Podcasts about special appeals

In this episode of the Great Trials Podcast, host Steve Lowry interviews trial lawyers Brian Brown and E.J. Hammond from Brown and Baron in Baltimore, Maryland. They discuss a complex case involving the tragic death of 83-year-old Helen Hansford at Largo Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. The episode highlights their strategic legal maneuvers, including the successful exclusion of the defense's medical expert, and the compelling testimony that led to an $8.5 million verdict for Hansford's estate. Remember to rate and review GTP on Apple Podcasts: Click Here to Rate and Review   Case Details: In June 2020, when Helen first came to Largo Nursing & Rehabilitation Center in Prince George's County, she weighed 112 pounds. She had previously been hospitalized after a bad fall, so she needed around-the-clock care. Upon admission, it was noted that she was at risk for falls, pressure injuries (bed sores), malnutrition, and “failing to thrive” (unsafe weight loss and related complications). By October, Helen's weight was reported to be around 95 pounds. Months later, in January 2021, her weight had plummeted to just 81 pounds, which is about 72% of what it was before. Amid Helen's weight loss crisis, Largo staff failed to put her back on the blood thinner medication that she needed after a surgery related to her fall. In February 2021, a blood clot went to her lungs and brain, causing her to pass away. Read Full Bio Brian Brown Brian S. Brown, one of the firm's founding partners, as well as its Managing Member, has over thirty years of experience as a trial lawyer and focuses his practice on litigating nursing home abuse and medical malpractice cases. Brian has tried well over 100 tort cases and has obtained multiple multi-million dollar verdicts. Over his career, he has recovered more than $175 million for his clients, through both trial and settlement. In addition to his trial experience, Brian has extensive appellate experience, having appeared before the Maryland Court of Appeals twelve times, and the Court of Special Appeals more than fifty times. He is admitted to practice in Maryland and the District of Columbia, as well as in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Brian is currently a member of the Maryland Association for Justice (MAJ) and the American Association for Justice (AAJ). Brian has presented on legal topics in a variety of settings, including for the Inn of Court, and over ten times for HB Litigation Conferences. He has also presented to the entire bench of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City regarding the evolving law of expert testimony in Maryland. Read Full Bio Links: Facebook: Brown & Barron, LLC LinkedIn: Brown & Barron, LLC; @Brian Brown; @Emily Hammann Instagram: Brown.BarronLLC Check out previous episodes and meet the GTP Team: Great Trials Podcast   Show Sponsors: Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com Production Team: Dee Daniels Media Podcast Production  

In Episode 2, State of Maryland v. James Allen Kulbicki, Lisa and Kyle looked at the case against Kulbicki, a former Baltimore City police sergeant, who was convicted of the murder of Gina Marie Nuelsein in January of 1993. After a brief affair, Gina gave birth to a son in September, 1991. At the time of her murder, she was seeking child support from Kulbicki. They talked about the case against Kulbicki, including the reinstatement of his conviction by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 2020 order of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals granting Kulbicki's petition for writ of actual innocence.

