http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160115-story.html

One juror said some on the panel in Porter's trial were driven to tears during deliberations and afterward. The juror agreed to be interviewed by The Sun but asked to remain anonymous because Williams requested that panel members not discuss their experience.

11-1 split in favor of acquittal on involuntary manslaughter

8-2 in favor of acquittal on second-degree assault, with two jurors remaining undecided.

reckless endangerment 7-3 in favor of conviction, with two jurors undecided

misconduct in office 10-1 in favor of conviction, with one juror undecided

"This was the vote that was on the board when the jury conceded to deadlock," the juror said. "Had we continued discussions, there's great likelihood that the numbers could have switched, but I couldn't say which way."

Members of the panel had changed their votes multiple times during the deliberations, the juror said.

For example, a few more jurors wanted to convict Porter of manslaughter at the start of the deliberations but later changed their minds, the juror said.

Williams said the charge of misconduct in office would require a finding that Porter had "corruptly failed to do an act required by his duties," and that it was "not a mere error in judgment" but involved an "evil motive and bad faith."

At one point, the jurors asked the court to more clearly define "evil motive" and "bad faith," but were told that "the court has provided all of the information it can."

I believe it’s very common for juries to vote to convict on lesser offenses because they somehow feel they’re finding a reasonable middle ground. “We don’t believe he did anything wrong, but look at all the things he was charged with. We’ve got to find him guilty of something.” I was reading a book just recently that pointed out how common it is for groups to compromise between two extremes even when one extreme (guilty/not guilty) is clearly more appropriate.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/...timony-in-gray-case/

A Baltimore judge has delayed Sgt. Alicia White’s trial while the Court of Special Appeals rules in whether Officer William Porter can be forced to testify in the trials. The prosecution says they now want him to postpone all the trials so that they can re-try Porter first.

The judge ruled Wednesday afternoon that he will not force Porter to testify against Miller, Rice and Nero.

The judge ruled in December that Porter must testify against van driver Caesar Goodson, whose trial is postponed while an appeals court decides whether to overturn the ruling.

The prosecution says that Porter wasn’t originally needed to testify in all the trials, but that they “have a right to change our mind.”

The judge got testy with the prosecutors, asking if was “subterfuge” that they needed his testimony in all the cases and asked if they were setting Porter up for a perjury charge.

Meanwhile attorneys for Miller, Nero and Rice say that postponing their trials would violate their right to speedy trials.

A new trial date for White is not known.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160120-story.html

Given the decisions, it is now likely that the trials of Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice will proceed prior to the resolution of Porter's appeal, though Nero's attorney suggested there are other scheduling issues that need to be resolved before his trial, which is currently slated to begin on Feb. 22.

There is also a potential conflict with the current scheduling of the trials of Miller and Rice, which are scheduled to proceed on March 7 and March 9, respectively.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/...timony-in-gray-case/

A Baltimore judge has delayed Sgt. Alicia White’s trial while the Court of Special Appeals rules in whether Officer William Porter can be forced to testify in the trials. The prosecution says they now want him to postpone all the trials so that they can re-try Porter first.

The judge ruled Wednesday afternoon that he will not force Porter to testify against Miller, Rice and Nero.

The judge ruled in December that Porter must testify against van driver Caesar Goodson, whose trial is postponed while an appeals court decides whether to overturn the ruling.

The prosecution says that Porter wasn’t originally needed to testify in all the trials, but that they “have a right to change our mind.”

The judge got testy with the prosecutors, asking if was “subterfuge” that they needed his testimony in all the cases and asked if they were setting Porter up for a perjury charge.

Meanwhile attorneys for Miller, Nero and Rice say that postponing their trials would violate their right to speedy trials.

A new trial date for White is not known.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160120-story.html

Given the decisions, it is now likely that the trials of Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice will proceed prior to the resolution of Porter's appeal, though Nero's attorney suggested there are other scheduling issues that need to be resolved before his trial, which is currently slated to begin on Feb. 22.

There is also a potential conflict with the current scheduling of the trials of Miller and Rice, which are scheduled to proceed on March 7 and March 9, respectively.

So much for that right to a fair and speedy trial.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I believe it’s very common for juries to vote to convict on lesser offenses because they somehow feel they’re finding a reasonable middle ground. “We don’t believe he did anything wrong, but look at all the things he was charged with. We’ve got to find him guilty of something.” I was reading a book just recently that pointed out how common it is for groups to compromise between two extremes even when one extreme (guilty/not guilty) is clearly more appropriate.

Its pretty clear you've not been on a jury. The dynamics are pretty interesting, and the juries I've served on seem to be full of individuals. To the credit of our jurors, they seem to be pretty intelligent. Just don't think you can predict what they'll conclude. Some things are pretty surprising to me. I assumed female jurors would be really against any male accused of rape. The mothers on the jury were just the opposite. Lacking evidence, they just assumed the girls were liars and they didn't want to convict a guy on just her saying so. Guys seem much more willing to listen, but all of us considered the idea the girl (or anyone else) was lying.

I just assumed the we'd all kind of defer to police and assume they were truthful. Well we sure didn't. What really shocked me was when we started deliberations, how everyone concluded privately that the one cop was a liar. I don't know if the prosecution understood or not.

On a couple of trials (we were in a 6 week pool) we had "consultants" watching us. The judge even pointed out who they were because it was pretty apparent we didn't trust or like them. After that, one got in the elevator with us and seemed terrified. It seems he was warned against any contact, not even a "hello".

The only friendly faces we had were the sheriff's deputies who were assigned to the court. On one trial everyone got scanned with a metal detector. After the first day, that guy knew who we were, and he was the guy that handed us "juror" buttons. He said he wasn't worried about us coming to court armed, and that if we did, he understood why we'd want to shoot certain people. Obviously a reference to the spectators supporting the defendant. Then he said shooting them was his job, not ours.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I believe it’s very common for juries to vote to convict on lesser offenses because they somehow feel they’re finding a reasonable middle ground. “We don’t believe he did anything wrong, but look at all the things he was charged with. We’ve got to find him guilty of something.” I was reading a book just recently that pointed out how common it is for groups to compromise between two extremes even when one extreme (guilty/not guilty) is clearly more appropriate.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. A jury I was on a couple of years ago dealt with whether a grocery store was responsible for an injury to a customer. We all decided that the store was not responsible. We were instructed that we could also assign blame on a percentage basis. A couple of the jurors wanted to give the plaintiff a small percentage just because I guess they felt sorry for the plaintiff and hated to see them go away with nothing. That notion was quickly shot down by the rest of us and the plaintiff received no compensation.

I can see where "compromising" might be a consideration. That's not right, but I can see it happening.

Judge says Porter does not have to testify.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...-for-3-officers.html

So there is no ruling on whether Porter has to testify in the trial of officers White and Goodson? This could take another month or so from what I remember. Hopefully he will not be compelled to testify in the other two cases.

If I was Porter I would sit in jail rather than testify.

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
Judge says Porter does not have to testify.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...-for-3-officers.html

A good start. The man should take a vow of silence any moment his Lawyer isn't close at hand.

Judge Williams ruled that Porter does not have to testify against Rice, Miller, and Nero.

The issue of Porter testifying against Goodson and White will be determined by the Court of Special Appeals. (a couple mos from now)

My god. When will this farce end?

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
My god. When will this farce end?

For the prosecutors this is just another day at the office; nothing else to do, no where else to go. Additionally there is the downside that they might lose and then they would be embarrassed at the Dairy Queen with their friends.

the tale isn't so quickly told about the five officers sitting in jail with their families playing catch-as-can for their day to day needs. This case must be very close to the framers intent on the requirement and the need for a speedy trial.

Bless their hearts, but if Baltimore burns then it burns. Get on with it.

The officers aren't sitting in jail, but 4 of them are not getting paid. And with all this delay their lives are on hold with the threat of long jail time. But this is "just another day at the office" for the prosecutors. These are really bad political hack prosecutors who have no interest in justice.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160120-story.html

Judge Barry G. Williams questioned prosecutors' motives for asking him last week to compel Officer William G. Porter to testify against all five of his fellow officers who are facing trial. Until then, they had said Porter was a witness against only two officers.

Williams said prosecutors appeared to have a "dual purpose" for making their request — one being to stall the trials. He denied the motions.

Porter has been ordered by Williams to testify in the trials of Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. and Sgt. Alicia D. White, and Porter's appeal to block that order is tied up in the Court of Special Appeals. That court will not hear his appeal until March, and could take months to decide.

Joseph Murtha, an attorney for Porter, said calling his client to testify at the rest of the trials — of Officers Edward M. Nero and Garrett E. Miller and Lt. Brian W. Rice — was a "disingenuous pretext for the purpose of getting a postponement."

Prosecutors said that they had not previously contemplated calling Porter at all of the trials, but adjusted their strategy after Porter's trial last month ended in a mistrial.

"We tried to learn something from our experience in trying Officer Porter," Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow told Williams. "We think we have the right to change our mind, and we acknowledge we are changing our mind."

Nero's trial is tentatively slated for Feb. 22, with Miller to follow on March 7 and Rice on March 9. But an attorney for Nero indicated Wednesday that he had a scheduling conflict, and Miller and Rice's trials are not likely to move forward just two days apart.

Murtha, Porter's attorney, noted that prosecutors gave immunity to other officers on the scene who were not charged at all, at least one of whom had a "bird's-eye view" of what occurred, and could just as soon call those officers to the stand as Porter.

"What they want to do is take [Porter] hostage for five cases, then torture him in his own trial," Murtha said. He said prosecutors were "exploiting their privilege."

Schatzow acknowledged that prosecutors' position had changed but said it is the state's prerogative to call witnesses of its choosing and a judge shouldn't "interfere with the state's ability to make reasoned judgments about who may or may not be necessary."

