Friday, August 30, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BOY GENUIS, AGE 11, FRESHMAN AT TCU
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: BOY GENUIS, AGE 11, FRESHMAN AT TCU: www.charlesjeromeware.com . Eleven-year old boy genuis CARSON HUEY-YOU is a freshman science major at Texas Christian University, near his...
BOY GENUIS, AGE 11, FRESHMAN AT TCU
www.charlesjeromeware.com.
Eleven-year old boy genuis CARSON HUEY-YOU is a freshman science major at Texas Christian University, near his Dallas-Fort Worth home. These days he has one problem, and it is NOT his classes in physics, history. religion or calculus. Quite the contrary, he very much enjoys his college classes, and he finds calculus to be " relaxing". Graduating from high school with straight "A"s, and scoring a record 1770 on the SAT ( Scholastic Aptitude Test), 11-year old Carson's only problem is that his college textbooks are so heavy that his mother, Claretta, has to help him carry them around the campus to classes.
[www.nypost.com/08-29-2013]
Eleven-year old boy genuis CARSON HUEY-YOU is a freshman science major at Texas Christian University, near his Dallas-Fort Worth home. These days he has one problem, and it is NOT his classes in physics, history. religion or calculus. Quite the contrary, he very much enjoys his college classes, and he finds calculus to be " relaxing". Graduating from high school with straight "A"s, and scoring a record 1770 on the SAT ( Scholastic Aptitude Test), 11-year old Carson's only problem is that his college textbooks are so heavy that his mother, Claretta, has to help him carry them around the campus to classes.
[www.nypost.com/08-29-2013]
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: PREDICTIVE LOTTERY & POLICING ALGORITHMS & NUMBERS...
Attorney Charles Ware's Blog: PREDICTIVE LOTTERY & POLICING ALGORITHMS & NUMBERS...: From my research I have determined that there are similarities between Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers & Algorithms and Predictive Po...
PREDICTIVE LOTTERY & POLICING ALGORITHMS & NUMBERS,http://amzn.com/1432793888
From my research I have determined that there are similarities between Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers & Algorithms and Predictive Policing Algorithms.
Both predictive models rely heavily on " probabilities".
Predictive police algorithms analyze criminal cycles, patterns, trends, behavior and relationships in an effort to aid law enforcement in making policy decisions and establishing " priorities" for personnel and other resources [ see, www.abajournal.com/09-01-2013/ Predictive Policing].
Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers and Algorithms , in essence, use a mixed combination of cognitive flexibility learning and hypergeometric distribution to establish the probabilities for presentment of certain numbers in a certain lottery drawing [ Chapters 5 and 6, http://amzn.com/1432793888, THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS : Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Statistics, by lotterician and best-selling author Charles Jerome Ware.
Both predictive models rely heavily on " probabilities".
Predictive police algorithms analyze criminal cycles, patterns, trends, behavior and relationships in an effort to aid law enforcement in making policy decisions and establishing " priorities" for personnel and other resources [ see, www.abajournal.com/09-01-2013/ Predictive Policing].
Predictive Winning Lottery Numbers and Algorithms , in essence, use a mixed combination of cognitive flexibility learning and hypergeometric distribution to establish the probabilities for presentment of certain numbers in a certain lottery drawing [ Chapters 5 and 6, http://amzn.com/1432793888, THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS : Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Statistics, by lotterician and best-selling author Charles Jerome Ware.
PREDICTIVE POLICING ALGORITHMS AND THE 4TH AMENDMENT, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
[www.CharlesJeromeWare.com; www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/09-01-2013/by Leslie A Gordon/"Predictive Policing May Help Bag Burglars- But It May Also Be A [4th Amendment] Constitutional Problem"; Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, "Predictive Policing And Reasonable Suspicion", Emory Law Journal, Vol. 62, page 259 (2012); Craig D. Uchida, Natl. Inst. of Justice, No. NCJ230404, "A National Discussion On Predictive Policing: Defining Our Terms And Mapping Successful Implementation Strategies 1" (2009); Beth Pearsall, "Predictive Policing: The Future of Law Enforcement?", Natl. Inst. Justice J. June 2010; United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981) (observing that the question of reasonable suspicion deal "with probabilities")]
COL., HO. CO., MD. JOB LAW UPDATE: MERRILL LYNCH BIAS CASE SETTLEMENT, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national employment law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is conveniently headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is nationally renowned, well-respected, and highly-regarded for its many successful cases and efforts in the areas of employment and discrimination law.
For a courtesy legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
Merrill Lynch, one of the biggest brokerage firms on Wall Street, has agreed to pay $160 million to settle a racial bias lawsuit that wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court.
The payout in the suit, which was filed on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill, would be the largest sum ever distributed to plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against an American employer. Merrill, which was acquired by Bank of America after the suit was filed, also agreed to take advice from black employees on how to improve their chances of succeeding as brokers.
The pool of money, available to all black brokers and trainees at the firm since May 2001, is reportedly larger than those offered by other corporations sued by employees for racial bias, including Texaco and Coca-Cola, Ms. Friedman said. It also dwarfs recent payouts by other Wall Street firms, including $16 million that Morgan Stanley agreed to pay in 2008 to settle a suit brought by black and Hispanic brokers.
The Merrill Lynch plaintiffs had claimed they received little help from managers and were ostracized by co-workers, according to the Times account. The case “wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court,” the newspaper says. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to certify the class and a trial had been scheduled for January.
[news.nytco.com/blogs/dealbook/08-27-2013/Merrill Lynch To Pay Big In Bias Case; www.abajournal.com/article/08-2013/Merrill Lynch Reportedly Agrees to $160 Million Settlement In Bias Case]
For a courtesy legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
MERRILL LYNCH TO PAY BIG IN BIAS CASE
Merrill Lynch, one of the biggest brokerage firms on Wall Street, has agreed to pay $160 million to settle a racial bias lawsuit that wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court.
The payout in the suit, which was filed on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill, would be the largest sum ever distributed to plaintiffs in a racial discrimination suit against an American employer. Merrill, which was acquired by Bank of America after the suit was filed, also agreed to take advice from black employees on how to improve their chances of succeeding as brokers.
The pool of money, available to all black brokers and trainees at the firm since May 2001, is reportedly larger than those offered by other corporations sued by employees for racial bias, including Texaco and Coca-Cola, Ms. Friedman said. It also dwarfs recent payouts by other Wall Street firms, including $16 million that Morgan Stanley agreed to pay in 2008 to settle a suit brought by black and Hispanic brokers.
The Merrill Lynch plaintiffs had claimed they received little help from managers and were ostracized by co-workers, according to the Times account. The case “wound through the federal courts for eight years, including two appeals to the United States Supreme Court,” the newspaper says. The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to certify the class and a trial had been scheduled for January.
[news.nytco.com/blogs/dealbook/08-27-2013/Merrill Lynch To Pay Big In Bias Case; www.abajournal.com/article/08-2013/Merrill Lynch Reportedly Agrees to $160 Million Settlement In Bias Case]
COL., HO. CO., MD. DNA DEFENSE, PROSECTUOR MISCONDUCT/WHACK v. STATE, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).
DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.
We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial.
Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George
During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.
In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?
For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS/COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).
DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.
We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial.
Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George
During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.
In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?
For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.
CRIMES/COLUMBIA, HO. CO., MARYLAND, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).
DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.
We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial.
Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George
During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.
In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?
