Having a trial as a defense attorney is a completely different experience from trying cases as a prosecutor. You would think it would be much easier because it is the state's burden to prove the case "beyond a reasonable" doubt.

However, it is not that simple. A good defense attorney needs to be prepared to cross examine whatever witnesses the state calls to testify. Under the rules, the state does not need to tell the defense who will testify prior to trial.

Further, despite the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, when your client is sitting at the defense table being pointed to as the guilty person, it is hard to say the judge/jury remains unbiased.

In my most recent experience, the victim testified and identified my client as the guilty party. However, the state did not do its homework. After the state rested its case, I made a motion to find my client not guilty (MJOA) based on the fact that the state had not put on any evidence to support their case.

The detective's wrote an inaccurate charging document and the state did not catch the mistake. Once the state rested their case, the judge had no choice but to dismiss my client's case.

Being able to find a way to clear my client was an extraordinary feeling. Whether it was based on evidence or on a technicality, I was thrilled to see my client walk out of the courtroom with no conviction. Now I know how great the victory feels on the other side of the table.

This post was written by Maryland defense attorney, Colleen Kirby. She is a graduate of the University of Baltimore School of Law and former Assistant Stat'es Attorney. Colleen is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association, Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, and Howard County Bar Association.

This post was written by Maryland criminal lawyer Colleen Kirby. Ms. Kirby is a former Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County. Prior to her work in Howard County as a Maryland DUI lawyer, she clerked for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy who sits on the Maryland Court of Appeals. Colleen received her Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore School of Law.

I received an interesting telephone call this evening. The caller had been stopped by a police officer and the officer told the caller that he wanted to search the vehicle because it smelled like cologne. It was the officer's belief that the caller was covering up the odor of marijuana.

The caller's question was "Can I tell the officer that it's okay to look in my trunk and not the rest of my car?" My answer was that he can absolutely limit the scope of the search. Anytime there is a consent search, the person giving consent can limit the area to which the police can search.

I was curious as to why he would want the officer to look in the trunk alone. After listening to the situation, it made perfect sense. The caller had just left the golf course, had been smoking cigarettes, and was on his way to meet his girlfriend for lunch. His girlfriend does not like the smell of cigarettes, and the caller wanted to cover up the smell of the cigarettes before meeting her. He explained this to the officer and wanted to show him the empty pack of cigarettes in his trunk. However, he was in a hurry to meet his girlfriend and did not have time to wait for his entire car to be searched. He explained this to the officer, who was forced to allow him to leave - having no reason to further detain him.

In explaining to the caller why it is acceptable to limit the search to the trunk, I compared it to a consent search of your home. If an officer knocks on the door and asks if he can step inside, giving consent to step inside the door does not give consent to search the entire house. If the officer views illegal items within plain view while standing in the foyer, he can seize that evidence and file the appropriate charges. However, he cannot walk around the entire house looking for possible contraband.

Therefore, when it comes to a situation where the officer is asking permission to search, you have the authority to say no, or limit the areas to which the officer can search. Saying no, or putting limits on the search, does not give any more power to the police.

This blog post is written by Maryland Criminal Lawyer, Collen Kirby. She received her Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore School of Law while maintaining a position in the top 20% of her class. Ms. Kirby was a law clerk for the Honorable Joseph F. Murphy Jr. while he was Chief Judge for the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and later after he was appointed to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Before entering private practice, Ms. Kirby was an Assistant State's Attorney in Howard County.

The transition from a Maryland prosecutor to a Maryland criminal defense attorney has been refreshing and rewarding. Upon entering law school, I knew that my passion was criminal law. While working towards my law degree, I spent my spare time working for a criminal defense attorney in Baltimore County. I also took advantage of a program at the University and practiced law as a public defender in Baltimore City. By this point, my goal was to begin my career as a prosecutor, learn the innerworkings of their office, and then transition back into defense work.

When I meet with potential clients, they are usually overwhelmed with the amount of information and paperwork that has been given to them. My familiarity with the process from the time charges are first filed (whether it be by arrest or through the commissioner's office), all the way through trial and sentencing, seems to bring some level of comfort to the people I am working with.

When I worked at the State's Attorney's Office, I participated in several ride-alongs. I had the opportunity to directly observe police actions on the road and gain insight as to "tactics" used to get consent to search, confessions, and other evidence for trial. My experience allows me to explain the tactics police use and relieve some concerns my clients have.

