Case Dismissed When State Does Not Follow Proper Procedures
Mon, Jul 18 2011 02:54 PM
Before you even get to substance-whether somebody is guilty or not-you need to make certain that proper procedures were followed. In this case, the prosecution was attempting to get two bites at the Apple. That is simply not fair. Let me explainin my case. The police found my defendant with alleged marijuana in his pocket and a stolen GPS in his hand on November 24, 2010. He was charged in one district court case with theft under $1000. That case resolved on May 31 when my client, representing himself (he had not hired me yet) pled guilty to theft under $1000 and was given a jail sentence.
In the second District Court case he was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia. That case was set for trial today. Strangely, the laboratory had not done an analysis on the drugs. I waited around all morning and early afternoon for the analysis. While that was happening the public defender let me do some research-this was a panel case-and I found Cook versus state, 281 Maryland 665, ( 1978) which states that "it is beyond question that the closely related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel applied to criminal as well as civil cases." It went on to say that "under the doctrine of res judicata, sometimes known as direct estoppel, a final and valid judgment rendered in one proceeding between two parties operates as a bar in a second proceeding between them on all matters that have been or could have been decided in the original litigation, where the second proceeding involves the same subject matter as the first cause of action."
The state started arguing a double jeopardy analysis but that was not the issue in this case. The issue in this case was res judicata. In this case a final and valid judgment was rendered in one proceeding between the state of Maryland and my client-he was sentenced to jail on May 31, 2011 and all appeal time had run; in the earlier proceeding they could and should have brought the possession of marijuana charge but they did not, consequently the state could not take another bite at the apple. The judge agreed with my analysis and the case was dismissed.