Charles Jerome Ware is president of the national law firm Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counselors. He is a renowned trial attorney, with several celebrity clients and numerous successful cases to his credit. Headquartered in nearby Columbia, Maryland, and with multiple offices throughout the country, the firm specializes in complex civil and criminal litigation, and catastrophic injury, wrongful death and class action lawsuits.
Ware is a former federal administrative law judge, and he was the youngest immigration judge in the history of the U.S. Additionally, he has served as chief legal and antitrust counsel to the chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, assistant U.S. Attorney for Maryland and the Eastern District of Virginia, and senior trial attorney in both the antitrust and criminal divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as executive vice president and general counsel for St. Paul's College, among other positions.
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Friday, December 7, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
FAMILY LAW UPDATE: ESCALATING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST "DEADBEAT DADS"
Wisconsin versus Corey Curtis, Tennesse verus Desmond Hatchett, et al.
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Forty-four year old Corey Curtis of Racine, Wisconsin has problems. So does Desmond Hatchett of Tennesee and "John Doe" of Kentucky, among others. All three are men who have fathered several children by different women, have failed to keep up with child support payments, and have therefore run afoul of the law in their states.
Looking across the courtroom at a deadbeat dad of nine, Corey Curtis, who owes almost $100,000 in back child support and interest, Judge Tim Boyle of the Racine County Circuit Court on Monday lamented not being able to prohibit certain men from breeding.
“This has come up before,” Judge Tim Boyle began. “It’s too bad the court doesn’t have the authority to sterilize.”
Before him was Corey Curtis, 44, of Racine. Curtis had fathered nine children with six women, Boyle said, and was way behind on child support payments for his youngsters.
Court records showed Curtis owed about $50,000 in back child support, plus another $40,000 in interest.
“Common sense dictates you shouldn’t have kids you can’t afford,” Boyle said, voicing frustration.
That’s when the prosecutor added that Boyle did have authority to restrict Curtis’ future breeding. She said a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling found in 2001 (Wisconsin v. Oakley) that a judge may, as a condition of a person’s probation, order the defendant not to have another child unless he can show he can support that child [State of Wisconsin v. David Oakley, Wisconsin Supreme Court (July 2001)].
“I will make that a condition of the probation,” Boyle said immediately, sentencing Curtis to serve three years’ probation.
Curtis pleaded no contest in October to one count each of felony bail jumping and failure to pay child support, which is a misdemeanor, court records show.
“He is not to procreate until he can show he can provide for them,” Boyle ordered, adding Curtis must show he can financially support all nine of his existing children, as well.
According to court records, Curtis has been arrested and charged with failure to pay child support numerous times over the past 11 years. Curtis also has convictions for bad checks, criminal damage and burglary.
For the record (or, at least, known record), the country's most famous deadbeat dad, Tennessean Desmond Hatchett, has fathered more than 20 children (with 11 women), but has slowed down his procreation rate while being imprisoned by Tennessee's Department of Correction.
Further, a Kentucky judge previously ordered a deadbeat dad (12 children with 11 women) to refrain from having sex in an attempt to keep him from adding a 13th dependent.
In the case of Wisconsin v. Oakley, the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices ruled in that case that defendant David Oakley's constitutional right to procreate wasn't eliminated. He still could reproduce - if he made child support payments, according to the ruling.
[see, host.madison.com/news/12-04-2012/ "Racine Judge Orders Father of 9 Not To Procreate"; Wisconsin State Journal, December 4th, 2012; www.opposingviews.com/ 12/05/2012/ "Judge Orders Corey Curtis..."; www.abajournal.com/news/ "Judge Adds Probation Condition..."; www.huffingtonpost.com/12-05-2012/ "Corey Curtis Wisconsin Father of 9..."; minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/"Corey Curtis"]
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Forty-four year old Corey Curtis of Racine, Wisconsin has problems. So does Desmond Hatchett of Tennesee and "John Doe" of Kentucky, among others. All three are men who have fathered several children by different women, have failed to keep up with child support payments, and have therefore run afoul of the law in their states.
Corey Curtis
Looking across the courtroom at a deadbeat dad of nine, Corey Curtis, who owes almost $100,000 in back child support and interest, Judge Tim Boyle of the Racine County Circuit Court on Monday lamented not being able to prohibit certain men from breeding.
