Judge Williams refuses to delay 22 Feb case

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/...n-freddie-gray-case/

A Baltimore judge is refusing to postpone the trials of three police officers in the Freddie Gray case.

Prosecutors had asked Circuit Judge Barry Williams to stay proceedings until appellate courts decide if another officer awaiting retrial on related charges can be forced testify against them.

Williams found the motion inappropriate. He wrote that the state was merely trying to delay the trials until after the manslaughter retrial of Officer William Porter.

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

sounds like 22 Feb case is on. Unless higher courts jump in.

^^^
Beautiful- the toads are flailing around up there and got called for exactly what it is. Thank you your honor!

Judge Barry Williams. At least someone in the court system there has a clue and is honest. Thank you Judge Williams.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Judge Barry Williams. At least someone in the court system there has a clue and is honest. Thank you Judge Williams.

Ahh, don't thank Judge Asshat yet, you need to go back to pages 11 to 12. Williams is the same judge who refused a change of venue on all the cases. Williams is the same judge who with the prosecutors came up with the goofy limited immunity which would require Porter to testify at the other trials while waiting for his re-trial. Williams even admitted during the hearing in his court that it was "uncharted" law as best. Williams got seemingly spanked by the Court of Appeals on the limited immunity deal, requiring Porter to testify (waiting for the full hearing in front of the court of appeals). Williams had to make some rulings to make the process seem fair. In other words, Williams couldn't violate ALL the defendants' rights, including a right to a speedy trial.

Thanks for the reminder. I understand now, he had to do something right or the citizens would lose faith in the system. Limited immunity, what a bunch of BS.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Thanks for the reminder. I understand now, he had to do something right or the citizens would lose faith in the system. Limited immunity, what a bunch of BS.

Yep. those pesky Constitutional Rights (such as the clearly stated right to a speedy trial) keep interfering with the Lynch Mob, I mean trials for the officers.

OT, but

Maryland now allows voting rights to felons before they complete probation and parole.

http://hotair.com/archives/201...wing-felons-to-vote/

The legislature on Tuesday narrowly overturned Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto of a bill to extend voting rights to felons before they complete probation and parole.

http://news.yahoo.com/veto-ove...yland-211919130.html

Maryland's Senate president called for civility Friday after Democrats received what he called "the most vicious hate mail you can possibly imagine" in the aftermath of overriding the Republican governor's veto. One caller expressed the hope a senator's wife would be raped and killed.

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller asked Gov. Larry Hogan to stop his supporters from singling out senators in messages on social media. Hogan's spokesman said it was "ridiculous" and "beyond outrageous" to imply the governor was responsible for encouraging people to make such calls and comments.

"If they don't want their constituents to be upset with them, then they shouldn't vote in favor of items that their constituents absolutely despise," Hogan's spokesman Doug Mayer said.

The uproar happened after the Democratic-led legislature overrode the veto of a bill this week allowing felons to vote when they are on parole and probation. The override succeeded by the thinnest of margins for a three-fifths majority in both the House and Senate.

quote:

The uproar happened after the Democratic-led legislature overrode the veto of a bill this week allowing felons to vote when they are on parole and probation.

An obvious increase to the Democrat vote.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160218-story.html

State's highest court intervenes in Freddie Gray case, halting all lower court proceedings

The highest court in Maryland has agreed to hear appeals in the trials of five of the six Baltimore police officers charged in the Freddie Gray case, preventing any lower court proceedings from moving forward for the foreseeable future.

The Maryland attorney general's office, representing the Baltimore state's attorney's office, had petitioned the Court of Appeals to bypass the lower-level appeals process and expedite a review regarding questions over whether Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter can be compelled to testify against other officers while still facing his own charges.

Porter was ordered by Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams to testify in two of the officers' cases — Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. Sgt. Alicia White — and Porter's lawyers have been seeking to overturn the decision. In the three other cases — of Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice — prosecutors failed to convince Williams that Porter is a necessary witness, and they are seeking to overturn that decision.

The Court of Appeals' decision to take the cases means that all lower court proceedings — including the pre-trial motions hearing scheduled for Friday in Nero's trial, which was set to begin Monday with jury selection — are canceled.

In petitioning the Court of Appeals to take up the cases, the attorney general's office wrote that all five cases should be reviewed "because they provide an appropriate vehicle for this court to consider the application of [the state immunity statute] from all sides."

