Extret de l'article de director adjunt Jacqueline E. Burrell, El Comtat de Howard (Maryland) Times i The Baltimore (Maryland) Sun, 1989.08.06:
Súper Advocat litigant Charles Ware ha estat guardonat amb el primer "CHARLES HAMILTON HOUSTON AWARD PER DEFENSA LEGAL PENDENT" als EUA
El prestigiós premi va ser presentat pel Congressista dels EUA Ware Parren J. Mitchell en el sopar de renom MBELDEF, Inc anual a Washington, DC.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
SUPER abogado litigante CHARLES JEROME WARE GANA PREMIO DEFENSA LEGAL!!!
Extraído del artículo de director adjunto Jacqueline E. Burrell, El Condado de Howard (Maryland) Times y The Baltimore (Maryland) Sun, 06/08/1989:
Súper Abogado Litigante Charles Ware ha sido galardonado con el primer "CHARLES HAMILTON HOUSTON AWARD PARA DEFENSA LEGAL PENDIENTE" en los EE.UU.
El prestigioso premio fue presentado por el Congresista de los EE.UU. Ware Parren J. Mitchell en la cena de renombre MBELDEF, Inc. anual en Washington, DC.
Súper Abogado Litigante Charles Ware ha sido galardonado con el primer "CHARLES HAMILTON HOUSTON AWARD PARA DEFENSA LEGAL PENDIENTE" en los EE.UU.
El prestigioso premio fue presentado por el Congresista de los EE.UU. Ware Parren J. Mitchell en la cena de renombre MBELDEF, Inc. anual en Washington, DC.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
PSYCHOLOGIST MALPRACTICE OR NEGLIGENCE: A $16,500,000.00 VERDICT!
The public relies on psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to help at our most vulnerable times in life. Sometimes, however, this reliance becomes misplaced. No professional is perfect. Negligence does happen. Even boundary violations occur.
The national law offices of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, provide capable, competent and experienced attorneys to handle psychologist malpractice or negligence claims, patient abuse allegations, and boundary violations --- all of which can have disastrous consequences on the patient.
"Above all, do no harm." (Hippocratic Oath, 400 B.C.)
$16,500,000 VERDICT: Psychology Malpractice or Negligence - Patient accuses psychologist of implanting memories of rape and abuse by satanic cult during treatment - Pain and suffering damages.
In this case, a woman sued her psychologist, and also her ex-husband who worked in the psychologist’s office, for implanting memories of abuse by a satanic cult during CO2 treatment (carbon dioxide treatment for panic attacks). The ex-husband settled. The defendant psychologist denied wrongdoing, insisting that the dangerous memories were "real" repressed ones.
The plaintiff sought treatment from the State College (Pennsylvania) office of the defendant, a licensed psychologist. The plaintiff’s husband was employed at that office at the time. For four years thereafter, the plaintiff underwent treatment including hypnosis and CO2 (carbon dioxide) therapy under the supervision of the defendant.
CO2 treatment involved having a mask placed over the plaintiff’s face while she breathed in oxygen and CO2 until unconscious. It was during the hypnosis and the CO2-induced unconsciousness that the plaintiff underwent her treatment by the doctor, in sessions lasting two to eight hours.
It was during this treatment, the plaintiff alleged, that the defendant implanted memories of satanic ritual abuse in her mind, as well as memories of sexual abuse at the hands of her family. The plaintiff began experiencing flashbacks and nightmares that the defendant asserted were "repressed memories."
After ceasing CO2 treatments for health reasons, the plaintiff began to doubt the authenticity of the flashbacks and their relationship with the treatment, and contacted the police.
The plaintiff filed suit in Center County, Pennsylvania for medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress, naming both the doctor and her ex-husband as defendants.
She sought recovery for mental anguish and other non-economic damages.
The defendant ex-husband settled with the plaintiff.
The defendant doctor’s counsel was provided by his insurer until six months prior to trial.
The defendant doctor refused to settle, dismissed the insurance attorney and represented himself pro se thereafter. The defendant also filed a $3 million against the plaintiff for defamation.
