Confrontation

April 9, 2024

Ignition Interlock is Coming for You

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.

May 4, 2023

The Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Association presents the 19th Annual Advanced DUI Defense Seminar

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

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

April 13, 2022

MSP Lab Acknowledges Testing Deemed Unacceptable By Accrediting Agency

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

On March 21, 2022, the Director of the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division notified the State’s Attorney co-ordinator for Maryland that the MSP lab would cease doing blood alcohol testing because the accrediting agency determined their testing procedure violated scientific requirements for blood alcohol testing. Read the letter here. MSAA BAC Letter_031522

On April 13, 2022, Clarke Ahlers and Serge Antonin released their podcast, the Black and White and thin Blue Lines, https://lnns.co/bZlMhf7g6KX , with special guests Lenny and Michael Stamm where we discuss the MSP lab fiasco, and wonder why it took almost 6 months to tell anyone about it.

If you have a DUI charge and a blood alcohol test, call 301-345-0122 for a free consultation.

September 21, 2020

In Memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

As you all know by now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away Friday night on erev (the evening of) Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year). According to Jewish tradition, a person who passes on Rosh Hashanah is considered a “tzadik” – a revered person. The “Notorious RBG” as she came to be nicknamed is certainly that.

She went to Harvard Law School in an era when women were far from accepted in the legal profession. After transferring to Columbia Law School she graduated first in her class, yet found few job offers for a woman lawyer. Yet she never gave up fighting for women’s rights, and the rights of all of us, arguing six cases before the Supreme Court, and famously saying “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”

She eventually landed a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In her 27 years as a justice, was a powerful voice in such opinions as United States v. Virginia (1996)(striking down VMI’s male-only admissions policy); Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)(individuals with mental disabilities have the right to community-based housing); Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011)(holding that chemists in DUI cases must be produced by the State for cross-examination in DUI cases), and many others. She also wrote powerful dissents in Bush v. Gore (2000); Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)(where her dissent led to the Lilly Ledbetter Act – guaranteeing women equal pay) and many others.

November 6, 2019

Breath testing deficiencies brought to light by the New York Times

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Recent articles in the New York Times have raised questions about the reliability of breath testing devices used across the country in DUI cases. These Machines Can Put You in Jail. Don’t Trust Them and 5 Reasons to Question Alcohol Breath Tests. The authors also interviewed a defense lawyer and defense expert in NPR, and heard from other persons connected with the breath testing process including an officer and a defendant. Blown Away: Why Police Rely On Faulty Breathalyzers.

Breath testing is used to estimate a level of alcohol in the person’s blood. Breath testing relies on an assumption that a persons breath can contain alcohol in roughly a 1/2100 ratio of the alcohol in the breath to the alcohol in the blood. There are numerous other assumptions as well, highlighted in an article by Leonard R. Stamm, and published in the magazine of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Champion, titled The Top 20 Myths of Breath, Blood and Urine Testing.

The New York Times articles highlight some of the problems that have plagued the government’s efforts to prosecute drunk driving cases. This includes problems with calibration, maintenance of the machines (officers insist on calling them “instruments”), the controls that are used, the adequacy of the procedures used to test individuals, failures in record keeping, secrecy in computer codes, human errors and others.

September 24, 2016

NCDD and NACDL wrap up a successful conference in Las Vegas

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) just wrapped up their annual Las Vegas seminar. As usual, it was well attended and the presentations were very informative.

The conference featured presentations on Thursday, September 22, on cross-examination by Jim Nesci; accident reconstruction by Steven M. Schoor; succeeding without an expert by Tommy Kirk; and, the psychology of winning by Allen Fox, Ph.D. The conference continued on Friday, September 23 with presentations on case law update by Don Ramsell; NHTSA’s ARIDE program (Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement) by Tony Palacios; preparing for direct and cross of experts by Virginia Landry; ethics by Jim Nesci and nine other regents; gas chromatography for jurors by Suzanne Perry, M.Sc.; closing arguments by Joe St. Louis and Tommy Kirk; field sobriety test facts and fallacies by Tony Palacios; and, prescription medication issues by Fran Gengo, Pharm. D., Ph. D. The conference concluded today with presentations on closing argument by Tommy Kirk; cross of the standardized field sobriety tests by John Hunsucker (for attorneys with 1-5 years experience) and by Don Ramsell (for attorneys with over 5 years experience); analyzing a DRE facesheet and narrative report by Steven Oberman and Tony Palacios; breath testing by Jim Nesci; defending the impaired marijuana case by George Bianchi; and, how to try your first DUI case by John Hunsucker.

May 28, 2016

Memorial Day message

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

I have been reflecting on Memorial Day and paying tribute to the men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our liberty.