For example, one client said the police told her "it would be better for her if she told them where the drugs were." She believed this and stated it was under the seat. In fact, this made the case much worse for her because now the State can use her statement to prove she knew drugs were in the car. Had she said nothing, it would have been difficult to prove possession, because the car did not belong to her and I could have argued that she had no idea drugs were under the seat.

In another situation, the client told me that she handed her purse to the officer, where he found drug paraphernalia. After asking her a few more specific questions, she told me that it was only after the officer stopped her in a stairwell, searched her pockets, and then said, "now hand me your purse." She felt that she had no choice, and therefore gave the officer her purse. However, he did not ask her permission to search her bag and had already told her to "sit on the curb and not move." All of these details can determine the outcome as to whether the search is legal. Had I not seen these tactics first-hand, I would not have known to ask the client these important questions.

When handling a traffic case, the driver did not know why he was stopped, but told me it was at 2:00 a.m. I know from my experience that officers will look for almost any reason to pull someone over at 2:00 a.m. because the assumption is the driver has been drinking. In court, the officer had to check the back of his ticket before telling me the reason he stopped the car was because the "driver matched the description of the registered owner...who was suspended." Because I have previously argued the legality of this stop several times, in front of several different judges, I know what factors can make this a valid stop. It turns out the only descriptor the officer was actually able to match was sex. Because it was 2:00 a.m., he "believed" the driver to be a white male. And because of how the driver was sitting, the officer "believed" he was approximately 6'3". The case was ultimately dismissed.

One of the other differences that I find rewarding is being able to dedicate my full attention to each case I handle. Prosecutors are in court 2-4 times per week, with anywhere up to 40 cases per day. As a Maryland criminal defense lawyer, I can give my full attention to the client I am there to represent. I have time to get to know my clients on a more personal level. My clients can call me directly, seven days a week, day or night and I will be able to speak to them as soon as I can. By the time we reach a resolution to our case, I feel good knowing I have been able to help these people in their time of need, and hope they will reach out to me again if they need my assistance in the future. It is a much more personal connection.

On December 22nd, a former Anne Arundel County police lieutenant was sentenced to prison after he was charged with exchanging sexually explicit photos and text messages with a sixteen-year-old girl. Forty-seven-year-old James Cifala of Edgewater was convicted on a single count of receiving child pornography.

The contact between Cifala and the then sixteen-year-old was allowable under state law, but prosecutable under federal law. Cifala met the girl in 2007 when she was fourteen-years-old, but told her that they would have to wait until she turned sixteen before having physical sexual relations. During the ensuing two years, Cifala and the victim used pre-paid cell phones and social networking sites to exchange messages, including over 1,300 messages exchanged between mid-August and early September of 2009. According to a plea arrangement in the case, Cifala and the victim had sex "several times" in a vacant house and in Cifala's truck.

At a hearing in US District Court, Cifala's Maryland criminal lawyer spoke of his client's decades of service to the community, calling the decision to engage in a sexual relationship with the teen "disastrously stupid."

"There is another side to him... Look at the good he has done for so many people... that is the side that defines him, not this stupid three-month decision."

While US District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake agreed that the period of time in which the two exchanged photos during the course of their relationship was brief, Cifala's actions, she said, were worthy of a strong sentence:

"I can't overlook that there was a relationship and contact before the victim was sixteen. It was a serious offense and a serious sanction is warranted."

Cifala was sentenced to five years in federal prison, with an additional fifteen years of supervised probation. He will be required to register as a sex offender upon his release.

This blog post is published by Price Benowitz LLP. Our attorneys in Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia represent clients in DUI, criminal, personal injury, and immigration cases. For more information, please visit our Virginia Criminal Attorney and Washington DC Criminal Defense Lawyer websites.

A Silver Spring man pled guilty in Montgomery County Circuit Court late last month to a third-degree sexual offense charge for an incident involving an eleven-year-old girl from Long Branch last winter. Twenty-one-year-old Marcos Torres-Enriquez will be sentenced to five years in prison as the "least involved" of three men accused of crimes of a sexual nature against the child.