“This has come up before,” Judge Tim Boyle began. “It’s too bad the court doesn’t have the authority to sterilize.”
Before him was Corey Curtis, 44, of Racine. Curtis had fathered nine children with six women, Boyle said, and was way behind on child support payments for his youngsters.
Court records showed Curtis owed about $50,000 in back child support, plus another $40,000 in interest.
“Common sense dictates you shouldn’t have kids you can’t afford,” Boyle said, voicing frustration.
That’s when the prosecutor added that Boyle did have authority to restrict Curtis’ future breeding. She said a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling found in 2001 (Wisconsin v. Oakley) that a judge may, as a condition of a person’s probation, order the defendant not to have another child unless he can show he can support that child [State of Wisconsin v. David Oakley, Wisconsin Supreme Court (July 2001)].
“I will make that a condition of the probation,” Boyle said immediately, sentencing Curtis to serve three years’ probation.
Curtis pleaded no contest in October to one count each of felony bail jumping and failure to pay child support, which is a misdemeanor, court records show.
“He is not to procreate until he can show he can provide for them,” Boyle ordered, adding Curtis must show he can financially support all nine of his existing children, as well.
According to court records, Curtis has been arrested and charged with failure to pay child support numerous times over the past 11 years. Curtis also has convictions for bad checks, criminal damage and burglary.
Desmond Hatchett, "John Doe" and David Oakley
For the record (or, at least, known record), the country's most famous deadbeat dad, Tennessean Desmond Hatchett, has fathered more than 20 children (with 11 women), but has slowed down his procreation rate while being imprisoned by Tennessee's Department of Correction.
Further, a Kentucky judge previously ordered a deadbeat dad (12 children with 11 women) to refrain from having sex in an attempt to keep him from adding a 13th dependent.
In the case of Wisconsin v. Oakley, the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices ruled in that case that defendant David Oakley's constitutional right to procreate wasn't eliminated. He still could reproduce - if he made child support payments, according to the ruling.
[see, host.madison.com/news/12-04-2012/ "Racine Judge Orders Father of 9 Not To Procreate"; Wisconsin State Journal, December 4th, 2012; www.opposingviews.com/ 12/05/2012/ "Judge Orders Corey Curtis..."; www.abajournal.com/news/ "Judge Adds Probation Condition..."; www.huffingtonpost.com/12-05-2012/ "Corey Curtis Wisconsin Father of 9..."; minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/"Corey Curtis"]
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS IMMIGRATION DEPORTATION AND INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY LAW ISSUES: Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware on Chafin v. Chafin, Docket No. 11-1347
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
Jeffrey Lee Chafin, Petitioner v. Lynne Hales Chafin, Docket No. 11-1347, Supreme Court of the United States, OT 2012, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case Nos. 11-15355-CC)
___________________________________________________________________
Summary: In this case (Chafin), the Supreme Court is presented with a test of federal court power to resolve issues under the "Hague Convention" treaty on abduction of children to a foreign country (in this case, Scotland, United Kingdom) from the United States.
The specific question is: Whether a federal appeal in a Hague case becomes moot if the child involved has returned to his or her home country ("country of habitual residence").
U.S. Soldier Jeffrey Lee Chafin and his Scottish wife Lynne Hales Chafin had a daughter born in 2007 in Germany where the family was stationed. Subsequently, in 2009, the family of three moved to Alabama, but the marriage began to disintegrate; and, the parents' dispute eventually involved the care of their five-year old daughter.
The father was a U.S. citizen, the mother a United Kingdom citizen, and the daughter was a dual-U.S. and U.K. citizen (dual citizenship). During this period of marital discord, the mother's visa expired, rendering her subject to deportation. Mrs. Chafin was in fact deported back to Scotland in February 2011 after she was arrested for domestic violence and her unlawful immigration status was discovered by the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service). After her deportation, the domestic violence case against her was dropped.
On May 2, 2011, Mrs. Chafin initiated proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (11th Circuit) seeking an order directing their daughter's (aka "E.C.'s") prompt return to Scotland under the "Hague Convention" treaty and the International Child Abduction Act (ICARA).
Eventually, Mrs. Chafin returned to Scotland with the child, after gaining a federal court order under the Hague Convention declaring that Scotland was the girl’s normal residence. Sgt. Chafin appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit, but that court dismissed the case as moot because of the child’s return to Scotland.