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant psychologist had a penchant for a theory of satanic cult abuse, multiple personality disorder and repressed memories. The defendant testified at trial to having had 11 prior patients who discussed under hypnosis claims similar to the plaintiff’s flashbacks. The plaintiff asserted that these "memories" were implanted by the doctor during therapy sessions. She described her treatment with the defendant, beginning with two hour "mega-sessions" of hypnosis, which in turn led to CO2 treatments, in which she breathed CO2 from a mask until losing consciousness. She underwent this treatment for three and a-half years, multiple times a day.
The plaintiff stated that she had a normal family life, asserting that the flashbacks were not genuine or recoverable memories. She further argued that she had been forced to undergo the experience of sexual assaults repeatedly during her hundreds of sessions with the doctor. She also cited the end of her marriage and alienation from her family due to the experience. Finally, the plaintiff asserted that she had suffered brain damage as a result of the extensive use of CO2.
Testifying for the plaintiff were Dr. Mary Margaret Hart, a psychologist, and Dr. Judy Zarit, a neuropsychologist, as well as the plaintiff’s treating physicians.
The defendant psychologist asserted at trial that the plaintiff had a long history of physical and emotional pain, and that she did suffer childhood abuse, including abuse based in a satanic cult in State College, Pennsylvania. The defendant called Kimberly June, a former State College therapist, who testified to having treated two separate patients for similar cult abuse in Center County.
Therapist June testified via telephone that the cult operated in the 1960s, and included doctors, police officers and a judge. Children were buried in coffins, animals were killed and young women impregnated, according to June. The defendant further argued that the woman failed to show any brain injuries resulting from the CO2 poisoning. He offered the alternate theory that the brain injuries were the result of cult abuse.
After a six day trial, the jury deliberated for four and a-half hours before returning a $16.5 million award for the plaintiff in redress for her emotional distress.
[www.jvra.com/verdict/article/18679/PsychologistMalpractice; "A Primer on Malpractice for Psychologists", Samuel Knapp, Professional Psychology, Vol. 11 (4), August 1980; www.medicalmalpractice.com/Resources/PsychologistMalpractice; www.psychologytoday.com/ Psychology Today/ The Raving Psychologist/ July 14, 2011]
The national law offices of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors, provide capable, competent and experienced attorneys to handle psychologist malpractice or negligence claims, patient abuse allegations, and boundary violations --- all of which can have disastrous consequences on the patient.
"Above all, do no harm." (Hippocratic Oath, 400 B.C.)
$16,500,000 VERDICT: Psychology Malpractice or Negligence - Patient accuses psychologist of implanting memories of rape and abuse by satanic cult during treatment - Pain and suffering damages.
In this case, a woman sued her psychologist, and also her ex-husband who worked in the psychologist’s office, for implanting memories of abuse by a satanic cult during CO2 treatment (carbon dioxide treatment for panic attacks). The ex-husband settled. The defendant psychologist denied wrongdoing, insisting that the dangerous memories were "real" repressed ones.
The plaintiff sought treatment from the State College (Pennsylvania) office of the defendant, a licensed psychologist. The plaintiff’s husband was employed at that office at the time. For four years thereafter, the plaintiff underwent treatment including hypnosis and CO2 (carbon dioxide) therapy under the supervision of the defendant.
CO2 treatment involved having a mask placed over the plaintiff’s face while she breathed in oxygen and CO2 until unconscious. It was during the hypnosis and the CO2-induced unconsciousness that the plaintiff underwent her treatment by the doctor, in sessions lasting two to eight hours.
It was during this treatment, the plaintiff alleged, that the defendant implanted memories of satanic ritual abuse in her mind, as well as memories of sexual abuse at the hands of her family. The plaintiff began experiencing flashbacks and nightmares that the defendant asserted were "repressed memories."
After ceasing CO2 treatments for health reasons, the plaintiff began to doubt the authenticity of the flashbacks and their relationship with the treatment, and contacted the police.
