Posts Tagged ‘AV Rated Martindale-Hubbell’

You are too late if you are reading this

Monday, March 14th, 2011

If you are reading this you have been charged with an offense and looking for an attorney.  Here is a variable neither you nor I have control over.  These cases were not triable. A  good search in the first caseand the second client was caught at the scene with the stolen property.  What prompted this post was the conversation at a coffee house this morning with the prosecutor in the first case.

This morning I had a sad conversation with a prosecutor whom I like and respect. The client is going to jail for a few months (selling a small amount of weed), and  will be on either work release or college release.  During the summer, the client will work.  When school begins, the client will have 10 days left to serve because, although the client will have earned release credits, they are not awarded until the end of the month.  I wanted to modify the agreement (the sentence has not been imposed yet) to reduce the time by the 10 days.  The prosecutor said, the client can be released for school so why do it.  I said i did not want the school to note it on his school record since they have to agree to allow him to attend (they do it all the time).  It would also be easier to start school at the beginning of the semester from home. The prosecutor’s response was too bad, let it be on his school record.  I commented the client would like to keep it out of there, and the prosecutor said that the prosecutor was tired of being accused of ruining people’s lives.  I told the prosecutor that I did not think that, nor was I implying it, and that the client did not think that when the request was made to me.  The client is not receiving a PBJ so this will not be expunged, so maybe there is no additional harm.  The problem was the cold stark reality that once you have screwed up your life, you may find little sympathy.

The contrast to this was recently I had another college student who was involved in a Theft.  Inexcusable and inexplicable.  Caught red-handed.  The prosecutor in that case was also dumbfounded by what the client did.  The agreement was for a PBJ (can be expunged in 3 years, unless Good Cause for an earlier expungement).  Without me asking or even thinking about it while we were waiting for the Judge, the prosecutor walked over to me and said, if the client stays clean for the next year, the prosecutor would agree to an early expungement so he can get a job because he is graduating college this year.  A kind and gracious act that was not even on anybody’s radar screen, and would not have been on mine until the probation period was over.

Recent Court of Appeals MVA Rulings

Friday, February 18th, 2011

If it was not already hard to win one of these hearing, it just keeps getting harder.  The Court of Appeals has recently announced rulings that interpret our Breath Testing Statute- §16-205.1 as requiring a minimum of paperwork that has to be submitted in order to provide a prima facie case.   The Sworn Certifications of the arresting and testing officers are enough- even without the test slip.  The burden shifts to the driver to rebut this evidence.  Well if you have a copy of a breath test result slip with less than the legal limit, you have some evidence.  On the other hand, since you will not,  the client loses. This law is for the benefit and protection of the public, and the Court is not going to require the MVA to provide much evidence.

In a recent case, there is an indication, that there may not be a right to an attorney in the Administrative setting.  If denied a lawyer, the evidence (test or refusal) may be suppressed in the criminal case, but may  come in for Administrative sanctions.  There is an argument about the confusion this creates for a driver, but that is for the next case before the Court.

I watched a recently argued case on line concerning the “bad faith” issue.  It seems the Court might  hold that where the officer provides a bare minimum of information, the driver bears the burden of presenting the facts concerning bad faith.  I won a “bad faith” case two weeks ago because I had the video-tape not only showing but proving the stop was unwarranted.  There is a story behind that, but I may post about it later.  It was the first “bad faith” win, and I have done a lot of these.  Without the tape, the client is either walking or blowing into an interlock.  The criminal case was also nol prossed.  It was pretty bad what happened, but the case is not really over yet.

Blasi case and odor of alcohol and SFSTs Instructions

Friday, February 18th, 2011

Pay attention to the testimony!!!!   A police officer yesterday may have confused himself when he recited the order in which he confronted my client and asked her to perform the Field Tests.  He testified that he the car was lawfully parked and after he detected an odor of alcohol, he ordered her out to do the tests.  Once outside the vehicle he detected the clues that would have warranted asking her to take the Field Tests.  The odor of alcohol is not enough or every person leaving a bar would be walking the imaginary line.  The judge had no choice but to suppress everything.  I am a note taker- always have been.  It allows me to argue that I wrote it down in this order and it makes it easy for the judge to review his notes or if no notes, agree that the officer testified in that order.  AND NO CROSS-EXAMINATION!!!! Don’t lose a case because you are just dying to ask questions.

Had I lost the Motion the Judge was prepared to grant the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal because the police officer never testified about the instructions he gave my client on each Field Test.  He knew what the instructions were supposed to be but he could not take judicial notice that the police officer gave them.  The Sate suggested I could have asked, I don’t bake their pie.  The client did residential treatment and some Aftercare, so her family and I hope this is the only time she has to visit with me.

20th Year Martindale-Hubbell AV Peer Review

Monday, October 11th, 2010

I just received an email that for the past 20 years I have received the highest rating (AV) from Martindale-Hubbell peer review. For years this was the only rating and review a lawyer would receive, as the Super Lawyers Recognition began a few years ago. It is a nice recognition and is probably used by the out-of-state lawyers who refer their Maryland clients to me.

Update to DRE

Monday, October 11th, 2010

The Judge never got to rule on the DRE because I got the charge dismissed on technical grounds.  I wonder how happy he was to learn about that?  The arresting officer was shocked.  My client was happy.