We are very fortunate to live in a place where an accused is presumed innocent, and has a right to notice, counsel, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, against compelled self incrimination and against unreasonable search and seizure. We also have constitutional rights to equal protection, due process, and freedom of speech and religion, and against government establishment of religion.

Each generation has a responsibility to fight to keep the rights and ideals enshrined in our Constitution alive. As lawyers, we have a special responsibility to give meaning to these rights that define us as a nation of laws and liberties, and we fight in court every day to ensure that the government promotes our rights, and does not encroach on them. We know from experience that many of our citizens take these rights for granted and don’t agree with them unless or until they face charges. As many of us know all too well, many of our prosecutors and judges give only lip service to our rights and achieving justice in many cases requires hard work by us, and is not always successful.

May 16, 2016

NCDD Serious Science Seminar Knocks it Out of the Park

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) just concluded its second annual Serious Science seminar Saturday in Ft. Collins, Colorado. Attended by 21 lawyer students, the five day seminar featured a day and a half of lectures by the nation’s leading experts on forensic blood alcohol testing, Jimmie Valentine, Ph.D., Carrie Valentine, Ph.D., Janine Arvizu, NCDD Regent Joe St. Louis, Patricia Sulik, Ph.D. and Robert Lantz, Ph. D., followed by a tour of a working forensic laboratory, Rocky Mountain Instrumental Laboratories. Rocky Mountain Instrumental Laboratories in Ft. Collins, Colorado, is run by Patricia Sulik, Ph.D. and Robert Lantz, Ph. D.

The science portion was followed by three days of lectures and breakouts on trial techniques taught by by two veteran faculty members of the Gerry Spence Trial Lawyers College, Marjorie Russell, and Francisco “Paco” Duarte. The TLC website says:

Trial skills are only part of being a force in the courtroom. The trial lawyers’ power originates from within. Knowledge of oneself gives the lawyer the capability to know others and to connect with each person in the courtroom including the witnesses, the judge and the jurors. The power of TLC’s methods come alive through creative, spontaneous, outside-the-box innovations that capture juries and move them to justice.

July 9, 2015

The Court of Appeals takes a step forward with Norton

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The Court of Appeals announced its decision in Norton v. State today. I was privileged to have been local counsel on the amicus brief filed by the Innocence Network in this case. The case was a win for Norton, but more importantly, it was a win for all defendants who wish to confront scientific evidence offered against them in court.

The rules governing application of the Confrontation Clause have been changing over the past few years. A series of cases had helped to expand the ability of defendants to confront scientific evidence: Crawford v. Washington, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, and Bullcoming v. New Mexico. These cases required the State to produce in court a chemist who actually tested a defendant’s blood in a DUI case. I was also privileged to have helped to write the amicus brief filed in Bullcoming by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National College for DUI Defense.

Unfortunately, in Williams v. Illinois, the Supreme Court backtracked and ruled that in a DNA case, the State did not have to produce the analyst. However, there was no majority for what became a plurality opinion of four justices. There were also four justices in dissent. The deciding vote was cast by Justice Thomas, who agreed with the dissenting justices with respect to their reasoning but voted to not require confrontation because the document stating what the DNA results were was not sufficiently formal. This confusing alignment of justices brought into question what rule should be applied by the lower courts.

July 5, 2015

Reflections on the Fourth (and Fifth) of July, thank you Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, and yes Justice Scalia

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

In this blog, I want to weave a couple of strands of thought together here on the Fourth and Fifth of July, as I complete the 2015 update for the 8^th edition of my Maryland DUI Law.

As defense lawyers, we are trained to look for the good facts in our cases, and the good traits of our clients, so that we may use the good to persuade judges and juries at trial, and judges at sentencing. What we find is that there are very few people that are all good or all bad. At the same time many of us, through one path or another, end up advocating on particular issues. The issues we may end up being most involved with are not necessarily the most noble, but with so many issues and so little time, we must pick and choose.

Two issues that I am particularly proud of having had the opportunity to argue for are Fourth Amendment issues, the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable and/or illegal searches and seizures, and the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, guaranteeing that witnesses testifying against our clients be present in the courtroom to be cross-examined. I helped to write amicus briefs in both the Fourth Amendment case of Missouri v. McNeely, and the Sixth Amendment case of Bullcoming v. New Mexico. In McNeely, the Supreme Court held that dispensing with a warrant to obtain a blood sample in a DUI case should never be the norm. In Bullcoming, the Supreme Court held that the actual chemist who tested the defendant’s blood must be present in court for cross-examination. These are important cases, and the government and many lower court judges are doing everything they can to work around them.