At issue is whether the state's immunity statute can protect Porter's right against self-incrimination. Attorneys for the state argue Williams applied the immunity statute differently in the two instances being appealed, and asked the court to resolve the issue "before Maryland's witness immunity scheme fails to function as the legislature intended."

In orders handed down Thursday, Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera agreed that the high court should consider the cases, but outlined separate legal questions for the court to consider in the two cases appealed by Porter and the three appealed by the state.

In the Goodson and White cases, Barbera wrote, the question at hand is: Does the state's immunity statute provide "Porter sufficient protection against self-incrimination to allow his testimony to be compelled" to the stand?

In the Nero, Miller and Rice trials, Barbera wrote, there are two questions at hand.

The first is: Does the state's immunity statute "require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor's motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness's testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor's motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute's pleading requirements?"

The second is whether "the circuit court's order denying the State's motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?"

Oral arguments in all five of the cases will be heard on March 3, Barbera ordered.

There is no date by which the court must rule in the cases, though Barbera has made it a goal of the court to hand down rulings during the same term. The current term ends in September.

Maryland's highest Court to hear oral arguments tomorrow regarding whether Officer Porter has to testify in all 5 of the other cases.

Here is an example of "justice" in the Marilyn Mosby Prosecutor office.

Note who the "prosecutor" was in this case:

"The case was handled by Assistant State's Attorney Linda Ramirez, a longtime defense attorney who joined the State's Attorney's Office recently as a prosecutor. "

Many experienced prosecutors have been fired from or quit Mosby's team.

All charges dropped in case of guns, drugs found in Safe Streets office

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160302-story.html

Baltimore prosecutors have dropped all charges against nine people arrested last year after a raid on a violence intervention program in East Baltimore turned up seven guns and drugs stashed throughout its office.

The arrests last July led to a suspension of the Safe Streets program, and most of the defendants have been jailed for the past eight months. They'll be released following charges being dropped Tuesday.

Prosecutors said in a statement Wednesday that they received "exculpatory information that called into question the identity of the defendants," and said the investigation was ongoing.

Police said at the time that a robbery investigation led them to the East Monument Street office, and inside officers found guns, heroin, cocaine, and other items used in the manufacturing and sale of drugs.

Two of the guns were linked to at least two non-fatal shootings that had been committed earlier that month, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said in court documents. One gun was found hidden in the ceiling, while others were found in a cabinet. A bag containing bullets was found in a plant pot.

Two Safe Streets employees who worked as "violence interrupters," Artez Harris, 39, and Evans, were among those arrested.

Safe Streets, a grant-funded program under the city's Health Department, uses ex-felons in an effort to stem crime. The program has been lauded for keeping violence at a minimum in the neighborhoods where it operates, and was recently expanded with a new site in Sandtown-Winchester.

Evans has been charged twice with murder, and both times acquitted. In 1999 he was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder for the killing of 21-year-old Harry Brown in the first block of N. Streeper Street. He was charged with first-degree murder in another case in 2002, and three years later was found not guilty.

Barak Olds, 26, and Darren Brown, 24, were also charged in connection with the assault and robbery in the initial incident that led police to the Safe Streets office. Those charges were also dropped.

The case was handled by Assistant State's Attorney Linda Ramirez, a longtime defense attorney who joined the State's Attorney's Office recently as a prosecutor.

Marilyn Mosby is lining up her kind of employees, it appears.

Assume Porter was compelled to testify, and he refused based upon him taking the Fifth Amendment, and he was then sent to jail. Would he be considered a criminal prisoner or a civil prisoner?

A LEO mixed in with the criminal population would probably not be safe.

Thanks sdy for keeping this thread updated. I love the fact we have ONE Freddie Gray thread instead of 20 simultaneous ones.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160302-story.html

Freddie Gray case shifts to state's highest court Thursday

Even before any verdicts have been reached against the six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray last year, the case has ended up in the state's highest court, where attorneys will spar Thursday.

The central issue facing the Court of Appeals judges revolves around the state's immunity statute, and whether Baltimore Police Officer William Porter can be forced to testify against his fellow officers.

In the cases against two officers charged in Gray's death, Porter says Circuit Judge Barry Williams violated his rights by ordering him to testify. But in the cases of three other officers, Williams rejected prosecutors' request to force Porter to testify, and the State's Attorney's Office wants the court to reverse that decision.

The appeals court agreed to take up all five arguments, halting proceedings in the officers' cases. The judges could issue a brief ruling as soon as Thursday afternoon, with a longer opinion to follow. But it could also take months.

