and put under the bar if not for a longer time. However, credit card companies or personal lenders can not do any thing like that. In order to get back their money, they can at best sue you under civil law. But, criminal allegation cannot be brought against a debtor in such a way.

Debtors must attend to court when summoned. Failure to appear on court gives extra edge to the creditor or the collection agency. The person sued has to respond to the ‘court summon’. Otherwise, it will turn into default judgment, resulting in the easy win for the collection agency. The judge then will simply award the collection agency to penalize you. You have to pay him your debt in fullest amount along with court cost and attorney fees.

Over the past few weeks we’ve had the pleasure of taking on an intern law clerk from the University of Baltimore, School of Law. She recently wrote a reaction to the recent execution of an inmate in Georgia who’s guilt is uncertain.

Our judicial system is supposed to be a benchmark of truth and justice. Sometimes, that benchmark begins to stray off course; this is when an intervention must be demanded.
Troy Davis is an innocent man who will have to pay the price for what happens when our truth and justice system runs off-kilter. Mr. Davis’ tumultuous relationship with Justice began back in 1991. Mr. Davis was accused of assaulting a homeless man and then shooting a police officer three times.
Davis was put on trial and ultimately convicted of the murder of Officer Mark MacPhail, two counts of aggravated assault, possessing a firearm during a crime, and obstructing a police officer.
 At trial, back in August 1991, Davis plead not guilty and testified he had seen another man, Sylvester Coles, hit the homeless man and then Davis left the scene before the shooting took place. Unfortunately, the jury ended up siding with the State and found Davis to be guilty. Since then, Mr. Davis has been appealing for clemency to Georgia’s Pardons and Parole Board. In his appeal for clemency, Davis is asking his death sentence penalty to be reduced down to a lower and less severe punishment.
Back in July of 2007, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles granted a 90-day stay of execution the day before Davis was scheduled to be executed. Again, in September 2008, Davis was spared two hours before he was scheduled to be executed. Then, yet again, in October 2008, Davis was again granted an extension as the Georgia Court of Appeals decided to extend the deadline.  After several more appeals failed, Georgia again set a fourth execution date for September 21st, 2011 at a state prison in Jackson, Georgia.
The Georgia Pardons and Parole Board did not have to rule the way in which they did. The Board had several options including changing the death sentence to either life without parole or life with the possibility of parole; they did not have to deny him clemency. Georgia’s Pardons and Parole board’s harsh actions make the average citizen question why they chose to deny him clemency instead of granting him one of the alternatives stated above. There must be underlying reasons, either policy or societal influences, as to why the Georgia Pardons and Parole Board chose the most extreme option in which to punish Mr. Davis.
For starters, the State clearly did not overcome their burden of proof. In addition, there were many recent breakthroughs in pieces of evidence which were thought to have tilted the scale in Davis’ favor. For example, since the 1991 conviction, seven out of the nine key witnesses who implicated him have recanted their testimonies. A few of the seven even said they were coerced by police into give false eye-witness statements. Now, the latter is a debatable matter, but what is not debatable is the fact that SEVEN of the nine witnesses recanted! In addition, no forensic or DNA evidence linking Davis to the shooting has ever been found, and nor has the actual murder weapon.
Georgia’s law on deciding the death penalty can be found in Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-30. This statute states that: “In all cases of other offenses for which the death penalty may be authorized, the judge shall consider, or he shall include in his instructions to the jury for it to consider, any mitigating circumstances or aggravating circumstances otherwise authorized by law and any of the following statutory aggravating circumstances which may be supported by the evidence: The offense of murder was committed against any peace officer, corrections employee, or firefighter while engaged in the performance of his official duties.” A central argument rebutting this assertion should be the fact that Officer MacPhail was not on-duty when the incident occurred back in 1989, he was only in uniform.

Ultimately, the counsel for the defense provided enough pieces of evidences that allowed for the seed of substantial doubt of the guiltiness of the defendant to be planted in everyone’s mind. If substantial doubt exists, that means that the Prosecution has not done their job of fulfilling the burden of proof.

Mr. Davis has already served 20 years in prison. Retribution has been received by society for any alleged crime that Mr. Davis may have committed. Society robbed Mr. Davis of 20 years of his life for a crime that he most likely did not commit. It would be an abomination to now try and rob Mr. Davis of his life.