Attorneys for Nero, Miller and Rice spoke only briefly at the hearing, but argued in filings that the state was trying to "avoid trying the most factually and legally tenuous cases first."

Granting the prosecutors' motion to compel Porter to take the stand in their trials, they said, "would in essence reward the State for its tactical inadequacies and utter disrespect for the Defendants' constitutional rights."

"If someone is to be blamed for not having sufficient foresight, that should be me," Schatzow said. But he said prosecutors were allowed to change strategy because it was in the "public interest."

Williams said it was "also in the public interest" that the defendants' rights be protected. Rice's attorney noted that his client is a father of four who has not been paid by the Police Department since he was suspended pending the outcome of his case.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160121-story.html

Marilyn Mosby says prosecutors can be fired for not showing political support

An attorney for Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby is asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed against her that alleges a prosecutor's firing was politically motivated — by arguing that prosecutors can indeed be fired for political reasons.

Keri Borzilleri, a city prosecutor for 10 years who said she had an "exemplary record," filed suit in December in U.S. District Court, saying she was fired for openly supporting Mosby's predecessor, Gregg L. Bernstein.

Mosby's response, filed this week by an assistant attorney general, says prosecutors are "policymakers" and "alter egos" of Mosby and that case law supports an elected official's right to fire such employees who have a different viewpoint.

"… Ms. Mosby had every right to expect that a person in Ms. Borzilleri's position would be loyal without qualification and would publicly support her in full," Assistant Attorney General Bradley J. Neitzel wrote in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"Based on Ms. Borzilleri's public message to the people of Baltimore, whom Ms. Mosby serves, that Mr. Bernstein was a better person for the job, Ms. Mosby had more than adequate justification for discharging Ms. Borzilleri for this public message."

Prosecutors are "at-will" employees, but Borzilleri's attorney Stacey Grigsby has said it was still illegal to fire people for reasons such as race and gender — or for supporting a political rival.

"Our client had an exemplary work record and was wrongfully dismissed because of her political beliefs, and this motion does not dispute these facts, even though it is unlawful under our Constitution. We look forward to responding to this motion and furthering our argument in court," Grigsby, who is handling the case pro bono, said Thursday.

Six attorneys were fired soon after Mosby took over, Borzilleri says in the lawsuit, and 30 more have left since then

There are 127 positions for assistant state's attorneys in the office's most recent budget.

At least two other employees have spoken out about being fired. Cristie Cole, a research analyst, said she was also fired for supporting Bernstein. Another terminated employee was Bernstein's ex-wife, Terry Schafer.

A new policy manual for the office, distributed in March and which employees were required to sign, states that employees "may be terminated 'at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.' "

sdy - Many thanks for keeping this thread updated with the latest news. It has completely fallen off the national radar and I would never remember to go find the local stories otherwise.

If Mosby fails in all of her attempts to convict the officers, what then would be expected to happen to her? Many appear to believe she is incompetent, mean, vicious, and a panderer to the masses.

Would she lose political support from her normal backers? Would they consider her a loser and look for someone more effective? Would she "go out not with a bang, but a whimper?" Would she have nothing left but her law license, her bad attitude, and her troubled legacy?

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
If Mosby fails in all of her attempts to convict the officers, what then would be expected to happen to her? Many appear to believe she is incompetent, mean, vicious, and a panderer to the masses.

Would she lose political support from her normal backers? Would they consider her a loser and look for someone more effective? Would she "go out not with a bang, but a whimper?" Would she have nothing left but her law license, her bad attitude, and her troubled legacy?

She would probably replace Loretta Lynch as Attorney General.

quote:

Mosby's response, filed this week by an assistant attorney general, says prosecutors are "policymakers" and "alter egos" of Mosby and that case law supports an elected official's right to fire such employees who have a different viewpoint.

"… Ms. Mosby had every right to expect that a person in Ms. Borzilleri's position would be loyal without qualification and would publicly support her in full," Assistant Attorney General Bradley J. Neitzel wrote in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Is this bitch completely off her meds! That is some really delusional nonsense right there. Somebody needs to can this mentally retarded loser.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
If Mosby fails in all of her attempts to convict the officers, what then would be expected to happen to her? Many appear to believe she is incompetent, mean, vicious, and a panderer to the masses.

Would she lose political support from her normal backers? Would they consider her a loser and look for someone more effective? Would she "go out not with a bang, but a whimper?" Would she have nothing left but her law license, her bad attitude, and her troubled legacy?

You watch how the particular scenario you mentioned above will be spun if it actually occurs. I'll frame it for you...

Mosby did her level best, but the current system is so corrupt and stacked against black people, even an attorney of her stature (puke) could do nothing to obtain justice for that poor, poor, man named Freddie, murdered by the police. So everyone needs to rise up and join with Marilyn in protesting this injustice by burning down a substantial portion of Baltimore. So even in failure, Mosby becomes a rallying point.

Sound about right?