Good morning. Bail reviews will be starting soon. Here’s Friday’s live thread:
https://twitter.com/bmorecourtwatch/status/1312011352643338242
Today in Baltimore City Circuit Court bail reviews: Judge Sampson is presiding. Sounds like ASA Linda Ramirez will be handling most of the docket.
CASE 1: a man who has been approved for Drug Court. The state has made an offer of probation. He has been in jail for 9 months, w/2 COVID-related postponements. He has children at home who were being taken care of by someone during his incarceration, and CPS has now removed them.
ASA Michael Turiello says the state will agree to release but they want electronic monitoring. Pretrial defers to the state. Judge Sampson asks if the defense atty has had him screened for private home detention, defense atty wants to avoid the financial burden of those fees.
He needs to conserve his resources to try to get his kids back. Judge Sampson orders private home detention/monitoring.
CASE 2: a man who was accused of violating probation based on an arrest for a charge that has now been nolle pros’ed, but he is still being held on the VOP. Pretrial recommends ROR with probation supervision.
ASA Ramirez brings up a matter that she “believes” is pending in another jurisdiction. She implies that since the nolle pros was due to the complaining witness not cooperating, it counts less as a nolle pros. State wants private home detention.
Judge Sampson orders ROR with probation supervision.
CASE 3: a young man charged with a VOP based on being charged in 2019 in a case in the county where the complaining witness hasn’t had any contact with the state for a year. He’s been on paid home detention the whole time and is seeking ROR.
Judge Sampson expresses concern about the new charges, defense atty adds that the complaining witness has actually recanted and was charged in the county with making a false statement. Judge Sampson denies the modification.
ASA Ramirez jumps in to say that she believes his home detention is supposed to be a 24/7 lockdown and wants to know why the man is working, defense atty says the order allows him to work.
CASE 4: a man who was charged with a VOP because he was charged in a new case that has now been stetted. He has been on private home detention and is seeking ROR. Pretrial recommends the modification be denied.
ASA Ramirez says the state opposes the modification. Judge Sampson asks what the allegation is in the stetted case, Ramirez answers. Judge Sampson asks if the state will go forward on the VOP, she says she doesn’t know (?). Judge Sampson orders ROR with parole supervision.
CASE 5: a man who has been on private home detention with 24/7 lockdown. The judge who ordered it told him if he could provide proof of employment, the court would consider a modification.
ASA Steve Kroll recites allegations as facts. State opposes the modification. Pretrial makes no recommendation. Judge Sampson doesn’t like his employer’s letterhead so he denies the modification.
CASE 6: a man whose case was supposed to be set before a visiting judge - Judge Jackson couldn’t hear it last week bc it involves a judge he knows. Judge Sampson also knows the judge but says all judges know each other and he’ll hear it.
Defense atty says he has already served more time than he would if he were convicted on the VOP. ASA Ramirez concurs and says the state will agree to ROR on that charge, Judge Sampson orders same.
On the underlying charge, defense atty explains that the allegation is unprovable bc their entire case is based on a FB message from another person and a FB photo. They can’t be authenticated. She says the state plans to have an “expert” ID items in the photo by looking at it.
There is no science behind this kind of ID and the state can’t prevail. ASA Steve Kroll recites these absurd allegations as facts. Judge Sampson clearly indicates he accepts that these allegations are true and denies the modification.
CASE 7: a young man with asthma who is being held in a facility where he is at risk of contracting COVID. Pretrial recommends ROR with probation supervision.
ASA Ramirez says the state will agree to pretrial’s recommendation. Judge Sampson orders ROR with probation supervision.
CASE 8: a man who has been held without bail since winter 2019. His trial won’t be til early 2021 at the earliest. State’s case relies only on 2 witnesses, one of whom didn’t identify anyone at all.
That witness saw someone wearing a ski mask covering their face. The second witness first couldn’t ID anyone, but then after looking at a BPD photo array (that violated BPD’s own policies on double-blind arrays) picked out this man.
Defense atty points out this makes no sense given the ski mask. Pretrial recommends HWOB. ASA Ramirez can’t answer the Judge Sampson’s question about defense’s info about the witnesses bc she’s not the assigned ASA, but Sampson orders HWOB anyway.
CASE 9: a young man who is on institutional home detention while awaiting a hearing where he will enter a plea. He is seeking a modification that will allow him to re-enroll in high school and attend church. Defense atty says this is a drugs-only case.
Pretrial notes that one of the pending cases is a marijuana case and recommends ROR with probation supervision. ASA Ramirez says the state opposes the modification. Judge Sampson orders ROR with probation supervision.
That’s the end of the docket.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
