Criminal Defense Lawyer | Personal Injury Attorney | DC & MD | Steven D. Kupferberg

Establishing an online presence is paramount for businesses across industries, and law firms are no exception. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) has emerged as a pivotal tool for law firms aiming to enhance their visibility, attract prospective clients, and establish authority in the legal domain.

Law firms leverage SEO by strategically incorporating relevant keywords into their website content. This ensures that when individuals search for legal services, the firm’s website appears prominently in search engine results. Whether it’s “family law attorney” or “personal injury lawyer,” a well-crafted keyword strategy helps law firms align their online presence with the specific legal services they offer.

Many legal cases are region-specific, and law firms recognize the importance of local SEO to connect with clients in their communities. Optimizing for local search terms, creating Google My Business profiles, and garnering positive reviews contribute to a firm’s visibility within their geographic area, making them a go-to choice for local legal needs. Visit sites like https://victoriousseo.com/verticals/law-firm-seo/ for additional guidance on SEO.

Content is king, especially in the legal realm. Law firms use SEO to create insightful blog posts, articles, and legal guides that showcase their expertise. By consistently producing high-quality, informative content, firms not only engage potential clients but also position themselves as thought leaders in their areas of practice.

SEO success for law firms goes beyond on-site optimization. Building quality backlinks from reputable sources signals to search engines that the firm’s content is valuable and authoritative. This not only boosts search rankings but also enhances the firm’s credibility within the legal community.

In an era where mobile devices dominate internet usage, law firms prioritize mobile optimization to cater to a broader audience. A mobile-friendly website not only improves user experience but also aligns with search engine algorithms, positively influencing rankings. Finally, SEO tools and analytics play a crucial role in the digital strategy of law firms. By analyzing website traffic, user behavior, and keyword performance, firms can make data-driven decisions to continually refine their SEO strategies, ensuring they stay ahead in the competitive online legal landscape.

Auto accidents are always distressing, but when they occur due to driving under the influence (DUI), the consequences can be catastrophic on multiple levels. In this blog post, we’ll explore the harsh realities of getting into an auto accident because of DUI and the significant repercussions that follow.
According to a personal injury lawyer and an auto accident attorney, an auto accident caused by DUI is a traumatic event for all parties involved. First and foremost, there is the potential for serious injuries or even loss of life. The impaired judgment and slowed reaction time associated with DUI significantly increase the risk of accidents.

The immediate consequences may include injuries to oneself or others, substantial vehicle damage, and even legal repercussions such as arrest and DUI charges. The emotional toll on the accident victims and their families is immeasurable, leading to physical, emotional, and financial burdens that can last a lifetime.

In the aftermath of a DUI-related auto accident, legal repercussions can be severe. Individuals found guilty of DUI may face fines, license suspension, mandatory alcohol education programs, and even imprisonment. If the accident results in injuries or fatalities, the legal consequences become even more substantial, potentially leading to criminal charges such as vehicular manslaughter. It’s important to hire an OVI Lawyer to help you defend your rights.

A DUI conviction can also result in a tarnished criminal record, making it difficult to secure employment, housing, and maintain one’s reputation. Insurance rates are likely to skyrocket, and some may even face policy cancellation. The financial consequences are not only limited to legal fees and fines but can extend to civil suits seeking compensation for injuries and damages.
The repercussions of a DUI-related auto accident reach beyond the legal realm, impacting one’s personal and professional life. The emotional burden of knowing that one’s actions caused harm to others can lead to severe guilt, shame, and psychological distress. Relationships may suffer, and individuals may face difficulty regaining trust from friends and family.

Professionally, a DUI conviction can jeopardize job security and future employment opportunities, particularly for careers that involve driving, handling company vehicles, or maintaining a clean criminal record.