Torres-Enriquez's Maryland criminal attorney said the charges were punishable by up to ten years in prison, and that DNA evidence was only found against the other two men. He explained:

"[Law enforcement officials] did recover DNA with regards to the other two co-defendants, both in regards to DNA found on their person and in used condoms found at the scene, but there was no DNA found for Torres-Enriquez... His was the weakest case by far."

One of the other men charged in the case, thirty-one-year-old Melquicideck H. Sorto, pled guilty to rape back on September 13th of this year. Sorto was sentenced November 10th to ten years in prison, but a motion was filed on his behalf requesting Circuit Court Judge Eric M. Johnson reconsider the sentence.

A third man, thirty-nine-year-old Rogelio Mondragon, is currently being evaluated for mental fitness to stand trial. Court documents in the case indicate that Sorto and Mondragon encountered the victim at a gas station. The child first evaded the men, but later was found again by the pair at a park. She followed the men back to their apartment, where documents indicate Sorto and Mondragon raped her. Torres-Enriquez later returned home, encountering the victim and fondled but did not rape her.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has indicated that Torres-Enriquez is likely to be deported after his sentence is served, and that detainers have been placed on all three men. He is set to be sentenced in February of 2011 in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

This article is presented by Price Benowitz LLP, serving Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC. For more information, please visit our Virginia Criminal Lawyers and Washington DC Criminal Lawyer websites.

A Rockville man has been arrested after police say he offered an acquaintance money and a quantity of pills as payment for a potential murder. Forty-two-year-old Richard Bernard Boyd has been charged with one count each of distribution of a controlled substance and solicitation of murder for his role in planning the crime.

Montgomery County police say Boyd approached the man, whose identity has not been disclosed to press, and offered him $1,000 and five Oxycontin pills as payment for the murder of his estranged wife. Capt. Paul Starks of the Montgomery County police confirmed the sequence of events to press, saying:

"Mr. Boyd had told the subject that he had wanted his estranged wife killed, and he was willing to pay a sum of money."

Detectives say Boyd and his wife, whose identity was also not disclosed to press, were in the midst of a divorce when Boyd hatched the scheme to precipitate her murder. Capt. Starks said Boyd was not pleased with the "potential outcome" of the divorce proceedings, and was concerned with the final details of the case.

The would-be assassin informed a Rockville City police officer of the offer Boyd made and the investigation began September 30th. The man continued to meet with Boyd throughout the first week of October and the pair met for the last time on October 8th. Boyd gave the man a layout of the house on Rocking Spring Drive and suggested the crime be carried out using a gun. No date was set on which the murder was to occur.

Boyd is currently being held without bond. A bond review will be held on Tuesday. He is currently being held without bond pending a review in court. It was not disclosed whether he was assigned or retained a Maryland criminal defense lawyer to face the charges against him.

This article is presented by Price Benowitz LLP, serving Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC. For more information, please visit our DC DWI Lawyer and Virginia DUI Lawyer websites.

A Frederick woman who was accused of organizing a fundraiser for a co-worker's ailing child and siphoning proceeds of the event for personal use pled guilty in Frederick County Circuit Court September 22nd to "benefiting from the fundraiser," according to authorities. Thirty-two-year-old Jessica Ann Jeffries also pled guilty to attempted theft at her subsequent post at Mattress Warehouse.

The scheme involving the sick child occurred at Crowley Micrographics, according to documents filed in Frederick County Circuit Court. In response to management inquiries about the state of Crowley's fiscal affairs, Jeffries is said to have told a co-worker that the organization would soon discover "some money missing" and indicated that she intended to seek a new job. Representatives from Crowley alerted the Frederick County Sheriff's Office in December, and Deputy First Class Jeff Norris initiated an investigation into the financial irregularities first noticed by the company.

Norris discovered that Jeffries had been using a company credit card without authorization to do so, and had written herself checks in amounts ranging from $2,000 to $3,800. Jeffries was also tasked with making arrangements and shopping for the sick child of her co-worker, and surveillance video revealed that she used gift cards intended to be used as prizes for the benefit, ostensibly for personal reasons. Footage shows Jeffries using the stolen gift cards while shopping with her two small children. She was also accused of writing a reimbursement check to herself for just under $500 while working for Mattress Warehouse after she was forbidden to do so by her supervisors.