In taking the case on to the Supreme Court, Sgt. Chafin argued that the federal appeals courts are split on the mootness issue under the Hague Convention. The Fourth Circuit Court, the petition said, had ruled that an appeals court should retain jurisdiction over such a case to resolve the parents’ competing legal rights. Presumably, it was that conflict that led the Supreme Court to take on the case.
Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a child is to be returned to the country of “habitual residence” if the child has been taken to another country in violation of that treaty. One part of the treaty specifies that, until a court has decided that the child is not to be returned to the homeland, a court is not to decide the merits of the rights of custody. Both the U.S. and the United Kingdom are parties to that treaty. There is a dispute in the Chafin case over where the daughter’s country of habitual residence was.
Oral argument before SCOTUS occurred on December 5th, 2012. The Court's decision will come in 2013.
[www.scotusblog.com/ chafin v. chafin/ 12-5-2012; legalnews.findlaw.com/ 12-5-2012/article/Jsutices Struggled With Internation Custody Law; Associated Press/ Wednesday December 5th, 2012]
Jeffrey Lee Chafin, Petitioner v. Lynne Hales Chafin, Docket No. 11-1347, Supreme Court of the United States, OT 2012, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Case Nos. 11-15355-CC)
___________________________________________________________________
Summary: In this case (Chafin), the Supreme Court is presented with a test of federal court power to resolve issues under the "Hague Convention" treaty on abduction of children to a foreign country (in this case, Scotland, United Kingdom) from the United States.
The specific question is: Whether a federal appeal in a Hague case becomes moot if the child involved has returned to his or her home country ("country of habitual residence").
U.S. Soldier Jeffrey Lee Chafin and his Scottish wife Lynne Hales Chafin had a daughter born in 2007 in Germany where the family was stationed. Subsequently, in 2009, the family of three moved to Alabama, but the marriage began to disintegrate; and, the parents' dispute eventually involved the care of their five-year old daughter.
The father was a U.S. citizen, the mother a United Kingdom citizen, and the daughter was a dual-U.S. and U.K. citizen (dual citizenship). During this period of marital discord, the mother's visa expired, rendering her subject to deportation. Mrs. Chafin was in fact deported back to Scotland in February 2011 after she was arrested for domestic violence and her unlawful immigration status was discovered by the USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service). After her deportation, the domestic violence case against her was dropped.
On May 2, 2011, Mrs. Chafin initiated proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (11th Circuit) seeking an order directing their daughter's (aka "E.C.'s") prompt return to Scotland under the "Hague Convention" treaty and the International Child Abduction Act (ICARA).
Eventually, Mrs. Chafin returned to Scotland with the child, after gaining a federal court order under the Hague Convention declaring that Scotland was the girl’s normal residence. Sgt. Chafin appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit, but that court dismissed the case as moot because of the child’s return to Scotland.
In taking the case on to the Supreme Court, Sgt. Chafin argued that the federal appeals courts are split on the mootness issue under the Hague Convention. The Fourth Circuit Court, the petition said, had ruled that an appeals court should retain jurisdiction over such a case to resolve the parents’ competing legal rights. Presumably, it was that conflict that led the Supreme Court to take on the case.
Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a child is to be returned to the country of “habitual residence” if the child has been taken to another country in violation of that treaty. One part of the treaty specifies that, until a court has decided that the child is not to be returned to the homeland, a court is not to decide the merits of the rights of custody. Both the U.S. and the United Kingdom are parties to that treaty. There is a dispute in the Chafin case over where the daughter’s country of habitual residence was.
Oral argument before SCOTUS occurred on December 5th, 2012. The Court's decision will come in 2013.
[www.scotusblog.com/ chafin v. chafin/ 12-5-2012; legalnews.findlaw.com/ 12-5-2012/article/Jsutices Struggled With Internation Custody Law; Associated Press/ Wednesday December 5th, 2012]
MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW WAREHOUSE: Maryland v. Weems, No. 20, September Term 2012
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, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
STATE OF MARYLAND v. LATRESHA L. WEEMS, In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 20, September Term 2012; originated in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Case No. 02-K-09-001485:
Latresha L. Weems was convicted by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of theft. She appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and won. The State then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The key question presented for appellant was whether the evidence introduced in the case in trial was sufficient to sustain Weems' conviction of theft.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals said "no", and reversed the guilty verdict of the circuit court.