This week, we're replaying a classic episode where Steve and Yvonne interview Brian Brown of Brown and Barron, LLC (https://www.brownbarron.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here to Rate and Review   View/Download Trial Documents   Case Details: Accomplished Baltimore trial lawyer Brian Brown explains how he secured justice for Ashley Partlow, who was subjected to the Kennedy Krieger Institute's negligent Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Repair and Maintenance Study. Designed to identify the least expensive solution to a nationwide lead paint and dust problem, the study monitored blood lead levels in children under 4 years of age who were living in homes with unhealthy levels of poisonous lead dust. Ashley was too old to be an official test subject but was still exposed to high levels of lead dust through the study. As a result of her exposure, Ashley suffers from permanent brain damage and struggles with learning disabilities and behavior issues. After a month-long trial, a Baltimore City, Maryland jury returned a verdict of $1,841,000 in damages in this landmark case.   Guest Bio: Brian S. Brown Brian S. Brown, one of the firm's founding partners, as well as its Managing Member, has over thirty years of experience as a trial lawyer and focuses his practice on litigating medical malpractice and nursing home abuse cases. Brian has tried well over 100 tort cases and has obtained multiple multi-million dollar verdicts. Over his career, he has recovered more than $175 million for his clients, through both trial and settlement. In addition to his trial experience, Brian has extensive appellate experience, having appeared before the Maryland Court of Appeals twelve times, and the Court of Special Appeals more than fifty times. He is admitted to practice in Maryland and the District of Columbia, as well as in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Brian is currently a member of the Maryland Association for Justice (MAJ) and the American Association for Justice (AAJ). Brian has presented on legal topics in a variety of settings, including for the Inn of Court, and over ten times for HB Litigation Conferences. He has also presented to the entire bench of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City regarding the evolving law of expert testimony in Maryland. Brian has been named as a Super Lawyer, and he has been selected as a member of both the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and of the prestigious Litigation Counsel of America. Outside of his legal work, Brian has served as the President of the Board for the Maryland Disability Law Center (now known as Disability Rights Maryland), and has volunteered with other civic organizations, including with the Upton School Foundation and with Higher Achievement. Read Full Bio   Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LegalTechService.com Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com Harris Lowry Manton LLP - hlmlawfirm.com   Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Death of Defendant Limits Recovery of Damages to Insurance Unless Timely Claim to Estate of Decedent In Maryland, to facilitate the prompt settlement of decedents' estates, a person must "present" a claim against an estate within six months after the decedent's death or two months after the personal representative mails or delivers proper notice of the need to file a claim within two months, whichever comes first. Maryland Code § 8-103(a) of the Estates and Trusts Article ("ET"). In general, if a claimant fails to meet those statutory deadlines, the claim is "forever barred." In Nicholas Shanefelter v. James Edward Hood, Jr., No. 1913-2021, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (January 4, 2023) the Court of Appeals resolved the dispute by recognizing that if the decedent had insurance coverage for the claim, the claimant need not present a timely claim against the estate, as long as the claimant files suit against the estate before the applicable statute of limitations has run. In that event, a judgment against the estate is not limited to the amount of insurance coverage, but the amount of the judgment that is recoverable from the estate is limited to the amount of the policy. In essence, the case becomes an action against the insurance policy. In this case, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County employed ET § 8-104(e)(2) to limit the amount recoverable from an estate to the limits of the decedent's automobile insurance policy. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On December 1, 2018, appellant Nicholas Shanefelter was involved in an automobile accident with the late James Hood, Jr. At the time of the accident, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. insured the car that Hood was driving. Hood died on August 4, 2019, of causes unrelated to the accident. On September 30, 2019, Hood's wife opened an estate on his behalf with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County. On February 20, 2020, Shanefelter filed suit against Hood in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. On March 6, 2020, seven months after Hood's death, Shanefelter filed a claim against Hood's estate with the Register of Wills for Anne Arundel County. The claim was untimely. TRIAL COURT VERDICT After a two-day trial in October 2021, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Shanefelter and against the estate in the amount of $285,977.69. One week after the verdict, the estate filed a motion and asked the court to limit the amount of the judgment that was recoverable from the estate to the policy limits of $100,000.00. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support

