by

Forty years ago today I walked into a courtroom in Upper Marlboro, Maryland with my mentor, Alan J. Goldstein.  I had just gotten back from my honeymoon in the Greek Islands, completely jet lagged and sat down at counsel table.  Our client was charged with conspiracy to commit murder.  Alan, who had a wicked sense of humor, and knew my condition, stood up and said, “It is my privilege to introduce to the Court Leonard Stamm, the Court knows him as he clerked across the hall last year.  He is now an associate in my firm, and he is going to argue today’s motions!”  And he sat down.  And everyone looked at me and Alan said “Get up.”  Then the judge and prosecutor  motioned and said “Get up, get up.” I was shocked.  I knew nothing about the motions.  I slowly started to rise not knowing what I was going to say when the courtroom exploded into laughter and I sat back down.

In the 40 years since I have learned to respect the rule of law and to practice civility towards clients, witnesses, adversaries, colleagues, jurors and judges.  I have been blessed to have seen firsthand how critical these two things, respect for the rule of law and civility, are to our society being able to function as a representative democracy, and the checks and balances that give power to the people are to the preservation of our way of life.  I have seen that it is possible to zealously represent the interests of my clients, while still having respect for prosecutors, judges and police officers.  It is not only possible, but necessary, to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.  The ability to compromise to settle disputes and to go to trial are hallmarks of our criminal justice system, in order to achieve the goal of treating everyone fairly, and with dignity and respect to achieve a just result.

In the presidential election this year, unlike any other year, respect for the rule of law and civility have been challenged like never before.  We have witnessed the take over of one political party by a presidential candidate who has no respect for the rule of law and constantly demeans and insults anyone and everyone he disagrees with, the press, scientists, doctors, politicians, veterans, civil servants, judges, prosecutors, and women in the most vile and pernicious ways.  He has been convicted of fraud, and judged liable for sexual assault.  He is ignorant of many of the issues needed to run a country, and lacks the decency and empathy needed, but could care less.  It seems as if cruelty is the message.  He has copied Stalin, calling the press “the enemy of the people.”  And he has copied Hitler, calling immigrants “vermin.”  His lunatic rants remain unchallenged and unnoticed by the mainstream media.  He has done something in politics that cannot be done successfully in court, he has routinely attempted to change the facts and evidence, and he has lied and doubled down on his firehose of lies to a breathtaking degree.  More frightening is the acquiescence and support of party leaders and judges who bend the knee, and repeat the lies, afraid or unwilling to tell the truth.  Shockingly, he may win in November, even after having incited a mob to attack the Congress and threaten the lives of the Vice President and Speaker of the House in support of the Big Lie that he won the election he fairly lost, setting back years of progress making this a more perfect union.  Ben Franklin said “It’s a Republic, if you can keep it.”  I hope we can.

by

Yesterday Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of 34 counts in the so-called “hush money” case.  But what this case was really about was Trump’s cheating in the 2016 presidential election, by covering up his affair with Stormy Daniels with false documents.  Democracy requires that all participants respect the process and accept the results.  You cannot support democracy only when you win.

Trump and his sycophants have called this trial “rigged.”  That is a dangerous lie.  The rule of law is the foundation of our democracy.  Any challenges to the verdict can be challenged through an appellate process that challenges rulings by the trial court to which Trump’s lawyers objected.  But saying that the process is “rigged” is a dangerous lie that can lead to violence.

Trump’s political career is marked by efforts to cheat, to ignore or flout the rules.  The first impeachment was because Trump threatened Ukraine’s President Zelensky with withholding aid if Zelensky did not lie and claim that the Bidens were being investigated for their business dealings in Ukraine.

Continue reading

by

The new interlock bill passed by the legislature, and coming to a court near you on October 1, 2024 will hurt many commercial drivers who find themselves facing DUI charges for what they did in their personal vehicles.  A commercial driver’s license (CDL) is an addition to a regular driver’s license and is required to drive commercial vehicles (basically the big 18 wheelers, limos, and buses).

