Exceptional Circumstances

For many children, the only parents they’ll ever know are the grandparents who raise them.  While these grandparents go about doing the everyday job of raising their grandchildren – changing diapers, preparing meals, and making sure the television is on the Cartoon Network - in the eyes of the law they have no legal authority.  The State of Maryland, however, has endowed its courts with the power to take a child away from its parents and commit his or her custody to a third person if it’s in child’s best interest.  

There is a long-standing rebuttable presumption that natural parents should have custody of their child over third parties, such as grandparents, in custody cases.  When a third party attempts to gain custody of a biological parent’s child, the parent’s fundamental constitutional right to their child’s care, custody, and control is the legal standard that must be overcome.  In order to overcome this constitutional presumption in favor of the biological parents, sufficient evidence must be presented that shows that the natural parents are unfit, or that exceptional circumstances exist such that maintaining parental control would be detrimental to the best interests of the child.  Once the court is satisfied that both of the natural parents are unfit, or that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a change in custody, it will then determine the best interests of the child.  In many cases, the best interests of the child is to remain in the loving care of the grandparents, or other third person, who have been meeting the child’s day-to-day needs.

On Friday, June 3, 2016, I was able help one exceptional family overcome the constitutional presumption of parentage and establish a more secure future for a little girl being raised by the people who love her.  In this instance it was the grandparents of a three-and-a-half year-old little girl, named Chloe, who were seeking custody of their granddaughter.  Sadly, the natural parents, both struggling with drug addiction, had abandoned Chloe to the care of her paternal grandparents.  While she flourished in their loving environment, my clients worried that the natural parents would swoop in take Chloe into their world of drugs, homelessness, and neglect.  Had the biological parents chosen to take Chloe, my clients would have been powerless to stop them.  Now, Chloe is home to stay.

- Joshua T. Ortega

The Fighting Ortegas Secure a Big Win for Their Client

 On May 5, 2016, the defense team of Windy Ortega and Joshua Ortega successfully defended their client against numerous drug and gun allegations. On September 29, 2014, their client, who will be referred to as “Mr. W” going forward, was stopped for a minor traffic infraction – the legally tinted windows of the vehicle he was operating appeared too dark for the taste of two Baltimore City narcotics officers.  The narcotics officers quickly abandoned the alleged purpose of their stop (issuing a citation for a minor traffic infraction), and began searching the vehicle driven by Mr. W. Following this constitutionally questionable search of the vehicle, Mr. W was arrested for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and various handgun violations. The ramifications of a guilty verdict for Mr. W was a lengthy prison sentence. After more than a year-and-a-half of waiting for his day in court, Mr. W was finally able to select a jury on May 2, 2016. 

In an effort to prove its case, the State called seven witnesses.  The Ortegas systematically exposed the bias and credibility of the narcotics officers and State’s experts, as well as the limitations of the State’s case. Throughout this highly contested trial, the Ortegas fought for Mr. W to make certain he got a fair trial. The jury, hearing the evidence as an impartial and objective body, found Mr. W not guilty of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and four hand gun charges after several hours of deliberations. 

The Ortegas, and Mr. W, are forever grateful to the ladies and gentlemen who served on this jury for their time and careful consideration of all the evidence in this case.  Joshua and Windy, a husband and wife law firm, lived up to their reputation as the Fighting Ortegas. 

The Rising Stars of Ortega Law, LLC

Windy and Joshua T. Ortega were both recognized as 2016 Rising Stars by Super Lawyers for their excellence in the practice of law. Only 2.5% of Maryland lawyers are selected as Rising Stars. This recognition is especially meaningful as it stems from a review by their peers.

 

The Joint Effort of 21 Baltimore Criminal Defense Attorneys Pays Off

The collective efforts of the Baltimore City Office of the Public Defender and the Private Criminal Defense Bar is paying off. Although the Joint Motion seeking access to Officers Laronde and Nagovich's IAD records has not yet been fully litigated, the Baltimore City State's Office has been steadily disposing of cases where Officer Laronde was an arresting officer, including one of Ortega Law's clients. Since the joint motion was filed at the beginning of this year, the State has dropped 8 of the 21 cases in the still pending joint motion.  Officer Laronde has also been fired from his position with the Baltimore City Police Department. 

I personally feel that we could not have received a better result for our clients. I am thankful to the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office and the Baltimore City Police Department for doing the right thing - ceasing to call former Officer Laronde as a witness and firing a corrupt officer who abused his powers as a police officer. I am also thankful to have joined ranks with my colleagues with the Office of the Public Defender and the Private Bar. It shows that there is strength in numbers, and that we all need to work together to continue to get good results for our clients.

Click the link below for WBALTV's latest story involving the termination of Officer Laronde.

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/baltimore-police-officer-facing-lawsuits-fired/37891802
 

The Fight Against Police Misconduct From A Different Angle.

Attorney Windy Ortega of Ortega Law, LLC, continues to fight police misconduct. Ms. Ortega recently teamed up with over 20 other criminal defense attorneys and filed a motion to gain access to two Baltimore City Police Officers' Internal Affairs records. It is believed that these records contain prior bad acts and dishonest conduct that the Defendants on trial should have access to.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-laronde-files-20160108-story.html

The Initial Appearance

For the last year I have been working evening shifts at the District Court Commissioner’s Office in Annapolis, Maryland, and at The Central Booking and Intake Facility in Baltimore City.  After the Court of Appeals decisions in what has become known as the Richmond Decision[1], the Appointed Attorneys Program was implemented by Maryland’s Legislature in July of 2014.  The Appointed Attorneys Program allows for eligible defendants to be represented by a Court Appointed Attorney at his or her Initial Appearance Hearing.[2] 

As the Plaintiffs’ in Richmond argued, an attorney is extremely helpful at this stage.  An attorney can not only explain the charges and offer support to the accused in a stressful situation, but he or she can also help them get the best possible pretrial release determination.  Arguments challenging probable cause can lead to the accused being released on his or her own personal recognizance.  Also, the attorney acts as a safe guard against potential self-incrimination.  Further, there are factors that the Court considers when determining pretrial release.  An experienced criminal attorney knows how to get the information they need from the client and present it to the Commissioner in a way that gets them the best possible result. 