In this episode Jim Garrity tackles the propriety of a question often heard in depositions when the deponent has just contradicted the testimony of another witness: "Are you calling them a liar?" Is this objectionable? If so, what's the objection? If it's objectionable and you don't object, is it per se reversible error? Is there a better way to ask the question? So many questions, so little time. But Jim answers them all and more, in just 13 1/2 minutes. (And speaking of time, do you have time to leave a 5-star rating for our podcast wherever you listen to our show? It takes no more than ten seconds, and our entire team will be forever grateful. Those 5-star ratings are like Kobe beef to the crew. Thanks!)SHOW NOTESMerritt v. Arizona, No. 21-15833, 2022 WL 3369529, at *2 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2022)g. “[T]he prohibition on improper vouching based on evidence outside the record extends to civil trials")Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209, 213, 243 P.3d 1212, 1214 (2010) (“The Oregon Supreme Court has recently reviewed and elaborated on its decisions on this subject. In State v. Lupoli, 348 Or. 346, 357, 234 P.3d 117 (2010), the court stated:“This court has long held that one witness may not give an opinion on whether he or she believes another witness is telling the truth. * * * Applying that principle is a straightforward matter when one witness states directly that he or she believes another witness, or that the other witness is honest or truthful. However, statements that fall short of such overt vouching also may be impermissible”)United States v. Pereira, 848 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2017) (“In United States v. DeSimone, 699 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2012), this court clarified that although [i]t is improper for an attorney to ask a witness whether another witness lied on the stand[,] ... [i]t is not improper to ask one witness whether another was “wrong” or “mistaken,” since such questions do not force a witness to choose between conceding the point or branding another witness as a liar. There is no error in simply asking a witness if he agreed with or disputed another witness's testimony”)Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., No. CV 3:10-857 JJB-CBW, 2017 WL 3946261, at *3 (M.D. La. Aug. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 10-857-JJB-CBW, 2017 WL 3928939 (M.D. La. Sept. 7, 2017) (order adopting magistrate's report recommending the granting of motion in limine to exclude testimony as to one witnesse' opinion of another's testimony); see also Defendants' Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony (CM/ECF Doc. 588), Defendants' Memorandum In Support Of Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony (Doc. 588-1), Joseph N. Broyles, et al. v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., et al., Civil Action No.: Case 3:10-cv-00854-SDD-CBW Document 588 (M. D. La. filed May 13, 2016), Consolidated With: Civil Action No. 3-10-Cv-00857-JJB-SCR; CM/ECF Doc. 672 (Plaintiff's Memorandum In Opposition To S&Y Parties' Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence As To One Witness' Opinion Of Another Witness' Testimony)United States v. Rivera, 780 F.3d 1084, 1096–97 (11th Cir. 2015) (“As to the propriety of questions by a prosecutor that prod a defendant to accuse another witness of lying, we have held that such questions are not proper. United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1268 (11th Cir.2011). . . .Of course, the fact that a prosecutor should not ask a testifying defendant whether another witness was lying does not mean that the prosecutor will be prohibited from pinning down a defendant's testimony by focusing the latter on conflicts between his account of a certain event and another witness's testimony on that point. Indeed, in Schmitz, we cited with approval the Third Circuit's observation that “it is often necessary on cross-examination to focus a witness on the differences and similarities between his testimony and that of another witness. This is permissible provided he is not asked to testify as to the veracity of the other witness”)United States v. Schmitz, 634 F.3d 1247, 1268–70 (11th Cir. 2011) (“We hold that it is improper to ask a testifying defendant whether another witness is lying”)Southern Union Co. v. Sw. Gas Corp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1127 (D. Ariz. 2003) (propriety of such a question may depend on the context in which the question is asked, citing cases for proposition that ‘were they lying' questions may not always be improper, and that the balance may shift in favor of admitting lay opinion as the distance increases between the opinion and the ultimate issues)Easter v. Mills, 239 Or. App. 209, 214–15, 243 P.3d 1212, 1215 (2010) The question at issue here, and the answer it elicited, were not of the same sort found to be objectionable in those cases. Here, A.H.'s mother was not asked whether she believed that A.H. was telling the truth (nor did her answer reveal whether she believed that A.H. was telling the truth). Rather, she was asked if she knew of any motive A.H. would have to lie. Admittedly, this line of questioning may skate close to the edge of what is permissible, given the real danger that it might elicit a response that includes a comment on the credibility of a witness, even if the question does not specifically call for such a response. Here, however, the response did not contain the mother's opinion as to whether A.H. was telling the truth. Moreover, as the state notes, the defense theory of the case was that A.H. had a motive to lie about the abuse, because she was angry with petitioner and petitioner's daughter. In that circumstance, questions of A.H.'s mother concerning whether she knew if her daughter had such a motive were permissible. Her response to the challenged question merely was that she did not know of any motive that her daughter had to fabricate the allegation of abuse. We conclude that the post-conviction court correctly determined that the question and answer at issue here were permissible”)Com. v. Baran, No. 1804251, 2006 WL 2560317, at *16 (Mass. Super. June 16, 2006), aff'd, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 256, 905 N.E.2d 1122 (2009) (vacating criminal convictions in part based on prejudicial vouching; “Moreover, the issue concerning the vouching of credibility is not limited to experts: “[I]t is a fundamental principle that ‘a witness cannot be asked to assess the credibility of his testimony or that of other witnesses.' Commonwealth v. Montanino, 409 Mass. 500, 504, 567 N.E.2d 1212 (1991). To violate this principle, testimony supporting a witness's credibility “need not be direct. The question is whether the witness's testimony had the same effect as if [the witness] had directed his comments specifically to [another witness's] credibility”)Schmitz v. City of Wilsonville, No. CV-96-1306-ST, 1999 WL 778586, at *4–6 (D. Or. Sept. 17, 1999) (declining to extend vouching to civil cases; but finding no plain error from comments and denying motion for new trial)Sneed v. Burress, 500 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Ky. 2016) “(It is equally impermissible for an attorney to phrase her remarks so as to indicate that a witness is lying based on the evidence presented. Of course, pointing out inconsistencies in a witness's statements and other evidence—and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom—is entirely permissible to the extent that it otherwise comports with our rules of practice and procedure. However, counsel is not permitted to make affirmative conclusions as to the credibility of a witness. Determining witness credibility “is within the exclusive province of the jury.” Id. (citation omitted).”) Also held can be considered harmless error based on circumstsances, but remanded for retrial)State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748, 779–80, 931 A.2d 198, 218 (2007) The other claimed improprieties in the present case, however, involve a variation on the classic type of Singh violation in which a defendant is asked whether another witness is lying, instead asking the defendant whether a witness' testimony was “true,” “right” or “accurate” and whether the defendant agreed with certain statements of other witnesses. Although these questions did not ask the defendant overtly to say whether a witness was wrong or mistaken, effectively, they essentially asked the same improper question, only phrased in the positive rather than in the negative. See United States v. Freitag, 230 F.3d 1019, 1024 (7th Cir.2000) (asking defendant if testimony of other witnesses is true is improper because it “invades the province of the jury; indeed asking if testimony is true implies that if it is not, it is a lie, which is a credibility question for the jury to decide”); see also United States v. Sanchez–Lima, 161 F.3d 545, 548 (9th Cir.1998) (reversible error when one government witness permitted to testify, over defense objection, that another government witness was telling truth, because determination of witness credibility is for jury and such testimony constituted bolstering by inadmissible evidence)Hunter v. State, 397 Md. 580, 591, 919 A.2d 63, 69 (2007) (“We agreed with the trial court that this line of questioning was impermissible because the attorney was effectively asking the witness to say “whether the witness who gave [the statement] [ ] testified falsely.... [O]ne witness cannot be asked to characterize the testimony of another Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Lycan, 57 Kan. 635, 47 P. 526, 528 [ (1897) ] ), since that is exclusively the function of the jury.” Id. at 314–15, 171 A. at 55. Thus, as early as 1934, we held that “were-they-lying” questions are impermissible in civil cases.”; reversing judgment and ordering new trial)Eggleston v. Com., No. 2010-CA-002291-MR, 2012 WL 6061711, at *2 (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2012)In Moss, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding rule that it is improper to require a witness to comment upon the credibility of another witness: With few exceptions, it is improper to require a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness. A witness's opinion about the truth of the testimony of another witness is not permitted. Neither expert nor lay witnesses may testify that another witness or a defendant is lying or faking. That determination is within the exclusive province of the jury")State v. Airhart-Bryon, 13 Wash. App. 2d 1003, review denied, 196 Wash. 2d 1018, 474 P.3d 1052 (2020) (“Airhart also cites Boehning to argue prosecutors commit flagrant misconduct as a matter of law whenever they ask one witness if another is lying. Boehning generally supports this proposition. 127 Wn. App. at 525, 111 P.3d 899. However, our Supreme Court's longstanding requirement is that allegations of prosecutorial misconduct be evaluated “ ‘in the context of the entire record and the circumstances at trial.' ” See, e.g., Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 442, 258 P.3d 43 (quoting Magers, 164 Wn.2d at 191, 189 P.3d 126). Here, we look to the context of the entire record to conclude there was no incurable misconduct”)Montgomery Cnty. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. v. P.F, 137 Md. App. 243, 268, 768 A.2d 112, 126 (2001) (“The second reason assigned by the Bohnert Court was that a social worker's opinion regarding the credibility of the child invades the fact finder's role in assessing credibility and resolving disputed facts. Citing well-established limitations on the role of witnesses, the Bohnert Court held that the social worker's opinion constituted an improper “vouching” for the credibility of the alleged victim. In a criminal case tried before a jury, a fundamental principle is that the credibility of a witness and the weight to be accorded the witness' testimony are solely within the province of the jury.... It is also error [in civil cases] for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying....”, (citing Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 277, 539 A.2d 657, 662 (1988)It is also error for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying. Thompson v. Phosphate Works, 178 Md. 305, 317-319, 13 A.2d 328 (1940); American Stores v. Herman, 166 Md. 312, 314-315, 171 A. 54 (1934). The Court of Special Appeals said in Mutyambizi v. State, 33 Md.App. 55, 61, 363 A.2d 511 (1976), cert. denied, 279 Md. 684 (1977): Whether a witness on the stand personally believes or disbelieves testimony of a previous witness is irrelevant, and questions to that effect are improper, either on direct or cross-examination.”)Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The current version of the Model Rules similarly states that, in both civil and criminal trials, a lawyer shall not “state a personal opinion as to ... the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.” Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.4(e) (2015). In sum, our prior case law indicates that attorneys may not rely on evidence outside the record during closing argument and that prosecutors may not vouch for witnesses' credibility. We now make clear that the prohibition on improper vouching based on evidence outside the record extends to civil trials”)Shuang Ying Nancy Zhang v. A-Z Realty & Inv. Corp., et al., No. EDCV 19-887-KK, 2022 WL 17361983, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022) (“In addition, “counsel in a civil trial may not rely on evidence outside the record during closing argument")Fed. R. Evid. 608. A Witness's Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness.Rule 403. Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons (The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence)Rule 602. Need for Personal Knowledge. (A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness's own testimony. This rule does not apply to a witness's expert testimony under Rule 703.Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses (If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness's perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness's testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702)