For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
BALTIMORE LEAD DEFENSE UPDATE: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Attorney and author Charles Ware is renowned and well-respected in the area of lead poisoning and lead paint defense litigation. The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is conveniently headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For an initial courtesy consultation, lead case defendants, property owners, property managers and others should contact us at: (410) 730-5106, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
[see, www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood-lead-levels.htm]
[see, www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/blood-lead-levels.htm]
Update on Blood Lead Levels in Children
- Experts now use a reference level of 5 micrograms per deciliter to identify children with blood lead levels that are much higher than most children’s levels. This new level is based on the U.S. population of children ages 1-5 years who are in the highest 2.5% of children when tested for lead in their blood.
- This reference value is based on the 97.5th percentile of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)’s blood lead distribution in children. CDC will update the reference value every four years using the two most recent NHANES surveys.
- Until recently, children were identified as having a blood lead “level of concern” if the test result is 10 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood. CDC is no longer using the term “level of concern” and is instead using the reference value to identify children who have been exposed to lead and who require case management.
- In the past, blood lead level tests below 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood may, or may not, have been reported to parents. The new lower value means that more children will likely be identified as having lead exposure allowing parents, doctors, public health officials, and communities to take action earlier to reduce the child’s future exposure to lead.
- What has not changed is the recommendation for when medical treatment is advised for children with high blood lead exposure levels. The new recommendation does not change the guidance that chelation therapy be considered when a child has a blood lead test result greater than or equal to 45 micrograms per deciliter.
- Children can be given a blood test to measure the level of lead in their blood. These tests are covered by Medicaid and most private health insurance.
MARYLAND DRUG DEFENSE ATTORNEYS: COL., HO. CO., www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
For more than 30 years, the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland, has been making a difference in the lives of its clients, communities and friends.
The firm is locally and national renowned and respected for its many successes on behalf of its clients. For more information, contact us for a courtesy consultation at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
We are "here to make a difference. We fight... you win."
When it comes to successfully defending drug cases it is now a new world; with new drugs, new charges, and new techniques for drug enforcement. This requires defense counsel to have a new perspective as well as a modern understanding and strategy for drug defense cases.
It has been said that the War on Drugs is a war on the Bill of Rights and this is evidenced by the the fervor and zeal at which our government has pursued this war which has ultimately been a war on the rights of all of us. Because drug users typically aim to keep their behaviors secret, the aggressive law enforcement schemes to go after them must necessarily penetrate the private lives of millions. Moreover, the expansion of police powers has been perhaps no greater than in this realm with law enforcement now having very few limits on their tactics. In addition, property may be seized on slight evidence and forfeited to the state or federal government without proof of the personal guilt of the owner.
Given the high rates of drug availability and usage in our country, coupled with the ever-increasing aggressiveness of law enforcement aimed going after drug offenders, drug charges are of the most common and of the most serious one can face. Drug accusations carry the very real potential for extremely long sentences, harsh collateral consequences and civil penalties that may be assessed under property forfeiture provisions. A drug charge can ruin a person's life which is why we aggressively defend drug cases using many different strategies. In general, there are three ways that drug charges are successfully defended: 1) the drugs seized were not actually a controlled substance; 2) the person did not actually "possess" the drugs; 3) the drugs were seized in violation of the person's constitutional rights.
Search and Seizure
Perhaps more so than any other type of charge, we find that our clients charged with drug offenses have often had their constitutional rights violated in large part due to the overzealousness of law enforcement tactics used in drug cases. One of the first steps we take in representing our clients accused of a drug charge is to analyze the legality of how the evidence was obtained. Evidence that is illegally obtained, whether that be for lack of probable cause or an illegal search and seizure, cannot be used against you. The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and a violation of that can lead to a ruling by the court that illegally seized evidence is suppressed and inadmissible which most often leads to the dismissal of charges. We have successfully litigated constitutional violations on behalf of our clients which has lead to the dismissal of charges.
The firm is locally and national renowned and respected for its many successes on behalf of its clients. For more information, contact us for a courtesy consultation at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
We are "here to make a difference. We fight... you win."
Defending the Modern Drug Case
When it comes to successfully defending drug cases it is now a new world; with new drugs, new charges, and new techniques for drug enforcement. This requires defense counsel to have a new perspective as well as a modern understanding and strategy for drug defense cases.
It has been said that the War on Drugs is a war on the Bill of Rights and this is evidenced by the the fervor and zeal at which our government has pursued this war which has ultimately been a war on the rights of all of us. Because drug users typically aim to keep their behaviors secret, the aggressive law enforcement schemes to go after them must necessarily penetrate the private lives of millions. Moreover, the expansion of police powers has been perhaps no greater than in this realm with law enforcement now having very few limits on their tactics. In addition, property may be seized on slight evidence and forfeited to the state or federal government without proof of the personal guilt of the owner.
Given the high rates of drug availability and usage in our country, coupled with the ever-increasing aggressiveness of law enforcement aimed going after drug offenders, drug charges are of the most common and of the most serious one can face. Drug accusations carry the very real potential for extremely long sentences, harsh collateral consequences and civil penalties that may be assessed under property forfeiture provisions. A drug charge can ruin a person's life which is why we aggressively defend drug cases using many different strategies. In general, there are three ways that drug charges are successfully defended: 1) the drugs seized were not actually a controlled substance; 2) the person did not actually "possess" the drugs; 3) the drugs were seized in violation of the person's constitutional rights.
Search and Seizure
Perhaps more so than any other type of charge, we find that our clients charged with drug offenses have often had their constitutional rights violated in large part due to the overzealousness of law enforcement tactics used in drug cases. One of the first steps we take in representing our clients accused of a drug charge is to analyze the legality of how the evidence was obtained. Evidence that is illegally obtained, whether that be for lack of probable cause or an illegal search and seizure, cannot be used against you. The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and a violation of that can lead to a ruling by the court that illegally seized evidence is suppressed and inadmissible which most often leads to the dismissal of charges. We have successfully litigated constitutional violations on behalf of our clients which has lead to the dismissal of charges.
NEW YORK AG TO TRUMP: YOU'RE FIRED!
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The legal rhetoric between billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump and the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, continues to escalate.
In an appearance on NC-TV's "Today Show" this morning, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman repeated his assertions made in a lawsuit against Donald Trump that "Trump University" was a fraud and that Trump unlawfully "lured" hapless student to the fraud.
SUBTITLE: TRUMP BUMPED, THUMPED, TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight. You win.)
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.
"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."
Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.
The legal rhetoric between billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump and the New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, continues to escalate.
In an appearance on NC-TV's "Today Show" this morning, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman repeated his assertions made in a lawsuit against Donald Trump that "Trump University" was a fraud and that Trump unlawfully "lured" hapless student to the fraud.
SUBTITLE: TRUMP BUMPED, THUMPED, TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight. You win.)
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.
"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."
Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.
MARYLAND EMINENT DOMAIN LAW 101: Attorney & Author Charles Jerome Ware
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight. You win.)
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For an initial consultation, you are invited to contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
What Is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain, broadly understood, is the power of the state or the federal government
Maryland Eminent Domain Laws
[eminentdomain.uslegal.com/Maryland; www.msba.org/Eminent Domain; articles.baltimoresun.com/Eminent Domain; Report of the State of Maryland Task Force On Business Owner Compensation In Condemnation Proceedings/12-7-2005; msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/specco/EminentDomain]
Maryland Eminent Domain Laws can be found in Title 12 of Code of Maryland.
Subtitle one of title twelve contain the general provisions and subtitle two contains provisions regarding relocation and assistance. All proceedings for the acquisition of private property for public use by condemnation are governed by the provisions of title 12[i].
Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-101 provides that the state, any of its instrumentalities, or political subdivisions acting under statute or ordinance passed pursuant to Article III of the Maryland Constitution, may take private property for public use immediately on making the required payment and giving any required security.
A property is deemed to be taken if the plaintiff lawfully is authorized to take the property before trial pursuant to Article III of the Constitution of the State and the required payment has been made to the defendant or into court and the plaintiff has taken possession of the property and actually and lawfully appropriated it to the public purposes of the plaintiff[ii].
The damages to be awarded for the taking of land are its fair market value[iii]. When part of land is taken, the damages to be awarded is the fair market value of the part taken, but not less than the actual value of the part taken plus any severance or resulting damages to the remaining land by reason of the taking and of future use by the plaintiff of the part taken[iv].
For the purpose of determining the extent of the taking and the valuation of the tenant’s interest in a condemnation proceeding, improvement or installation done by the tenant is deemed personal property of the tenant and it is excluded from the taking[v].
The state or any of its instrumentalities or political subdivisions should file an action to acquire private property for public use by condemnation within four years of the date of the specific administrative or legislative authorization to acquire the property[vi].
However, if an action for condemnation is not filed within four years, the state, any of its instrumentalities, or political subdivisions may not proceed with condemnation until it first obtains a new authorization to acquire the property.
The plaintiff should pay all the costs in the trial court and also interest at the rate of six percent per annum on any difference between the amount of money initially paid into court for the use of the defendant and the jury award[vii].
On taking possession, acquiring the right to take possession or the actual transfer of title to the plaintiff, whichever occurs first, the plaintiff immediately should file, with the supervisor of assessments for the county involved, a written notification or a record setting forth in sufficient detail the area of the land and a description of any improvement being acquired[viii].
MARYLAND EMINENT DOMAIN STATUTES
Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-107 provides that any party to a condemnation case may appeal from a final judgment or determination. Further, if the plaintiff desires possession pending appeal, it may make payment of the award. In addition, the plaintiff should file with the clerk of the court a bond to the state for the penalty the court prescribes.
Pursuant to Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-109, a plaintiff may abandon a proceeding for condemnation by filing a written election to abandon. Also, a copy of the election should be served on each defendant who has been personally subjected to the jurisdiction of the court.
Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-110 provides that if the condemnee or his/her predecessor in title has paid taxes, the condemnee is entitled to receive from the condemnor, in addition to the damages awarded for the premises taken, an amount of money which bears the same ratio to the entire amount of taxes on the premises taken as the part of the taxable year remaining on the date of taking bears to the entire taxable year.
In addition to payment otherwise authorized, a displacing agency should make an additional payment to any displaced person who is displaced from a dwelling actually owned and occupied by the displaced person for not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the real property[ix].
Further, whenever a program or project undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person, the displacing agency should make a payment to the displaced person[x]. The payment should include:
Pursuant to Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-208, if a displacing agency acquires any interest in real property, the displacing agency should acquire at least an equal interest in all buildings, structures, or other improvements, located on the real property acquired.
[i]Md.
[ii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-102.
[iii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (a).
[iv]Md.
[v] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (c).
[vi]Md.
[vii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-106.
[viii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-106 (d).
[ix] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-202.
[x]Md.
(3) Filing an Eminent Domain Lawsuit. If negotiations for the acquisition of the property are unsuccessful, the condemning authority may file a complaint in the circuit court of the county in which the property to be acquired is located. In some Maryland localities, this first requires a taking resolution of the local government to allow a condemnation petition to be filed in court.
(4) Deposit of Estimate of Just Compensation into the Court Registry in Quick-Take Cases. Certain State agencies (such as the State Roads Commission and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission in Prince Georges County) and certain jurisdictions (such as Baltimore City, and Baltimore, Cecil and Montgomery Counties) have "quick-take" authority, but the owner still has the right to a full trial to determine the amount of compensation paid after the property is taken by the power of eminent domain. In order to quickly take possession of the property in this fashion, the condemning authority must pay into the court's registry the amount of compensation it believes the owner is entitled to receive (this will usually be based upon an appraisal the owner has received in the earlier negotiations stage). The date that the funds are deposited into the court becomes the "date of valuation" of the property. Once those funds are deposited into the court, the condemning authority has the right to enter upon the property and begin the necessary construction and the property owner is entitled to withdraw these funds.
This step is not applicable in traditional eminent domain cases, as the condemning authority does not take possession, or pay any money, until after a judgment is entered. The date of value is the date of trial, in traditional condemnation cases.
(5) Withdrawing Money from the Court. Also in Maryland quick-take cases, the property owner is entitled to withdraw the estimate of just compensation deposited into the court. This requires a motion be filed with the court requesting that the funds be disbursed to the property owner. There may be several parties with an interest in the funds on deposit; frequently, this includes the property owner and any mortgagee holding a lien against the property at issue. A hearing may be scheduled for the court to hear argument on the motion, but frequently such motions are consented to by all parties interested and no hearing is necessary. Withdrawal of funds paid into court does not prejudice a property owner's claim-he or she can still seek a higher value for the property at trial. Alternatively, a lower judgment could also be entered at trial, meaning that a property owner would have to pay some of the deposited money back to the condemnor.
This step is not applicable in traditional Maryland condemnation cases, as the condemning authority does not take possession, or pay any money, until after a judgment is entered.
(6) Board of Property Review Hearing. In Maryland eminent domain cases in which the State Roads Commission is pursuing the condemnation of property through its quick-take authority, the matter may proceed to a Board of Property Review after negotiations fail. These are 3-member boards in each county, which will hear the case and render an award. Any dissatisfied party may appeal to the circuit court and have the case heard "de novo", or anew. These boards are generally meant to provide an inexpensive procedure for resolving small cases and are not likely appropriate for large contested cases. The Commission can-and often does-bypass a Board of Property Review hearing preferring to file a formal condemnation petition with the circuit court from the outset.
This step is not applicable in traditional Maryland eminent domain cases; it applies only to State Roads Commission quick-take cases.
(7) Scheduling Order. When the formal condemnation petition is filed with the court, the court will issue a scheduling order that will govern the significant deadlines in the eminent domain case. It is very important that the deadlines be noted and complied with, as failure to comply with a deadline can result in prejudice to a property owner's case.
(8) Retention Expert Witnesses. In most Maryland condemnation cases, the only issue for the fact-finder to determine is the amount of money owed to the property owner for the property taken, and this depends on the value of the property taken and the damages to any remaining property. The condemning authority and the property owner will hire a real estate appraiser to value the property and give an opinion as to the just compensation amount the property owner should be paid. In some more complicated cases, additional experts, such as land planners, engineers, or even traffic experts will be necessary to provide the appraiser with the foundational information needed to accurately value the property taken and damages caused to any of the remaining property. It is important that these experts be consulted with and retained early, for the proper framing of a Maryland eminent domain case.
(9) Discovery. The condemning authority and the property owner each have the right to ask the other for information and documents relating to their case, including the names and contact information for witnesses, the documents supporting their claims, and also carry out depositions of witnesses to get more information. This process is referred to as "discovery." In many Maryland eminent domain cases, most of the discovery will relate to the appraisals, opinions, and testimony of the expert witnesses.
(10) Continued Settlement Negotiations and Mediation. The parties may continue informal settlement negotiations up to the date of trial. Additionally, the parties will have the opportunity to participate in a mediation or settlement conference, depending on the jurisdiction. Although voluntary, most courts strongly encourage these as opportunity to make another effort at settlement before trial. Often they are more successful than informal settlement negotiations because a judge or very experienced attorney participates and aids the parties at achieving a resolution.