The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of Special Appeals, said "no", and summed up their decision as follows:
CRIMINAL LAW -- THEFT OVER $500 -- KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTY BEING LOST, MISLAID, OR DELIVERED BY MISTAKE -- Maryland Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 7-104(d) of the Criminal Law Article prohibits a person from obtaining control over property "knowing that the property was lost, mislaid, or was delivered under a mistake." The statute also states that a person can develop an intent to steal after obtaining property that is lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake, and after gaining later knowledge of the property's owner. The statute is ambiguous, however, regarding whether a person must know at the time he or she obtains property that the property is lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake. When a statute is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations, the rule of lenity requires that the statute be construed in favor of the accused. When the State does not provide any evidence at trial that a person knew of the counterfeit nature of a check at the time she obtained funds from cashing the check, the facts are insufficient to sustain a conviction for theft.
[also see, Weems v. Maryland, No. 2782, September Term 2009; Md. Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 7-104(d), Criminal Law Article; "The rule of lenity": statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused, Moore v. State, 388 Md. 623, 632 (2005); State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 229 (1996)]
STATE OF MARYLAND v. LATRESHA L. WEEMS, In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 20, September Term 2012; originated in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Case No. 02-K-09-001485:
Latresha L. Weems was convicted by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of theft. She appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and won. The State then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
The key question presented for appellant was whether the evidence introduced in the case in trial was sufficient to sustain Weems' conviction of theft.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals said "no", and reversed the guilty verdict of the circuit court.
The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of Special Appeals, said "no", and summed up their decision as follows:
CRIMINAL LAW -- THEFT OVER $500 -- KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTY BEING LOST, MISLAID, OR DELIVERED BY MISTAKE -- Maryland Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 7-104(d) of the Criminal Law Article prohibits a person from obtaining control over property "knowing that the property was lost, mislaid, or was delivered under a mistake." The statute also states that a person can develop an intent to steal after obtaining property that is lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake, and after gaining later knowledge of the property's owner. The statute is ambiguous, however, regarding whether a person must know at the time he or she obtains property that the property is lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake. When a statute is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations, the rule of lenity requires that the statute be construed in favor of the accused. When the State does not provide any evidence at trial that a person knew of the counterfeit nature of a check at the time she obtained funds from cashing the check, the facts are insufficient to sustain a conviction for theft.
[also see, Weems v. Maryland, No. 2782, September Term 2009; Md. Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 7-104(d), Criminal Law Article; "The rule of lenity": statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused, Moore v. State, 388 Md. 623, 632 (2005); State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 229 (1996)]
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
CHARLES WARE'S "CLASS ACTION WAREHOUSE": Can Employers "Buy-Out" the Sole Plaintiff Before A Class Action Is Certified?
The law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, is a national general law practice law firm headquartered in the Washington, D.C. - Baltimore, Maryland metropolitan area. The firm is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
Genesis Healthcare Corporation v. Symczyk, Docket No. 11-1059, October Term 2012, Argument: December 3rd, 2012, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Issue: Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the sole plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
Can an employer, faced with a purported class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, avoid litigation by immediately offering a settlement to the sole plaintiff before a class is certified?
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tackled that question on Monday during oral arguments in the case of Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk.
The matter involves class-action plaintiff Laura Symczyk, who filed a purported class action alleging that her employer, Genesis HealthCare Corp., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by automatically deducting time for breaks from employees' time sheets, regardless of whether the workers were performing job duties during that time.
Before other workers could join Symczyk's suit, Genesis offered her a Rule 68 offer of judgment in the amount of $7,500 for lost wages and other fees, which she did not accept. But a district court ruled that the settlement offer mooted any potential class action and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Genesis Healthcare Corporation v. Symczyk, Docket No. 11-1059, October Term 2012, Argument: December 3rd, 2012, Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Issue: Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the sole plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
Can an employer, faced with a purported class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, avoid litigation by immediately offering a settlement to the sole plaintiff before a class is certified?
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tackled that question on Monday during oral arguments in the case of Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk.