Jeffries' Maryland criminal defense attorney negotiated a plea deal with Assistant State Attorney Erin Moloney, and Jeffries opted not to make a statement in court before her sentence was announced. Circuit Judge John Tisdale ordered Jeffries to pay nearly $22,000 in restitution and perform 100 hours of community service. She also received a 10-year suspended sentence, with three years of supervised probation.

This article is presented by Price Benowitz, LLP, serving Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC. For more information, please visit our Washington DC Criminal Lawyer and Virginia Criminal Attorneys websites.

Harford County Circuit Judge Emory Plitt Jr. dropped wiretapping charges against a Maryland motorcyclist who filmed a traffic stop using a helmet mounted camera and posted the footage to video streaming site YouTube. 25-year-old Anthony Graber III still faces charges of reckless driving and negligent driving following his arrest in March.

Graber had been filming a motorcycle ride down I-95 when he was pulled over by a plainclothes police officer. In the clip, the officer approaches the young man aggressively and draws a gun prior to identifying himself as a policeman. After state police were made aware of the clip's dissemination, a search warrant was obtained for Graber's home and personal items of his including his computer were seized. He was indicted in April.

Judge Plitt threw out the charges on September 27th, ruling that there was no expectation of privacy between the trooper and the motorcyclist in the public location. He wrote:

"In this rapid information technology era in which we live, it is hard to imagine that either an offender or an officer would have any reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to what is said between them in a traffic stop on a public highway."

The ACLU provided a Maryland criminal defense Attorney for Graber, who spoke to press about the impact of the decision, saying:

"This ruling upholds the fundamental right to hold police accountable to the public and constitutional principles they serve."

A spokesman for Maryland State Police acknowledged the judge's ruling, indicating that the agency respects the court's decision and that troopers will be made aware of it.

This article is presented by Price Benowitz, LLP, serving Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC. For more information, please visit our Maryland DUI Lawyer and Washington DC Criminal Lawyer websites.

When a person is convicted of a DUI and sentenced to jail, a Maryland DUI attorney will attempt to get the defendant the lightest sentence possible. However, in a neighboring state, one man convicted of a DUI didn't seem to think the best case scenario was a good deal after all. His issue wasn't with the length of his sentence, but with the initial reasons behind his month-long detainment.

When Arturo Carlos Santiago was arrested on suspicion of DUI in 2009, police determined that he had outstanding warrants in Washington DC and Maryland. Santiago waived extradition to Maryland, and he argued with police that he did not, in fact, have any warrants in DC.

He was telling the truth.

The Washington DC warrant had been withdrawn. In the meantime, Santiago spent 47 days in jail for the Maryland warrant and his pending DUI trial. When the trial came, Santiago pleaded guilty to DUI, and the judge sentence him to time served for the DUI conviction. Santiago was extradited to Maryland two days later. Upon his arrival in Maryland, authorities realized that the warrant on which Santiago had been held was not, in fact, for Arturo Carlos Santiago, but for someone else entirely--a man named Jose Hernandez. Santiago was released.

Upon his release, Santiago filed a civil suit claiming wrongful imprisonment on the grounds that he was held for warrants that did not pertain to him. A federal judge dismissed the suit, ruling that Santiago's DUI plea agreement to time served credited his entire incarceration to the DUI offense. Therefore, she ruled, the initial reason for his confinement was moot. The judge deemed that Santiago served 47 days in jail for DUI, and regardless of the fact that the initial basis for his confinement was an erroneous Maryland warrant, his sentence was just.

This article is presented by Price Benowitz, LLP, a criminal and DUI defense firm serving Maryland, Washington DC, and Virginia. For more information, please visit our DC DWI Lawyer or Virginia DUI Lawyer websites.

Allegations of child abuse are among the most emotionally charged cases a Maryland criminal attorney will see during the span of his or her career. Public outrage and the protection of the child are often pitted against the constitutional rights of a defendant who is supposed to be considered innocent until guilt is proven. The recent sentencing of a Maryland man convicted of child pornography shows that child abuse and child sexual assaults are not taken lightly in the judicial system.

Jason Emory Gilmer, 29, who has been in police custody since his May 2009 arrest, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for two counts of production of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. He is additionally sentenced to lifetime supervision after his release.