(11) Pre-trial hearings. Several hearings may occur prior to trial to resolve a variety of issues. Hearings may be scheduled to resolve motions, such as those dealing with discovery disputes or addressing legal or evidentiary issues in the case. Administrative hearings may also occur to address administrative issues such as scheduling a trial date. Most hearings can be carried out by the attorney and do not require the attendance of the property owner.
(12) Condemnation Trial. Maryland provides a right to a jury trial on the issue of just compensation in State condemnation proceedings. The parties may, nonetheless, elect to waive a jury trial, in which case the judge will be responsible for making the determination of the appropriate amount of damages. In Maryland, the property owner also has the right to a jury view, where the jury is transported to the property so that it can view the property first-hand. The parties have the opportunity to present evidence and testimony in support of their claim as to the correct amount of compensation.
(13) Verdict. Once the jury has been presented with all of the testimony and evidence, it will enter a verdict for the amount of compensation to which it believes the property owner is entitled.
In "quick-take" cases, if the award is higher than the initial amount paid into court (see number 5, above), the property owner is entitled to be paid the difference, plus interest. If the award is less, the property owner will have to reimburse the over-payment.
In traditional Maryland condemnation cases, once the jury enters the verdict, the condemning authority can pay the amount of the jury's award and obtain possession of the property. Or, it can elect to abandon the condemnation (if, for example, the jury award is too costly), in which case it will be required to pay the property owner reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
(14) Post-Trial and Appeal. After judgment is entered either party has the right to appeal the judgment if they believe there was an error in the trial. Appeals can take several years to reach resolution. If the judgment is not appealed, it is final.
(15) Relocation Benefits. In some instances, the property owner is entitled to additional compensation for having to relocate a residence or business. Relocation benefits may reimburse a portion of moving expenses, utility reconnection expenses, business advertising expenses, or a variety of other related expenses.
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. For an initial consultation, you are invited to contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com.
What Is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain, broadly understood, is the power of the state or the federal government
to seize private property without the owner's consent. Historically, the most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public facilities, highways, and railroads.
Traditionally the power of eminent domain has been exercised for the construction of large public projects, but its use is beginning to be broadened to projects involving not ‘public use’ but ‘public benefit.’ The decision in Kelo v. City of New London, a case that came before the US Supreme Court in 2004, set a precedent for property to be transferred to a private owner for the purpose of economic development. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed or blighted urban area it qualifies as a public use [Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)].
Maryland Eminent Domain Laws
[eminentdomain.uslegal.com/Maryland; www.msba.org/Eminent Domain; articles.baltimoresun.com/Eminent Domain; Report of the State of Maryland Task Force On Business Owner Compensation In Condemnation Proceedings/12-7-2005; msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/specco/EminentDomain]
Maryland Eminent Domain Laws can be found in Title 12 of Code of Maryland.
Subtitle one of title twelve contain the general provisions and subtitle two contains provisions regarding relocation and assistance. All proceedings for the acquisition of private property for public use by condemnation are governed by the provisions of title 12[i].
Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-101 provides that the state, any of its instrumentalities, or political subdivisions acting under statute or ordinance passed pursuant to Article III of the Maryland Constitution, may take private property for public use immediately on making the required payment and giving any required security.
A property is deemed to be taken if the plaintiff lawfully is authorized to take the property before trial pursuant to Article III of the Constitution of the State and the required payment has been made to the defendant or into court and the plaintiff has taken possession of the property and actually and lawfully appropriated it to the public purposes of the plaintiff[ii].
The damages to be awarded for the taking of land are its fair market value[iii]. When part of land is taken, the damages to be awarded is the fair market value of the part taken, but not less than the actual value of the part taken plus any severance or resulting damages to the remaining land by reason of the taking and of future use by the plaintiff of the part taken[iv].
For the purpose of determining the extent of the taking and the valuation of the tenant’s interest in a condemnation proceeding, improvement or installation done by the tenant is deemed personal property of the tenant and it is excluded from the taking[v].
The state or any of its instrumentalities or political subdivisions should file an action to acquire private property for public use by condemnation within four years of the date of the specific administrative or legislative authorization to acquire the property[vi].
However, if an action for condemnation is not filed within four years, the state, any of its instrumentalities, or political subdivisions may not proceed with condemnation until it first obtains a new authorization to acquire the property.
The plaintiff should pay all the costs in the trial court and also interest at the rate of six percent per annum on any difference between the amount of money initially paid into court for the use of the defendant and the jury award[vii].
On taking possession, acquiring the right to take possession or the actual transfer of title to the plaintiff, whichever occurs first, the plaintiff immediately should file, with the supervisor of assessments for the county involved, a written notification or a record setting forth in sufficient detail the area of the land and a description of any improvement being acquired[viii].
MARYLAND EMINENT DOMAIN STATUTES
Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-107 provides that any party to a condemnation case may appeal from a final judgment or determination. Further, if the plaintiff desires possession pending appeal, it may make payment of the award. In addition, the plaintiff should file with the clerk of the court a bond to the state for the penalty the court prescribes.
Pursuant to Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-109, a plaintiff may abandon a proceeding for condemnation by filing a written election to abandon. Also, a copy of the election should be served on each defendant who has been personally subjected to the jurisdiction of the court.
Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-110 provides that if the condemnee or his/her predecessor in title has paid taxes, the condemnee is entitled to receive from the condemnor, in addition to the damages awarded for the premises taken, an amount of money which bears the same ratio to the entire amount of taxes on the premises taken as the part of the taxable year remaining on the date of taking bears to the entire taxable year.
In addition to payment otherwise authorized, a displacing agency should make an additional payment to any displaced person who is displaced from a dwelling actually owned and occupied by the displaced person for not less than 180 days prior to the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of the real property[ix].
Further, whenever a program or project undertaken by a displacing agency will result in the displacement of any person, the displacing agency should make a payment to the displaced person[x]. The payment should include:
- actual reasonable expenses in moving,
- actual direct loss of tangible personal property as a result of moving,
- actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business or farm, and
- actual reasonable expenses necessary to reestablish a displaced farm, nonprofit organization, or small business at its new site as determined by the displacing agency.
Pursuant to Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-208, if a displacing agency acquires any interest in real property, the displacing agency should acquire at least an equal interest in all buildings, structures, or other improvements, located on the real property acquired.
[i]
[ii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-102.
[iii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (a).
[iv]
[v] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-104 (c).
[vi]
[vii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-106.
[viii] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-106 (d).
[ix] Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 12-202.
[x]
15 Stages of a Maryland Eminent Domain Case
[www.ownerscounsel.com/The Eminent Domain Process/ Joseph P. Suntum, Esq.]
What can a property owner expect when the Government decides to take private property for a public use in the State of Maryland?
(1) Identification of public need and property to be acquired. In the State of Maryland, the process of condemnation begins with the identification of a public need, and the determination by the applicable governmental body that it is necessary to acquire private property to fulfill that public need.
(2) Notice, Offer to Purchase, and Negotiations. Once the decision to acquire private property in Maryland has been made, the condemning authority (also referred to as the "condemnor") generally gives the property owner written notice that it intends to acquire that person's property.
Monday, August 26, 2013
TRUMP BUMPED, THUMPED, TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight. You win.)
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.
"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."
Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.
"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."
Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.
TRUMP TRUMPED BY NEW YORK AG SCHNEIDERMAN?
