Maryland Lawyer Blog

The Baltimore Sun reports today that twice in the past year, the police have "lost" critical evidence in separate rape cases against Baltimore City police officers. Both of the alleged rapes occurred to victims in police custody.

In this most recent case, DNA analysis showed that wipes that the teenager said were used by the officer after the sex act were found in a station trash can had DNA consistent with the accused officer and his alleged 16 year-old victim. For anyone other than the O.J. jury, this is pretty powerful evidence, right? But now, the clothing, the rape kit and all of the physical evidence are gone. This sounds like an episode of The Wire.

Comically, the accused police officers lawyer, Warren Brown, called the the missing evidence "a blunder" and said that he is not "reading anything sinister into it." Mr. Brown is considered one of the top criminal lawyers in Maryland. But give us a break. I'm sure he had nothing to do with it but we all know what happened here. I can't stop thinking about the choice someone made to go in and steal this evidence. I admire people willing to go out on a limb for a friend but not when there is solid evidence that shows that friend raped a 16 year-old girl.

There will be a few front page stories in the Baltimore Sun and there will be a few angry bloggers (this is a good one from Rev. Herber Brown III) but this story and these concerns will soon blow over and this story will be forgotten until this happens again in a few months. I'm sure the next story will be forgotten too unless it involves someone who knows someone instead of a 16 year-old girl with a likely troubled past and no connections. I just hope some Baltimore personal injury lawyer who handles these kinds of cases (our firm does not) steps up and brings a civil suit against the police officer.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: Criminal Law

Bookmark:

The Minnesota Supreme Court released an opinion last week, stating that an exception to Minnesota’s seat belt gag rule permitted a three year-old child to sue his parents for not properly buckling his seat belt. The suit contended that the parents failed to discover and remove a coin from the buckle mechanism of the child’s car seat. The suit was brought on behalf of the child by his grandparents, presumably with their consent and encouragement.

The facts of this case are unimaginable. This boy’s seatbelt came off when the SUV his father was driving was struck by an uninsured motorist. Their SUV flipped and the boy’s car seat became unbuckled. The boy is now a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair and will require 24-hour care for the rest of his life. It is not easy to conjure up a greater tragedy.

Minnesota has a law that makes the Plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt inadmissible at trial. As I have written in the past, Maryland has a similar law on seat belt use admissibility at trial. A claim was brought and settled against the parents and the manufacturer of the restraint system, based on the Minnesota seat belt statute’s gag rule allowing claims for “an action…for defectively designed, manufactured, installed or operating seat belt restraint systems.” Progressive Insurance made the argument that the plain meaning language of the seat belt gag rule statute made clear that the exception was intended to apply to manufacturers of car seats or seat belts, and not to those who may have negligently buckled or maintained a seat belt.

The majority of the Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed, construing the word “an action” to mean, as defined by another statute, “any proceeding in any court in the state.” The court further noted that while the word “defective” is associated with products liability actions, the word defect has many different meanings.

Another other than a lawyer reading the case would find bizarre the court’s description of Progressive’s contentions as arguments the “Harrisons” were making. As a personal injury lawyer who reads cases regularly, even I found odd the text that, on its face, leads the reader to believe the parents were making arguments against their quadriplegic child. (I guess if I’m made up of 10 lbs of lawyer, I’m about 180 lbs of parent.)

This case has little practical meaning to this boy and his family. Progressive is required to fork over another $100,000.00 - chump change in the treatment this boy needs. Progressive has every right to make its arguments, and, in this case, I think their argument had some merit, even if the Minnesota Supreme Court didn’t agree. Still, I can’t imagine that if they had prevailed, they would have gone home skipping, thinking they had made the world a better place. This is why I hated defense work and why I enjoy being a personal injury lawyer. Being a personal injury lawyer is not exactly the same as working in the Peace Corp, I fully realize this, but it is a joy to try to help people receive compensation for their suffering.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Auto Accidents , Products Liability

Bookmark:

A West Virginia jury this week will consider whether a hospital negligently performed a background check on a orthopedic doctor who is the defendant in an incredible 120 medical malpractice lawsuits. Plaintiffs' medical malpractice lawyers contend that the hospital was not reasonable in failing to properly verify the doctor was fit to practice medicine.

I do not have a strong opinion on this issue. Obviously, 120 defendants need a deep pocket. This hospital is owned by Charleston Area Medical Center, which is a deep pocket. The defendant has stopped practicing medicine, has changed his name and moved out of the state. I doubt that he has insurance although the article I read did not speak to this issue.

Clearly, this doctor was not fit to practice medicine. But he was licensed by the state of West Virginia. Is it negligent to have doctor with a valid medical license working in your hospital even if a full investigation in his background would have discovered he is unfit to practice medicine? I really do not know and I would not want to be juror in that case.

I'll report back on how the jury verdict in this case.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Maryland is joining the new national trend in expanded voting rights for people with felony convictions. This week, Maryland’s new law went into effect allowing all former felons to vote immediately after they complete their full sentences.

The argument to keep felons from voting has always been that criminals forfeit their rights to vote by committing a felony. But doesn’t any felon who cares to vote trying to be a part of the democratic process? Should we continue to punish people after their punishment has ended?
I think the answer is no because we have to bring people back under the umbrella of society if they are fit to be released from jail. (I’m hopeful there is in the fine print of these bills a G. Gordy Liddy exception but this is probably wishful thinking.)

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Criminal Law

Bookmark:

The Los Angeles Times reports yesterday on the debate in California about whether California lawyers should be required to tell their clients whether they carry malpractice insurance. Apparently, 20% of the state's 150,000 lawyers do not have legal malpractice coverage. (Can you believe California has 150,000 lawyers? Exactly where do they hold their annual bar convention? I'm a lawyer and I find this disturbing. Let's just move on....)

The question is not whether California lawyers are required to get legal malpractice insurance; instead it is whether lawyers must disclose whether they have legal malpractice insurance. Opponents of the rule argue that because clients will likely not want a lawyer who discloses that they do not have legal malpractice insurance, this will effectively force all lawyers to buy legal malpractice insurance.

I'm sure this is true. But if virtually every client would prefer a lawyer with legal malpractice insurance, shouldn't all lawyers have legal malpractice insurance?

The American Bar Association has adopted a model insurance disclosure rule and 20 states now have some sort of disclosure rule. I think having to disclose this fact to a client is unbelievably awkward. I think a better rule would be requiring legal malpractice insurance, at least for lawyers handling they types of cases that often lend themselves to legal malpractice claims, such as real estate lawyers and personal injury lawyers.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Washington Times reports today that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, has 4 judicial openings for the 15 slots available on the court.

The 4th Circuit has long been considered the nation’s most conservative circuit court. Even the Washington Times agrees which is pot calling the kettle black. Last month, however, the court broke from that label, rejecting the government’s detention of an American citizen captured in the United States and held as an enemy combatant, a decision that outraged many conservatives.

The article provides some interesting data on the turnaround time of our federal circuit courts. Relatively speaking, the 4th Circuit decides cases quickly - the median time is 9 ½ months, faster than all but 1 of the 11 federal circuits. The average for all of the circuits is just over a year. But caseloads are on the rise somewhat, with an increase from 4,887 in 2003, to 5,460 in 2006.

The problem, of course, is in the difficulty of getting judges confirmed by the Senate. With the partisan chasm in Washington the widest it has been in the last 100 years, according to some analysts, and the upcoming elections (you would think the presidential election was three weeks away), this problem will continue to exacerbate. Still, I have to say, I really do not consider 9½ months to be that long to wait for a federal appellate opinion.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: General

Bookmark: