Posted on December 24, 2020 in Family Law

What is a protective order?

By Maryland statute, a protective order is a court order that says one person must refrain from doing certain acts against another person. While not legally accurate, many people commonly refer to a protective order as a retaining order or ex parte.

Who can obtain a protective order in Maryland?

In order for the Court to grant you a protective order, you must testify before a judge that you have a certain type of relationship with the person you want to be protected from.

The following relationships qualify for a protective order in the State of Maryland if you:

• Are married, divorced, or currently separated;
• are related by marriage, blood, or adoption (this includes stepparents and stepchildren if they have lived with you for at least 90 days in the past year);
• have lived together in a sexual relationship for at least 90 days in the past year;

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on December 24, 2020 in Family Law

It is important to be aware that Maryland Courts and Orders recognize two parts to custody in the State of Maryland, physical custody and legal custody.

What does Physical Custody mean in Maryland?

If you have physical custody of your child, it means that you have the right and obligation to provide a home for your child at given times, and to make the day-to-day decisions required during the time your child is actually with you. In Maryland, physical custody can be primarily with one parent and your child visits the other parent or shared between the parents.

What does Legal Custody mean in Maryland ?

If you have legal custody of your child, it means that you have the right and obligation to make long range decisions involving education, religious training, discipline, medical care, and other matters of major significance concerning the life and welfare of your child. It is important to understand that legal custody has nothing to do with where your child lives. In Maryland, legal custody can be sole, joint, or joint with tiebreaker.  Sole legal custody means one parent makes these decisions without the need to have the input of the other parent.  Joint legal custody means both parents work together to make agreed upon decisions for their child. Joint custody with tiebreaker requires both parents to work towards an agreed upon decision on the issue(s). However, if an agreement cannot be reached after trying to do so in good-faith, the parent with  tiebreaking authority makes the final decision on the issue.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on October 01, 2020 in Complex Civil Litigation

WEIRD SCIENCE:  MARYLAND’S NEW TEST FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY.

           For more than forty years, Frye-Reed endured as Maryland’s test for the admissibility of expert testimony based on novel scientific principles or techniques.  Named after its near century-old progenitor, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), and the Maryland case that adopted it, Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 (1978), the test asks whether the scientific principle or technique at issue is "generally accepted" in the relevant scientific community.  Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the Frye test was the predominant standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in state and federal courts.  Daubert, however, held that Frye was superseded by Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  The Supreme Court interpreted Rule 702 as providing for a "flexible" inquiry focused on the reliability of evidence, under which "general acceptance" is only of several relevant factors.  Id. at 594–95.  In years following Daubert, the majority of states followed the federal courts and replaced the Frye test with Daubert.  Maryland was one of the few hold outs, but no longer.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 31, 2020 in Criminal Defense

On August 25, 2020 the Court of Appeals issued an important ruling regarding the modification of mandatory sentences for drug offenders who had entered into a guilty plea.  The Court unanimously ruled that the trial court does in fact have the authority to modify mandatory sentences given to certain drug offenders who entered into a guilty plea.  The Court went further and said these sentences may be modified even over the objection of the State.  The further concluded that these mandatory drug offense sentences may be modified by the trial court even in instances in which the defendant failed to file a timely motion to modify sentence.  This important decision will allow thousands of inmates the right to file a request to have their mandatory drug offense sentences be modified.  The attorneys at Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White have combined criminal experience of well over 100 years and include both a State Court of Appeals Judge and a former Federal Judge.  Our aggressive and experienced attorneys stand ready to file motions to modify mandatory sentences in any jurisdiction in the State.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 31, 2020 in Business Counseling, Litigation & Transactions

On July 14, 2020, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Plank v. Cherneski, (Misc. No. 3, Sept. Term 2019) (July 14, 2020), which finally harmonized Maryland case law as to the existence of a standalone "breach of fiduciary duty" claim. The Court held that such a claim exists under Maryland law and that its elements are: "(1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship; (2) breach of the duty owed by the fiduciary to the beneficiary; and (3) harm to the beneficiary." The Court stressed that the nature of the fiduciary relationship and available remedies are fact specific and considered on a case-by case basis. "If a plaintiff describes a fiduciary relationship, identifies a breach, and requests a remedy recognized by statute, contract, or common law applicable to the specific type of fiduciary relationship and the specific breach alleged, a court should permit the count to proceed." The remedy available depends on the specific fiduciary relationship at issue.

Running Down a Dream: The Facts and Procedural History

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on August 06, 2020 in Appeals - State & Federal

The Gun Trace Task Force was an elite unit within the Baltimore City Police Department tasked with getting illegal guns off the streets.  But as a blockbuster federal investigation revealed, GTTF members were themselves criminals of the worst kind: crooked cops who conspired to terrorize the very same citizens they swore to protect and defend.  Their misconduct was shocking even for a City accustomed to police scandals: suspicion-less stops and arrests, writing false police reports and fake search warrants, lying in court, planting evidence, beating detainees, robbing citizens, and on and on.  Some measure of justice was achieved after the officers involved were convicted of federal conspiracy charges, but the battle to ensure appropriate compensation for the victims is ongoing.  A recent decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals in two cases brought by GTTF victims represents an important victory in that battle.

