Blog Archives

Protective order dismissal.

Attorney David Wooten recently convinced two different Montgomery County Circuit Court judges to dismiss two protective orders filed by the client’s estranged wife over the course of four months.  Attorney Wooten’s client had pled guilty to Second Degree Assault against his wife in 2012.  In the first 2013 protective order, the wife alleged that her husband attempted to crash into her with his car.  In the second protective order, she alleged that he sent threatening text messages which suggested her life was in danger.  Both protective orders were denied, after attorney Wooten argued that the wife is abusing Maryland’s protective order statute in attempt to gain a strategic advantage in their collateral divorce and custody battle, as well as to violate the client’s probation which would have put him in jail and caused him to lose his Maryland State inspector’s license.


Jezic convinces Montgomery County Circuit Court judge not to revoke probation.

Jezic’s criminal client was facing 8 1/2 years back-up time for an alleged violation of probation, which was based on his client’s alleged continued involvement in an illegal gang.    At the hearing the prosecution presented numerous damning photos and blog postings, as well as expert testimony from a Montgomery County gang expert/detective to show that Jezic’s client was still in an illegal gang.

Jezic was able to persuade the Montgomery County Circuit Court judge that the State has not proven that the client was in a gang.   In addition, the judge terminated the lengthy probationary period early and released the client from all onerous obligations of highly supervised probation.  The client was elated and relieved at the result.


The “extreme” ruse – When consent becomes involuntary.

Redmond v. State.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that extreme ruses of deception employed by police to obtain consent to enter (or search) may vitiate, per se, the voluntary nature of the defendant’s consent.  Generally, law enforcement is permitted to use ruses as a means of obtaining consent; however, this practice is not without limits.  In this case, Appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon, robbery, second-degree assault, and theft of less than $1000.[1]  His conviction rested in part on the Circuit Court of Baltimore City’s ruling that denied Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a ruse.

Here, the Court set a guideline for the acceptable use of ruses by analyzing both the legality of the detectives’ employment of a ruse to obtain consent to enter the home[2] and the admissibility of evidence seized resulting from the detectives’ tactic.  Finding in favor of Appellant, and reversing the Circuit Court for Baltimore City’s ruling, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland found that the ruse used in this case was “extreme” as it played on the occupants’ willingness to assist in the capture of a (made-up) pedophile.

The Maryland Court reasoned that when a ruse is “extreme,” law enforcement officials are effectively depriving the homeowners of their ability to assess accurately whether they would consent if the true purpose of their investigation had been disclosed.  Because the ruse was so egregious and created false exigent circumstances, the Maryland Court ruled the homeowners’ consent to the detectives’ entry to be involuntary and the seizure of evidence thereafter tainted.  As a result, the Court found that the motion to suppress was improperly denied and remanded the case for further proceedings.


[1] Appellant used a knife to rob a teenage girl of her cell phone and other personal belongings.  As a repeat offender, he was sentenced to 25 years without parole; on appeal he also challenged the legality of the sentence imposed. However, because the Court resolved the ruse issue in favor of Appellant it did not discuss the merits of this argument.

[2] Detectives told occupants of the home that they were searching for a pedophile, thereby gaining access into the home.  Detectives continued operating under the guise of this ruse when they conducted a “protective sweep” shortly after their initial entry, exceeding the scope of the occupant’s initial consent – further tainting the evidence later seized.  Only after using this ruse to enter (and stay in) the home then waiting four and one-half hours for a search warrant based on evidence found during the “protective sweep”, were detectives able to seize evidence associated with the true purpose of their investigation.


JKM attorney obtains sentence reduction for client in ICE Custody.

Criminal defense attorney Rand Lucey convinced a Howard County District Court Judge to reduce his client’s 2008 sentence for theft.  The sentence reduction paved the way for the client, who had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for several months, to be released and avoid deportation.


JKM client acquitted of Felony Theft.

Criminal attorney Rand Lucey obtained an acquittal for his client accused of stealing World War II antiques worth thousands of dollars from an antique dealer’s home.  The Prince George’s County District Court judge delivered a Not Guilty verdict on the sole count of Felony Theft, despite the antique dealer’s testimony that he personally witnessed the client take his property.


Debate on brain scans as lie detectors highlighted in Maryland murder trial.

Portada Washington Post 300x64 Debate on brain scans as lie detectors highlighted in Maryland murder trial.

Montgomery County, Maryland, criminal Cases.

Article Link

Gary Smith says he didn’t kill his roommate. Montgomery County prosecutors say otherwise.

Can brain scans show whether he’s lying?

Smith is about to go on trial in the 2006 shooting death of fellow Army Ranger Michael McQueen. He has long said that McQueen committed suicide, but now he says he has cutting-edge science to back that up.

While technicians watched his brain during an MRI, Smith answered a series of questions, including: “Did you kill Michael McQueen?”

It may sound like science fiction. But some of the nation’s leading neuroscientists, who are using the same technology to study Alzheimer’s disease and memory, say it also can show — at least in the low-stakes environment of a laboratory — when someone is being deceptive.

Many experts doubt whether the technology is ready for the real world, and judges have kept it out of the courtroom.

Over three days, Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Eric M. Johnson allowed pretrial testimony about what he called the “absolutely fascinating” issues involved, from the minutiae of brain analysis to the nature of truth and lies. But he decided jurors can’t see Smith’s MRI testing.

“There have been some discoveries that deception may be able to be detected,” Johnson said, but he added that there’s no consensus that the results can be trusted. “These are brilliant people, and they don’t agree.”

