Sandra Gilbert Wrongful Death Monologue

II. “Judge Pirtle should recuse himself from presiding in this case, because the State intends to call Judge Pirtle as a witness, concerning the qualifications and credibility of Dr. Ralph Erdmann, the pathologist who performed the autopsy in this capital murder case.” (http://www.goextranet.net/Seminars/Examples/Disqualify/State%27sRecuseJudge.htm)

COUNSEL: For Plaintiff: Mona C. Engel, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Danzi, Westbury, New York.

Procedural posture: The case is before the Northern District of New York after the plaintiff, Howard I. Ginsburg, filed an amended petition as the administrator of the estate of his deceased son, Bradley Marc Ginsburg, asking that the City of Ithaca and Cornell University be held negligent for Bradley’s wrongful death as well as personal injuries and conscious pain and suffering.

“Defendant”, “you”, and “your” refer to the party or parties to whom these Interrogatories are directed and all other persons acting on behalf of such party, including, but not limited to,

Weintraub Genshlea & Sproul, Rosemary Kelley, Charles L. Post, and William S. Jue, for Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

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

Does your team feel this defendant is competent to stand trial? Why or why not?

3- the defendant(gideon) asked the court to appoint counsel to represent him in the trial,the court denies his request and subsequently informs gideon that the only time the defendant could be appointed counsel was if he committed a capital offense.the judge then tells gideon to defend his case with no council present,and gideon pleads innocent . the court

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

Comes Plaintiff, Constance Wolf F/K/A Constance Wolfgram, by counsel, and for her complaint states as follows:

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

Evidence may be presented by the prosecution in a manner intended to place the defendant at an unfair disadvantage. This evidence is a violation of his or her right to due process and right to fair trial when it is discovered to be untruthful and haphazardly presented to the jury (Zalman, 2008). This information can include a misleading testimony in which a witness withholds vital information that will negatively affect the defendant. Additionally, the prosecution can allow a testimony from a witness that is misinformed or ignorant, which can affect cross-examination from the defense. Since the purpose of cross-examining the witness is to obtain information that will weaken the testimony, a misinformed witness does not provide the defense with a useful basis (Zalman, 2008). Evidence presented by the prosecution must be researched and found truthful. The 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland illustrated misconduct on behalf of the prosecution in withholding evidence from the defense during pretrial proceedings (Zalman, 2008). Brady and his companion, Boblit were prosecuted for murder (Brady, 2010). Brady confessed to the prosecutor that he was at the scene of the murder, however did not actually commit the act (Brady, 2010). The prosecution received a written confession from Boblit that agreed with Brady’s statements, however did not present this portion of the evidence during the pretrial (Brady, 2010). Consequently, the Maryland Court

Indeed, the Plaintiffs have declared by fiat that they are all entitled for relief by employing the guise that they are conflating their identities as a mere matter of convenience. (Complaint 1, fn 1.) Irrespective of whether these pleading deficiencies are disingenuous attempt to exaggerate the scope of a putative contract, or are merely attributable to sloppily draftsmanship, Defendants are entitled to a dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims brought by Townsend and XALT