If Porter is compelled to testify, and he refuses, then Porter will be sent to jail. That is the court's and prosecutors' threat.

Would the other cases be hopeless? For the van driver Goodson and Officer White, the prosecutors have said their cases would be "gutted" without Porter's testimony.

With the environment in Baltimore I am not sure it would be "hopeless" for the prosecutors, but it would be even more difficult to get a conviction. This prosecution isn't about justice. This is appeasement to the mob.

"Public opinion would be that Porter was being treated terribly unfairly" Not by many of the rioters and people who cheered for Marilyn Mosby. I think your second point is not valid as a general statement.

I do not know what, if any, provisions would be made for Porter's general safety. Why would you expect anything fair or reasonable from these prosecutors ?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160113-story.html

Attorneys for Baltimore Police Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr. say forcing a fellow officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray to testify against their client could lead to scenarios that "completely eviscerate the purpose of their constitutional protections."

"The effect of this court's ruling leads to the conclusion that Officer Goodson, who never gave a statement regarding this matter (which was his right) and has the right not to testify in his own case, could have been compelled to testify in the trial of Officer Porter in December 2015 under the guise of" limited immunity, they wrote in a motion seeking to have his trial take place as scheduled.

"In fact, every single defendant involved in the April 12, 2015 arrest and transport of Mr. Gray could be compelled to testify in the case of Officer Porter (or any other defendant) under the state's theory," they concluded, calling the scenario "nonsensical."

Porter, whose own trial ended with a mistrial, remains charged, with a new trial date scheduled for June. Over his objections, he was ordered to testify by Williams after being granted a limited type of immunity that would protect his testimony from being used against him. He faces jail time for contempt if he does not comply.

Williams' order compelling Porter to testify or face contempt was unprecedented in a case involving co-defendants. But Williams agreed with prosecutors that the law was nevertheless "very clear" and immunity would maintain Porter's constitutional protections.

The immunity "leaves [Porter] with precisely the same rights as if he had not testified," prosecutors wrote. They said Porter's appeal was "doomed to fail."

utter nonsense. The Baltimore jury pool will know Porter's testimony from the Goodson case and it would be impossible for it not to influence jurors

The Attorney General's Office, which represents the State's Attorney's Office in appellate matters, also told the Maryland Court of Special Appeals that Porter's rights were not violated by the order.

"The state has presented no case law in which use and derivative use immunity was ever given to a defendant in Officer Porter's current situation — a fact the state does not dispute,"

Oliver North

"I can't recall" to each and every question they ask. Fuck them and their illegal activity.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Oliver North

"I can't recall" to each and every question they ask. Fuck them and their illegal activity.

He can't go that way, Porter has already testified at his (first hung jury) trial, so testimony is on record for him. To "suddenly" not remember would look bad for Porter in Goodson's trial and his own re-trial. If he went the "I don't recall" route, the original testimony could be used to impeach him as a witness and give prosecutors leverage in going after perjury charges.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
If Porter is compelled to testify, and he refuses, then Porter will be sent to jail. That is the court's and prosecutors' threat.

Ok, this is where I'm apparently confused. Say for instance Porter is forced to appear and give testimony, and does show up at the Goodson trial and sit on the stand. What would stop him from taking the fifth and saying nothing at that point? Don't we all have that protected right, regardless the circumstances? I'm finding it hard to envision how this judge can force testimony out of Porter without completely infringing on his rights, especially given he's yet to be tried for the 'second' time. This partial immunity thing as an excuse for forcing testimony seems rather absurd, to put it mildly.

Let's hope the appellate court gets it right on this appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
If Porter is compelled to testify, and he refuses, then Porter will be sent to jail. That is the court's and prosecutors' threat.

Ok, this is where I'm apparently confused. Say for instance Porter is forced to appear and give testimony, and does show up at the Goodson trial and sit on the stand. What would stop him from taking the fifth and saying nothing at that point? Don't we all have that protected right, regardless the circumstances? I'm finding it hard to envision how this judge can force testimony out of Porter without completely infringing on his rights, especially given he's yet to be tried for the 'second' time. This partial immunity thing as an excuse for forcing testimony seems rather absurd, to put it mildly.

Let's hope the appellate court gets it right on this appeal.

Porter would be jailed on Contempt of Court due to the fact that the Prosecution is giving him Immunity (though very limited Immunity). At that point he has to answer questions and testify. Now the fact that the State Prosecution only wants to give him limited Immunity (which is absolutely no protection against using any testimony against him in a Federal case). The prosecution said they wouldn't use it against him in the re-trial but everyone sitting on the re-trial jury would have heard and known what his testimony in Goodson's case. I also imagine they could get any testimony at Goodson's trial in to use it to impeach any testimony at his re-trial (similar to the way a confession obtained improperly could be used to impeach a defendant's testimony at trial....aka why defense attorneys usually don't let the clients testify). I don't know how the judge could even considered it unless he is trying for a seat on the 9th Circus of Appeals Court (making it as they go along is their motto).

Completely insane. If he pleads the fifth and says nothing, then they can't hold him in contempt of court after Godsons case ends, can they? I'd just plead the fifth and take the punishment for using the protection afforded to me by the Constitution.

"after Godsons case ends"

Officer Porter's testimony is also needed against Officer White. The prosecutors and judge are trying to force Porter to testify against both Officer Goodson and Officer White.

The testimony the prosecutors want is that Porter asked Freddie Gray if Gray wanted medical help. Gray said yes but wouldn't say why he wanted help.

Gray had been yelling, screaming, and refusing to walk in the initial arrest. Porter thought Gray was faking. This is common in Baltimore arrests.

Porter said he told both Goodson and White that Gray wanted medical help but that Porter thought it was "jailitis".

Even the medical examiner said it was highly unlikely that Gray would have broken his neck if he had remained in the prone position when he was shackled. The medical examiner said most likely Gray stood up and then fell to hit his head.

Porter's defense team argued that Gray broke his neck after Porter had talked to him.

This was a tragic accident with a prisoner who had drugs in his system and was acting so uncooperatively that he was shaking the van.


Porter is also worried about perjury charges because in his trial (that ended in a mistrial), the prosecutors told the jury that Porter was lying.

The prosecutors want Porter to testify against two of the other officers, and they want him to say exactly what they need to get convictions.

Is there a valid legal argument that the 'limited immunity' doesn't fully protect his rights against self incrimination? As an avid reader of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and relating precedent, I see the following; if there is still a fear of self incrimination from speaking that can't be excused beyond a reasonable doubt, then there isn't a requirement to speak. If I were Porter's Legal team, I'd file every available injunction, down to "we require the precise questions that will be asked of our client."

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
Is there a valid legal argument that the 'limited immunity' doesn't fully protect his rights against self incrimination?

And that was the point I was trying to make in my last post. If the prosecution had offered Porter a deal where his charges would be dropped, and he was given blanket immunity on anything he said while testifying against the other officers, then I could understanding his being found in contempt and jailed if he tried to take the 5th. But that's not what's happening here. The 'limited' immunity thing while facing retrial himself would lead me to believe he still has protected 5th amendment rights, and that the judge in the case is completely wrong in trying to compel Porter to provide testimony in the other cops trials.

If one of our legal folks could chime in on that and tell me where I'm going wrong, I'd appreciate it.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
Is there a valid legal argument that the 'limited immunity' doesn't fully protect his rights against self incrimination?

And that was the point I was trying to make in my last post. If the prosecution had offered Porter a deal where his charges would be dropped, and he was given blanket immunity on anything he said while testifying against the other officers, then I could understanding his being found in contempt and jailed if he tried to take the 5th. But that's not what's happening here. The 'limited' immunity thing while facing retrial himself would lead me to believe he still has protected 5th amendment rights, and that the judge in the case is completely wrong in trying to compel Porter to provide testimony in the other cops trials.

If one of our legal folks could chime in on that and tell me where I'm going wrong, I'd appreciate it.

Also remember that the State Prosecutor's Immunity offer, even if it was full Immunity, it would not protect him in any Federal Trial. This Limited Immunity crap and judge's initial ruling allowing it was unbelievable. With a mob outside chanting and yelling, there is no way there shouldn't have been a change of venue. If anyone of the officers is convicted, I can see it getting overturn on appeal as some level (state or federal).

gets even stranger

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160114-story.html

Prosecutors want to be able to call Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter to testify against all five of his fellow officers in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, and are asking the court to force him to the stand.

They had previously filed motions, which were granted, asking the court to compel Porter to testify in the trials of two of the officers, Caesar R. Goodson Jr. and Sgt. Alicia White.