The plaintiff filed suit in Center County, Pennsylvania for medical malpractice and negligent infliction of emotional distress, naming both the doctor and her ex-husband as defendants.
She sought recovery for mental anguish and other non-economic damages.
The defendant ex-husband settled with the plaintiff.
The defendant doctor’s counsel was provided by his insurer until six months prior to trial.
The defendant doctor refused to settle, dismissed the insurance attorney and represented himself pro se thereafter. The defendant also filed a $3 million against the plaintiff for defamation.
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant psychologist had a penchant for a theory of satanic cult abuse, multiple personality disorder and repressed memories. The defendant testified at trial to having had 11 prior patients who discussed under hypnosis claims similar to the plaintiff’s flashbacks. The plaintiff asserted that these "memories" were implanted by the doctor during therapy sessions. She described her treatment with the defendant, beginning with two hour "mega-sessions" of hypnosis, which in turn led to CO2 treatments, in which she breathed CO2 from a mask until losing consciousness. She underwent this treatment for three and a-half years, multiple times a day.
The plaintiff stated that she had a normal family life, asserting that the flashbacks were not genuine or recoverable memories. She further argued that she had been forced to undergo the experience of sexual assaults repeatedly during her hundreds of sessions with the doctor. She also cited the end of her marriage and alienation from her family due to the experience. Finally, the plaintiff asserted that she had suffered brain damage as a result of the extensive use of CO2.
Testifying for the plaintiff were Dr. Mary Margaret Hart, a psychologist, and Dr. Judy Zarit, a neuropsychologist, as well as the plaintiff’s treating physicians.
The defendant psychologist asserted at trial that the plaintiff had a long history of physical and emotional pain, and that she did suffer childhood abuse, including abuse based in a satanic cult in State College, Pennsylvania. The defendant called Kimberly June, a former State College therapist, who testified to having treated two separate patients for similar cult abuse in Center County.
Therapist June testified via telephone that the cult operated in the 1960s, and included doctors, police officers and a judge. Children were buried in coffins, animals were killed and young women impregnated, according to June. The defendant further argued that the woman failed to show any brain injuries resulting from the CO2 poisoning. He offered the alternate theory that the brain injuries were the result of cult abuse.
After a six day trial, the jury deliberated for four and a-half hours before returning a $16.5 million award for the plaintiff in redress for her emotional distress.
[www.jvra.com/verdict/article/18679/PsychologistMalpractice; "A Primer on Malpractice for Psychologists", Samuel Knapp, Professional Psychology, Vol. 11 (4), August 1980; www.medicalmalpractice.com/Resources/PsychologistMalpractice; www.psychologytoday.com/ Psychology Today/ The Raving Psychologist/ July 14, 2011]
"WARE WINS AWARD FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY": - Super Trial Attorney Charles Jerome Ware -
Retrieved from the archives of The Howard County Times and The Baltimore Sun, June 8, 1989, by Assistant Editor Jacqueline E. Burrell:
If Charles Ware had a personal motto, it would probably read, "Defend the Underdog" - particularly if the underdog is up against a large corporate or government entity. The Columbia-based attorney says he will "take on anybody." And he means it.
He has taken on Columbia's primary developer, The Rouse Co, filing a $28 million anti-trust lawsuit against the firm on behalf of local businessman Rob Harper. He has challenged Turf Valley Country Club owner Nicholas Mangione for racist practices and charged the Howard County Police Department with discrimination. And he is representing black Burger King franchise owners in a $500 million class action suit.
Ware is given to using dramatic courtroom techniques, even bringing stuffed animals along, baring their fangs and claws, to demonstrate the monstrosity of big corporate giants.
Ware has also flung himself into a courtroom witness stand, mimicked prosecution witnesses, and sent numerous "urgent" press releases to the news media.
["Best Attorneys and Counsellors in the United States" (2012); "Charles Hamilton Houston Award for Outstanding Legal Advocacy"; "Best Lawyers in America"].
Ware's style causes Howard County's mostly subdued legal community to raise its collective eyebrows. But that same style - and its results - has garnered him the 1989 Charles Hamilton Houston award for outstanding legal advocacy.
