Mr. Jezic convinced a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge to suppress his client’s statement given to homicide detectives after his arrest on First Degree Murder. The judge cited multiple grounds for his ruling.
Mr. Jezic presented a 17-page Memorandum of Law in support of his many arguments that Montgomery County detectives had violated his client’s rights. The Defendant testified at the hearing. The eight-day jury trial is set for July.
Attorney David Wooten convinced a Montgomery County judge to acquit his client of allegations of domestic violence. During her direct examination, the defendant’s estranged wife appeared to be an innocent victim seeking justice. She described a brutal attack, involving multiple punches to the face, choking, biting, and kicking. Her father also testified that he saw blood pouring from his daughter’s face shortly after the fight. However, Mr. Wooten’s thorough cross examination exposed the truth of the wife’s vindictive, false allegations. She even admitted that she filed criminal charges 41 days after the incident because someone told her that it would help get her husband deported. The “Not Guilty” verdict not only helped Wooten’s client avoid deportation, it also saved the client from the stigma of a criminal record, allowing him to continue his career in nursing.
Attorney David Moyse gets drug charges dismissed as case was being called for trial. Moyse told the prosecutor that his case would be a trial early in the day, and all of the police officers came to court with the necessary evidence. However, Moyse cited an old case to point out a technical flaw in the State’s case. Right as trial was set to begin, the prosecutor realized that the State would lose on this technicality and dismissed all charges.
In March 2014, Attorney David Moyse was able to convince a judge to completely dismiss assault charges against his client. The client, a permanent resident, faced loss of his Green Card if convicted of the domestic assault. The prosecutor made a generous offer to reduce the charges and plea to a lesser crime, but Moyse and his client decided to go to trial – and win a complete acquittal of all charges.
Over the course of a two week period in February 2014, Associate Attorney Himedes V. Chicas secured the release of three JKM clients that were in being detained in the custody Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—all of whom were at different stages of their removal proceedings.
Post-Hearing and Post-Decision Release under Stay of Removal: The first client, who was subject to the reinstatement of removal after having been ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) 14 years ago, was granted a Stay of Removal request filed on his behalf by Mr. Chicas. ICE’s granting of the stay of removal request will ensure that this client is able to pursue relief in the form of a U nonimmigrant visa.
Pre-Hearing Release under IJ Bond Order: The second client, a long-time permanent resident, was placed into removal proceedings and ICE charged him as being subject to mandatory detention. In a contested bond hearing before the IJ, Mr. Chicas argued that his client was in fact bond eligible and that he should be released pending his final immigration court hearing. Ultimately agreeing with Mr. Chicas, the IJ ordered his client’s release on a reasonable bond amount. Besides being reunited with his family after an almost one month detention, this client will be able to directly assist Mr. Chicas in preparing his defense to removal and applications for relief to the immigration court.
Post-Hearing Release under Order of Supervision while IJ Decision is on Direct Appeal: The third client, also a long-time permanent resident, had been in immigration detention for over 15 months. After many months of intense, multifaceted litigation—including an unsuccessful coram nobis petition to vacate one of his underlying criminal convictions that prompted the initiation of his removal proceedings and the final merits hearing in immigration court where the IJ considered multiple forms of relief—ICE chose to exercise favorable discretion and release Mr. Chicas’ client under an Order of Supervision (“OSUP”), notwithstanding the IJ’s denial of his client’s discretionary application for relief from removal and entry of a removal order against him. Indeed, even though the IJ ordered this client’s removal, the IJ granted his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Mr. Chicas has timely noted an appeal of the portions of the IJ’s unfavorable decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Nevertheless, the IJ’s granting of deferral relief was essential in ICE’s decision to release Mr. Chicas’ client on the OSUP. Though the appeal remains pending, Mr. Chicas’ client is elated to be back at home with his wife, young daughter, and other family members.
Maryland Personal Injury Attorney Jonathan Carroll represented a client who was rear-ended. The responsible party claimed that Mr. Carroll’s client backed into him while he was stopped. During the course of the trial, Mr. Carroll forced the responsible party to admit that after the accident when the two drivers spoke, the responsible party did not obtain an address or insurance information from the person he claimed had just backed into him. The Court found in favor of Mr. Carroll’s client on the basis that the responsible party could not have believed Mr. Carroll’s client was at fault. If the responsible party thought Mr. Carroll’s client had actually been at fault, he would have obtained his address and insurance information. There were no eye witnesses to this accident.