According to a plea agreement arranged by his Maryland criminal lawyer, Gilmer was investigated by police after an FBI agent downloaded several pornographic images of children from a file-sharing program on Gilmer's computer. During the investigation, agents seized Gilmer's computer, which was found to contain over 750 images of child pornography, including sexually explicit photos of two girls, aged 12 and 14, over whom he had supervisory custody. The 12-year-old girl is learning disabled, and the 14-year-old is autistic. Documents report that the younger girl told police Gilmer had photographed her naked, and Gilmer admitted to taking sexually explicit pictures of the older girl.

In addition to his convictions for production and distribution of child pornography, Gilmer still faces other state charges.

Gilmer was in custody over a year from the time of his arrest until his sentencing. In cases of child sexual abuse, certain constitutional rights of the accused are balanced against the protection of the child. In many instances, the defendant is denied the right to face his or her accuser, and while a person accused of sex abuse is supposed to be considered innocent unless proven guilty, the opposite is often true in the court of public opinion. Understanding how the criminal justice system is supposed to work in such cases, Maryland criminal lawyers fight to help their clients protect their constitutional rights through the judicial process.

Sometimes, people find themselves charged with the same type of crime again and again. When standing with a repeat offender at sentencing, a Maryland criminal attorney often sees that a history of prior convictions can remove any leniency a judge might consider granting. The recent sentencing of a Prince George's County man convicted of drug charges is a perfect example.

Rodney Erik Bryant, 32, pleaded guilty in October to possession of narcotics with intent to distribute and to possession of a firearm by a felon. Bryant's plea came in response to his December 2008 arrest after police raided his home based on a tip from a confidential informant. As they searched his home, police discovered a number of illegal substances and products, including several hundred grams of cocaine, over a kilogram of marijuana, heroin, drug paraphernalia, and a pistol.

At his sentencing, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, noted Bryant's criminal history and record of prior convictions and enhanced his sentence to 20 years in prison for his drug possession and firearm convictions. Bryant's Maryland criminal lawyer had no comment on the judge's decision.

Bryant's criminal history dates back over 16 years to his juvenile record. He has been previously convicted of possession with intent to distribute as well as other drug-related charges, armed carjacking, and assault.

While some judges are inclined to show leniency to first offenders, they often have little patience for repeat offenders. When a judge notes that a person has a lengthy criminal history or that he or she has been repeatedly convicted of the same crime, the judge may assume that the criminal history is an indication that the accused is likely to continue to commit the offense. A Maryland criminal attorney knows that sentencing guidelines are just that--guidelines--and that a judge has discretion to show leniency or to enhance penalties after a guilty verdict.

Advancing technology and popular social networking sites such as Facebook have opened up a whole new world in the criminal justice system. Previously unheard of computer crimes, such as teen sexting and cyber-bullying, are becoming commonplace. Video sharing sites have seen exponential growth not only in family videos, but also in videos of "pranks" and other criminal activity. Every Maryland criminal attorney has seen a case where video evidence makes up the bulk of the prosecution's case. When such a video goes viral, the general public sees that evidence as well, possibly making it more difficult to find an unbiased jury if a case goes to trial. Social media sites have made it easy for teens to post video of their antics, not realizing the consequences of documenting potentially criminal behavior and broadcasting it worldwide over the internet.

Recently, the beating of a student at Bowie High School in Prince George's County was posted to Facebook, launching a police investigation into the assault.

The video shows one student knocking another to the ground and repeatedly kicking and punching him while other students either watched or ignored the incident. Only one student is seen striking the victim, but during the attack, someone stole the student's backpack and iPod. A spokesman for Prince George's County schools says that other students have been identified in planning and executing the assault, and all students involved face expulsion.

The father of the victim wants to press criminal charges. The Prince George's County sheriff's office plans to review not only the Facebook video, but also footage from the school's security cameras. If authorities find enough evidence to prosecute, the attacker's Prince George's County criminal lawyer will need to closely review the video to determine whether the evidence is as convincing as prosecutors believe.

Video evidence is becoming rampant in prosecuting criminal cases. From dashboard cameras in police cars to security surveillance cameras to cell phone video from bystanders, cameras are everywhere. However, in the hands of a competent Maryland criminal lawyer, that video evidence is not necessarily as concrete as it might first appear. Poor image quality may cause misidentification of suspects. Inaccurate date stamps may affect an investigation. Video editing may misrepresent a person's actions. However, with the ability of evidence to go viral in a matter of minutes, people would be wise to consider their actions in the presence of a camera.