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight. You win.)
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.
"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."
Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.
www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/08-24-2013/Trump-University-Fraud-NY.
New York's Attorney General's Office has filed a $40 million civil lawsuit on Saturday against billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump of running a phony "Trump University" and defrauding more than 5,000 people with promises that they would get rich in real estate using his "hand-picked" teachers.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says many of the 5,000 students who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Trump but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.
"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real financial harm," Schneiderman said. "Trump University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation, relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."
Trump, himself, shot back at Schneiderman that the lawsuit is false and politically motivated.
Friday, August 23, 2013
COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND CRIMINAL DNA: DEFENSE
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is preeminent and renowned for tis successful defense of numerous criminal defendants in the State of Maryland and nationwide.
For a courtesy initial legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The Maryland Court of Appeals recent decision (August 21st, 2013) in the criminal case of WHACK, JR. v. STATE (No. 86, Sept. Term 2012), reveals the ongoing mis-use and misinterpretation of DNA evidence by prosecutors:
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is preeminent and renowned for tis successful defense of numerous criminal defendants in the State of Maryland and nationwide.
For a courtesy initial legal consultation, contact us at (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The Maryland Court of Appeals recent decision (August 21st, 2013) in the criminal case of WHACK, JR. v. STATE (No. 86, Sept. Term 2012), reveals the ongoing mis-use and misinterpretation of DNA evidence by prosecutors:
"Accordingly, counsel have a responsibility to take extra care in describing DNA evidence, particularly when it comes to statistical probabilities. The prosecutor certainly has “liberal freedom of speech” during closing argument, see Spain , 386 Md.
C. WARE'S Col., Ho. Co. CRIMINAL BLOG: WHACK v. STATE, http://www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm is highly-rated for its many successful efforts on behalf of clients in the area of criminal defense in Maryland.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
For an initial free legal consultation, contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 720-6129, (410) 730-5016.
On Wednesday, August 21st, 2013, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) reversed the second-degree murder conviction of Tommy Whack, Jr. and remanded his case back to the Prince George's County Circuit for a new trial:
TOMMY WHACK, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND,
No. 86, Sept. Term, 2012 (Decided August 21, 2013);
Judges Barbera, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, McDonald and Bell.
DNA is a powerful evidentiary tool and its importance in the courtroom cannot be overstated. See Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958, 1966 (2013) (observing that DNA technology is “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era” and its usefulness in the criminal justice system is “undisputed”).
DNA evidence can place a defendant at the scene of a crime, providing a firm scientific foundation for a prosecutor’s case, particularly when other evidence may be lacking. Not surprisingly, jurors place a great deal of trust in the accuracy and reliability of DNA evidence. But this evidence has the potential to be highly technical and confusing in a way that could unduly affect the outcome of a trial.
We consider here whether a prosecutor’s incorrect statements during rebuttal closing argument regarding DNA evidence, in a case in which that evidence was of central importance, required a mistrial.
Petitioner, Tommy Whack, Jr., was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses, including Petitioner’s cousin, who testified that Petitioner called the victim’s cell phone before the killing and was walking in the neighborhood where the killing took place shortly before the crime occurred. Jurors also heard from a DNA analyst who testified that she could not exclude Petitioner as being the source of DNA recovered from the passenger armrest of the truck in which the victim was shot.
In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor told jurors that Petitioner’s DNA was present in the victim’s truck, and he claimed the statistical analysis conducted by the DNA analyst supported the State’s theory of the case. Petitioner objected to that argument as misstating the DNA evidence and asked for a mistrial, a request the trial court denied. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s conviction in an unreported opinion. We granted Petitioner’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Whack v. State, 429 Md. 303 (2012), to answer the following question:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial after the State, in rebuttal closing argument, mischaracterized the statistical significance of the DNA evidence?
For reasons we shall explain, we answer yes to that question, reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, and direct a remand of the case for a new trial.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
MESSAGE TO ROBIN THICKE: PAY THE GAYES. THE MUSIC LINES ARE TOO "BLURRED".
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (We fight. You win.)
Understanding the Law: A Primer (Paperback). http://amzn.com/1440111456
Understanding the Law: A Primer (Paperback). http://amzn.com/1440111456
Monday, August 12, 2013
MAP (MATRIMONY, ALIMONY, PALIMONY): MARYLAND DIVORCE ATTORNEYS, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national law offices of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, are headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm specializes in family law matters in Maryland, among other legal matters. Contact us at www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, (410) 730-5016, (410) 720-6129.
MATRIMONY: As a public policy, Maryland strongly endorses the condition of being married for couples, regardless of gender.
ALIMONY: In Maryland alimony is considered a reasonable right; not a favor, nor punishment.
PALIMONY: Palimony is not recognized in Maryland. However, Maryland courts will recognize and enforce written agreements (and, in many instances, even oral or implied agreements.
Suggestion: a written agreement stating that both parties will remain financially independent is the best defense against an allegation of palimony (in any jurisdiction).
Divorce in Maryland is unknown in common law, and is thus entirely a creature of statute.
Prior to the enactment of Chapter 263 of the Maryland Acts of 1841, there was no general divorce law in Maryland. Divorce in specific cases was exclusively a legislative function.
Generally, divorce in Maryland is defined as the ending of a marriage ordered by a court (and specifically, a circuit court).
Because marriage is considered a civil contract between the parties under Maryland law, the complete dissolution of marriage is a divorce. In Maryland, there are two types of divorce: absolute and limited. Limited divorce is sometimes referred to as a legal separation.
[Bender v. Bender, 282 Md. 525 (1978); Altman v. Altman, 282 Md. 483 (1978); Thomas v. Thomas, 294 Md. 605 (1982); Maryland family Law, by John F. Fader, II and Richard J. Gilbert, Michie Law Publishers (1990); www.peoples-law.org/overview-of-divorce-in-maryland]
In addition, the decree may provide for:
(i) Sole or joint custody of the children;
Finally, a spouse may ask the court to include an order in the divorce decree which will allow the spouse (almost always the wife) to resume his or her birth name. These requests are almost always granted.
Under a limited divorce, remarriage is not permitted. Limited divorce does not terminate property claims although the limited divorce may settle these claims. A limited divorce makes temporary decisions about custody, child support, alimony, use and possession of property. It also documents the date of separation.
You are not required to get a limited divorce before you can get an absolute divorce. Md. Code, Family Law § 7-103 allows a decree of divorce whether there has been a previous order of limited divorce or not.
In order to obtain a limited divorce in Maryland, you must meet residency requirements, grounds, and other legally prescribed laws just as you would in a case for absolute divorce. Maryland courts may grant a limited divorce even if you are seeking an absolute divorce. The courts may also decree these divorces permanently or for a limited time only. In addition, Maryland’s limited divorces may be revoked by the courts at any time the parties jointly apply to be discharged. In such cases, the parties would return to the state of being legally married.
A limited divorce is generally used by people who:
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
MATRIMONY: As a public policy, Maryland strongly endorses the condition of being married for couples, regardless of gender.
ALIMONY: In Maryland alimony is considered a reasonable right; not a favor, nor punishment.
PALIMONY: Palimony is not recognized in Maryland. However, Maryland courts will recognize and enforce written agreements (and, in many instances, even oral or implied agreements.
Suggestion: a written agreement stating that both parties will remain financially independent is the best defense against an allegation of palimony (in any jurisdiction).
Divorce in Maryland is unknown in common law, and is thus entirely a creature of statute.
