The indictment adds burglary, home invasion and assault counts in the shooting death of attorney Robert MacMeekin.
TOWSON, Md. — A Baltimore County grand jury has expanded the criminal case against Mark Ryan, the man accused of fatally shooting his father-in-law during a family dispute in Phoenix earlier this month.
The indictment moves the case into a broader stage than the first police filing that followed the May 2 shooting. Ryan, 41, had already been charged with murder in the death of Robert MacMeekin, 74. The newer counts include first-degree murder, burglary, home invasion and felony assault allegations. Prosecutors are now building a case that reaches beyond the fatal gunfire and into how Ryan arrived at MacMeekin’s home, what he intended to do there and what threat he posed to the family members inside or nearby.
The shooting occurred at about 2:25 p.m. in the 14000 block of Sawmill Court in Phoenix, a rural and suburban part of northern Baltimore County. Police said MacMeekin was pronounced dead at the scene and Ryan was detained. MacMeekin was Ryan’s father-in-law and a longtime personal injury lawyer associated with Fine, Kelly & MacMeekin in Timonium. The police department first described the case as domestic related. Within a day, detectives said Ryan had been charged with murder and was being held at the Baltimore County detention center without bond.
At Ryan’s first bail hearing, prosecutors said the shooting followed a temporary protective order that Ryan’s wife obtained after making domestic abuse allegations. The state said the order was issued Saturday morning, before MacMeekin was killed. Prosecutors said Ryan’s wife had accused him of hitting her and threatening to get a gun the day before. They said she and her father then moved her two sons, ages 2 and 6, to MacMeekin’s home. The children were supposed to stay there for the weekend, a decision prosecutors said made Ryan angry.
The state said Ryan went to the property with a loaded handgun in his pocket and confronted MacMeekin over access to the children. Prosecutors said Ryan accused MacMeekin of keeping the boys away from him. Three shots were fired during the encounter, and one hit MacMeekin in the neck. The prosecution told the court that family members were present. Local reports said Ryan’s wife and MacMeekin’s wife were there, and prosecutors said the children were at the scene. The defense disputed that the boys saw the violence, though it acknowledged they were present.
Assistant Baltimore County State’s Attorney David Lemanski said after the first hearing that the judge made the right decision by denying bail. In court, the state described the killing as needless and driven by anger. Prosecutors also said Ryan was dangerous and a flight risk because he had allegedly admitted to key parts of the case. The judge said the allegations in the protective order petition were important to the release decision. Ryan was ordered held without bail, keeping him in custody as prosecutors prepared the case for grand jury review.
The defense used the same hearing to sketch a sharply different version of the confrontation. Defense attorney Richard Karceski said Ryan did not go to MacMeekin’s home intending to kill anyone. Karceski said MacMeekin saw the gun, tried to get it and started a struggle. “The struggle lasted for a period of time,” Karceski said. The defense said Ryan had bruises on both arms and brought the gun because he feared for his safety. It also said Ryan had no criminal record, not even a traffic ticket, and argued the dismissed protective order should not be treated as proof.
The indictment’s added counts may force both sides to litigate questions that were less central at the bond hearing. A burglary charge can put focus on entry, permission and intent. A home invasion charge can put focus on whether prosecutors believe Ryan entered an occupied home in a way that created a violent threat. Assault counts can reflect alleged danger to people other than the homicide victim. The full charging language will guide later court arguments, but the new charges show prosecutors are not limiting the case to a single count tied only to MacMeekin’s death.
MacMeekin’s death also drew attention because of his role as a lawyer. He was identified in local reports as a well-known Timonium attorney who practiced personal injury law across Maryland. Prosecutors described him in court as a father and grandfather. The state’s theory casts him as someone trying to help his daughter and grandchildren after a request for protection. The defense has challenged that image, saying MacMeekin was the aggressor during the final moments. Those claims remain allegations and arguments, not findings, and Ryan is presumed innocent unless convicted.
Police have released only a brief public summary of the homicide, and several details remain unresolved in the public record. Investigators have not released body camera footage, a full timeline of statements or a public reconstruction of the gunfire. The record reported so far does not establish who called 911, where each person stood when the shots were fired or whether forensic evidence supports one account over another. Local reports said Ryan dropped the gun after the shooting and sat in a chair until officers arrived. Prosecutors may use that conduct as part of their timeline.
The family court matter also remains part of the criminal narrative. The temporary protective order was issued before the shooting and served after Ryan was already in custody, according to court reporting. It was later dismissed on Monday. That dismissal does not erase the criminal case, but it gives the defense a point to argue when challenging the weight of the domestic abuse allegations. Prosecutors, meanwhile, can still argue that the petition and the events around it explain motive, timing and the presence of the children at MacMeekin’s home.
The next stage is expected to bring a formal response to the indictment, scheduling orders and discovery. Prosecutors will turn over evidence required by court rules, and the defense may seek hearings on statements, firearm evidence or witness accounts. Any trial would likely focus on intent, self-defense claims, the protective order timeline and whether the added home-related charges fit the facts. No trial date has been publicly reported in the available accounts.
The expanded indictment keeps the case in Circuit Court, with the next proceedings expected to test how far prosecutors can take the charges beyond the fatal shot itself.
Author note: Last updated May 24, 2026.