A commercial driver with a CDL faces a one year disqualification of the CDL if convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or if found to have refused a breath test.  For many of these drivers a disqualification can be devastating as most of them will lose their jobs.  The legislature had previously passed an exemption if the driver was found guilty of driving while impaired under Transportation Article, § 21-902(b) as opposed to driving under the influence under § 21-902(a) it would not result in a disqualification.  Probations before judgment (PBJs) are considered convictions under the CDL laws so that doesn’t help.

There was a problem on the administrative side though, for CDL drivers that didn’t refuse, and blew .15 or more, the choice is either a six month suspension or one year on an ignition interlock.  However, if the CDL defendant blew .08 or more but under .15, while facing a 6 month suspension, 6 month on interlock or 6 month work permit.  All of these choices would result in a lost job because any restriction other than alcohol or glasses/contacts, is incompatible with a CDL.  However,  those CDL drivers that blew .08 or more but under .15, could conceivably get a reprimand from an administrative law judge (ALJ) at the MVA hearing, basically a warning that would go on their driving record but with no real consequence.  However, even if convicted under § 21-902(b) and facing a possible suspension at the MVA, the ALJ still had discretion to impose only a reprimand.

Continue reading

by

The Maryland Legislature has approved a bill, effective on October 1, 2024, part of “Noah’s Law,” that will require all licensees receiving probation before judgment fro driving under the influence or impaired by alcohol in Maryland to successfully complete the Ignition Interlock System Program before obtaining any further driving privileges.  While most of the people found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol or driving while impaired have already gone through the interlock program by virtue of refusing or failing a breathalyzer test, there has been an out for people who either take the suspension, get a work permit, or win the administrative hearing before court.  Now those few will have to get an interlock if they receive probation before judgment in court  and were arrested on or after October 1, 2024.

It appears this does not apply to out-of-state drivers.

If you have been charged with a DUI or DWI, and do not want the interlock, you will have to fight your case in court.

Continue reading

by

I recently handled a sentencing for a client of mine for driving while impaired (DWI).  Under Maryland law, one year of ignition interlock is required if you are convicted of the higher offense, driving while under the influence of alcohol (DUI).  However, the relevant statutes do not require it for DWI, unless the “trier of fact finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the person refused to take a test arising out of the same circumstances as the violation.”  More often than not, in Maryland, a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test at the time of arrest if found guilty of anything, will not be found guilty of the higher offense DUI, only the lower DWI.  So the question is what does this phrase mean, that the “trier of fact finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the person refused to take a test arising out of the same circumstances as the violation.”

The answer can be found in Wadlow v. State, 335 Md. 122, 642 A.2d 213 (1994).  In Wadlow, the indictment charged the defendant with possession with intent to distribute more than 448 grams of cocaine but it did not refer to the sentencing enhancement under Art. 27, § 286 (f).  Also, the jury was never asked to decide the amount of cocaine.  As a result the Maryland Supreme Court reversed the part of the sentence that relied on possession of more than 448 grams.  The Court said:

In Maryland, however, we have generally drawn a distinction between sentence enhancement provisions that depend upon prior conduct of the offender and those that depend upon the circumstances of the offense. In the former situation, involving recidivism, we have made it clear that determination of the requisite predicate facts is for the sentencing judge. See Maryland Rule 4–245(e) (“[T]he court shall determine whether the defendant is a subsequent offender….”). The State must give timely notice to the defendant of its intention to seek enhanced penalties because of one or more prior convictions, but that notice is not filed with the court until after the acceptance of a guilty or nolo contendere plea, or after conviction. The applicable Rule also provides that “[t]he allegation that the defendant is a subsequent offender is not an issue in the trial on the charging document….” Md.Rule 4–245(d).