The immediate consequences involve injuries, legal trouble, and emotional distress for all parties involved. Legal repercussions, including fines, license suspension, and potential imprisonment, can lead to long-term challenges. The impact on personal and professional life is substantial, affecting relationships, employability, and reputation. It’s a stark reminder of the importance of responsible and sober driving to safeguard lives and avoid the devastating consequences of DUI-related accidents.

The CONSTITUTION requires that prosecutors disclose favorable and exculpatory information to the defense in criminal cases. What that entails is open to interpretation by individual prosecutors, and failure to live up to the obligation can (and unfortunately has) led to wrongful convictions. A rule being considered by federal judges for the District of Columbia detailing what must be disclosed and when would be a step in the right direction with the proper lawyers from the Brazeau Seller Law.

The rule would establish courtwide standards for disclosure of information. A committee of judges and lawyers, including brain injury attorney near Chicago, from both the prosecution and defense bar spent a year drafting the proposal. Its impetus goes back to the botched prosecution in 2008 of then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Prosecutors’ failure to disclose relevant information to the defense prompted U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who presided over the trial, to seek a rule change for all federal courts. When that effort failed, attention was narrowed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office was represented on the committee, and so was that of Denver DUI defence attorney who was also associated with the case, but it is expected to oppose the proposed rule. “We have some concerns with some aspects of the proposed rule and our office is working with the Justice Department on comments to be submitted,” a spokesman said. The Justice Department has opposed court rules and legislation, favoring instead internal reforms such as improved training and tightened guidelines. Flagrant, intentional misconduct like that in the Stevens case is probably the exception, with, we believe, most prosecutors committed to upholding the law. Talking to Scott C. Nolan is a good idea when you need legal aid.

But as the Constitution Project, a nonprofit think tank that seeks bipartisan consensus on legal issues, pointed out in a letter last week supporting the new rule, “Even when prosecutors are acting in good faith, the inconsistent, shifting and sometimes contradictory standards for criminal discovery have made compliance…difficult.” The Public Defender Service for the District said the current situation isn’t good enough: It listed eight recent cases, “a non-exhaustive list,” in which relevant information was disclosed late or not at all.

The best way to ensure the timely and fair exchange of information would be to give defense counsel access to all investigative information, with certain exceptions for public safety and witness protection. Jurisdictions that have gone this route say it has worked well, but there seems little chance of federal prosecutors moving to such a system anytime soon. That makes all the more urgent the court’s adoption of this modest reform.

-The Washington Post; Sunday, March 20, 2016; Editorial Board

Support for making marijuana legal is increasing around the world, and that is a good thing. Earlier this week, the Mexican Supreme Court opened the door to legalizing the drug by giving four plaintiffs the right to grow cannabis for personal use.

In Canada, the newly sworn in prime minister, Justin Trudeau, has said he intends to change the law so people can use the drug recreationally; medicinal use is already legal in that country and is available at a canada cannabis dispensary.  And in the United States Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, recently introduced a bill that would let states decide if they want to make the drug legal without worrying about violating federal law.

Laws banning the growing, distribution and possession of marijuana have caused tremendous damage to society, with billions spent on imprisoning people for violating pointlessly harsh laws. Yet research shows that marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and can be used to treat medical conditions like chronic pain.

The Mexican Supreme Court’s ruling, which applies only to the four plaintiffs seeking a right to grow marijuana, does not strike down the country’s marijuana laws. But it will open the way to more legal challenges and put pressure on President Enrique Pena Nieto and the Mexican congress to change the law, which has helped to fuel drug-related crime in the country.

Prohibition in Mexico and elsewhere in the Americas will also become harder to maintain if California voters legalize recreational use of marijuana. Activists there are seeking to put legalization initiatives on the 2016 ballot. California was the first state to allow medicinal use of the drug in 1996, and it is a big market for illegal Mexican cannabis. It would make little sense for Mexico to spend countless millions a year in drug enforcement to bank a substance that is legal and regulated across its northern border all the way up the western coast to Canada. Oregon and Washington have already legalized the drug, as have Colorado, Alaska and the District of Columbia.

