Motion to dismiss maryland pro#
Motion to dismiss maryland trial#

1990), stated, “the basic inquiry then becomes whether the government’s action in prosecuting after substantial delay violates fundamental conceptions of justice or the community’s sense of fair play and decency.” Id. The Court of Appeals agreed and held that a defendant would be required to prove both (1) that he suffered actual prejudice from the delay, and (2) that the delay was the result of a purposeful attempt by the State to gain a tactical advantage over him.

Motion to dismiss maryland trial#

However, the trial court determined that the case should not be dismissed because the State had not purposely delayed indicting the defendant to gain a tactical advantage. The State conceded that the defendant had been prejudiced as a result of the delay. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing pre-indictment delay. Police began to re-investigate over ten years later and eventually charged the defendant. The police questioned whether they had sufficient evidence for the State to mount a successful prosecution so the applications were never submitted to the court. Applications of charges had been completed. In that case, the defendant was one of the initial four suspects in a murder.

611 (2001), the Maryland Court of Appeals set forth a test for deciding whether a pre-indictment delay violates a defendant’s due process rights.

The Defendant paid a bondsman a second time and was released. On October 13, 2010, a bail review was held and his bond was set at $250,000. The Defendant was arrested on Octoand held without bail. Despite the fact that the Defendant had no further contacts with law enforcement, at the time of the filing of the indictment in the above captioned matter, the prosecutor requested a no bail warrant. Sixteen months passed and the Defendant had no other criminal arrests. Thereafter, in October, 2009, the Defendant’s wife invoked her marital privilege and the Defendant was found not guilty of assaulting her. At that time, the State dismissed the charges because the brother-in-law was on active duty and soon to be deployed out of the country. On that date, the charges with respect to the incident with his brother-in-law were dismissed. The Defendant paid a bondsman and was released. The Defendant was held without bail from until Jwhen bail was set at $25,000. On May 22, 2009, a district court charging document was issued by the Harford County police charging the Defendant with assaulting his wife on and charging him with the attempted murder of his brother in law on May 21, 2009. This case involved some unique facts and circumstances that if appealed, may garner some attention by the appellate courts. The result was that all charges including attempted murder and first degree assault were dismissed.

(3) An action removed to the circuit court and consolidated with an action in that court under the provisions of this section shall proceed in the circuit court, without regard to the amount in controversy, as if originally instituted in the circuit court.This week, a judge sitting in the Circuit Court for Harford County, Maryland ruled after a lengthy motion’s hearing that the prosecutor violated my client’s due process rights. (2) If the motion is granted, the court shall forward all pleadings to the circuit court. (b) (1) When actions involving at least one of the same parties, with the same subject matter, issues, and defenses arising out of the same circumstances, are instituted in the District Court and a circuit court of the State, the party who filed the action in the District Court may file a motion in that court to remove the action to the circuit court for consolidation with the action pending in circuit court. (a) If a court finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions it considers just.

Motion to dismiss maryland pro#

MD Cts & Jud Pro Code § 6-104 (2013) What's This?