The award is given by the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization. It was established in 1980 by former Maryland Congressman Parren Mitchell to "...enhance, expand and defend minority business opportunities and growth."
Ware's flair for drama in and out of the courtroom has not affected his professional standing within the legal community. He is a respected lawyer with impressive credentials.
Born in Anniston, Ala., the 17-year Columbia resident was formerly a prosecutor for the U.S. Justice Department, chief legal counsel to the head of the Federal Trade Commission, and served as the youngest federal administrative law judge in the history of the United States.
Ware currently has a private law practice locally and is the general counsel for the Maryland chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Ware himself laughs at being called flamboyant, saying it is a misnomer, but admits that his legal style is "different from the mainstream."
He says he feels honored by the minority business group's award because the selection was made by his peers. "What has made me is not my flamboyance, but getting visible cases," he said. "I do relish going against the odds."
If Charles Ware had a personal motto, it would probably read, "Defend the Underdog" - particularly if the underdog is up against a large corporate or government entity. The Columbia-based attorney says he will "take on anybody." And he means it.
He has taken on Columbia's primary developer, The Rouse Co, filing a $28 million anti-trust lawsuit against the firm on behalf of local businessman Rob Harper. He has challenged Turf Valley Country Club owner Nicholas Mangione for racist practices and charged the Howard County Police Department with discrimination. And he is representing black Burger King franchise owners in a $500 million class action suit.
Ware is given to using dramatic courtroom techniques, even bringing stuffed animals along, baring their fangs and claws, to demonstrate the monstrosity of big corporate giants.
Ware has also flung himself into a courtroom witness stand, mimicked prosecution witnesses, and sent numerous "urgent" press releases to the news media.
["Best Attorneys and Counsellors in the United States" (2012); "Charles Hamilton Houston Award for Outstanding Legal Advocacy"; "Best Lawyers in America"].
Ware's style causes Howard County's mostly subdued legal community to raise its collective eyebrows. But that same style - and its results - has garnered him the 1989 Charles Hamilton Houston award for outstanding legal advocacy.
The award is given by the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization. It was established in 1980 by former Maryland Congressman Parren Mitchell to "...enhance, expand and defend minority business opportunities and growth."
Ware's flair for drama in and out of the courtroom has not affected his professional standing within the legal community. He is a respected lawyer with impressive credentials.
Born in Anniston, Ala., the 17-year Columbia resident was formerly a prosecutor for the U.S. Justice Department, chief legal counsel to the head of the Federal Trade Commission, and served as the youngest federal administrative law judge in the history of the United States.
Ware currently has a private law practice locally and is the general counsel for the Maryland chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Ware himself laughs at being called flamboyant, saying it is a misnomer, but admits that his legal style is "different from the mainstream."
He says he feels honored by the minority business group's award because the selection was made by his peers. "What has made me is not my flamboyance, but getting visible cases," he said. "I do relish going against the odds."
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
HOWARD COUNTY MARYLAND LAW BLOG: An Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware
Charles Ware is a principal in the national law firm of Charles Jerome Ware, P.A., Attorneys and Counsellors. The firm is headquartered in Columbia, Howard County, Maryland. The firm's motto is: "Still working. Still committed. Still here to make a difference."
It is Monday, November 12th, 2012, and the U.S. Congress is back for its "lame duck" session. There are several important pieces of legislation related to federal employees that Congress will attempt to address during this session.
Among the measures awaiting Congressional action is one affecting federal whistleblowers and a U.S. Postal Service bill that has a government-wide workers’ compensation provision.
Congress has been trying to figure out how to keep the U.S. Postal Service afloat for years. The Senate passed a bi-partisan bill in April, 2012 (S. 1789).
When the Senate acted, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said “this legislation will change the USPS so it can stay alive throughout the 21st century to serve the people and businesses of this country.”
But the key sponsor of House legislation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), has called the Senate bill “wholly unacceptable,” because he said the bill does not permit postal officials to quickly close facilities in order to save money.