When a seriously injured person is injured by a person with a policy providing minimal limits the plaintiff's lawyer will invariably attempt to set up the insurer for a bad faith case by making a policy limits demand with a short period of time to respond. In David Grant Orndorff v. Erie Insurance Exchange, No. 1318-2021, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (November 21, 2022) Mr. Orndorff had a leg amputated as a result of an accident and sought to set up Erie Insurance, the other driver's insurer. David Grant Orndorff ("Mr. Orndorff") was seriously injured when the motorcycle he was riding struck another vehicle attempting to make a left turn. The driver was insured by Erie Insurance Exchange ("Erie") under a policy with a liability coverage limit of $30,000. Five months after the accident, Mr. Orndorff rejected Erie's offer of its insured's policy limits in full settlement of his claims against the insured. Two years later, when Mr. Orndorff sued Erie for bad faith in failing to settle sooner, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County granted summary judgment to Erie. BACKGROUND Erie then assigned a claims adjuster who began a thorough investigation of the claim the next day. Maryland has not adopted comparative negligence. If an injured person contributes to the accident - for example by speeding - he or she cannot recover anything because of his or her contributory negligence. On November 8, 2016, thirty-four days after the accident, Mr. Orndorff demanded that Erie settle his claim" . . . for the full insurance policy, or any and all insurance policy or policies covering your insured for this accident." Mr. Orndorff (perhaps as part of a plan) did not supply any of the requested documents or description of his injuries that Erie said were necessary to determine liability and settle the claim. Mr. Orndorff indicated he would release Erie's insured from liability if Erie delivered a check no later than 5 p.m. EST on December 8, 2016. Mr. Orndorff's Motor Tort Complaint On January 9, 2017, Mr. Orndorff sued Erie's insured in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and later served Erie's insured. On January 30, 2017, Mr. Orndorff's counsel emailed the claims adjuster that all prior settlement offers were withdrawn and that its insured had been served. On March 17, 2017, Erie, through the attorney assigned to represent its insured in the motor tort suit, offered to settle Mr. Orndorff's claim for the full limit of the insured's policy. On April 26, 2017, having not heard from Mr. Orndorff, Erie reiterated its policy limits offer to Mr. Orndorff. The Liability-Only Trial Aftermath On October 27, 2017, Erie again offered its insured's policy limits to settle Mr. Orndorff's claim against Erie's insured. Mr. Orndorff did not accept this offer. Before the trial on damages Plaintiff's counsel notified the circuit court that they had settled Mr. Orndorff's claim with the entry of consent judgment against Erie's insured for $2,870,000. Orndorff v. Erie Insurance Exchange (This Case) --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

