Michael J. Tomko:

​L  A  W    O  F  F  I  C  E​

Rosenberg & Tomko, P. A.​

Ph:  410-752-1133

​​​Lawrence B. Rosenberg:

The results shown on this page are actual case dispositions achieved by our Criminal Defense Attorneys.

               To protect the privacy of each client, we do not publish the actual case names. 

               Please note that each case is different - our past record is no assurance that we

               will be successful in reaching a favorable result in any future case.

• Client charged with possession of a handgun by a convicted felon - two separate incidents with numerous guns seized by the police 

          Defense successful, case dismissed

• Client charged with attempted murder - victim shot in the head, said he knew the defendant and identified him

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with murder - a shooting to recover life insurance proceeds from policies taken out on victim

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with attempted murder - Defendant runs truck into victim and flees the scene; he and his truck are identified; he confesses

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with attempted murder - a shooting, where the victim said he knew the defendant and identified him

          ​Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with murder - a shooting, where there were two eyewitnesses; defendant gives statement; places himself at the scene

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with rape

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with attempted murder - a stabbing that occurred downtown, after an altercation with the victim

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with handgun violations - gun located in the trunk of his car

          Not Guilty

• Client charged with transportation of approximately one lb. of heroin - I-95 stop by Transit Authority Police, defendant registered owner of vehicle with over $5,000 on his person

          Not Guilty

• Client charged with handgun violations

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with attempted murder - a shooting, where the defendant is identified

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with murder 

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with murder and handgun violations

          Not Guilty - Jury Trial

• Client charged with murder - Towson Town Center shooting of St. Paul's teacher

          ​Not Guilty - Jury Trial

In a license suspension case before the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings, the Motor Vehicle Administration sought to suspend a client's driver's license for 120 days - or demand that he have the interlock device installed in his car for a full year - because he allegedly refused to  submit to a chemical breath test at the police station.  This client, a lower-shore businessman, had been driving for more than 20 years without an infraction.  It became obvious, during the hearing, that the arresting officer improperly influenced the client's decision as to whether to submit to a breath test, by indicating that if he were simply to refuse the test, the officer would be able to finish his paperwork more quickly, end his shift on time, and even provide the client a ride back to his hotel, just a short distance from the station.  The hearing judge agreed with attorney Tomko, that the officer's advice was improper, and refused to take action against the client's driver's license.

In a trial by jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a young client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, the second such time in just a number of years.  The state's attorney was seeking a conviction, with a recommendation for jail time.  Any plea deal would mean that MVA would assess 12 points against the client's license, which would lead to revocation.  Attorney Tomko subpoenaed the in-car dash camera of the arresting officer from the Maryland Transportation Authority Police, commonly referred to as the I-95 tunnel police.  He used this tape, on cross examination, to demonstrate that the officer's written reports about the client's alleged performance of the field sobriety tests did not at all match the client's true performance, as seen on the video.  The jury promptly returned verdicts of not guilty as to all six tickets the client had received, including speeding and improper passing.

In a license suspension case before the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings, the Motor Vehicle Administration sought to suspend a client's driver's license for 120 days - or demand that he have the interlock device installed in his car for a full year - because he allegedly refused to submit to a chemical breath test at the police station.  This client, the president of a local nonprofit, regularly suffered from allergy attacks, and prior to being pulled over, was a guest at an outdoor dinner party.  It became obvious during the hearing, that when the breathalyzer was administered, the officer grew increasingly annoyed by the client's coughing, and decided that it was but an act to frustrate the test.  The hearing judge ultimately agreed with attorney Tomko, that the MVA could not prove its case, that the client did not refuse the test, and therefore, the judge refused to suspend the client's driver's license.

In a trial by jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, a local real estate agent was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.  He and a colleague were stopped but a short distance from a downtown bar and restaurant, after midnight, for an alleged traffic infraction while exiting a parking garage.  The Baltimore City police officer's report indicated that there was a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage on the client's person, and that the client's eyes were bloodshot and glassy.  On the scene, the client insisted that he had not been drinking, agreed to recite the alphabet, but refused to participate in additional sobriety tests.  According to the officer, the client was so adamant that he had not consumed any alcohol, the interaction became heated, and the client resisted arrest, which added a criminal charge in addition to the DUI. Skillful cross examination of the State's officers, by attorney Tomko, showed their complete lack of training, professionalism and believability. The jury took just 10 minutes to return not guilty verdicts.

In a trial by jury in the Circuit Court for Washington County, in Western Maryland, a 25-year-old client was charged with first-degree rape.  The State alleged that the female victim came to the apartment of the client, which he shared with a number of other young men, for a night of drinking.  After the victim became intimate with at least one of the other men, the client and the young lady were also intimate.  Some time later, criminal charges arose that the client had forced himself on the victim, who had allegedly said "no" to him, but not to her other paramours.  The State was seeking significant jail time.  Careful investigation prior to trial by attorney Tomko revealed that the victim, who was white, was scared to admit to her family the truth of the rumors that she had sex with the client, who was African-American.  Mr. Tomko further uncovered a recorded admission by the victim that called into question, her honesty.  At the conclusion of the State's case, but before jury instructions, the assistant state's attorney asked for a recess, and then offered the defense an unbelievable plea bargain - probation for a plea to second degree assault.  The defense rejected this offer.  When court reconvened, the state's attorney promptly dismissed all charges, telling the judge that the defense attorney's cross examination gave the State significant doubt as to whether the young lady could be believed at all.

In a trial by jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County, a client was charged with a series of drug felonies, including the possession of both cocaine and marijuana with the intent to distribute.  The client resided with his mother, his sister, and his mother's boyfriend in a Columbia apartment complex.  A search warrant executed on the home, and recovered from the rear patio, inside a grill, was a sufficient quantity of cocaine and marijuana.  The client was not home at the time of the police search, and so the State sought to introduce to the jury a compilation of observations, made by officers who were targeting the client, in the nights leading up to the search of the home.  In pretrial motions, attorney Tomko was successful in having the presiding judge suppress or exclude significant portions of these observations, weakening the State's case. The assistant state's attorney chose to prosecute anyway. Cross examination of the State's so-called experts called into question the officer's decision to target the client, and had the jury asking for more evidence that would tie the client to the drugs, which were in a common area where any member of the apartment complex, or even the public in general, could hide the drugs or stash them.  Ultimately, the jury found the client not guilty of all counts.

In a series of cases in multiple jurisdictions, a 50-year-old client was charged with felonies in Montgomery, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties as the result of thefts from a popular home improvement store.  The client suffered from decades of heroin abuse, and in several of the cases the State had strong video-taped evidence.  Working closely with the prosecutors in each of the four cases, attorney Tomko  was able to convince each judge to accept a plea bargain that involved a promise to commit the client to long-term, inpatient drug treatment, instead of a significant sentence to the Division of Corrections.  Within a short period, the client was released from detention into the drug program, graduated, was transitioned to probation, and is doing very well.