Dwyer gets jail time

smores said:

Damn what's his number? That's who I'm calling if I get locked up in MD.



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB

Click to expand...

Yep, amazing isn't it. One of the more powerful people that creates the laws also directly benefits monetarily from the practically non-existent "consequences". And they wonder why politics are corrupt.

Makes you wonder doesn't it ...

Sportstud4891 said:

Yep, amazing isn't it. One of the more powerful people that creates the laws also directly benefits monetarily from the practically non-existent "consequences". And they wonder why politics are corrupt.

Click to expand...

How many of our 'career' legislators in the PRofMD have the title 'criminal defense attorney' on their resume' ? Does anyone have that stat ? Not that there is anything wrong with providing the best of defense to your clients, but when you pass laws that benefit you as a member of the bar ... isn't that what is called unethical ?

EL1227 said:

How many of our 'career' legislators have the title 'criminal defense attorney' on their resume' ? Does anyone have that stat ? Not that there is anything wrong with providing the best of defense to your clients, but when you pass laws that benefit you as a member of the bar ... isn't that what is called unethical ?

Click to expand...

Well, as a matter of fact, Vallario (head of HJC) is one, too.

Frosh is a "Family" attorney.

Plenty.

I ran a signature one day back in April on this very topic.

ShallNotInfringe said:

*** Why do MD Criminal Defense Attorneys write and/or vote on MD Criminal Laws? ***

Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed.

EL1227 said:

How many of our 'career' legislators in the PRofMD have the title 'criminal defense attorney' on their resume' ? Does anyone have that stat ? Not that there is anything wrong with providing the best of defense to your clients, but when you pass laws that benefit you as a member of the bar ... isn't that what is called unethical ?

Click to expand...

Smiegel

Alright, before we get into the attorney bashing, how about bashing the Judges that you elect. That Judge that sentenced Dwyer is elected by the people in Anne Arundel County. The Judge in every DUI case under 902(a) has the ability to sentence people to up to two years in prison, a pretty large fine the exact amount of which escapes me at the moment, and 3 years probation.

For the most part, the majority of DUI offenders under 902(a) get probation before judgment the first time around. Second time is usually a guilty with a suspended sentence or a couple weekends. Third time around is usually actual prison time guaranteed.

It does not matter if the attorney is a member of the General Assembly, a Democrat, or whatever else. This is generally how the sentencing goes, unless there are aggravating circumstances such as an accident. As I mentioned, I don't think an accident, unless it results in a death, should be taken into account. Whether or not an accident occurs depends almost entirely on luck. In Dwyer's case, her was completely unlucky to have the other boater veer into his boat against the rules of the water way. Personally, if I was towing my kids behind me on a tube, I wouldn't have been doing it anywhere near other boats, but that is beside the point.

What we need in this state is harsher penalties for first time DUIs and repeat offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences, which a Judge cannot veer from.

Don't get mad at me because I get a DUI offender off with a PBJ or no jail time. That is my job. Same goes for every other attorney out there. Get mad at the General Assembly and the Judges for going lightly on these people. They are the ones with the power to do something. The attorney is under an ethical obligation to do the best for their client as they possibly can.

Thing is, I think we would need a showing in Annapolis akin to what we saw from our side on SB281 before there is a vast change in the law. Just really sad, especially since I know two cyclists that have been killed by drunk drivers.

People in Maryland are asked to vote for judges the records of whom are not known to the general public.

How the hell do you know (s)he's okay or not?

I have little experience with the judicial system other than a recent neighborhood pedophilia case. The perp was convicted in the early '80s for molesting a number of boy scouts...sentence, 15 years reduced to 5 suspended. He has now been convicted of molesting another child and sentencing is next month (two more cases involving different victims coming up after that).

My point is that if people know how lenient our judges are on a case by case basis they would have a bench mark against which to judge their entitlement to remain on the bench.

Add to that, most are voted to continue their judgeship in the first few years of their tenure and don't appear on the ballot anymore.

In short, the people have little influence over those who hold life and death decisions in their hands.

In the end it comes down to who is elected governor. Even if that scoundrel were to lose office, the judges he's placed on the bench are there seemingly forever.

Not bashing lawyers ... just bringing up an issue.

Editted down ...

fabsroman said:

What we need in this state is harsher penalties for first time DUIs and repeat offenders. Mandatory minimum sentences, which a Judge cannot veer from.

Thing is, I think we would need a showing in Annapolis akin to what we saw from our side on SB281 before there is a vast change in the law. Just really sad, especially since I know two cyclists that have been killed by drunk drivers.

Click to expand...

If you're a defense attorney, it is your job to be the best for your client, so I am surprised that you would be in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for anything, let alone DUI. But you also highlight my bitch ...

During the SB281 hearings, an amendment was passed to either make or stiffen mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a firearm. Sen. Prez Mike Miller did a bit of backroom arm twisting to 'reverse' a vote or two with a 'do-over'. Could that have been to 'support' trial lawyers who want more 'leeway' in sentencing ? There are 'extenuating circumstances' to every law broken, but that's what the trial is supposed to bring out, but the leeway granted Judges in sentencing isn't just to benefit the guilty ... or innocent.

fabsroman said:

One would think that to be the case, but it isn't. More accidents in Montgomery County are caused by deer than by other motorists. You can actually get in trouble for hitting a deer with your car and then taking it home after the fact to put it in the freezer if you do not take the steps required by law.

Click to expand...

I must have seen what was left of at least 4 of them on the highway just today, between Annapolis and York. But it could have been more, because lately I stopped counting.

As someone who has admittedly been a driver under the influence in the past, here are my thoughts on DUI sentencing.

1st conviction: mandatory alcohol treatment
2nd conviction: minimum of 5 days in jail with a maximum of 30 days
3rd conviction: minimum of 90 days in jail with a maximum of one year.
4th conviction: minimum one year in jail with a maximum of five years.

EL1227 said:

Editted down ...


If you're a defense attorney, it is your job to be the best for your client, so I am surprised that you would be in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for anything, let alone DUI. But you also highlight my bitch ...

During the SB281 hearings, an amendment was passed to either make or stiffen mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a firearm. Sen. Prez Mike Miller did a bit of backroom arm twisting to 'reverse' a vote or two with a 'do-over'. Could that have been to 'support' trial lawyers who want more 'leeway' in sentencing ? There are 'extenuating circumstances' to every law broken, but that's what the trial is supposed to bring out, but the leeway granted Judges in sentencing isn't just to benefit the guilty ... or innocent.

Click to expand...

Facts are important. It wasn't Miller, it was Valario. It wasn't in the Senate, it was in a House joint committee vote session.

I applaud the judge. I know it is Dwyer and we like him, but...

My niece and nephew, great-niece and her boyfriend, were boating on Memorial Day a few years back. A boater was drinking headed in the opposite direction. He crossed their path. My niece took the hit as she was standing up by the rail that holds the window in place. She crushed her jaw and lost all but about 8 teeth. The helicoptered her out. She spent 2 weeks on a respirator and we didn't know if she would live.

The driver of the other boat was at fault, but he was a rich doctor who was a buddy of the sheriff. His blood alcohol level was never tested. He did admit that he was drinking. He got nothing. Not even a hand slap.

That was Alabama. This is Maryland.

EL1227 said:

Editted down ...


If you're a defense attorney, it is your job to be the best for your client, so I am surprised that you would be in favor of mandatory minimum sentences for anything, let alone DUI. But you also highlight my bitch ...

During the SB281 hearings, an amendment was passed to either make or stiffen mandatory sentences for felonies committed with a firearm. Sen. Prez Mike Miller did a bit of backroom arm twisting to 'reverse' a vote or two with a 'do-over'. Could that have been to 'support' trial lawyers who want more 'leeway' in sentencing ? There are 'extenuating circumstances' to every law broken, but that's what the trial is supposed to bring out, but the leeway granted Judges in sentencing isn't just to benefit the guilty ... or innocent.