“Instead of finding savings to help the Postal Service survive, the Senate postal bill has devolved into a special interest spending binge that would actually make things worse,” said Issa. “While the Postal Service is actually trying to shutter some facilities it does not need, the Senate bill forces the Postal Service to keep over one hundred excess postal facilities open at a cost of $900 million per year.”
Postal employee unions were ambivalent about the Senate’s legislation, which would affect other federal workers as well. Among its many provisions, the bill would cut some workers’ compensation payments three years after enactment. Not only postal workers, but other federal employees would be covered. Compensation would not be reduced, however, for those who are totally and permanently disabled or already above retirement age.
Another bill that the 112th Congress could act on during its final days is the "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act".
The whistleblower bill would strengthen protection against retaliation from supervisors toward federal employees who report waste, fraud or abuse. This bill has been more than a decade in the making. It was passed by the House in September, 2012.
More updates will be forthcoming.
[money.cnn.com/2012/04/27/ "Postal Service Bill Faces Roadblocks"; www.dailykos.com/2012/04/25/ "Today in Congress Senate Wraps Post Office Bill"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/federal-employee-bills-on-plate-of-lame-duck-congress/2012/11/12/75b68d1a-2ba4-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_blog.html; Joe Davidson: federaldiary@washpost.com]
It is Monday, November 12th, 2012, and the U.S. Congress is back for its "lame duck" session. There are several important pieces of legislation related to federal employees that Congress will attempt to address during this session.
Among the measures awaiting Congressional action is one affecting federal whistleblowers and a U.S. Postal Service bill that has a government-wide workers’ compensation provision.
Congress has been trying to figure out how to keep the U.S. Postal Service afloat for years. The Senate passed a bi-partisan bill in April, 2012 (S. 1789).
When the Senate acted, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said “this legislation will change the USPS so it can stay alive throughout the 21st century to serve the people and businesses of this country.”
But the key sponsor of House legislation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), has called the Senate bill “wholly unacceptable,” because he said the bill does not permit postal officials to quickly close facilities in order to save money.
“Instead of finding savings to help the Postal Service survive, the Senate postal bill has devolved into a special interest spending binge that would actually make things worse,” said Issa. “While the Postal Service is actually trying to shutter some facilities it does not need, the Senate bill forces the Postal Service to keep over one hundred excess postal facilities open at a cost of $900 million per year.”
Postal employee unions were ambivalent about the Senate’s legislation, which would affect other federal workers as well. Among its many provisions, the bill would cut some workers’ compensation payments three years after enactment. Not only postal workers, but other federal employees would be covered. Compensation would not be reduced, however, for those who are totally and permanently disabled or already above retirement age.
Another bill that the 112th Congress could act on during its final days is the "Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act".
The whistleblower bill would strengthen protection against retaliation from supervisors toward federal employees who report waste, fraud or abuse. This bill has been more than a decade in the making. It was passed by the House in September, 2012.
More updates will be forthcoming.
[money.cnn.com/2012/04/27/ "Postal Service Bill Faces Roadblocks"; www.dailykos.com/2012/04/25/ "Today in Congress Senate Wraps Post Office Bill"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/federal-employee-bills-on-plate-of-lame-duck-congress/2012/11/12/75b68d1a-2ba4-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_blog.html; Joe Davidson: federaldiary@washpost.com]
Monday, November 12, 2012
Ganar la lotería: LOS SECRETOS DE GANAR POR DR. CHARLES JEROME WARE!!!
Ganar la lotería: LOS SECRETOS DE GANAR POR DR. CHARLES JEROME WARE!!!
(Libro Nuevo En Inglés) "La ciencia secreta de ganar loterías, sorteos y concursos": leyes, estrategias, fórmulas y estadícas; Periferia Presna: Denver (2012); amazon.com
Cuando se trata de loteríias, sorteos y concursos, hay maneras de mejorar sus probabilidades o probabilidades de ganar. ellos se discuten en este libro, con um montón de detalles y un poco de humor.
