Topics
Baltimore City's reverse redlining lawsuit dismissed.
Baltimore Sun confuses the public by trying to define probation before judgment.
Court of Appeals considers whether an arbitration agreement is binding.
How Dixon maintains her innocence by making an Alford Plea.
Lessons from the Redskins suing their fans.
Local print media confuses National Media with their headline regarding Suggs? Protective Order
McNair's death reminds us that everyone needs a Will.
Mega banks take notice: raise consumers interest rate and don?t expect to be paid.
Redskins sue their fans.
Suggs consenting to Protective Order was a wise move.
Recent Updates
Baltimore Sun confuses the public by trying to define probation before judgment.
Baltimore Sun’s Jill Rosen, in an attempt to help readers understand Dixon’s plea, completely misinformed the public of the meaning of probation before judgment. She wrote “Probation Before Judgment is a legal procedure that allows the court to dispose of minor cases against people whom prosecutors do not consider to be serious felons, says David Gray, assistant professor of law at the University of Maryland.” This statement is confusing and does not correctly represent the meaning of probation before judgment.
In Maryland, probation before judgment (PBJ) is a special disposition. The trial Judge must first find the Defendant guilty. Then, if the trial Judge finds it is in the best interest of the Defendant and the public welfare, the trial Judge can offer to the Defendant the opportunity to have the Court strike the Guilty judgment/verdict and instead enter a judgment/verdict of PBJ. As a condition of probation, the Court can sentence the Defendant with punitive measures including jail time, fines, community service, and supervised probation to name a few. The advantage to a Defendant in accepting PBJ is that when asked if you have been convicted of a crime, the answer is no. The disadvantage is that the Defendant cannot take an appeal.
The Baltimore Sun confuses the reader into thinking the prosecutor has a significant role in the PBJ. Usually, the prosecutor’s position on PBJ is either deferring to the court or opposing the PBJ. However, whether to grant the PBJ lies exclusively with the trial Judge. In fact, the trial Judge can grant PBJ over the objection of the prosecutor.
The Baltimore Sun also implies that PBJ is only used in minor cases. Again, this is confusing. The Court can grant PBJ in minor traffic cases (i.e., non-jailable traffic offenses such as speeding or failure to stop at a stop sign), serious traffic cases (i.e., jailable traffic offenses such as driving under the influence), misdemeanors, or felonies. The only time the Court cannot enter PBJ is where the General Assembly has specifically prohibited the entry of PBJ, or if the Court finds it is not in the best interest of the Defendant or the public welfare.
Ultimately, it appears that Professor Gray misinformed Jill Rosen of the meaning of PBJ. In the article, Professor Gray states that PBJ “allows prosecutors and the defense to say, we will not prosecute you if you stay out of trouble or meet other terms.” This is absolutely incorrect. First, while a defense attorney can ask the State not to prosecute, the decision not to prosecute lies exclusively with the Assistant State’s Attorney. Second, it seems that Professor Gray is either describing a “stet” or “nolle prosse”. A stet is where the prosecutor places the case on an inactive docket for three years. If a Defendant stays out of trouble for three years, then the case is dismissed and the State can never charge the Defendant again related to that crime. A nolle prosse is where the State dismisses the charge against the Defendant. Sometimes, the State can recharge the Defendant.
If you have been charged with a traffic or criminal offense and would like to know if you are eligible for probation before judgment, please contact Timothy J. Mummert, P.A.
