murderer fit the “mysterious and elusive ‘Midnight,’ ” but also fit the description of Gordon. The court found that Meyers’s statement to the police about the murders was fabricated, and in any event was not a true confession. The only crimes that Meyers actually confessed to were some breakings and enterings in the Landover Hills area. Even in his oral statements to the detectives, he denied being involved in the Tharpar murders. (B) Now, on appeal from the judgments of conviction in his second trial, the appellant makes a three-fold argument about the evidence of Meyers’s “false confession.” First, he maintains that the court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on the State’s motion in limine. See Leeks v. State, 110 Md.App. 543, 557, 678 A.2d 80 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Second, he argues that the court erred in
holding that the  district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case recognizing that the defense must be given the opportunity to crossexamine a witness and explore any motive to falsely testify in order to assist government holding that an ontherecord evidentiary hearing is necessary when the trial court is asked to rule in limine that a witness cannot be asked questions to show that he is biased prejudiced interested in the outcome of the proceeding or has a motive to testify falsely holding that the jury could have reasonably inferred the requisite intent to induce the witness to lie or testify falsely from the defendants statements to the witness