Confianza ciega en la suerte o el azar no es necesario ganar loterías, sweepstakes y concursos.
(Libro Nuevo En Inglés) "La ciencia secreta de ganar loterías, sorteos y concursos": leyes, estrategias, fórmulas y estadícas; Periferia Presna: Denver (2012); amazon.com
Cuando se trata de loteríias, sorteos y concursos, hay maneras de mejorar sus probabilidades o probabilidades de ganar. ellos se discuten en este libro, con um montón de detalles y un poco de humor.
Confianza ciega en la suerte o el azar no es necesario ganar loterías, sweepstakes y concursos.
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) TO REVIEW MARYLAND DNA LAW IN 2012: Update by Attorney Charles Jerome Ware (www.CharlesJeromeWare.com)
The United States Supreme Court announced on Friday, November 9th, 2012 that it will review Maryland's DNA law, which so far allows police to collect samples of suspects' genetic material (without their permission) for possible matches to other crimes, in 2013.
The Maryland DNA law, a key crime-fighting initiative of Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, was ruled unconstitutional by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the State's highest court in April 2012. However, in July 2012, SCOTUS's Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., issued an order allowing police to continue collecting the DNA samples from suspects, signaling that the highest court in the nation may ultimately consider and weigh in on the issue.
The case at issue is Maryland v. King, S. Ct. Docket No. 12-207 (Term: OT 2012), 425 Md. 550, 42 A. 3d 549 (2012), which comes from a previously unsolved 2003 rape case in Salisbury, Maryland. When a DNA sample was taken from the suspect, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., after an arrest on unrelated assault charges in 2009, it was used to convict him of the earlier unsolved rape crime of 2003. Declaring that the use of King's DNA violated his constitutional rights, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) overturned his conviction on April 12, 2012 and remanded the case back to trial court.
It is anticipated that a key issue to be raised before SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) is whether the collection (or taking) of suspects' DNA before they are even convicted of crimes and using the DNA samples to link the suspects to previous or future crimes violates their right of privacy and constitutes an unlawful search and seizure under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Maryland DNA law went into effect in 2009. Supporters of the law equate the collection of DNA from suspects to the collection of fingerprints.
The law is officially titled: The Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Pub. Saf. Code Ann. § 2-501 et seq. (Lexis 2011).
[articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-09/new/ "Supreme Court Will Review Md. DNA Law"; www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ Maryland v. King, 07/30/2012, No. 12A48, U.S. Supreme Court; www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king]
The Maryland DNA law, a key crime-fighting initiative of Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, was ruled unconstitutional by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the State's highest court in April 2012. However, in July 2012, SCOTUS's Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., issued an order allowing police to continue collecting the DNA samples from suspects, signaling that the highest court in the nation may ultimately consider and weigh in on the issue.
The case at issue is Maryland v. King, S. Ct. Docket No. 12-207 (Term: OT 2012), 425 Md. 550, 42 A. 3d 549 (2012), which comes from a previously unsolved 2003 rape case in Salisbury, Maryland. When a DNA sample was taken from the suspect, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., after an arrest on unrelated assault charges in 2009, it was used to convict him of the earlier unsolved rape crime of 2003. Declaring that the use of King's DNA violated his constitutional rights, the Maryland Court of Appeals (MCOA) overturned his conviction on April 12, 2012 and remanded the case back to trial court.
It is anticipated that a key issue to be raised before SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) is whether the collection (or taking) of suspects' DNA before they are even convicted of crimes and using the DNA samples to link the suspects to previous or future crimes violates their right of privacy and constitutes an unlawful search and seizure under the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Maryland DNA law went into effect in 2009. Supporters of the law equate the collection of DNA from suspects to the collection of fingerprints.
The law is officially titled: The Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Pub. Saf. Code Ann. § 2-501 et seq. (Lexis 2011).
[articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-11-09/new/ "Supreme Court Will Review Md. DNA Law"; www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/ Maryland v. King, 07/30/2012, No. 12A48, U.S. Supreme Court; www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/maryland-v-king]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)