Former Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby is currently petitioning a judge to change her court-ordered home detention to a curfew due to her new job that requires travel across Maryland. Mosby was convicted of mortgage fraud and perjury earlier this year after making false statements on loan applications and falsely claiming financial hardship during the pandemic. She was sentenced to home detention and supervised release in May, but her attorneys have now filed a motion to modify the conditions of her home detention.
The attorneys argue that the change is necessary as Mosby recently started a new job as the director of global strategic planning with a company in Maryland that provides mental health, substance abuse, and housing services. This role requires her to travel to different locations, and the current home detention conditions severely limit her ability to perform effectively.
Under her current restrictions, Mosby can only leave her home for specific reasons such as work, education, or medical services, and she must provide a detailed schedule of her movements outside the home a week in advance. Her attorneys claim that this lack of flexibility makes it challenging for her to fulfill her job responsibilities and support her family. They emphasize the importance of replacing home detention with a curfew to allow Mosby to work the required hours under supervised release.
Mosby’s legal issues began when she allegedly used pandemic-related hardship claims to withdraw money from her retirement account and used it for down payments on properties in Florida. The mortgage fraud trial was moved to Greenbelt, Maryland, due to concerns about jury bias, where both Mosby and her ex-husband testified. The prosecution argued that Mosby’s failure to disclose certain information on her loan applications led to the mortgage fraud charges.
The request to modify Mosby’s home detention conditions highlights the challenges individuals face when balancing legal obligations with professional responsibilities. It also raises questions about the impact of legal consequences on one’s ability to maintain employment and financial stability. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in navigating the legal system while continuing to meet personal and professional obligations.