Click to expand...

That is the problem with our society. People look at what is good for them, and not at what is good for society. Yes, I do some criminal work. Yes, I get a lot of people PBJ and sometimes feel really bad doing it because in my eyes they do not deserve it. Being an attorney is a tough job. I represent them and get them off of the charge and feel good for them, and then feel bad that the Judge listened to me and that society allows this to happen. It is a Dr. Jekyl, Mr. Hyde kind of fight.

Ultimately, I want what is best for society. I want to make sure I do not get run over by a drunk driver while out riding my bike, and that my kids are safe from drunk drivers. If it means my clients do more time for drinking and driving, so be it. They knew it was illegal when they decided to do it. Will I still try to get them off of the charge? Yep, and I will do my best to do so.

I know all about the issue with the stiffer sentencing for gun crimes and hate the fact that it did not get passed. Might be the same reason most DUI's do not get prison time. The prisons are full and it costs money to build and operate more, unless you want the inmates sleeping with the guards a la Baltimore City.

Nothing is ever simple. The liberals think that banning assault weapons will make sure something like Newtown never happens. Again, just not that simple.

R81 said:

As someone who has admittedly been a driver under the influence in the past, here are my thoughts on DUI sentencing.

1st conviction: mandatory alcohol treatment
2nd conviction: minimum of 5 days in jail with a maximum of 30 days
3rd conviction: minimum of 90 days in jail with a maximum of one year.
4th conviction: minimum one year in jail with a maximum of five years.

Click to expand...

If you want PBJ on your first conviction, it is mandatory to be evaluated. Usually they recommend a 12 or 26 week program after the evaluation.

The maximum sentence for ALL DUI convictions right now is 2 years. I see no need to change that. However, we can add a mandatory minimum. Granted, I disagree with yours.

First conviction is PBJ IF you complete a 26 week program and go to AA for 3 months.

Second conviction is two months of weekends in prison, minimum.

Third conviction is six months in prison minimum. You were given two chances to retain your employment. The third strike means you really have to pay dearly.

Fourth conviction, we can agree on the minimum of one year.

I've never liked the idea of mandatory minimums for anything. I feel like judges should do their job and utilize both discretion and common sense.

If I'm young and make a mistake in which no one is hurt, I need to take a step back and look at my life and reassess. But that doesn't necessarily mean I need addiction treatment and mandatory alcoholics anonymous. Nor the average ~ $10k it seems like a pbj will cost someone by the time they finish paying for a lawyer, MADD, counseling, probation, vehicle interlock, court fees, and all the nickel and diming along the way. It's impossible for a judge to truly know your character but that IS part of their job, and should be left to their discretion.

If I show up before you, obviously guilty of my third DUI, I'm a habitual problem with reckless disregard to public safety and should have the book thrown at me. And my right to operate a motor vehicle should certainly be revoked. Does the judge really need a guideline telling them this is the case? And if so, how can we get rid of these judges making awful decisions and endangering the public?

It seems to me the court is more focused on making money for the whole machine that revolves around these types of infractions, and less upon what is in the best interest of both the defendant and the public. By which I mean, how best to ensure we all live together safely and peaceably without simply taking the "easy way out" and just resorting to a laminated chart showing mandatory minimums and maximums. There should be more thought into it than that.


Just my opinion, of course.

NHaze said:

I've never liked the idea of mandatory minimums for anything. I feel like judges should do their job and utilize both discretion and common sense.

If I'm young and make a mistake in which no one is hurt, I need to take a step back and look at my life and reassess. But that doesn't necessarily mean I need addiction treatment and mandatory alcoholics anonymous. Nor the average ~ $10k it seems like a pbj will cost someone by the time they finish paying for a lawyer, MADD, counseling, probation, vehicle interlock, court fees, and all the nickel and diming along the way. It's impossible for a judge to truly know your character but that IS part of their job, and should be left to their discretion.