The Lululemon murder occurred on March 11, 2011, at a Lululemon Athletica store located in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Bethesda, Maryland, when Brittany Norwood, a store worker, murdered Jayna Troxel Murray, a fellow employee at the store. The case received widespread media coverage and was commonly referred to as the "Lululemon murder". In January 2012, Norwood was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.The MurderNorwood lured Murray back to the store after closing by claiming to have left her metro card behind, then, after a brief argument, attacked her, inflicting 331 injuries, including head trauma and stab wounds. Murray died in the store's back hallway, after which Norwood staged a crime scene and claimed that intruders had raped both women and killed Murray. The prosecution was barred from introducing evidence that Murray had accused Norwood of shoplifting.[2][5] The defense argued for a conviction of second-degree murder, claiming the attack was not pre-meditated. The case received intense media coverage and was commonly referred to as the "Lululemon murder".In January 2012, Norwood was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. She is imprisoned in the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women. In a published opinion on April 29, 2015, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied Norwood's request for a new trial, effectively ending Norwood's direct appeal options.Here's how and where you can find Homicide Worldwide Podcast.To help support the show, find us on Patreon: patreon.com HWW is now on Discord: https://discord.gg/F9cMyf7JFJTo our amazing listeners. If you are listening to us on apple podcasts? (and even if your'e not) Please! take few minutes and leave a 5 ⭐️ review. It'll really help out the show. If you have a show suggestion? please email us at: homicideworldwidepodcast@gmail.comAnd you can always find us on twitter: https://twitter.com/HWWP10Thank you for your continued support of Homicide Worldwide PodcastSupport the show