Prior to the enactment of Chapter 263 of the Maryland Acts of 1841, there was no general divorce law in Maryland. Divorce in specific cases was exclusively a legislative function.
Generally, divorce in Maryland is defined as the ending of a marriage ordered by a court (and specifically, a circuit court).
Because marriage is considered a civil contract between the parties under Maryland law, the complete dissolution of marriage is a divorce. In Maryland, there are two types of divorce: absolute and limited. Limited divorce is sometimes referred to as a legal separation.
1. Absolute Divorce (Divorce a vincula matrimonii).
An absolute divorce actually dissolves the marriage. Once a decree of absolute divorce is entered, the parties are free to remarry. After an absolute divorce, one party can no longer inherit property from the other, any property owned by them jointly as husband and wife automatically becomes property held in common (each owns one-half) [Family Law Code Ann.§7-103].[Bender v. Bender, 282 Md. 525 (1978); Altman v. Altman, 282 Md. 483 (1978); Thomas v. Thomas, 294 Md. 605 (1982); Maryland family Law, by John F. Fader, II and Richard J. Gilbert, Michie Law Publishers (1990); www.peoples-law.org/overview-of-divorce-in-maryland]
In addition, the decree may provide for:
(i) Sole or joint custody of the children;
(ii) The terms for payment of alimony and child support, and the disposition of personal property;
(iii) An equitable distribution of all the parties’ assets, including ordering the sale of jointly held property and the dividing the proceeds
Finally, a spouse may ask the court to include an order in the divorce decree which will allow the spouse (almost always the wife) to resume his or her birth name. These requests are almost always granted.
2. Limited Divorce (Divorce a mesna et thoro).
A limited divorce is a legal action where a couple’s separation is supervised by the court. It is generally designated for individuals who do not have grounds for absolute divorce, need financial relief and are unable to settle their differences privately. When the court orders a limited divorce, it means that the divorce is not permanent. Some people call this legal separation [Family Law Code Ann.§7-103].Under a limited divorce, remarriage is not permitted. Limited divorce does not terminate property claims although the limited divorce may settle these claims. A limited divorce makes temporary decisions about custody, child support, alimony, use and possession of property. It also documents the date of separation.
You are not required to get a limited divorce before you can get an absolute divorce. Md. Code, Family Law § 7-103 allows a decree of divorce whether there has been a previous order of limited divorce or not.
In order to obtain a limited divorce in Maryland, you must meet residency requirements, grounds, and other legally prescribed laws just as you would in a case for absolute divorce. Maryland courts may grant a limited divorce even if you are seeking an absolute divorce. The courts may also decree these divorces permanently or for a limited time only. In addition, Maryland’s limited divorces may be revoked by the courts at any time the parties jointly apply to be discharged. In such cases, the parties would return to the state of being legally married.
A limited divorce is generally used by people who:
- do not yet have grounds for absolute divorce;
- need financial relief and
- are unable to settle their differences privately.
The court determines which party is at fault, if either, is at fault. The court may grant support to one spouse based on need. The limited divorce can also resolve questions of
(i) child custody;
(ii) child support;
(iii) health insurance coverage and
(iv) division of personal and real property.
If spousal support is not required, and there is no property to divide, there is generally no need for a limited divorce.
If one spouse dies after a limited divorce the other spouse may still inherit property. Also the form of ownership for any property you own as husband and wife (for example, a house owned as tenants by the entireties) will stay the same.
If one spouse dies after a limited divorce the other spouse may still inherit property. Also the form of ownership for any property you own as husband and wife (for example, a house owned as tenants by the entireties) will stay the same.
Among attorney and author Charles Jerome Ware's best-selling books are:
(1) The Secret Science of Winning Lotteries, Sweepstakes and Contests;
http://amzn.com/1432793888
(2) Understanding the Law: A Primer;
http://amzn.com/1440111456
(3) The Immigration Paradox: 15 Tips for Winning Immigration Cases;
http://amzn.com/1440171920
(4) Legal Consumer Tips and Secrets: Avoiding Debtors' Prison in the United States; and
http://amzn.com/1462051847
(5) Quince (15) Consejos Para Ganar Casos Del Inmigracion.
http://amzn.com/1462068952
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
Monday, August 5, 2013
GANADORES DE LA LOTERIA DE LEER, ESTUDIAR Y SIGUE " THE BOOK" !
Ganadores de la Loteria de leer, estudiar y Sigue " The Book " por el experto de la loteria y el autor mas vendido de Charles Jerome Ware : LA CIENCIA SECRETO DE GANAR LOTERIAS, SORTEOS Y CONCURSOS. http://amazon.com/1432793888.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
LOTTERY INDEX: REPEAT WINNERS STUDY " THE BOOK " BY CHARLES JEROME WARE
LOTTERY INDEX: REPEAT LOTTERY WINNERS READ, STUDY AND FOLLOW CHARLES JEROME WARE'S best - selling book, " THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS". Available EVERYWHERE best-selling books are sold.
Friday, August 2, 2013
COLUMBIA, HOWARD COUNTY DNA UPDATE: www.CharlesJeromeWare.com, CRIMINAL DEFENSE
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
August 2, 2013.
At February’s oral argument in Maryland v. King, about whether the police may take samples of DNA from people arrested for certain crimes, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said it was “perhaps the most important criminal procedure case this court has heard in decades.” He suggested that such DNA swabs were “the fingerprinting of the 21st century.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, issued in June, pretty much lived up to that billing. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for a 5-4 court that in an arrest for a serious offense backed by probable cause, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Kennedy’s opinion, joined by Alito as well as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer, was bad news for Alonzo Jay King Jr., a Maryland man arrested in 2009 on assault charges. King’s DNA sample was taken during booking under a 2008 state law that expanded mandatory sampling to include those arrested for certain serious offenses. The DNA swab linked King to a 2003 rape of a Salisbury, Md., woman; a sample of the perpetrator’s DNA had been entered into a database. King was convicted.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a vigorous dissent criticizing the majority for its assertion that the police take DNA samples primarily to identify those in custody, not to solve crimes. That assertion “taxes the credulity of the credulous,” Scalia said in a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The decision will have the “beneficial effect” of helping to solve cold cases, he wrote, but so would taking DNA samples from a much broader swath of the population, including “anyone who flies on an airplane, … applies for a driver’s license or attends a public school.”
The King decision drew equally sharp responses among legal observers.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
August 2, 2013.
At February’s oral argument in Maryland v. King, about whether the police may take samples of DNA from people arrested for certain crimes, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said it was “perhaps the most important criminal procedure case this court has heard in decades.” He suggested that such DNA swabs were “the fingerprinting of the 21st century.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case, issued in June, pretty much lived up to that billing. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for a 5-4 court that in an arrest for a serious offense backed by probable cause, “taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Kennedy’s opinion, joined by Alito as well as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer, was bad news for Alonzo Jay King Jr., a Maryland man arrested in 2009 on assault charges. King’s DNA sample was taken during booking under a 2008 state law that expanded mandatory sampling to include those arrested for certain serious offenses. The DNA swab linked King to a 2003 rape of a Salisbury, Md., woman; a sample of the perpetrator’s DNA had been entered into a database. King was convicted.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a vigorous dissent criticizing the majority for its assertion that the police take DNA samples primarily to identify those in custody, not to solve crimes. That assertion “taxes the credulity of the credulous,” Scalia said in a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The decision will have the “beneficial effect” of helping to solve cold cases, he wrote, but so would taking DNA samples from a much broader swath of the population, including “anyone who flies on an airplane, … applies for a driver’s license or attends a public school.”
