Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney|Fred Phelps Pushed the Limits of Free Speech

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" is often the mantra for those who protect First Amendment rights. These words are truer than ever with the passing of one of the most confrontational men in modern times.

As many across the United States sighed with relief upon hearing the news of Fred Phelps' death, we cannot deny that he pushed the limits of his First Amendment rights and helped define our rights as Americans. The Westboro Baptist Church is renowned for their hate speech and cruel protests against homosexuality, and in turn, AIDS victims. They believed homosexuality to be the downfall of America and, in turn, rejoiced in the deaths of soldiers fighting abroad in conflicts, seeing it as a punishment for the tolerant views of Americans. Phelps had an unwavering hatred for ministers who preached that homosexuality was a sin, but believed that God's love was greater than this sin.

            With these radical views, Phelps created enemies at every turn. Many attempted to suppress his hateful words through the justice system, but the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 2011 that the First Amendment protects even the hatred preached by Phelps. 

Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney| Baltimore Cracks Down on Fake IDs

Just this week, the Baltimore County Liquor Board and the Department of Health held a conference in Towson to help business owners recognize fake IDs. More than 200 representatives from 109 businesses showed up to hear an expert, Marty Johnson, dive into the details of spotting fake IDs and the types of people who use them. While fake ID users can be terrorists, identity thieves, criminals, or those with a suspended license, the presentation focused on underage drinkers. Johnson also explains that the three different types of fake IDs are altered genuine IDs, a genuine ID used by another person, or a completely fake ID. He teaches tips, like using face reference points and UV lights, to spot the fakes in each category.

This presentation was a way for the Liquor Board to educate business owners in an effort to scale back on their enforcement. Underage drinkers beware: The bar owners of Baltimore County are now equipped with fresh information on how to spot fake IDs. If you are caught drinking underage, you may face a fine and a suspension of your driver's license. Furthermore, you could put your safety in danger if you choose to drink and drive, along with the possibility of a DUI or DWI. 

Maryland Criminal Defense Attorney|Maryland Second Chance Act

Many ex-offenders are stained by mistakes made lifetimes ago. The biggest hurdle for this group is finding respectable employment since many employers are wary of convicts. A new bill will soon be heard in Annapolis that hopes to give former inmates a chance at a new beginning. The bill authorizes an individual to petition a court to shield court and police records relating to a "shieldable conviction" no earlier than 3 years after that individual has satisfied the sentence imposed for the conviction, including parole, probation, or mandatory supervision.

To "Shield" a conviction means to render the court record or police record inaccessible to the public. While some ex-offenders are able to make a petition to shield their record under the current law, they face the hurdle of obtaining a full and unconditional pardon from the Governor. This bill would eliminate that hurdle.

Under the bill, if a person is convicted of a new crime during the 3-year waiting period, the first conviction is not eligible for shielding unless the new conviction becomes eligible for shielding. Furthermore, a persona may shield only one stand-alone conviction, or one unit of convictions per lifetime - meaning that there are no third or fourth chances.

Opponents of the bill fear that it will prevent employers from obtaining records necessary to evaluate the candidate for employment as some of the shieldable convictions are relevant to making an informed decision about a potential employee. Furthermore, there is a fear that this will delay background checks as a clerk will have to review the file before a disclosure can be made.  

The convictions that are eligible for shielding are:

1. Disorderly conduct


2. Disturbing the peace


3. Failure to obey a reasonable and lawful order


4. Malicious destruction of property under $500


5. Trespass: Posted Property


6. Obtaining property or services with bad check under $500


7. Misdemeanor theft under $1,000


8. Possessing or administering of a controlled dangerous substance


9. Use of or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia


10. Driving without a license


11. Driving while privilege is canceled, suspended, revoked or refused


12. Driving while uninsured


13. Prostitution

Maryland Court of Appeals Helps Criminal Defendants Filter Prospective Jurors

Before a juror can be chosen to serve in a jury, there is a process known as voir dire. This is the questioning of prospective jurors to determine if the juror would be biased in a particular case. Last week, the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland, reversed a criminal conviction, Cervante Pearson v. State, while setting new standards for questioning prospective jurors: The court found that if the prosecution's case relies heavily on police testimony, the defense may require that all jurors be asked if they have ever been a member of a law enforcement agency.

The court found that if a case for a criminal conviction is strongly based on the testimony of members of law enforcement agencies, and the prospective juror has been a member of a law enforcement agency, that potential juror may give more weight to those testimonies because of this affiliation. Because of this, a defendant is entitled to know of this association and be given the opportunity to strike him as a prospective juror. 

The court, along with this, also overturned a 2011 holding which allowed for defense to ask prospective jurors if they have "strong feelings" about the crime that would make it difficult for them to "fairly and impartially weigh the facts of [the] trial." The court removed the condition which asked if these strong feelings would make it difficult for them to fairly and impartially weight the facts of the trial. Now, the question only asks of the prospective juror has strong feelings about the crime and allows the litigants to determine if these feelings will make it difficult for the prospective juror to be fair and impartial.

While these holdings is good news for future criminal defendants, the court made it clear that convicts may not use these new standards to overturn their convictions.