"I bring this to your attention because, in 1971, I took an oath to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to all indentured pupils who have taken the Healer's Oath. Having done so, if it strikes you that, during the aforementioned trial, an opportunity was missed, only to be rectified by the Court of Special Appeals, then I leave you with this admonition. When you are a defendant in a malpractice suit, and you believe you are in the right, be relentless and use everything at your disposal to expose the opposing expert as a miscreant. Had defendants in this suit been so disposed, likely, the outcome would have been different." Editor's note: This show refers to the Abeline paradox, which is when "a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the preferences of many or all of the individuals in the group." Howard Smith is an obstetrics-gynecology physician. He shares his story and discusses his KevinMD article, "A counterintuitive strategy when you are sued for medical malpractice." (https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2021/07/a-counterintuitive-strategy-when-you-are-sued-for-medical-malpractice.html)

Convicted Insurance Fraudster Appeals Finding She Breached Probation https://zalma.com/blog Fraud Perpetrators Have Unmitigated Gall Kristi Heffington appealed from the revocation of her probation. She argued on appeal that the revocation court's decision was error even though it was proved that she had sent text messages to herself claiming it came from her past employer dentist who fired her for stealing from his practice and defrauding insurers. In Kristi Heffington v. State of Maryland, No. 1899, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (July 1, 2021) the appellate court wasted much time dealing with her spurious allegations in an attempt to avoid jail. ZIFL OPINION I am always amazed at the unmitigated gall, the “chutzpah” of those convicted of insurance fraud, who use the courts to spend more time and money than the fraudster stole. Ms. Heffington pleaded guilty to the crime. She was lucky, she only had to serve 9 months of a ten year sentence and leave the dentist she stole from alone. She couldn't resist. She harassed the dentist and tried to get the court, with false evidence, to remove her obligation to make restitution. She got caught and was sentenced to spend another 9 months and she appealed that. She should have been sentenced to serve the full 10 years. Punishment needs to be real if it is to deter future wrongful actions. Refusal to Testify at Examination Under Oath is a Breach Condition Precedent Court Of Appeal Requires Third Trial of Breach of Condition Precedent Case Health Insurance Fraud Convictions Videos on YouTube and Zalma on Insurance from Barry Zalma Other Insurance Fraud Convictions New and Now Available from the Zalma Insurance Claims Library © 2021 – Barry Zalma Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com. Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award. Over the last 53 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at https://parler.com/profile/Zalma/posts; and the last two issues of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ podcast now available at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zalma-on-insurance/id1509583809?uo=4 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

In this episode, Paul discusses a recent Court of Special Appeals of Maryland decision that highlights the interplay between the Public Service Commission and a county in the development of utility-scale solar energy facilities. Materials discussed in this episode: Goeringer, Paul. County Granting Special Exception for Solar Development Did Not Create a Vested Right (Mar. 3, 2021). Previous Maryland Risk Management Education Blog posts on solar.   If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul follow him on Instagram @aglawPaul, or 301-405-3541. This work is supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) program, grant no. 2020-68006-31182/project accession no. 1022637, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Give us about ten minutes a day and we will give you all the local news, local sports, local weather, and local events you can handle.   SPONSORS: Many thanks to our sponsors... Solar Energy Services because solar should be in your future! And to the Kristi Neidhardt Team. If you are looking to buy or sell your home, give Kristi a call at 888-860-7369! Today...A fire in a Robinwood apartment damages three homes. Governor Hogan appointe Judge Ripken to Court of Special Appeals tossing another wrench in the Ramos trial. Comptroller Franchot has extended tax payments for January through March. Sheetz is coming to Crofton and Domino's is moving in Annapolis. And finally, you need to check out a new local podcast-- the Loud Women's Club! It's Thursday, which means that Trevor from  Annapolis Makerspace is here with the Maker Minutes. He's back with great ideas to work out your mind and skills. And of course, George  from DCMDVA Weather  is here with your local weather forecast! Please download their APP so you can keep on top of the local weather scene! The Eye On Annapolis Daily News Brief is produced every Monday through Friday at 6:00am and available wherever you get your podcasts and also on our social media platforms--All Annapolis and Eye On Annapolis (FB) and @eyeonannapolis (TW) NOTE: For hearing impaired subscribers, a full transcript is available on Eye On Annapolis