I have seen many people waive their right to counsel at these hearings over the last year, and always wondered why.  Is it because they did not know the attorney was actually there waiting to help them?  Are they worried the Commissioner will go harder on them if they seek the advise of counsel?  Are the police pressuring them to waive this right?  My experience in this program has lead me to believe that the Commissioners like hearing from attorneys, and representation has certainly never made the terms of pretrial release harsher.  Having an attorney in these proceedings can only help an individual’s chances of release or obtaining a reasonable bond.  My hope is that more people will exercise their right to an attorney - because I have seen first hand that it makes a difference.     

Being a part of the Appointed Attorneys Program has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my career.  Helping an individual in their most vulnerable moment is a gratifying experience.  I am blessed to be apart of the panel of private attorneys that take the time to help people at the beginning of a potentially long and scary journey through our criminal justice system.

---

[1] The Court of Appeals in Dewolfe v. Richmond, 434 Md. 403 (2012), ruled that the Initial Appearance Hearing was a stage in a criminal proceeding where the presence of counsel for the determination of release would be of great assistance to the defendant.   Moreover, the Court gave credence to the argument that “unrepresented suspects are more likely to have more perfunctory hearings, less likely to be released on recognizance, more likely to have higher and unaffordable bail, and more likely to serve longer detentions or to pay the expense of a bail bondman’s non-refundable 10% fee to regain their freedom.” Id. at 429.  Dewolfe v. Richmond, 434 Md. 444 (2013) quoted these reasoning’s as well, and went on to hold that under the Due Process component of Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, an indigent defendant has a right to State furnished counsel at an initial appearance hearing before a District Court Commissioner.

[2] The accused also can elect to have a private attorney represent him or her at the hearing. A private attorney can participate in person, by phone, or even by fax.

Baltimore Meltdown The Result Of Police Brutality--Not A Silly Comment By The Mayor

Rick Ungar

I write from the left on politics and policy.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Watching the coverage of the Baltimore riots, I was stunned by how much time was being given by the media to the effort to blame someone for the unfolding violence.

Local and national reporters busily tossed around questions aimed at assigning blame to Mayor Rawlings-Blake for her foolish comment the other day where she appeared to be endorsing those who wanted the ‘space’ to express their displeasure over the death of Freddie Gray by acting out in violence. Reporters also focused on finding blame for the time it took to send the National Guard onto the streets of Baltimore because it makes for better copy to blame government reaction or inaction than to imagine the considerations a Mayor and a Governor face when trying to find a balance between the danger of inflaming a situation versus controlling that situation.

Yes, the Mayor most certainly made an errant and unforced error in her remarks when the rioting first broke out Saturday night—an error that she, like any other human being realizing a mistake, attempted to walk back.

And, maybe the state was too slow to send in the Guard or maybe it was not.

But if you imagine that the Mayor’s silly comment—or the timing of the arrival of National Guard troops—are the reason that the city of Baltimore is in total distress, you are either not paying attention or are simply unwilling to dig into the history of the city to understand what is really at work here.

Poverty is always going to be a fast track to exasperation and from exasperation it is a short hop to violence—and there is plenty of poverty in the City of Baltimore.

Police and demonstrators gather in the aftermath of rioting following Monday’s funeral for Freddie Gray, who died in police custody, on Tuesday, April 28, 2015, in Baltimore. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Reasonable people can argue about who is responsible for a community experiencing abject poverty. Some will say that government has enabled the poverty by providing too much help by way of welfare while others will suggest that government has done too little to help impoverished communities break the cycle. Still others will place the blame on the members of the community themselves.

We can leave that discussion to another day because, in the case of Baltimore, there is a more immediate explanation for why the death of Freddie Gray would set off the explosion first ignited on Saturday night with the full eruption occurring yesterday as Mr. Gray was being laid to rest.

Between the years 2011 to 2014, the City of Baltimore was forced to pay out almost six million dollars in compensation to those who had been adjudged the victims of police brutality. Even more stunning, given that Baltimore is a city of only 622,000 people, there were more than 100 court judgments or settlements awarded to victims of police brutality and civil rights violations.

I think we can all agree that only a tiny percentage of those who may have suffered similar abuse ever manage to bring their cases before a court. Thus, the one-hundred plus who sought to redress their grievances likely represents only the tip of the iceberg.

No doubt, these are all cases of bad guys who smarted off to the cops during an arrest and earned the response they received, yes?

Sadly, no.

In fact, virtually all of the victims who brought court cases were either never charged with a crime or had the charges dropped by the court.

These were not, in the vernacular, righteous busts.

Who were these victims?

A 26 year old pregnant accountant who had witnessed the police berating the victims of an attack and tried to set them straight by explaining to the officers what she had seen so that the police would go after the attackers instead of focusing on the victims. The police responded by pushing the woman to the ground, scraping the skin off her face in the process and cuffing her.

Court transcripts show that the police in question attempted to severely minimize the events in court. However, there had been two, uninvolved witnesses who corroborated the pregnant accountant’s story, leading to the woman receiving $125,000 in compensation from the city.