If I show up before you, obviously guilty of my third DUI, I'm a habitual problem with reckless disregard to public safety and should have the book thrown at me. And my right to operate a motor vehicle should certainly be revoked. Does the judge really need a guideline telling them this is the case? And if so, how can we get rid of these judges making awful decisions and endangering the public?

It seems to me the court is more focused on making money for the whole machine that revolves around these types of infractions, and less upon what is in the best interest of both the defendant and the public. By which I mean, how best to ensure we all live together safely and peaceably without simply taking the "easy way out" and just resorting to a laminated chart showing mandatory minimums and maximums. There should be more thought into it than that.


Just my opinion, of course.

Click to expand...

Maryland has what is called Probation Before Judgment. A Judge has wide discretion in when to use it, the exception being a 2nd DUI within 5 years of the previous. There, PBJ cannot be granted on the 2nd DUI.

I completely believe in giving people a second chance. That is why I suggested PBJ for almost all first time DUI offenders. There are lots of young kids out there doing stupid things, that should not have a criminal record because of it.

Of course, the flip side is to discourage this sort of stuff so that others are not killed by the stupidity of these young kids. When I say young kids, I am talking about between 16 and 25. I knew way too many people that drank and drove during that time in my life, and now almost all of them are responsible adults. Thing is, it really would have sucked if they killed themselves or somebody else while doing this.

I would also hate to keep giving first time offenders a get out of jail free card when not making the penalties extremely painful for first time offenders could possibly lead to one of these young kids killing my wife and kids in a car wreck. I have seen way too many wrecks and terrible injuries from drunk drivers. Meanwhile, I hate to see a young kid with a record.

Maybe a mandatory 500 hours of community service for a PBJ for a first time DUI offender. Give them 2 years to complete the community service. The streets would be completely clean of clutter and they would lose a lot of weekends for their stupidity.

fabsroman said:

Maybe a mandatory 500 hours of community service for a PBJ for a first time DUI offender. Give them 2 years to complete the community service. The streets would be completely clean of clutter and they would lose a lot of weekends for their stupidity.

Click to expand...

Lol that's funny. And a GREAT idea. I still don't like the mandatory part though.

If you're too soft, you have no business being a judge. If you're too inflexible, you have no business being a judge. If you're too liberal or too conservative, you have no business being a judge. Or rather, if you allow any of your personality traits or political leanings to overly color your judgement, you are not fit to be a judge.

That said, though my familiarity with the Maryland judiciary is admittedly far less than were I a trial lawyer, I feel like - as everything else in life, there are really good judges in Maryland, and there are really bad ones. Others have mentioned how the election process for judges is really a joke. How can we get rid of unfit judges?

Excuse my alliteration but perhaps there should be a Judge that judge's Judges. Judge Inspector General. Its difficult because you don't want the whim of the people removing a truly fair and just judge based on a single high profile poor decision, nor would you want them electing a nincompoop based solely on some slick DNC paid for ad campaign.

Maybe I'm just ignorant of how the system self regulates now. I do know the governor makes appointments to MD courts, and the Pres makes appointments to United States courts. And that I don't agree with judges being chosen by career politicians.

Sorry for the rambling post everyone, really just thinking out loud here.

Didn't I just read somewhere where Dwyer was just fined again but this time for crabbing on Wednesday?

And why can't you crab on Wednesday?

As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a 4th DUI. If you can't control yourself after the 3rd strike, I have no use for you. I have seen to many deaths because of drunks. I don't have the patience or the time for them.

tsmith1499 said:

As far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a 4th DUI. If you can't control yourself after the 3rd strike, I have no use for you. I have seen to many deaths because of drunks. I don't have the patience or the time for them.

Click to expand...

What do you suggest, execution?



Si vis pacem para bellum

follow me @DiscipleofJMB