This week, your hosts Steve Lowry and Yvonne Godfrey interview Brian Brown of Brown and Barron, LLC (https://www.brownbarron.com/).   Remember to rate and review GTP in iTunes: Click Here To Rate and Review     Case Details:   Accomplished Baltimore trial lawyer Brian Brown explains how he secured justice for Ashley Partlow, who was subjected to the Kennedy Krieger Institute's negligent Lead-Based Paint Abatement and Repair and Maintenance Study. Designed to identify the least expensive solution to a nationwide lead paint and dust problem, the study monitored blood lead levels in children under 4 years of age who were living in homes with unhealthy levels of poisonous lead dust. Ashley was too old to be an official test subject but was still exposed to high levels of lead dust through the study. As a result of her exposure, Ashley suffers from permanent brain damage and struggles with learning disabilities and behavior issues. After a month-long trial, a Baltimore City, Maryland jury returned a verdict of $1,841,000 in damages in this landmark case. Read/Download the Complete Trial Documents    Guest Bio:   Brian S. Brown Brian S. Brown, one of the firm's founding partners, as well as its Managing Member, has over thirty years of experience as a trial lawyer and focuses his practice on litigating medical malpractice and nursing home abuse cases. Brian has tried well over 100 tort cases and has obtained multiple multi-million dollar verdicts. Over his career, he has recovered more than $175 million for his clients, through both trial and settlement. In addition to his trial experience, Brian has extensive appellate experience, having appeared before the Maryland Court of Appeals twelve times, and the Court of Special Appeals more than fifty times. He is admitted to practice in Maryland and the District of Columbia, as well as in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Brian is currently a member of the Maryland Association for Justice (MAJ) and the American Association for Justice (AAJ). Brian has presented on legal topics in a variety of settings, including for the Inn of Court, and over ten times for HB Litigation Conferences. He has also presented to the entire bench of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City regarding the evolving law of expert testimony in Maryland. Brian has been named as a Super Lawyer, and he has been selected as a member of both the Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum and of the prestigious Litigation Counsel of America. Outside of his legal work, Brian has served as the President of the Board for the Maryland Disability Law Center (now known as Disability Rights Maryland) and has volunteered with other civic organizations, including with the Upton School Foundation and with Higher Achievement. Read Full Bio     Show Sponsors: Legal Technology Services - LTSatlanta.com   Digital Law Marketing - DigitalLawMarketing.com   Case Pacer - CasePacer.com   Harris, Lowry, and Manton - hlmlawfirm.com     Free Resources: Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 1 Stages Of A Jury Trial - Part 2

Bob talks with Judge Dan Friedman about his career as a judge of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

In this episode, Paul discusses a recent opinion from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals finding that Baltimore City's food truck ordinance was constitutional and reversing the circuit court decision. Materials discussed in this episode: Goeringer, Paul, Baltimore City Restrictions on Food Trucks Unconstitutional for Vagueness (MD Ag Podcast, April, 2018). Goeringer, Paul, Baltimore City Food Truck Ordinance is Constitutional (Oct. 7, 2019). If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul or 301-405-3541.  

In this episode, Paul discusses the appeal in Complete Lawn Care, Inc. v. Montgomery County, that found that Montgomery County's pesticide ordinance was not preempted by state law and over.  The ordinance created a new class of pesticides that could only be sold in the county when used on private property and county-owned property for cosmetic purposes.  The ordinance contained a number of exemptions including one for agriculture.  The Court of Special of Appeals overturned the circuit court's decisions holding the law was not preempted by state laws related to pesticide use.  Materials discussed in this episode: Complete Lawn Care, Inc. v. Montgomery County, No. 427200-V (Md. Cir. Ct. Aug. 3, 2017). Montgomery County v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc., No. 1203 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 2, 2019). Goeringer, Paul, Maryland Court of Special Appeals Overturns Lower Court, Finding Pesticide Ordinance Is Not Preempted by State Law (2019) Goeringer, Paul, Montgomery County Circuit Court Rules That County Pesticide Ordinance Preempted By State Law (Sept. 20, 2017). If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul follow me on Instagram @aglawPaul, or 301-405-3541.

