Case Name/Case # Bryan Kershaw v.
Albert Mosley 516-02501
Appellant C ounsel/ Area of Law
James H. Fields, Esq. David F. Owens, Esq. 410-385-5240
Police Misconduct/Evidence
Judge/ Jurisdiction
M. Brooke Murdock Circuit Court for Baltimore City
Issues
In this case, officers are accused of having assaulted an in- dividual in custody in a holding cell at the Western District Police Station in Baltimore. As an alleged result of the as- sault, the individual was rendered a quadriplegic, and the jury returned more than $40 million in damages, which was reduced to just under $20 million as a result of a remitter ordered post-trial. On appeal, the officer argues that the Trial Court erred in granting the Plaintiff ’s Motion in Limine to exclude evidence of the prior conviction of one of Plaintiff’s witnesses for narcotics distribution, and refusing to permit cross examination regarding the facts underlying said arrest. In addition, the Plaintiff’s counsel was advised the night before trial by one of the Plaintiff’s doctors that the Plaintiff would need certain additional future medical care. Plaintiff’s counsel immediately notified the Defense counsel, but due to the alleged untimely nature of the notification, the Defense counsel moved to exclude this evidence. The defense also raises the Trial Court’s failure to exclude this evidence on appeal as an additional error.
Joyce Griffin v.
Howard & Bierman 410-706-0174 517-312
Phillip Robinson, Esq. Scott Borison, Esq
301-620-1016 Depak Gupta, Esquire 202-588-1000 Foreclosure/ Constitutional Law
Paul Garvey Goetzke Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County
This case has potentially far-reaching consequences for those who practice as foreclosure trustees in Maryland. The issue in the case is effectively whether a recent Supreme Court decision requires additional efforts to notify a Maryland resident of a pending foreclosure if a certified letter to the homeowner goes unclaimed. Current Maryland statutory law does not appear to have any further requirement, but the Supreme Court has held that due process requires some additional efforts to notify a homeowner of foreclosure pro- ceedings when certified mail goes unclaimed. In this case, it appears that the appellee will argue that any additional effort required was satisfied when, in addition to certified letters, letters via regular mail were sent to the same address at which certified letters went unclaimed. The two-part question for the Court is: (1) whether the Supreme Court decision applies in the face of contrary Maryland statutes, and (2) whether sending letters via regular mail is sufficient to comply with the Supreme Court decision, or whether further steps are necessary, given the importance of the property right at issue.
66
Trial Reporter
Summer 2008
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76