Q: WHO LET THE DOGS OUT? A: THE COURTS AND THE COPS!
FROM THE STREETS OF BALTIMORE TO THE 3rd FLOOR OF THE ROBERT C. MURPHY COURTS OF APPEAL BUILDING IN ANNAPOLIS
By Robert C. Bonsib, Esq.
PRIOR SEXUAL CONDUCT - RAPE - SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM'S REPUTATION FOR CHASTITY
PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATIONS - UNRELIABLE - FALSE - MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATIONS - REVIEW OF FACTORS
THE "BATTERED SPOUSE SYNDROME" DEFENSE IN HOMICIDE-MURDER-MANSLAUGHTER CASES
Prosecutors are increasing seeking murder or manslaughter charges against dealers of heroin, fentanyl and other opiates when their customers overdose and die. Absent a specific statute authorizing such prosecutions, the viability of bringing murder or manslaughter charges against dealers was brought into question with the April 4, 2018 decision by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ("CSA") in Thomas v. State.
A summary of recent appellate cases from the Maryland and Fourth Circuit appellate courts. These cases review decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence in child pornograpy distribution cases involving the use of peer-to-peer software programs, search warrants in child pornography cases using new law enforcement techniques, the admissibility of jail calls pursuant to the doctrine of verbal completeness, the use of old prior conviction to impeach a character witness, limitations on the cross-examination of a prosecution witness with respect to pending charges and the definition of a crime of violence for career offender classification under the federal sentencing guidelines. The full newletter is accessible at this link: Criminal Law Newsletter - Jan 27 2018
In United States v. Bailey, No. Criminal No. PWG-16-0246, 2017 WL 2276849 (D. Md. May 25, 2017), United States District Judge Paul W. Grimm has once again provided guidance to practitioners regarding a rule of evidence that is often troublesome in its application.
Recently, the Court of Appeals decided two companion cases, Moats vs. State, 2017WL63764567, No. 89, September Term, 2016 and Stevenson vs. State, 2017WL3765549, No. 92, September Term, 2016; both of which considered the type of information necessary to supply probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to search a cell phone.