Jury Deliberates in College Student Stabbing Case

Thank you for reading Baltimore Witness.
Consider making a donation to help us continue our mission.

Deliberations began on June 25 for a man accused of stabbing a college student at the East Baltimore Medical Center on the 1000 block of E. Eager Street last summer. The victim of the stabbing and his parents sat in the gallery as counsel delivered closing statements before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Gregory Sampson.

Bryan Cherry, 37, faces charges of attempted first- and second-degree murder and assault, and intent to injure with a deadly weapon in connection to the June 26, 2024 incident.

According to the prosecution, at approximately 11:02 a.m. that day, Cherry and the mother of his child entered the clinic together. The child’s mother, who later identified Cherry during a police interview and on the stand, allegedly frequented the clinic to pick up food.

The prosecution concluded their closing argument with a photograph of the victim lying bloodied in a hospital bed, with an oxygen mask strapped to his face. The attack, during which Cherry stabbed the victim seven times, reportedly left the college student with a collapsed lung.

“Seven times. That’s attempted murder in the first degree,” the prosecution said. “Bryan Cherry intended to kill.”

The validity of the testimony given by Cherry’s child’s mother was another key point of debate between parties, with the prosecution directing jurors’ attention to her supposed pattern of lying.

Following the stabbing, Cherry and his child’s mother exited the clinic together, but allegedly fled by separate routes to her apartment. She later testified they occasionally shared the residence.

When police arrived at her apartment for questioning on July 1, 2024, she told them she was her younger sister. Only after police informed her she was “not in trouble,” did she disclose her full name and allow them upstairs for an interview.

Defense attorney Gregory Fischer called the witness’ testimony unreliable, emphasizing a comment she made describing how “she was afraid what would happen if her testimony didn’t please the prosecution.” He said this “coercive identification procedure,” along with what he called “an inexcusably stacked and sloppy police investigation” that lacked forensic or DNA evidence, rendered the prosecution’s case a failure to meet their burden of proof.

Meanwhile, the prosecution argued the witness’ positive identification of Cherry served as valid evidence because she delivered it while sworn in and bound by oath.

No further hearings are scheduled in this case at the time.