Some proponents of keeping prohibition in place might be encouraged by the defeat of an Ohio legalization initiative on Tuesday. But voters did the right thing by rejecting that measure because it would have granted a monopoly over the growing and sale of legal marijuana to a small group of investors. Even the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Chuck Rosenberg, who opposed legalization, described that ballot measure as an “anomaly.” (Mr. Rosenberg also said marijuana was “harmful and dangerous” but he acknowledged that other dangerous substances are “perfectly legal.”)

What’s needed now is responsible leadership from President Obama and Congress. They ought to seriously consider the kind of legislation Mr. Sanders has proposed. His bill would remove marijuana, or “marihuana” as it is called in federal law, from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances At, which is meant for drugs that have a high potential for abuse and no medical use.

This change would allow states to decide if they want to make the drug legal and how to regulate it without being limited by federal law. Mr. Sanders’s bill would also make it illegal to transport the drug across state lines. If Congress is unwilling to act, Mr. Obama should move on his own by ordering the attorney general to request a study by the secretary of health and human services, which would be needed if the administration is to remove the drug from Schedule I on its own.

A growing group of activists, judges and lawmakers is showing the world a path to more sensible drug policies. Mr. Obama and Congress should join them.

-New York Times; Friday November 6, 2015; Page A22

One prospective juror did not make enough eye-contact. Another appeared nervous and confused. A third had a son who was close in age to the defendant. A fourth was involved with the Head Start program.

These were just a few of the dozens of reasons Georgia prosecutors gave for eliminating people from sitting on the jury in the 1987 murder trial of Timothy Tyrone Foster, an 18-year-old black man charged with killing a 79-year-old white woman named Queen Madge White.

The one reason prosecutors did not give was the one thing those four potential jurors had in common: They were black.

A year before Mr. Foster’s trial, the Supreme Court, in the case of Batson v. Kentucky, reaffirmed that it is unconstitutional to exclude jurors because of their race – a practice with a long, odious history. It has survived thanks to the so-called peremptory challenge, which allows a juror to be excluded for no reason at all, as opposed to “for cause” challenges, in which a lawyer must give a reason for an exclusion, which the judge can accept or deny.

In requiring prosecutors to give a “race-neutral” reason for excluding black jurors, the court wrote that racial discrimination in jury selection “harms not only the accused whose life or liberty they are summoned to try,” but undermines “public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.”

Mr. Foster was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to death. For nearly three decades since, state prosecutors have denied that race was a factor in their decision to strike all the black jurors from his trial. They have also steadfastly refused to turn over their jury-selection notes to defense lawyers.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, Foster v. Chatman, to decide whether the prosecutors are telling the truth. The Georgia courts have all ruled in the state’s favor. But now those jury-selection notes are at the center of the case. Almost 20 years after Mr. Foster’s conviction, his lawyers finally got hold of them through the state’s open-records law.

The notes show that, contrary to prosecutors’ claims, race was indeed central to their decision to exclude certain jurors. Each black potential juror’s name is highlighted in green and marked with a “B”. The first four names on a handwritten list of “Definite Nos” are those of the black jurors who were struck. In a separate list, those jurors are ranked against one another, “in case it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors.”

Prosecutors now claim, implausibly, that their notes show a concerted effort to keep diligent records in order to rebut expected charges of racial discrimination.

The Foster case may be an extreme example of how brazenly prosecutors will take advantage of peremptory challenges to create racially unrepresentative juries and win convictions. But is far from unique. In 2012, a North Carolina court examined 173 capital cases and found that prosecutors removed more than half of all black potential jurors, but only a quarter of the rest. A 2003 study of eight years of trials in one Louisiana parish found a black-to-white strike rate of three-to-one. In 1986, one Philadelphia prosecutor recorded a trial-training film for his staff in which he said, “you don’t want those people on your jury.”