Thursday's hearing in Annapolis will take place in front of the court's seven judges, who can ask questions.

Unlike the trial court hearings, the state's high court allows cameras, and the proceedings will be streamed online . Williams' gag order barring prosecutors and defense attorneys from speaking publicly about the cases, in place since October, also doesn't apply.

Legal observers not involved in the case said the high court's move to take all of the cases, and at this juncture, is rare. One of the questions the judges asked attorneys to address in written briefs was whether the state's appeal was something that could be even considered by the judges.

"We take the position that this is not an appealable order," said defense attorney Catherine Flynn, who represents Miller. Prosecutors maintain the court can take up the issue.

Prosecutors contend that they have broad discretion to use immunity and while they have to ask a judge to grant the request, the language of the statute says the judge "shall" grant it.

That's also a key part of the state's argument that Williams was wrong to deny their request to force Porter to testify at trials of Nero, Miller and Lt. Brian Rice.

Prosecutors had not previously listed Porter as a witness in those cases, and Williams said he believed the late decision by prosecutors was a stall tactic — since the issue of whether Porter could be forced to testify was already in the Court of Special Appeals.

Williams said the move was "simply an attempt at subterfuge" because prosecutors didn't want to try the next three cases first.

Prosecutors say Porter's testimony is relevant to proving one of the elements of reckless endangerment, and that their position on his importance to the other cases evolved over time.

"We think we have the right to change our mind," Schatzow told Williams at the time.

Typically, appeals are filed after a case has come to a conclusion, or reached a final judgment. Rulings are often handed down that attorneys on either side disagree with, including exclusion of evidence or barring certain arguments. But they must wait until the proceedings are over to file an appeal.

One of the questions the high court has asked is whether Williams' order is an appealable "final judgment." Attorneys for the officers say allowing prosecutors to appeal Williams' ruling would "open the floodgates and cause the operation of the trial courts to come to a halt in criminal matters," with prosecutors taking various rulings to the appellate courts.

Prosecutors counter that the ruling about Porter's testimony was essentially a civil proceeding, that was "collateral" to the criminal case, and was final and can be appealed. They argue alternatively that there are still other ways that allow the court to take up the case.

The Attorney General's Office often handles appeals, and Assistant Attorney General Carrie Williams will argue Porter's appeal in the trials of Goodson and White. But Schatzow, the second-in-command at the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office, has been designated as a "special" attorney general and will personally make the argument over the appeal of Williams' decision to prevent Porter from testifying in the trials of Nero, Miller and Rice.

Gary Proctor, Porter's attorney, will argue his appeal. Michael Belsky, one of the attorneys for Rice, will argue against the state's appeal, along with appellate lawyer Thomas Donnelly, who the defense team enlisted for the hearing.

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

what drama. they want a man to testify 5 times in the most public trials in Baltimore history, and then the prosecutors want to prosecute Porter in his own trial. There won't be 12 people in all of Baltimore who haven't heard what Porter said.



The oral arguments in the Maryland Court of Appeals will be broadcast live Thursday, March 3 at 10 a.m. at bsun.md/livestream.

quote:

Prosecutors contend that they have broad discretion to use immunity and while they have to ask a judge to grant the request, the language of the a statute says the judge "shall" grant it.

Interesting wording considering Maryland is a "shall" issue state concerning CCW.

I don't know how "exciting" this will be, but the

bsun.md/livestream

link is working.

The oral arguments in the Maryland Court of Appeals will be broadcast live Thursday, March 3 at 10 a.m. at bsun.md/livestream.


disappointing: the first case is not the Porter case. The first case is about a lawyer losing his license

Porter case being presented now 1058am

adding: not liking the way this is going so far.
judges seem to be leaning to prosecutors. no decision yet.

Porter's attorney brought up the fact that if Porter testifies 5 times before his trial, everyone in Baltimore will know what he said. Didn't seem to bother the 7 Appeals Court judges at all.

Don't know when a decision will be rendered by the Appeals Court.

Baltimore Sun summary:

The proceedings in Annapolis lasted about two hours, with the Court of Appeals' seven judges peppering attorneys for the state on why Porter should be forced to testify and the officers' attorneys on why he should not be compelled to take the stand.

It's unclear when the court will rule on the appeals.

Thursday's proceedings began with the court taking up the state's appeal of a lower court decision not to compel Porter to testify against three fellow officers: Edward Nero, Garrett Miller and Lt. Brian Rice.

Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow argued that Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams' had overstepped his "ministerial role" in overseeing a state motion to compel a witness by denying its request to compel Porter to the stand. Michael Belsky, Rice's attorney, and appellate lawyer Thomas Donnelly, who the defense team enlisted for the hearing, argued on behalf of Rice, Miller and Nero that the state had no standing to appeal Williams' decision at this stage in the criminal proceedings.

The judges asked what legal precedent the attorneys were relying on in their arguments and how the actions of Williams hold with or break from legislatively or judicially established procedures for appealing lower court decisions and applying the state's immunity statute.

The state sought to grant Porter limited immunity under that statute in order to allow him to testify against his fellow officers without infringing on his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Porter has contended that his constitutional right against self-incrimination would be violated were he forced to testify before his retrial. Prosecutors have said limited immunity is sufficient to protect his rights. They have also argued the decision to offer immunity and compel a witness is that of the state's attorney, not the lower court.

The high court judges asked the attorneys how the state immunity statute compares to the federal immunity statute. They asked if there is "ambiguity" in the state immunity statute. They repeatedly asked Schatzow, Belsky and Donnelly about Williams' discretion in reviewing prosecutors' requests for immunity to be granted to a witness.

Judge Sally Adkins asked Schatzow if the state would be able to appeal Williams' decision on Porter's testimony if the trial of one of the officers concluded in an acquittal. Schatzow said he did not think the state would have that right because the issue would be "moot" at that point — hence the need to immediately appeal Williams' ruling as a "final judgment" and put the issue before the higher court.

Schatzow, the second-in-command at the Baltimore state's attorney's office, was designated as a "special" attorney general to make the state's argument in the Nero, Miller and Rice cases.

Porter's attorney, Gary Proctor, said that while the state may have the burden of proving that they have used nothing from Porter's compelled testimony at his retrial, he nor the court could ever "pierce the minds" of the prosecutors to ensure that is the case. Proctor said there is so much attention on the officers' trials that whatever Porter testifies to will be heard by potential jurors in his retrial.

Assistant Attorney General Carrie Williams said that the state has a "heavy burden" of proving that nothing it uses to prosecute Porter at his retrial was derived from his immunized testimony.

Judge Clayton Greene Jr. asked Proctor why it's an issue for Porter to testify at his fellow officers' trials if he already testifed at his own trial.

"Isn't the cat kind of out of the bag now?" Greene asked. "What is the harm to Officer Porter if he were to simply tell his story again in multiple trials?"

Proctor said that prosecutors have already accused Porter of lying when he took the stand in his first trial, that the immunity statute does not protect him from perjury charges, and that his testifying multiple times in a row would create a "minefield" of possible contradictions or apparent contradictions in his testimony for him to navigate.

"It's unlikely," Proctor said later, on the same point, "that anyone can say the same thing five times in lock step."

************************************
Have to wait for the Appeals Court to decide. I was very disappointed in how the 7 judges seemed to take a very theoretical view of things.

At one point when Porter's lawyer was arguing about how there would be problems for Porter in his June trial if he testified at the other 5 trials, one of the Appeals judges said "Well, you can always appeal if he is convicted".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

Officer ordered to testify against other cops in Freddie Gray case

Doesn't seem right to me...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fr...-against-other-cops/

Doesn't seem right to me either. His lawyer needs to get him full immunity on all charges in order for him to testify, or the officer needs to suffer amnesia. I know he could be found in contempt, but if it was me I'd take that any day over self-incrimination.

Or his lawyer needs to push it up to a higher court.

Apparently the appeals court is every bit as corrupt and illiterate as the judge in this case, and that railroading the officers will take precedence over any aspect of adherence to the law.

Let the scapegoating resume...

This is bad news. I watched the hearing when it was held last week. The 7 judges did seem to agree more with the prosecutors than the defense team.

The sad part is that Judge Williams was exactly right. Calling Porter against all 5 was just an attempt by the prosecutors to control the sequence of the trials.

A successful attempt.

So Porter will testify in 5 trials. Every word he says will be tweeted to the news within minutes of him saying it. It will be all over Baltimore within an hour.

The future jurors in Porter's trial hear it all. Over and over. Then for those jurors selected for Porter's trial, they will be told to only consider what is presented in Porter's trial. Just not humanly possible.

Porter has a tough decision.

These prosecutors are low life political hacks.

There has been some legal speculation that this decision might be appealed to the Supreme Court.