The King decision drew equally sharp responses among legal observers.
COLUMBIA, HO. CO. PERSONAL INJURY CASES
MARYLAND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE LAW: JAMES COLEMAN v. SOCCER ASSO. OF COLUMBIA, Md. Ct. of Appeals, No. 9, Sept. Term (Jul 9, 2013)
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
On Tuesday, July 9th, 2013, Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld a law that states people cannot recover damages from injuries suffered in a negligence case if they are found to be partly at fault.
The case is JAMES COLEMAN v. SOCCER ASSOCIATION OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 9, Md. Ct. Appeals, July 9, 2013:
Filed: July 9, 2013
Opinion by Judge John C. Eldridge
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
On Tuesday, July 9th, 2013, Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld a law that states people cannot recover damages from injuries suffered in a negligence case if they are found to be partly at fault.
The case is JAMES COLEMAN v. SOCCER ASSOCIATION OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 9, Md. Ct. Appeals, July 9, 2013:
Filed: July 9, 2013
Opinion by Judge John C. Eldridge
Held: The defense of contributory negligence remains the law in Maryland. While the Court has the authority to change the rule, it declines to do so out of deference to the legislature.
Facts: The plaintiff was coaching soccer for the defendant soccer association. While standing in front of a soccer goal, the plaintiff jumped up and grabbed onto the front crossbar. The goal was not anchored to the ground. The plaintiff fell backward, drawing the weight of the crossbar onto his face. He was severely injured.The plaintiff sued the defendant. At trial, the defendant argued that the condition of the goal was open and obvious and that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence.
The jury returned a verdict finding that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was negligent also. On the basis of the doctrine of contributory negligence, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and challenged the viability of the contributory negligence defense as a legal doctrine in Maryland.
Analysis: The opinion contains an analysis of the history and policy behind the defense of contributory negligence. It also contains an analysis of the Court's authority to abrogate the common law, concluding that the Court could change the common law rule of its own accord. The Court notes, however, that since the rule was last affirmed by the Court in Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 444, 456 A.2d 894 (1983), the Maryland General Assembly has continually considered and failed to pass bills that would abolish or modify the rule. The failure of so many bills "is a clear indication of the legislative policy at the present time." The Court concludes that where the General Assembly has endorsed a public policy, the "Court will decline to enter the public policy debate, even when it is the common law that is at issue and the Court certainly has the authority to change the common law." On that basis, the Court affirmed the trial court.
Dissent: Judge Harrell, joined by Chief Judge Bell, wrote a dissenting opinion that concurs that the Court has the authority to abrogate the common law. It goes further and states that the Court need not defer to continued legislative inaction. It points out that, since 2003, the General Assembly has considered the adoption of comparative negligence only one time. In that context, legislative inaction need not be taken as endorsement of a public policy favoring contributory negligence. Ultimately, the dissent argues that the Court should adopt "pure comparative fault" as the controlling standard, whereby damages are apportioned among the parties according the percentage that each party's negligence contributed to the injury.
[judicialview.com/State-Case/Maryland/Civil Procedure/Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia/July 9, 2013; Marylandbusinesslawdevelopments.blogspot.com/07-2013/Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia; www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/high-court-upholds-contributory-negligence-law]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
DUI/DWI UPDATE: COL., HO. CO., MD DEFENSE, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors (410-720-6129).
http://duidrivinglaws.org/Maryland.php
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/DL-002A
http://www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Maryland Drunk Driving Fines & Penalties
** BAC = blood alcohol content
Lookback Period: 5 years (Period of time that prior DUIs are relevant for sentencing
First Maryland DUI / DWI
http://duidrivinglaws.org/Maryland.php
http://www.mva.maryland.gov/resources/DL-002A
http://www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
Maryland Drunk Driving Fines & Penalties
How much do you have to drink (BAC*) for a DUI in Maryland?
| Under 21 | .02% |
| 21 or older | .08% |
| Commercial | .04% |
What if you refuse to take a chemical test in Maryland?
Maryland has an implied consent law. That means that if you refuse to submit to a chemical test you will be subject to a fine and automatic license suspension.| 1st Offense | 2d Offense | 3rd Offense | |
| Refusal to take test | 120 day license suspension | 1 year license suspension | 1 year license suspension |
What is the minimum jail time?
| 1st Offense | 2d Offense | 3rd Offense | |
| Minimum Jail | No minimum jail term required | 5 days jail | 10 days jail |
Can you plead to a lesser offense than DUI in Maryland?
A defendant might receive a "wet reckless," or a conviction of reckless driving involving alcohol, as a result of a plea bargain in which a charge of drunk driving is reduced to a case of reckless driving. There is no statutory provision on whether a wet reckless plea bargain will be accepted in your state, but it's possible a lawyer may be able to create a plea bargain for you.First Maryland DUI / DWI
I. 1st Drunk Driving Conviction
First DUI
- Jail – Up to 1 Year
- Jail – Up to 2 Years (If Transporting Minor)
- License Suspension – 6 Months Minimum
- Fine - Up to $1,000
- Fine - Up to $2,000 (If Transporting Minor)
First DWI
- Jail – Up to 2 Months
- Jail – Up to 6 Months (If Transporting Minor)
- License Suspension – 6 Months Minimum
- Fine - Up to $500
- Fine - Up to $1,000 (If Transporting Minor)
Disclaimer: We try to keep the information provided here up to date. However, laws often change, as do their interpretation and application. Different jurisdictions within a state may enforce the laws in different ways. For that reason, we recommended that you seek the advice of a local attorney familiar with DUI cases in your area.
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
II. Second Maryland DUI / DWI
2nd Drunk Driving Conviction
Second DUI
- Jail – Up to 2 Years
- Jail – Up to 3 Years (If Transporting Minor)
- License Suspension – 1 Year (If Within 5 Years of Previous)
- Ignition Interlock Program Possible (After 45 Days of Suspension)
- Fine - Up to $2,000
- Fine - Up to $3,000 (If Transporting Minor)
Second DWI
- Jail – Up to 1 Year
- License Suspension – 1 Year Minimum
- Fine - Up to $500
- Fine - Up to $2,000 (If Transporting Minor)
III. Third Maryland DUI
3rd (and future) Drunk Driving Conviction
- Jail – Up to 3 Years
- Jail – Up to 4 Years (If Transporting Minor)
- License Suspension – 18 Months Minimum
- Fine - Up to $3,000
- Fine - Up to $4,000 (If Transporting Minor)
Penalty Distinction Between a DWI or DUI in Maryland
The State of Maryland distinguishes between "Driving While Impaired" (DWI) and "Driving Under the Influence" (DUI). You will receive a DWI if your BAC is .07 percent and you will receive a DUI if your alcohol is .08 percent or above. The penalties are similar, however the DUI offense carries a harsher punishment.
Drinking and Driving Laws in Maryland
Maryland Drunk Driving and Wet Reckless Laws - Nolo.com
The State of Maryland prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol when your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is .08 percent or above. The .08 limit is a standard measurement used across the United States for the "impaired" adult driver. The State of Maryland has a zero tolerance for alcohol for drivers under the age of 21. If a driver under the age of 21 is found to have a .02 percent BAC or above their license could be suspended or revoked. Commercial drivers also face a lower BAC limit of .04 percent.
How many drinks does it take to reach the legal limit in Maryland?