Over the years, some Supreme Court justices have expressed discomfort with peremptory challenges. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a 2005 case, “the right to a jury free of discriminatory taint is constitutionally protected – the right to use peremptory challenges is not.”

Peremptory challenges can, when used honestly, help both sides in a trial ensure a more impartial jury. But is still far too common for prosecutors to exploit this tool for improper purposes. The justices should be particularly vigilant for such unconstitutional behavior, especially when it is dressed in “race-neutral” garb.

-New York Times; Monday, November 2, 2015; Page A20

On October 23, 2015, District Court Judge John C. Moffett finds our client not guilty of accusations of second degree assault after trial in the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County. Our client was overwhelmed with joy after being vindicated.

In July 2014, our client, a Prince George’s County Policeman and his wife with another couple went to see a show at the Howard Theater. Upon leaving the show it became evident that the valet for the Howard Theater had inadvertently left the lights on, on our client’s friend’s automobile. The valet became belligerent and taunted our client’s friend, while refusing to adjust the parking fee or assist the friend in getting his automobile jump started. The friend was then surrounded and threatened. Our client observed one of the valets grab a metal pipe from the valet stand. Observing the former, our client went to his automobile, grabbed his identification in one hand and his off-duty service revolver in the other. Our client went to the assistance of his friend who was then surrounded by the valet staff. Our client ordered the valet staff to get to the ground and drop their weapon, which included a metal valet sign and the metal re-bar pipe. Our client never pointed his service revolver at any of the assailants. The Metropolitan Police Department was called and inexplicably arrested only our client and his friend (represented by Esteban Gergely). Our client was charged with two felonies: Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Possession of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence, which carried a minimum mandatory five years’ incarceration, if convicted. Because the client was a police officer, charged with a felony, the Prince George’s County Police Department placed the client on leave-without-pay. The client remained on leave-without-pay for fifteen months.

Our associate, Abigail Scott, combed through the security video given to us by the Howard Theater and realized that a citizen was taking a cell phone video of the incident. Abigail then developed a flyer which we distributed to all the local stores hoping to find the, yet unknown, citizen with the cell phone video. My special investigator and myself also went to the Howard Theater backdoor to show the flyer. My special investigator realized that by chance the cell phone videographer was present at the backdoor when we arrived. The videographer did not identify himself at first; however, two weeks later, we received a telephone call from the videographer who provided us with the video exculpating our client and his friend. We then presented a video compilation produced by, Joey Rossetti of JR Media Systems LLC, showing the cell phone video and the Howard Theater surveillance video in sync. This was shown to the court and to the United States Attorney’s Office at a short motions hearing. Shortly thereafter, today, the Court on motion of the United States Attorney’s Office dismissed the Indictment completely. My client is looking forward to having his back-pay reinstated.

This ordeal was patently unnecessary and shows that diligent investigation and attorney work-product goes a long way to free the innocent. A large round of applause to Joey Rossetti, Esteban Gergely, Abigail Scott, and our special investigator for a job well done!

Our client suffered significant injuries on May 9, 2013, as a result of being struck in the rear of his vehicle by a commercial vehicle. The significant injuries included injuries to the client’s leg. The client was transported to the hospital for surgery and the client had to have portions of his leg surgically removed due to an infection proximately caused by the collision. The case settled May 2014.

Our client was seriously injured on July 12, 2011, as a passenger in a one-car incident in Charles County. Our client was the passenger in an automobile which was driven in such a fashion as to cause the automobile to leave the roadway and roll over on the side of the road. Our client had to be cut from the automobile and transported to the hospital with significant injuries to her head, scalp, ear, neck, and back. The case settled August 2015.

The Honorable Krystal Q. Alves found that the fruits of the search of our client’s vehicle was an illegal inventory search and suppressed all of the evidence seized from our client’s vehicle. The suppression of the evidence illegally seized forced the State to enter all charges as dismissed [Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine, Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, and Driving while Impaired by Drugs or Drugs and Alcohol].