Baltimore Med Mal Attorney’s $25M Extortion Appeal: Unfit to Represent Himself?
In a case that has sent shockwaves through the Baltimore legal community, a prominent medical malpractice attorney’s conviction for attempting to extort $25 million from the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) is now under appeal. The attorney, Stephen L. Snyder, argues that he was unfit to represent himself at trial due to a combination of Parkinson’s disease and dementia. This raises critical questions about the competency standards for self-representation and the potential for a miscarriage of justice.
The $25 Million Demand and Subsequent Conviction
Stephen L. Snyder, a well-known figure in Baltimore’s legal circles, was found guilty in November 2024 of attempting to extort UMMS. The prosecution presented evidence that Snyder, representing clients who claimed injury after organ transplants at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), threatened to “destroy” the UMMC transplant department unless UMMS paid him $25 million personally, separate from any settlement with his clients.
According to court documents, Snyder’s threats included launching a public relations campaign falsely accusing UMMC of tricking patients into accepting diseased organs. He allegedly planned to run a front-page ad in a newspaper, hold a press conference, and create advertisements directing potential UMMC transplant patients to his law firm’s website. Snyder even played pre-made commercials accusing UMMC of prioritizing “profits over safety” during meetings with UMMS attorneys.
Following a nine-day trial, the jury found Snyder guilty of one count of attempted extortion and seven counts of violating the Travel Act. He was later sentenced to six months of house arrest and three years of probation.
The Appeal: Unfitness for Self-Representation
Snyder has now appealed his conviction to the Fourth Circuit, arguing that he was not competent to represent himself at trial. In his brief, Snyder claims that a combination of Parkinson’s disease and dementia significantly impaired his ability to defend himself and even understand the court’s rulings.
The appeal highlights instances where the trial judge allegedly “chastised, interrupted, and sanctioned” Snyder, even jailing him for criminal contempt the night before jury deliberations. Snyder argues that this resulted in a “fundamentally unfair trial.”
Notably, Snyder initially retained an attorney, paying an estimated $2.5 million in legal fees. However, his attorney withdrew from the case in December 2023, over Snyder’s objections. The reasons for the withdrawal are currently sealed, adding another layer of intrigue to the case.
Competency to Stand Trial vs. Competency to Represent Yourself
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to legal counsel. However, it also implies the right to self-representation. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right, but with a crucial caveat: a defendant must be competent to knowingly and intelligently waive their right to an attorney and understand the proceedings against them.
This raises a critical distinction: is the standard for competency to stand trial the same as the standard for competency to represent oneself? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Indiana v. Edwards (2008), suggesting that a higher standard of competency may be required for self-representation. The Court reasoned that a defendant might be competent to understand the charges against them but still lack the ability to effectively navigate the complexities of a trial, examine witnesses, and present a coherent defense.
Several factors are considered when determining competency, including the defendant’s:
- Age and education
- Mental state and cognitive abilities
- Understanding of the charges and potential penalties
- Ability to follow court procedures
If a defendant’s competency is in question, the court may order a psychological evaluation.
The Challenges of Pro Se Representation
Representing oneself in a criminal trial, also known as proceeding pro se, is a daunting task. Defendants are expected to adhere to the same rules of evidence and procedure as licensed attorneys. They must understand legal concepts, prepare and present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and make legal arguments.
The challenges are amplified when a defendant suffers from cognitive impairments. Parkinson’s disease and dementia can affect memory, concentration, and reasoning abilities, making it exceedingly difficult to mount an effective defense.
Studies have shown that pro se litigants have a significantly lower success rate than those represented by counsel. A 2017 Cornell Law School study found that only 2.6% of direct appeal cases by pro se litigants received favorable decisions, compared to 16.9% of those represented by public attorneys and 18.8% of those represented by private counsel.
Advice for Medical Malpractice Victims
If you believe you have been a victim of medical malpractice, seeking legal counsel is crucial. An experienced attorney can:
- Evaluate the merits of your case
- Gather evidence and build a strong claim
- Navigate the complex legal system
- Negotiate with insurance companies
- Represent you in court
The Implications of Snyder’s Appeal
Snyder’s appeal raises important questions about the balance between a defendant’s right to self-representation and the need to ensure a fair trial. If the Fourth Circuit finds that Snyder was indeed unfit to represent himself, it could have significant implications for future cases involving defendants with cognitive impairments. It may also prompt courts to more closely scrutinize competency evaluations and ensure that defendants truly understand the risks of proceeding pro se.
The case serves as a reminder that while the right to self-representation is a fundamental principle, it is not absolute. Courts must carefully consider the defendant’s ability to effectively exercise that right and ensure that justice is served.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have been a victim of medical malpractice, please consult with a qualified attorney to discuss your specific situation.