It is difficult to guess how many drinks it will take to reach the .08 BAC limit. Each person has unique physical characteristics that factor into the BAC equation. Attributes such as weight, sex, number of drinks consumed over a given time, if you have eaten, all play into the BAC formula. You may want to try our BAC Calculator , however I wouldn't let any results encourage you to drink and drive.
The best answer is not to drink and drive . The State of Maryland has strict laws for drunk driving, and when you drink and drive in Maryland, you risk your freedom, finances and your future.
The first time you are convicted of a DUI in the State of Maryland you will face up to 1 year in jail and up to a $1,000 fine. If you were transporting a minor when you were arrested you could be sentenced up to 2 years in jail a pay up to a $2,000 fine. Your drivers license will also be suspended for a minimum of 45 days. Your first DWI conviction will cost you up to 2 months in jail and a $500 fine. In addition, your drivers license could be suspended 60 days.
The second time you are convicted of a DUI, you could be sentenced up to 2 years in jail and fined up to $2,000. If you were transporting a minor when you were arrested you could be sentenced up to 3 years in jail a pay up to a $3,000 fine. Your drivers license will also be suspended for a minimum of 1 year. For your second DWI, you will be fined up to $500 and/or 1 year in jail plus a minimum of 60 day suspension of your drivers license.
The 3rd time you receive a DUI in the State of Maryland you will face up to 3 years imprisonment. Your fine will be up to $3,000 and if you were transporting a minor at the time of your arrest you could face up to 4 years in prison and up to a $4,000 fine. Your drivers license will be suspended for a minimum of 18 months. For your third DWI, you will be fined up to $500 and/or 1 year in jail plus a minimum of 60 day suspension of your drivers license.
Drunk Driving Laws in Maryland
State of Maryland BAC Laws:
- All drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher. (DUI)
- All drivers with a BAC of .07 (DWI)
- Under 21 with a BAC of .02 or higher.
- Commercial Vehicle Driver with a BAC of .04 or higher.
The Implied Consent Law in Maryland
The implied consent law in Maryland means that as a driver in the State of Maryland you agree to submit to a chemical test of your blood, breath or urine if a peace officer has reasonable cause to believe you are under the influence of Alcohol or Drugs. If you refuse to submit to such a test your drivers license could be suspended for 120 days for the first refusal, and an automatic 1 year suspension for your second refusal to submit to a chemical test.
Other Maryland Information on this Website
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
TOP LAWYERS IN MARYLAND: Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys & Counsellors, www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Thursday, August 1, 2013
MARYLAND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE LAW: JAMES COLEMAN v. SOCCER ASSO. OF COLUMBIA, Md. Ct. of Appeals, No. 9, Sept. Term (Jul 9, 2013)
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
On Tuesday, July 9th, 2013, Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld a law that states people cannot recover damages from injuries suffered in a negligence case if they are found to be partly at fault.
The case is JAMES COLEMAN v. SOCCER ASSOCIATION OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 9, Md. Ct. Appeals, July 9, 2013:
Filed: July 9, 2013
Opinion by Judge John C. Eldridge
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
On Tuesday, July 9th, 2013, Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals, upheld a law that states people cannot recover damages from injuries suffered in a negligence case if they are found to be partly at fault.
The case is JAMES COLEMAN v. SOCCER ASSOCIATION OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 9, Md. Ct. Appeals, July 9, 2013:
Filed: July 9, 2013
Opinion by Judge John C. Eldridge
Held: The defense of contributory negligence remains the law in Maryland. While the Court has the authority to change the rule, it declines to do so out of deference to the legislature.
Facts: The plaintiff was coaching soccer for the defendant soccer association. While standing in front of a soccer goal, the plaintiff jumped up and grabbed onto the front crossbar. The goal was not anchored to the ground. The plaintiff fell backward, drawing the weight of the crossbar onto his face. He was severely injured.The plaintiff sued the defendant. At trial, the defendant argued that the condition of the goal was open and obvious and that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's own negligence.
The jury returned a verdict finding that the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff was negligent also. On the basis of the doctrine of contributory negligence, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and challenged the viability of the contributory negligence defense as a legal doctrine in Maryland.
Analysis: The opinion contains an analysis of the history and policy behind the defense of contributory negligence. It also contains an analysis of the Court's authority to abrogate the common law, concluding that the Court could change the common law rule of its own accord. The Court notes, however, that since the rule was last affirmed by the Court in Harrison v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 444, 456 A.2d 894 (1983), the Maryland General Assembly has continually considered and failed to pass bills that would abolish or modify the rule. The failure of so many bills "is a clear indication of the legislative policy at the present time." The Court concludes that where the General Assembly has endorsed a public policy, the "Court will decline to enter the public policy debate, even when it is the common law that is at issue and the Court certainly has the authority to change the common law." On that basis, the Court affirmed the trial court.
Dissent: Judge Harrell, joined by Chief Judge Bell, wrote a dissenting opinion that concurs that the Court has the authority to abrogate the common law. It goes further and states that the Court need not defer to continued legislative inaction. It points out that, since 2003, the General Assembly has considered the adoption of comparative negligence only one time. In that context, legislative inaction need not be taken as endorsement of a public policy favoring contributory negligence. Ultimately, the dissent argues that the Court should adopt "pure comparative fault" as the controlling standard, whereby damages are apportioned among the parties according the percentage that each party's negligence contributed to the injury.
[judicialview.com/State-Case/Maryland/Civil Procedure/Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia/July 9, 2013; Marylandbusinesslawdevelopments.blogspot.com/07-2013/Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia; www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/high-court-upholds-contributory-negligence-law]
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
The national medical malpractice, wrongful death and serious injury law firm of Charles Jerome Ware P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is regarded as a leader in the areas of automobile death, criminal defense, personal injury, medical malpractice, survivorship, and wrongful death actions in the mid-Atlantic region --- including Maryland, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and Virginia.
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
The national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a premier Civil litigation and Criminal Defense firm headquartered in Maryland and Washington, D.C. We are: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
THE JOAN GINTHER & MACKENZIE SECRET LOTTERY CODES: The Lottery "Bible"
THE SECRET SCIENCE OF WINNING LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS: Laws, Strategies, Formulas and Statistics [Paperback]
Sold and shipped by amazon.com and other booksellers.
This amazingly helpful book is a best-seller!
Book Description
Sold and shipped by amazon.com and other booksellers.
This amazingly helpful book is a best-seller!
Book Description
Publication Date: July 26, 2012
There is a science of winning lotteries, sweepstakes and contests! When it comes to lotteries, sweepstakes and contests, there are ways to improve your odds or probability of winning. They are discussed in this book, with a lot of detail and some humor. Blind reliance on luck or chance is not necessary to win lotteries, sweepstakes and contests. The "4Ps" of persistence, preparation, poise and a positive mental attitude are necessary to win on a consistent or regular basis. Therefore, just about anyone is capable of winning. Charles Jerome Ware is a noted author and attorney, microeconomist, lotterician, sweepstaker and contester. He is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors. Dr. Ware is a highly successful and life-long sweepstaker and contester. He is also a successful lotterician who, for several years, has investigated, monitored and researched lotteries throughout the United States and several foreign countries. Dr. Ware is the recipient of numerous awards for his accomplishments in law and other areas. He lives in Columbia, Maryland.
http://amzn.com/1432793888
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
AUTHOR, LAWYER, LOTTERICIAN CHARLES WARE: 100% EFFECTIVE LOTTERY TECHNIQUES
http://amzn.com/1432793888
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
AUTHOR, LAWYER, LOTTERICIAN CHARLES WARE: 100% EFFECTIVE LOTTERY TECHNIQUES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)