The matter involves class-action plaintiff Laura Symczyk, who filed a purported class action alleging that her employer, Genesis HealthCare Corp., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by automatically deducting time for breaks from employees' time sheets, regardless of whether the workers were performing job duties during that time.
Before other workers could join Symczyk's suit, Genesis offered her a Rule 68 offer of judgment in the amount of $7,500 for lost wages and other fees, which she did not accept. But a district court ruled that the settlement offer mooted any potential class action and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Rule 68. Offer of Judgment
(a) Making an Offer; Judgment on an Accepted Offer. At least 14 days before the date set for trial, a party defending against a claim may serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then accrued. If, within 14 days after being served, the opposing party serves written notice accepting the offer, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance, plus proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment.
(b) Unaccepted Offer. An unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn, but it does not preclude a later offer. Evidence of an unaccepted offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.
(c) Offer After Liability is Determined. When one party's liability to another has been determined but the extent of liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party held liable may make an offer of judgment. It must be served within a reasonable time—but at least 14 days—before the date set for a hearing to determine the extent of liability.
(d) Paying Costs After an Unaccepted Offer. If the judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.
[Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), Pub. L. 75-718, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, June 25, 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 207 and 216(b), ch. 8; Opinion below: Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 10-3178, Filed 08/31/2011; Trial Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil No. A09-5782, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49599 (E.D. Pa., May 19, 2010); Federal Rule Civil Procedure 68 (a) (providing a plaintiff with 14 days to accept an offer); Savings Banks v. O'Neill, Brooklyn 324 U.S. 697, 707 n.18, 65 S. Ct. 895, 89 L. Ed. 1296 (1945)]
COLUMBIA/HOWARD COUNTY/MARYLAND DRUNK DRIVING WAREHOUSE: Defense Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Among the best attorneys in the United States [GQ Magazine, The Washington
Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston
Star, The New York Times, et al.]
As in other states, "drunk driving" in Maryland (i.e., DUI, or driving under the influence; and DWI, or driving while intoxicated) is a very serious offense which is treated as such by the State's law enforcement authorities. The odds are high that you can go to jail for drunk driving in Maryland.
(1) DUI (Driving Under the Influence) is the higher drunk driving alcohol violation in Maryland. Among other things, it means that the driver's BAC (blood alcohol concentration) registered a level of 0.08% or higher. It is treated severely in the sense that 12 points are automatically assessed against the defendant's driver's license, resulting in automatic revocation of the license; and the defendant could receive up to 1 year in jail and a 60-day driver's license revocation, etc.
Monetarily, the fine for a first DUI offense is $1,000, and it is $2,000 for a second offense. The real punishment, however, comes into play with the mandatory process of hiring a good attorney, going to court, getting alcohol assessments and evaluations, MVA (Motor Vehicle Administration) hearings, court-ordered monitoring, loss of pay or work, et al.
Proper response to a DUI charge can set the defendant back for over $10,000 in Maryland.
(2) DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) may be a slightly lesser offence to the DUI, but it is still a very serious offense in Maryland. Generally, if the defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is found to be between 0.04% and 0.07%, he or she will be charged with a DWI.
In many cases, people who ended up on the lower end of the BAC spectrum but fail on a field sobriety test can end up with this charge. Police Officer judgment is a major factor. The end result is 8 points tallied against your driving record and a $500 fine (for both a first and second offense). Jail time can range from 60 days from the first offense and up to a year for the second.
(3) Drunk Driving Minors (drivers under 21 years) are prosecuted for DUI or DWI under a zero (0) tolerance rule in Maryland. Drivers under 21 years of age with a BAC level of 0.02 can have their driver's license suspended or revoked.
Driving deaths ("Vehicular Homicides"), i.e., when persons are killed through the use of cars or other vehicles, are very serious crimes in Maryland and other states. The penalties in these cases almost invariably include prison terms.
Depending upon the factual circumstances of each case, prison terms for defendants can be substantially increased.
What is the penalty for vehicular homicide (manslaughter) in Maryland?
Md. Ann. Code Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(b) provides that "A person may not cause the death of another as a result of the person's driving, operating, or controlling a vehicle or vessel in a grossly negligent manner."
A person convicted of violating this statute is guilty of a felony and is "subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both." Md. Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(d).
[www.dmv.org/md-maryland/automative-law/dui.php; www.ehow.com/facts/ "DWI & DUI Laws in Maryland"; criminal.lawyers.com/ Vehicular Homicide: Driving Deaths in General; www.nolo.com/legal-encylopedia/ DUI Laws in Maryland]
MARYLAND DRUNK DRIVING
As in other states, "drunk driving" in Maryland (i.e., DUI, or driving under the influence; and DWI, or driving while intoxicated) is a very serious offense which is treated as such by the State's law enforcement authorities. The odds are high that you can go to jail for drunk driving in Maryland.
(1) DUI (Driving Under the Influence) is the higher drunk driving alcohol violation in Maryland. Among other things, it means that the driver's BAC (blood alcohol concentration) registered a level of 0.08% or higher. It is treated severely in the sense that 12 points are automatically assessed against the defendant's driver's license, resulting in automatic revocation of the license; and the defendant could receive up to 1 year in jail and a 60-day driver's license revocation, etc.
Monetarily, the fine for a first DUI offense is $1,000, and it is $2,000 for a second offense. The real punishment, however, comes into play with the mandatory process of hiring a good attorney, going to court, getting alcohol assessments and evaluations, MVA (Motor Vehicle Administration) hearings, court-ordered monitoring, loss of pay or work, et al.
Proper response to a DUI charge can set the defendant back for over $10,000 in Maryland.
(2) DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) may be a slightly lesser offence to the DUI, but it is still a very serious offense in Maryland. Generally, if the defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is found to be between 0.04% and 0.07%, he or she will be charged with a DWI.
In many cases, people who ended up on the lower end of the BAC spectrum but fail on a field sobriety test can end up with this charge. Police Officer judgment is a major factor. The end result is 8 points tallied against your driving record and a $500 fine (for both a first and second offense). Jail time can range from 60 days from the first offense and up to a year for the second.
(3) Drunk Driving Minors (drivers under 21 years) are prosecuted for DUI or DWI under a zero (0) tolerance rule in Maryland. Drivers under 21 years of age with a BAC level of 0.02 can have their driver's license suspended or revoked.
MARYLAND VEHICULAR
HOMICIDE
Driving deaths ("Vehicular Homicides"), i.e., when persons are killed through the use of cars or other vehicles, are very serious crimes in Maryland and other states. The penalties in these cases almost invariably include prison terms.
Depending upon the factual circumstances of each case, prison terms for defendants can be substantially increased.
What is the penalty for vehicular homicide (manslaughter) in Maryland?
Md. Ann. Code Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(b) provides that "A person may not cause the death of another as a result of the person's driving, operating, or controlling a vehicle or vessel in a grossly negligent manner."
A person convicted of violating this statute is guilty of a felony and is "subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both." Md. Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(d).
[www.dmv.org/md-maryland/automative-law/dui.php; www.ehow.com/facts/ "DWI & DUI Laws in Maryland"; criminal.lawyers.com/ Vehicular Homicide: Driving Deaths in General; www.nolo.com/legal-encylopedia/ DUI Laws in Maryland]
HOLIDAY SEASON DRUNK DRIVING WAREHOUSE: Defense Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Among the best attorneys in the United States [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]
As in other states, "drunk driving" in Maryland (i.e., DUI, or driving under the influence; and DWI, or driving while intoxicated) is a very serious offense which is treated as such by the State's law enforcement authorities. The odds are high that you can go to jail for drunk driving in Maryland.
(1) DUI (Driving Under the Influence) is the higher drunk driving alcohol violation in Maryland. Among other things, it means that the driver's BAC (blood alcohol concentration) registered a level of 0.08% or higher. It is treated severely in the sense that 12 points are automatically assessed against the defendant's driver's license, resulting in automatic revocation of the license; and the defendant could receive up to 1 year in jail and a 60-day driver's license revocation, etc.
Monetarily, the fine for a first DUI offense is $1,000, and it is $2,000 for a second offense. The real punishment, however, comes into play with the mandatory process of hiring a good attorney, going to court, getting alcohol assessments and evaluations, MVA (Motor Vehicle Administration) hearings, court-ordered monitoring, loss of pay or work, et al.
Proper response to a DUI charge can set the defendant back for over $10,000 in Maryland.
(2) DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) may be a slightly lesser offence to the DUI, but it is still a very serious offense in Maryland. Generally, if the defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is found to be between 0.04% and 0.07%, he or she will be charged with a DWI.