Some quick thoughts on todays news that the Court of Special Appeals has reinstated Adnan's conviction.

In this episode, Paul discusses the recent decision by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to uphold the 2014 general discharge permit for concentrated animal feeding operations in the state.  The permit had been challenged by two groups claiming Maryland Department of the Environment had failed to include monitoring in the permit. Materials discussed in this episode: Goeringer, Paul, Maryland Court Upholds the 2014 CAFO Permit For Complying With EPA’s Requirements (AREC, Oct. 2, 2018). Food & Water Watch v. M.D. Dep’t of Envtl., No. 2602, 2018 WL 2203175 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 14, 2018). If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul or 301-405-3541.

Today's special guest is Dean Crownover, a Benefit Auctioneer Specialist based in Atlanta. In this episode, Dean draws from more than 20 years of experience to share practical tips for more lucrative fundraising events, particularly in the direct appeal, a.k.a. Fund-a-Need. Topics include: 3 Tips to overcome the fear of asking for donations Best practices for special appeals / Fund-a-Needs Bestselling live auction items of 2018 How to sell multiples of donated items ....and more! To request a FREE one hour auction consultation with Dean, visit mybenefitauctioneer.com or email dcrownover[at]comcast.net. As a special thank you to podcast listeners, the first 5 listeners to ask Dean for Danny Hooper’s best-selling fundraising book, Easy Money, will receive a FREE copy!

April 3, 2018 / Rabia, Susan, and Colin discuss and analyze the 138 page decision issued by the MD Court of Special Appeals last week in the Adnan Syed Case. Episode scoring music by Animal Weapon, Blue Dot Sessions. This episode was sponsored by Third Love, Netflix, and Marcia Clark Investigates The First 48. www.ThirdLove.com/Undisclosed Wild Wild Country on Netflix “Marcia Clark Investigates The First 48” TV Series airs Thursdays at 9pm on A&E and the podcast on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. #undisclosed #freeadnan Support the show.

True crime podcast update: The Court of Special Appeals has affirmed Serial subject Adnan Syed's lower court ruling which vacated his conviction and grants him a new trial. Journalist and Crime Writers On co-host Kevin Flynn has a brief breakdown of today's 138 page ruling - with a promise of more details to come. Read the court's decision here. Support the show.

June 14, 2017 / Susan, Colin and Rabia examine and analyze last week's oral arguments before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals by state and defense attorneys in Adnan Syed's ongoing case. Episode scoring music by AnimalWeapon, Blue Dot Sessions, Chris Zabriskie, Fleslit, H-LR, Jahzzar, Remain, Uncanny Valleys, VYVCH, and Sym5. #undisclosed #freeadnan Support the show.

When starting a new business enterprise with friends or family, how to wind the business down upon a falling out, death, or other terminating event are not considered.  But how to wind down the business is a critical part of the business.  A recent decision by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland highlights the need for family farm partnerships to have plans on how to wind down the partnership upon the death of a partner.  In this episode, Paul walks you through this court decision and how you can better plan for the future. Resources discussed in this episode: Ellixson, Ashley and Paul Goeringer, Using a Business Organization Structure to Limit Your Farm’s Liability (UME EB 422, 2015). Maryland Risk Management Education Blog, www.aglaw.umd.edu If you have questions for Paul contact him at lgoering@umd.edu, tweet him @aglawPaul or 301-405-3541.

September 28, 2015 / Rabia and Colin unpack what is in the State's most recent brief from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. Support the show.

August 17, 2015 / The team discusses the Court of Special Appeals's decision to remand the Adnan Syed case so that he could present the alibi testimony of Asia McClain. Additional Music by Qatarsis - https://soundcloud.com/qatarsis #undisclosed #freeadnan #udaddendum Support the show.

There is a lot of news about the fallibility of memory. Brian Williams is currently out of the NBC Nightly News anchor chair because of problems with some of his war stories. Coincidentally, Maria Konnikova wrote about "flashbulb memories" for the NewYorker.com, which is what Williams' problems may be attributed to.This weekend, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals granted a request to review the case of Adnan Syed. His conviction of murdering his ex-girlfriend was the subject of the podcast Serial, but in many ways was also about memory.In many high schools over the last few decades, students have been introduced to author Harper Lee through her debut and only novel To Kill A Mockingbird. Many people never expected a follow-up book but last week, it was announced that Go Set A Watchman will be released later this year.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.