At trial, the Defense hired an engineer to testify that a rear end collision that pushed the Plaintiff’s car several feet forward exerted no more force on the Plaintiff’s head and neck than a simple sneeze. Maryland Personal Injury Attorney Jonathan Carroll called the defense out for trying to use science to support this nonsensical argument. In refuting the engineer’s expert analysis, Carroll pointed out that accounts by both drivers as well as medical records demonstrated that this crash involved a significant impact. Carroll also pointed out that the engineer’s factual basis was flawed: the engineer had never actually inspected either car involved in the crash, he had not spoken to either driver and he had not seen the medical records that showed that an injury had occurred. After that, Carroll pointed out that this engineer worked primarily for insurance companies and that he was not an impartial witness.
Ultimately, the Court awarded the Plaintiff his full medical bills as well and an additional amount to compensate him for his pain and suffering. This is just another example of what injured car accident victims are up against in Maryland. If you have questions about your case, please do not hesitate to contact Maryland Personal Injury Attorney Jonathan Carroll
This week Attorney Himedes Chicas received notice from the United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (“USCIS”) that the Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status that he submitted nearly 15 months ago, for his client, who is currently in removal proceedings is in the “queue” for approval.
The U visa category is a special visa category for individuals: (1) who have been victims of certain qualifying crimes, (2) who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse as a result of that criminal activity, and (3) are willing to help law enforcement authorities investigate or prosecute those crimes.
Mr. Chicas’ client was the victim of a brutal assault that resulted in severe physical injuries that nearly took his life. The perpetrator of that incident was arrested and charged after he was identified by Mr. Chicas’ client. Moreover, thanks in large part to the assistance of Mr. Chicas’ client, the defendant pled guilty to first degree assault. In any case, Mr. Chicas’ client, who himself was facing removal from the United States, now has some assurance that he will remain in the country with lawful status with his U.S. citizen family members and the ability to continue receiving medical treatment for the injuries he sustained.
By statute, USCIS is authorized to only grant 10,000 U visas per fiscal year. For the current fiscal year, which began on October 1, 2013, the U visa cap was met on December 11, 2013—the 5th straight year the statutory maximum has been met since USCIS began issuing U visas in 2008. As a result, Mr. Chicas’ client will have to wait until October 1, 2014, when new U visas become available before his U visa is issued to him.
In the meantime, his case will be placed on the U visa wait list, however, USCIS has granted Mr. Chicas’ client deferred action through the end of the year, and he is now eligible to apply for an employment authorization document during that same time. Mr. Chicas will now move for the immigration court to terminate his client’s removal proceedings in light of this significant development.
Please contact Attorney Chicas at 202.384.2647 is you believe you may qualify for a U visa.
In January, 2014, Mr . Jezic’s client received the great news for which he had been praying for over one year – after two postponements of a two-week jury trial, prosecutors finally decided that all felony child abuse charges against his client should be dismissed in full, three weeks before trial.
The decorated military man was accused of having a hand in multiple broken bones in his baby’s body. The prosecution indicated that it was ready to take the case to a jury trial two previous times, over a course of over one year. But after two defense postponements, the prosecutors belatedly decided that they should dismiss all charges against the father of two, who had never been arrested in his life.
The prosecutors were relatively mum on their reasons, but what is crystal clear is that the client will have the charges totally erased, and he can put this long, dark nightmare behind him, and focus on being the great father he always was.
After a four-day jury trial and seven hours of deliberations, a Prince George’s County jury acquitted Mr. Jezic’s client of all counts regarding a series of sex offenses. Mr. Jezic’s four-hour cross examination of the victim proved to be vital.
Attorney Raquel Smith handled many of the defense witnesses during the aggressive defense presentation. In all, the defense called over 12 witnesses, attesting to the defendant’s stellar character. Despite some very damaging evidence against Mr. Jezic’s 46 year-old client, the jury found him not guilty on all counts.
