Guadalupe Cruz Case Study

Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U-Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler’s cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.

Ramona Salvarez: I am a federal circuit judge, which is pretty similar to an elected official, since I was appointed by a democratic president. But, if there was a difference it's probably my experience level.

Gonzales was first employed by the Plaintiff in this case on December 2, 2014. He met with the Plaintiff on January 12, 2015. He discussed with the Plaintiff her prior medical history and performed a physical examination. He then reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical records.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer.

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

At this time, I do not recommend we set the deposition of the applicant. I do not want to provide a platform for the applicant to explain the newly alleged body

made a mistake on the officer sworn statement (DS-367) (Exhibit 1) and the officer completed the Arrest and Supplemental Report (Exhibit 2) 6 days after the arrest, which does not fall within the public employee records exception to the hearsay rule, Section 1280 of the Evidence Code. In addition, officer signed the second page of the DS-367 (Exhibit 1) after 6 days of the arrest, therefore, the DS-367 is altered. In addition, the DS-367 (Exhibit 1) and the Arrest and Supplemental Report (Exhibit 2) are not credible, not trustworthy and not admissible. Officer notes are destroyed after he completed his report and memory of the officer is questionable.. Counsel cited the Glatman, MacDonald, Manny cases to support his

Me: “On the plaintiff side, Sandra and all of her kids deposed. Dr. DeVere White’s lawyer is the one who questions them under oath. His name is Mr. Tom Minder. On the defendant side, Dr.DeVere White is the only one who deposed. He was questioned by Mr. Kelly.”

As of today October 11, 2015 Maria H Morales has permission to park her car in the backyard of 2735 S. Spaulding Chicago IL, 60623. Maria has exactly one (1) month of permission, until November 11, 2015, to park unless it is changed by the building Manager or she is given an extension for a longer period of time.

The trial court should admit Nellie’s testimony concerning Pete’s medical condition and hospital’s intake form into evidence. The hospital intake form qualifies, under Rule 803, qualifies as a hearsay exception.

After the claimant’s termination, Ms. McClellan alleged the company was the company was served with a subpoena regarding the claimant and her attorney’s intent to file a workers comp claim in behalf a specific claim reported on 2-21-15, with regards to multiple injuries associated with the claimant’s upper and lower extremities.

Enclosed please find the demand from the applicant’s attorney for the Labor Code section 5710 fees pertaining to the applicant’s deposition on May 16, 2017. The client preparation time and the deposition time are reasonable, as both are confirmed in our deposition summary. However, I disagree with the request for travel time, as well as the rate of $400.00 per hour.

Mrs. Trujillo , . Good morning , thank you for the information provided to sponsor our client Cesia Hernandez-Rubio . Can you provide me with a copy of your husbands proof of citizenship . Furthermore , I saw you provided me with the total amounts jointly claimed for the past 2 years (2014/2015 ) in this case I will also be needing you to please to provide me with each individual income claimed for those years as well . As soon as I get that information from you I will be preparing the forms and emailing them to you for review and signatures . In advance thank you for your prompt attention to this matter

George had given two prior depositions – the last one was related to Refugio middle school foundation case against DSA that was tried before a jury who found 60% on architect, 30% on engineer, and 10% on the owner. The jury found 0% fault on DSA. George testified at

Frank E. Polo is referred to as the Father, Mr. Polo or Appellant. Merlin Hernandez is referred to as the Mother, Ms. Hernandez or Appellee and the Mother’s Attorney is referred to as the Opposing Counsel. References to the record will be designated as "R." followed by the appropriate page number(s) “:” paragraph “:” line.