Still, researchers and legal experts say they can envision a time when such brain scans are used as lie detectors. Standard polygraphs are generally not admitted in trials because some consider them deeply flawed. During his police interrogation, Smith said he would submit himself to a polygraph, but Johnson said such results would not be allowed as evidence.

Smith’s attorney, Andrew V. Jezic, argued in court that the MRI test should be allowed, and neuroscientists sparred over the credibility and usefulness in a jury trial.

Prosecutors hate the idea, saying that replacing living, breathing suspects with a stack of colorful brain images would upend the legal system. “The jury’s the decider of credibility,” said John Maloney, Montgomery deputy state’s attorney, who argued that Smith’s brain scans are worthless.

But Smith, who is facing his second murder trial in the case after an appeals court threw out an earlier conviction, says it’s an important tool to back up his account. “After fighting for everybody else’s freedom . . . to be put in prison for a crime I did not commit was extremely frustrating,” Smith said. “It may not be perfect, but it’s definitely something reliable and should be considered.”

pixel Debate on brain scans as lie detectors highlighted in Maryland murder trial.

Smith and McQueen, who had served together in Afghanistan and shared a Gaithersburg apartment, hung out the night of Sept. 25, 2006, drinking beer and smoking marijuana, court papers say. They went to a VFW and played pool. Just before 1 a.m., Smith called 911. “Oh my God, help me,” he sobbed, telling the dispatcher that he had found McQueen dead. “I dropped him off at the house, and I came back, and he had a big hole in his head.”

When officers arrived, they found Smith, with blood on his hand, face and clothes, vomiting outside the apartment, court papers say. McQueen’s body was in a metal chair in front of a flickering television. They didn’t find a gun.

In evidence that is key to the prosecution’s case, Smith would later give detectives three accounts of what happened, court papers say.

The first time, Smith said he’d been out and returned to find McQueen dead with no gun in the house. Pointing to possible suspects, he said McQueen had argued with some Hispanic men in the past. In version two, Smith returned to find McQueen dead with a gun in his hand. In version three, Smith was in the apartment and McQueen shot himself.

Smith said McQueen used Smith’s gun, and he panicked. He removed the bullets and tossed them and the gun in a nearby lake.

Outside of crimes caught on video or solved with DNA, few pieces of evidence offer clear proof of guilt. Eyewitnesses can make mistakes, and problems have been found in hair and fiber analysis and arson investigations. Maryland judges tell jurors to use their common sense and life experiences to decide whether witnesses are being truthful.

Frank Haist, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of California at San Diego, analyzed Smith’s brain scans. He was hired as a consultant in Smith’s case for No Lie MRI, a firm commercializing the technology. In his own research, Haist has used brain MRIs to study how people of different ages and races and those with autism process faces.

If Smith chooses to testify at trial, Haist said, “he would be asked and the jury would like to know: ‘Did he shoot Michael McQueen?’ Obviously, his answer would be no.” Jurors would see whether Smith was sweating or not, Haist said. They would see whether he appeared nervous. And they would make judgments.


Maryland criminal attorney Andrew Jezic gets client out of state prison 10 years early with successful post-conviction petition.

Thursday, March 25, 2013

On March 28, 2013, Maryland criminal attorney Andrew Jezic convinced prosecutors in Montgomery County to release his client more than 10 years before the end of his sentence because of potential errors of client’s original lawyers (not Jezicfirm lawyers) at his original jury trial in 2009. Mr. Jezic’s 65-page post-conviction petition convinced prosecutors to cut a deal that allowed Jezic’s client to get out state prison 10 years early.


Moyse obtains a lightning-quick acquittal for a man accused of sexual assault in Prince George’s County.

Monday April 1, 2013

Maryland criminal attorney David Moyse obtained a lightning-quick acquittal from a jury in Prince Georges County – in a mere 15 minutes of deliberation – on charges of …On April 1, 2013, criminal attorney David Moyse obtained a complete acquittal for a man accused of sexual assault in Prince George’s County.

The client had spent ninety days in jail and faced deportation if convicted of the allegations. Following a persuasive closing argument, the Prince George’s County jury took only 20 MINUTES OF DELIBERATION TO COME BACK WITH NOT GUILTY VERDICTS ON ALL COUNTS.


Bond reduced from $750,000 to $50,000.

Monday, April 1, 2013

On April 1, 2013, Maryland criminal attorneys Jaime Alonso along with Andrew Jezic convinced a District Court judge in Montgomery County to cut his client’s bail by 15 times – from $750,000 to $50,000, with no house arrest or restrictive release conditions, even though the charges carry decades in prison and the client is not a citizen. Criminal attorneys Alonso and Jezic presented multi-faceted arguments in court before the District Court judge as to why the bail should be cut 15  times its original amount, despite the extremely serious charges sex offense charges.


Moyse gets bond reduced from $300000 to Personal Recognizance.

April, 2013

Montgomery Criminal attorney David Moyse convinced a district court judge to change his clients bond from $300k to an unsecured personal bond.

– meaning that the client was released from jail without paying any money. The defendant faces felony sex offences, and was apprehended after leading police on a chase that required helicopters to find him in the woods.


FREE CONSULTATION

(240)292-7200

 LOCATIONS

Maryland criminal lawyer

News Articles

Law Offices of Jezic, Krum & Moyse, LLC

Click to open larger map

Translate »
Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On LinkedinVisit Us On TwitterCheck Our Feed