DRE Not a Happy Guy

Friday, September 24th, 2010

I won a Driving Under the Influence of Xanex this week.  It had been continued from last month where I had a lot of fun cross-examing the Drug Recognition “Expert.”  The witness has been an “expert” since 1993, and this was the first time he ever testified.  People just give up on these cases.  He is also an Instructor on SFSTS.  Well he did the fields incorrectly, and my client did not have 6/7 of the 10 “symptoms” of Xanex intoxication.  The seventh was normal pupil size so I guess if you are not under the influence you still have normal pupil size.   When I showed him the NHTSA manuals that impeached him, he was not very happy. I had seen him at lunch before cross-examination and kidded him that I wanted him to eat carefully, because if he got sick during cross-examination I did not want him to blame it on the food.  We even gave him and the blood witness our table.  All of it very funny.  Near the end of cross, I accused him of backing into the conclusion since she admitted she took Xanex the night before.  By then I had gotten him so angry that he started yelling at me to ask my client how he tried to help her. It was hilarious. The case took a twisted  turn when I showed the charging document was bad, so that at the end of the State’s case, the case got tossed.  I would have loved a NG on the “expert’s” conclusion.  I hope I get another case with him because he took this personally.  When we left the court last month he was sitting in the hallway and was anything but happy.  Just as I told him it was not his job to ask questions, it is not my job to make him happy.

State failed to follow the Evidence Rules

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Two weeks ago I tried a DUI that had career implications for my client.  The police were very upset about the prospect of a trial and having to be in court all day.  They didn’t like my outlook on the case and asked a “regular” who is this guy Bernstein.  He told them you better watch out he teaches this stuff.  They ask if I am as good as he is and he says “I go to his classes.  He teaches me.”   Talk about setting the right tone.  The “regular” and I were laughing about this, but compliments don’t win cases.  The State did not comply with the Evidence Rules and the breath test was suppressed.  My original offer of a Reckless that was sneered at by the police was now acceptable.  Case ended with a Reckless and a PBJ (no points and no MVA sanctions).  I guess those two police will recognize my name the next time.

Interlock Hearings Update- New Rules

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

The MVA is proposing new Rules that help motorists using the Interlock.  If you are removed from the Program because of a VOP you will be allowed a Hearing and the suspension will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Hearing. This is a major change giving people who have the Interlock as a condition of probation the opportunity to show that they have not violated the conditions.  Secondly the MVA will allow two simultaneous blows within 5 minutes of .026 or less not to be deemed a failure and therefore not a violation.  The driver does not see the numerical reading that causes the failure, so some drivers just go back in the house for 20 minutes or a 1/2 hour to let whatever caused the reading to dissipate.  That will still be a failure.  The MVA will look at the second blow within 5 minutes to determine if the first reading was a mistake or the result of something in the mouth rather than the lungs.  Now it can take longer than 5 minutes for mouth alcohol to dissipate.  Our Regulations for the breath test require 20 minutes. However, this proposed Rule is a step in the right direction.

Interlock Hearings

Friday, April 16th, 2010

There are 2 ways you get interlocked.  The first and most usual is by the MVA- .15 or above, refusal, DUI or DWI conviction.  The second way is court ordered as a condition of probation.  The MD legislature rejected a bill making it mandatory for the court to order an interlock where the defendant was convicted with a .15 or above (this would have prompted more refusals as the court ordered interlock would run consecutive to the one year interlock imposed by the MVA for the breath test or refusal).  When you are removed from the Program because of 4 violations, you can request a Hearing if the interlock was imposed by the MVA (you cannot drive until you win the hearing).  If you are removed from the Program and it involves a court ordered interlock, you may request a Hearing, BUT YOU WON’T GET ONE. The Office of Administrative Hearings believes they only have jurisdiction to adjudicate MVA ordered interlocks, not those involving the Judiciary.  You have to win the Violation of Probation Hearing and have the judge order you back into the Interlock Program.  MVA merely monitors your success or lack thereof for the court’s probation, but does not have a dog in this fight if you violate the conditions, so OAH will not hold a Hearing.  This is a major problem because a Standard Condition of Probation is not to consume any alcohol.  Not 4 times, just once.  If you convince an ALJ that one of the 4 violations is in error, you may get reinstated into the Program.  If you convince the Judge that 3 of the 4 were in error, not only might the Judge not order you back into the Interlock Program,, but you may be violated for the one consumption of alcohol and then face sentencing.  Different rules for the different entities.  This is the only occasion I can think of where you wish you were having a Hearing at OAH.

Watch them sweat, but beware the cool judge

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

I had an officer on the stand today who did a pretty good job on the SFSTS, but my client is 5’7″ and weighs 265.  The officer denied weight could be an issue and then I approached him with the same NHTSA Manual he had for training.  I felt like Jack Nicholson in the Shining as he saw the “weapon” approaching.  At first he could not be sure it was the same Manual, but then decided better to agree.  He then readily agreed that weight was an issue, but he had seen large people pass these exercises.  I asked him about HGN causes other than alcohol and he conceded them.  The judge was taking notes.  I asked if he questioned about smoking and caffeine and he admitted he did not.  When I asked why not he could not provide an answer other than he didn’t.  It turns out he was also a Certified Breath Test Operator and drove my client to the station with him cuffed in the front seat.  He knew my client didn’t eat but could not say he didn’t belch.  Once he took him into the station, he said the Breath Test Operator did the test within 5 minutes.  Breath Tech agreed with the 5 minute observation and that belching could have occurred that neither he nor the officer would have seen.  Home run!? Maybe we are only going to be arguing iffy SFSTs and not terrible driving.  I have won with worse.  Not a home run when the judge reaches over the fence and catches the ball.  To my disappointment he let the test in and client was “guilty by gadget.”  The MVA Hearing was continued last week so I have ordered today’s trial tape to attack the 20 minute issue there.  Even when you get perfect testimony, if the judge is not persuaded about the legal issue, you loose.  Blogs are meant to teach, and you have to teach when you lose as well as win.  This is why I prepare every client for disaster.  This client is in treatment and got the same disposition as if he had plead guilty 4 hours earlier.  Try the perfect case, but be prepared if it is not perfect enough.