Continue reading

by
With all that is going on in the news these days, it is easy to forget the progress we have made. My family and I were on the mall on January 20, 2009 for Barack Obama’s first inauguration. There were people as far as the eye could see to witness the inauguration of this country’s first Black president. We could only get as close as the far side of the Washington monument. But the air was electric and people were optimistic about our future. Here is a video I took that day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQpGsZyrcc0
Who could have predicted that the backlash that followed would lead to almost half of the country acting in a cult like fashion to deny reality in subservience to an amoral, fascist, megalomaniac, pathological liar and conman or that we would witness a rise in hate crimes and political violence? Or that the president would incite a mob to attack the Capitol on January 6? Today’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action is part of the backlash. But it won’t last. It has been 2 steps forward and 1 step back for most of this nation’s history. But I prefer the optimistic view. I was also on the mall on January 20, 1993 when Bill Clinton was sworn in and remember hearing him say, “There is nothing wrong about America, that cannot be cured by what is right about America.” I still believe that today. The struggle to make this country a more perfect union continues.
Inauguration

by

On July 1, 2023, recreational marijuana became legal in Maryland.  Adults over 21 years old are permitted to possess up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana and also to possess two pot plants.  (Two plants is also the limit per household).  With these changes it is important to remember that driving while impaired by marijuana is still a crime and a person who refuses a breathalyzer or after being examined by a so-called “drug recognition expert” refuses a blood test, can have his or her driver’s license suspended.

These drug recognition experts can be challenged on the ground that their testimony is insufficiently reliable to be considered by a court.  As noted in an op-ed by Regi Taylor in the Baltimore Times on July 1,

Greenbelt-based attorney, Lenny Stamm, takes issue with the “scientific reliability” of methods used to identify suspected impaired drivers, particularly “assessments conducted by the state’s Drug Recognition Experts.” Stamm is an author and recognized national authority in his field, conducting seminars and lecturing widely on the DUI topic.

Continue reading

by

On May 5, 2023, the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association is holding its 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar at the Doubletree Hotel in Linthicum, Maryland.

The seminar, organized and run by Leonard R. Stamm in conjunction with the MCDAA will feature presentations by experienced lawyers as well as an expert chemist.  The schedule is shown below.  If your lawyer attends this program, he or she is getting the most up to date training available for how to handle DUI cases.

MCDAA’S 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar 

Continue reading

by

It has recently come to our attention that the approval required for breath test operators in Maryland changed with the below statute, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 10-304, effective on October 1, 2022.

“Qualified person” means a person who has received training in the use of the equipment in a training program approved by the toxicologist in the Department of State Police Forensic Sciences Division and who is either a police officer, a police employee, or a person authorized by the toxicologist in the Department of State Police Forensic Sciences Division.

Only a “qualified person” is allowed to conduct a breathalyzer test in Maryland.

Continue reading

by

A few years ago, the Maryland legislature reacted to the tragic death by a drunk driver of Noah Leotta by enacting Noah’s Law.  The supporters of Noah’s law increased penalties and closed some loopholes in Maryland’s DUI laws but failed to achieve one objective.  The legislature did not agree that every first offender who gets a DUI should be required to have an interlock installed in their car for a minimum of 6 mos.  The proponents of this measure have made annual attempts to impose this requirement.  This year that attempt took the form of House Bill 451 and Senate Bill 528.  As a representative of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association, Leonard Stamm filed written objections to the proposal and testified against the bills before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on March 10, 2023.

There are a number of objections to the bill that were detailed in the letter submitted to both the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

My name is Leonard R. Stamm, appearing on behalf of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association.  I have been in private practice defending persons accused of drunk driving and other crimes for over 38 years.  I am author of Maryland DUI Law, and of all post 2013 updates to Maryland Evidence: State and Federal, both published by Thomson-Reuters.  I am currently a Fellow (former Dean) of the National College for DUI Defense, a nationwide organization with over 1500 lawyer members. I am a former president of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association.  I have co-authored amicus briefs filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National College for DUI Defense in the Supreme Court cases of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), Missouri v. McNeely, 569 US 141 (2013), and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 US __, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016).

Continue reading
Contact Information
Capital Office Park
6301 Ivy Lane # 504
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
Phone: 301-345-0122
Toll Free: 800-256-8172
Fax: 301-441-4652

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design