In Baltimore City Police Department, et al. v. Ivan Potts, Misc. No. 6, September Term, 2019, and Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Estate of William James, No. 51, Sept. Term, 2019 (https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2020/6a19m.pdf), the Court considered whether Baltimore City and the Police Department should be forced to pay judgments against GTTF officers obtained by two victims, Ivan Potts and William James.  The facts of their cases are egregious, but sadly typical of the crimes committed by the GTTF officers.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 07, 2020 in Divorce

The COVID-19 pandemic has swept the nation, causing uncertainty in its wake. While many essential businesses and government offices have shut down, the Maryland courts have been diligent in figuring out how certain matters can still be heard. While the Maryland courts may be restricted, many are still conducting uncontested divorce hearings at this time. If you and your spouse have an uncontested case that is ripe for testimony, the following courts are accepting new filings and may be able to hear your case now:

Circuit Court for Baltimore County: The Circuit Court for Baltimore County is now conducting remote uncontested divorce hearings as long as two attorneys are involved.

Circuit Court for Kent County: Beginning the week of May 5, 2020, the Circuit Court for Kent County is slated to conduct remote uncontested divorce hearings that are ripe.

Circuit Court for Somerset County: The Circuit Court for Somerset County is now conducting remote uncontested divorce hearings as long as two attorneys are present. The court is also accepting new filings for uncontested divorce hearings as long as it is filed through the MDEC filing system.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on May 05, 2020 in Divorce

What is an Absolute Divorce?

The effect of Maryland’s absolute divorce is parallel to a traditional divorce; it is the final termination of the marriage. In an absolute divorce, custody, visitation, and child support terms between both parties are set, both parties are granted the right to live separately and apart, a legal name change may be granted (the resumption of a former name), and even remarry if they choose. An absolute divorce also allows the court to decide on matters regarding alimony and marital property, including any division of assets, transfer of retirement interests, and any other equitable distribution of real property, personal property and pension/retirement assets acquired during the course of the marriage. Ultimately, both parties are granted the right to sever all legal and financial ties from one another.

What are the grounds for divorce in Maryland?

In Maryland, the court may grant an absolute divorce on the grounds of:
(1) Adultery;
(2) Desertion, if it has continued for 12 months without interruption before filing for an Absolute Divorce; and the desertion was deliberate and final; and there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation;
(3) Conviction of a felony or misdemeanor in any state or in any court of the United States if before the filing of the application for divorce the defendant was sentenced to serve at least three years or an intermediate sentence in a penal institution and served twelve months of that sentence;
(4) A twelve-month separation where the parties lived separate and apart without cohabitation for twelve uninterrupted months before the filing of the application for divorce;
(5) Insanity if the insane spouse has been confined in a mental institution, hospital, or other similar institution for at least three years before the filing of the application for divorce; the court must then determine from the testimony of at least two physicians who are competent in psychiatry that the insanity is incurable and that there is no hope of recovery; and one of the parties has remained a resident of this state for at least two years prior to the filing of the application for divorce;
(6) Cruelty of treatment toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation;
(7) Excessively vicious conduct toward the complaining party or a minor child of the complaining party, if there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation;
(8) Mutual consent so long as the parties execute and submit to the court a written settlement agreement signed by both parties that resolves all issues arising from the marital relationship (child custody, visitation, support, alimony and distribution of real and personal property, and asset division), neither party has filed a pleading to set aside the settlement agreement prior to the divorce hearing required under the Maryland Rules, and both parties appear before the court at the absolute divorce hearing.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 23, 2020 in Criminal Defense

The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals has issued an order allowing certain prisoners to be released if they meet certain guidelines. Below is a description of those guidelines.

Adults

Pursuant to Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Order dated April 14, 2020, the Administrative Judges of the Circuit Courts and the District Administrative Judges of the District Court are granted to the authority to identify at risk incarcerated persons for potential release to protect the health of at-risk incarcerated persons during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. The judges must consider:

• The safety of the victims and communities in general
• The statutory rights of victims
• And the public health concerns related to inmates who have contracted COVID-19

In addition, those administrative judges are to direct the setting of PROMPT hearings following the service of a warrant or body attachment for the following:

• Technical or minor violations of probation

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on April 22, 2020 in Family Law

Some parents are facing difficult decisions during this COVID-19 pandemic, including whether their children should be physically near a parent that is working with the public. For some families, it means that one parent temporarily lives in another part of the house. A related CNN article can be found here.  For other families, it means one parent temporarily lives in another place altogether. A related ABC article can be found here.

But, for co-parents that live in separate households, the thought of children being near a parent that is a first responder, a front-line worker, or an essential employee can lead to even more difficult decisions. The guidance from the Maryland Judiciary is clear:

Continue Reading ››