In many cases, people who ended up on the lower end of the BAC spectrum but fail on a field sobriety test can end up with this charge. Police Officer judgment is a major factor. The end result is 8 points tallied against your driving record and a $500 fine (for both a first and second offense). Jail time can range from 60 days from the first offense and up to a year for the second.
(3) Drunk Driving Minors (drivers under 21 years) are prosecuted for DUI or DWI under a zero (0) tolerance rule in Maryland. Drivers under 21 years of age with a BAC level of 0.02 can have their driver's license suspended or revoked.
Driving deaths ("Vehicular Homicides"), i.e., when persons are killed through the use of cars or other vehicles, are very serious crimes in Maryland and other states. The penalties in these cases almost invariably include prison terms.
Depending upon the factual circumstances of each case, prison terms for defendants can be substantially increased.
What is the penalty for vehicular homicide (manslaughter) in Maryland?
Md. Ann. Code Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(b) provides that "A person may not cause the death of another as a result of the person's driving, operating, or controlling a vehicle or vessel in a grossly negligent manner."
A person convicted of violating this statute is guilty of a felony and is "subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both." Md. Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(d).
[www.dmv.org/md-maryland/automative-law/dui.php; www.ehow.com/facts/ "DWI & DUI Laws in Maryland"; criminal.lawyers.com/ Vehicular Homicide: Driving Deaths in General; www.nolo.com/legal-encylopedia/ DUI Laws in Maryland]
MARYLAND DRUNK DRIVING
As in other states, "drunk driving" in Maryland (i.e., DUI, or driving under the influence; and DWI, or driving while intoxicated) is a very serious offense which is treated as such by the State's law enforcement authorities. The odds are high that you can go to jail for drunk driving in Maryland.
(1) DUI (Driving Under the Influence) is the higher drunk driving alcohol violation in Maryland. Among other things, it means that the driver's BAC (blood alcohol concentration) registered a level of 0.08% or higher. It is treated severely in the sense that 12 points are automatically assessed against the defendant's driver's license, resulting in automatic revocation of the license; and the defendant could receive up to 1 year in jail and a 60-day driver's license revocation, etc.
Monetarily, the fine for a first DUI offense is $1,000, and it is $2,000 for a second offense. The real punishment, however, comes into play with the mandatory process of hiring a good attorney, going to court, getting alcohol assessments and evaluations, MVA (Motor Vehicle Administration) hearings, court-ordered monitoring, loss of pay or work, et al.
Proper response to a DUI charge can set the defendant back for over $10,000 in Maryland.
(2) DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) may be a slightly lesser offence to the DUI, but it is still a very serious offense in Maryland. Generally, if the defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is found to be between 0.04% and 0.07%, he or she will be charged with a DWI.
In many cases, people who ended up on the lower end of the BAC spectrum but fail on a field sobriety test can end up with this charge. Police Officer judgment is a major factor. The end result is 8 points tallied against your driving record and a $500 fine (for both a first and second offense). Jail time can range from 60 days from the first offense and up to a year for the second.
(3) Drunk Driving Minors (drivers under 21 years) are prosecuted for DUI or DWI under a zero (0) tolerance rule in Maryland. Drivers under 21 years of age with a BAC level of 0.02 can have their driver's license suspended or revoked.
MARYLAND VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
Driving deaths ("Vehicular Homicides"), i.e., when persons are killed through the use of cars or other vehicles, are very serious crimes in Maryland and other states. The penalties in these cases almost invariably include prison terms.
Depending upon the factual circumstances of each case, prison terms for defendants can be substantially increased.
What is the penalty for vehicular homicide (manslaughter) in Maryland?
Md. Ann. Code Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(b) provides that "A person may not cause the death of another as a result of the person's driving, operating, or controlling a vehicle or vessel in a grossly negligent manner."
A person convicted of violating this statute is guilty of a felony and is "subject to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both." Md. Criminal Law Art. § 2-209(d).
[www.dmv.org/md-maryland/automative-law/dui.php; www.ehow.com/facts/ "DWI & DUI Laws in Maryland"; criminal.lawyers.com/ Vehicular Homicide: Driving Deaths in General; www.nolo.com/legal-encylopedia/ DUI Laws in Maryland]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)