But in motions filed Thursday, they are asking the court to compel Porter to also take the stand in the trials of Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice.

A joint hearing in the cases of Nero, Miller, Rice and White has been scheduled in a downtown courtroom on Wednesday afternoon to discuss the new motions seeking to compel Porter to the stand and a motion by White seeking to challenge the existing order compelling Porter's testimony in her trial.

The motions, if granted, could prevent any of the officers' trials from occurring before March because of an appeal Porter has in the Court of Special Appeals, asking that court to block the lower court from forcing him to testify.


**************************

So the prosecutors want Officer Porter to testify 7 times about the same events.

Not sure what they are up to, but it seems very suspicious the prosecutors are changing their position.

One thing this would do is to guarantee that none of the trials get held until the Court of Special Appeals gets resolved. Perhaps the prosecutors were worried that the judge would decide to move up the cases of the last three officers.


adding :

another article attributed this directly to Marilyn Mosby

"Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby now wants Baltimore police Officer William Porter to be forced to testify for the prosecution at the trial of all five of the other officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray.

In a motion filed this morning before Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Barry Williams, Mosby is seeking to compel Porter to testify at the trials of Sgt. Alicia White, Officer Edward Nero, Officer Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice."

quote:

Prosecutors want to be able to call Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter to testify against all five of his fellow officers in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, and are asking the court to force him to the stand

Every last one of them should be reading the writing on the wall, and pleading the Fifth from this point on.

If I was Porter I would tell them jail me for contempt but there's no way I would testify ,

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:

quote:

Prosecutors want to be able to call Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter to testify against all five of his fellow officers in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, and are asking the court to force him to the stand

Every last one of them should be reading the writing on the wall, and pleading the Fifth from this point on.

I agree. They should stand up in court and read Lois Lerner's "I have done nothing wrong and I take the 5th" statement verbatim.

I would proudly sit in jail for as long as necessary in contempt of that circus.

Not like they can fuck him any more than they already have.

If Porter takes the Fifth, that will weaken the other cases, and hopefully would be the straw the breaks the camel's back, so to speak.

If Porter sits it out in jail for a few months, would the prosecution be able to delay the other trials in the hope that Porter testifies?

The day Mosby goes down in flames will be a happy day across the nation. The wicked witch is (almost) dead.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
If Porter takes the Fifth, that will weaken the other cases, and hopefully would be the straw the breaks the camel's back, so to speak.

If Porter sits it out in jail for a few months, would the prosecution be able to delay the other trials in the hope that Porter testifies?

The day Mosby goes down in flames will be a happy day across the nation. The wicked witch is (almost) dead.

Personally, my bet is the court of appeals solves this for us by finding in favor of Porter. If that happens, the other cases are likely a major long shot at best. Lets hope the appeals court gets it right.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
If Porter takes the Fifth, that will weaken the other cases, and hopefully would be the straw the breaks the camel's back, so to speak.

If Porter sits it out in jail for a few months, would the prosecution be able to delay the other trials in the hope that Porter testifies?

The day Mosby goes down in flames will be a happy day across the nation. The wicked witch is (almost) dead.

They all also have the right to a speedy trial. Though Mosbey or the judge doubtfully cares about that right as well.

Amazing how this has ZERO media attention. But you can be sure it will have full attention once Baltimore is burning again. Which it will even if in some crazy travesty (though I highly doubt, but am not fully convinced) all are convicted.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
If Porter takes the Fifth, that will weaken the other cases, and hopefully would be the straw the breaks the camel's back, so to speak.

If Porter sits it out in jail for a few months, would the prosecution be able to delay the other trials in the hope that Porter testifies?

The day Mosby goes down in flames will be a happy day across the nation. The wicked witch is (almost) dead.

They all also have the right to a speedy trial. Though Mosbey or the judge doubtfully cares about that right as well.

Amazing how this has ZERO media attention. But you can be sure it will have full attention once Baltimore is burning again. Which it will even if in some crazy travesty (though I highly doubt, but am not fully convinced) all are convicted.

And when it all falls apart, and Baltimore is being destroyed (again), this stupid whore will be in front of the cameras screaming about how the police were "hiding behind the rule of law", and "beat the charges on legal technicalities", or some such nonsense. I would love to see her political aspirations go down in flames.