|
On Monday (3/28), I represented a client charged in Baltimore County District Court with possession of a controlled dangerous substance. Basically, the police were conducting a drug investigation, which my client was not a target of, resulting in them going to the residence of the target, where they found my client, with a number of other individuals, in a room, on the floor of which was a plastic baggie containing a number of capsules of heroin. There was no indication my client had placed the drugs on the floor, and he didn't live at the residence in question. I did not see, under this set of facts, how the State could ever prove that my client actually possessed the drugs in question. After discussing the matter with the prosecutor, the State ultimately agreed and dismissed the case. The next day, I was back in District Court representing a client who was charged with trying to order retail goods online using a 3rd-party's credit card, without that parties consent. The State obtained the IP address of the computer that was used to place the order from the merchants the goods were ordered from (in this case, Nordstrom's & Saks). Then, the State issued a subpoena to Verizon, in an effort to determine what account that IP address was assigned to on the date the orders were placed, and supposedly it was my client's account. However, in reviewing the State's evidence, I discovered that Verizon's response to the State's subpoena merely specified that my client had established an account months prior to the incident, but did not indicate whether my client actually still had an active account on the date the goods were ordered online. After pointing out this flaw, the State agreed to place my client's case on inactive status, and to actually dismiss the charges in 9 months, provided the client does not run afoul of the law during that period of time. |
Topics
2 Felony Drug Cases=0 Prison Time Recent UpdatesMarch 17, 2011 Web ResourcesFindLaw |

