Please take note of our new "About" section, detailing our emphasis on Maryland Gun Permits and Legal Representation.
With the Law Office of Walter S. Booth, you get an efficient, experienced attorney with the ingenuity and foresight that can only come with over 30 years of accomplishment.
4520 E West Hwy, Ste 700
Since he began practicing law in 1977, Walter Booth has provided representation to small businesses, start-ups, individuals, trade associations and non profits. Practice Areas: - Civil Litigation - Criminal Litigation - Appellate Litigation - Business Law - Estates - Estate Litigation Admitted: - New Jersey and Pennsylvania, 1977 - District of Columbia, 1980 - Maryland, 1983 Law School: - Catholic University of America, J.D., 1977 - Recipient, American Jurisprudence Award in Criminal Law College: - Rutgers University, B.A., 1972 - Graduated with highest distinction, Political Science - Dean's List (1969-1972) Professional Associations: - District of Columbia Bar - Maryland State Bar Association. - Montgomery County Bar Association - National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys Reported Appellate Cases: - Mozingo v. U.S., 503 A2d 1238 (DC App. 1986) - U.S. v. Rettaliata, 833 F2d 361 (DC Cir. 1987) - Floyd v U.S., 538 A2d, 248 (DC App. 1988) - Hall v U.S., 559 A2d, 1321 (DC App. 1989) - Porter v U.S., 561 A2d 944(DC App. 1989) - Chambers (Hubbard) v U.S., 564 A2d 26 (DC App. 1989) - Davis v U.S.*, 567 A2d 36 (DC App. 1990) - Ramsey v U.S.*, 569 A2d 142 (DC App. 1990) - Acker v U.S.*, 618 A2d 688 (DC App. 1992) - Allen v U.S., 622 A2d 1103 (DC App. 1993) - Lewis v U.S.*, 632 A2d 383 (DC App. 1993) - U.S. v McKinley, 70 F3d 1307 (DC Cir. 1995) - Zanders (Harris) v U.S.*, 678 A2d 396 (DC App. 1996) - Varner v U.S., 685 A2d 396 (DC App. 1996) - Courtney v U.S., 708 A2d 1008 (DC App. 1998) - Mitchell v U.S.*, 746 A2d 877 (DC App. 2000) - Forte v U.S., 856 A2d 567 (DC App. 2004) - Stroman v U.S.*, 878 A2d 1241 (DC App. 2005) - Frye v U.S.*, 926 A2d 1085 (DC App. 2005 - Reh'd 2007) - U.S. vs. Edwards**, 424 F3d 1106 (DC Cir. 2005) - McDonald v U.S.*, 904 A2d 377 (DC App. 2006) - Shepherd v U.S., 905 A2d 260 (DC App. 2006) - Steword** v U.S. 927 A2d 1081 (DC App 2007) - Callaham* v U.S. 937 A2d 141 (DC App 2007) - Hinton v U.S. 95/Azd 663 (DC app. 2008) Vacate - Hinton v U.S. 979azd 663 (DC app. 2009) En Banc - Brown v. HPRD 982 azd 830 (MD app. 2009) - Funda v. State -Azd- ( MD app. 2010) - Funda v. State -Azd- ( MD app. 2010) * Reversal ** Remand In the first week of July,2010, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued two Reported (published) Opinions in two separate, but companion, cases. I was the Attorney-of-Record on both cases and briefed and argued both cases. Both cases are titled : Furda v State of Maryland. The first is Case No. 3053, September Term 2007, filed on July 2, 2010. This case involved an Order, issued by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, in which a Defendant’s request for return of firearms was denied because the Court found he was a “prohibited person” in that he had been committed to a mental institution. In actuality, the Defendant had been the subject of an emergency evaluation petition. After numerous and repeated motions to dismiss by the Government, the filing of briefs, reply briefs and even supplemental briefs with the Court of Special Appeals and extended oral argument, the Court issued its ruling, contained in the above-noted Published Opinion. In it, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court, essentially holding that an “emergency evaluation” is not a “commitment.” Worthy of note in the Opinion is the fact that the Court acknowledged and confirmed that the State conceded that the Montgomery County Ordinance has no validity, as it has been preempted by State law. Also, worth noting, at least in this particular case,is that State law was not applicable because the Defendant had not been committed for 30 days or more. The essence of the Court’s ruling and reversal is that "to be committed” under 18 USC 921 et seq. would entail some form of adjudicatory hearing and that the Defendant in this case did not have one and therefore, he was not "committed" and the Order of the Circuit Court saying he was a prohibited person was wrong. The significance is that persons who are the subject of a malicious or erroneous "emergency evaluation petition"are not considered to be "committed" and accordingly are no longer barred from owning firearms. However, in the second case, Case No. 2240, September Term 2008, filed on July 6, 2010, wherein the Defendant was tried for perjury, based upon filling out an application to purchase and stating that he was not committed. The Appellate Court affirmed his conviction, despite acknowledging that the Order saying that he was committed was wrong and had been stricken in the prior case (as cited above).
Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Law Office of Walter S. Booth posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Send a message to Law Office of Walter S. Booth: