Earlier in this thread there was a posting to the effect that a State Representative had sought disbarment proceedings against Mosby. Has there been any movement on this issue?

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Barry Slotnick of OJ fame says she needs to drop the other cases since the evidence won't change and the evidence is forcefully addressed by the judge. The driver and highest ranking officer were acquitted and lesser participants will be harder to convict.

Hopefully Mosby will not drop the other cases, so that there will be more evidence that can be used to disbar her.

Although I think you're correct for political reasons, the prosecutors sitting at the table have ethical considerations that aren't subservient to her wishes to see the cases through.

They can ask to be removed from the cases. Might cause an internal stink however it's up to individual attorney. You can always advocate for a tough position or that something illegal shouldn't be and vice versa but in the end, the ultimate responsibility sits at the table.

The next cases are for Ofcs Miller and Porter.

Both of them were forced to testify in the earlier cases.

The immunity agreement is that nothing they said in those trials can be used against them.

Part of the agreement was that new prosecutors would be brought in to try Miller & Porter. So if they stay w that plan, Prosecutors Schatzow and Bledsoe will be replaced.

JSMHO, but both Schatzow and Bledsoe have earned public scorn and should be punished for pursuing charges they knew were false and hiding evidence beneficial to the defense.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The next cases are for Ofcs Miller and Porter.

Both of them were forced to testify in the earlier cases.

The immunity agreement is that nothing they said in those trials can be used against them.

Part of the agreement was that new prosecutors would be brought in to try Miller & Porter. So if they stay w that plan, Prosecutors Schatzow and Bledsoe will be replaced.

JSMHO, but both Schatzow and Bledsoe have earned public scorn and should be punished for pursuing charges they knew were false and hiding evidence beneficial to the defense.

It's pretty hard to "know" the charges are false ordinarily. One has to look at the evidence available for each element of the charges. If you know evidence is being hidden, or if witnesses are "improving their lie" that's another story.

You may believe you have a strong case. You may evaluate it as "weak." As prosecutor, you have the burden, beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because you lose does not mean you "knew" the charges were false. Things don't always work out at trial as you anticipated. Some piece of evidence isn't admissible. A witness flubs their lines, or is unexpectedly impeached. The trier of fact takes a different view of what it means.

Some experienced prosecutor needs to look at the evidence and see where what they have introduced at prior trials didn't work, to decide whether the game is worth the candle, or irrevocably broken.

quote:

It's pretty hard to "know" the charges are false ordinarily

Do you think that applies to this case ?

From the moment Mosby announced the charges to now, I believed these charges were false and profoundly over the top. The charges defied common and reasonable every day police operations not only in Baltimore but nationwide.


As for "you don't know what they knew", the prosecutors never came up w evidence that proved their charges or changed my belief in the slightest.

Worse yet, as time went on, the known facts continually strengthened the defense. Many of the prosecution witnesses were more helpful to the defense than the prosecution.

My position has not changed one bit since the beginning of this saga.

YMMV

Two words alone describe this debacle with the most accuracy- appeasement and advancement.

There was not even the slightest attempt for any kind of justice.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

It's pretty hard to "know" the charges are false ordinarily

Do you think that applies to this case ?

From the moment Mosby announced the charges to now, I believed these charges were false and profoundly over the top. The charges defied common and reasonable every day police operations not only in Baltimore but nationwide.


As for "you don't know what they knew", the prosecutors never came up w evidence that proved their charges or changed my belief in the slightest.

Worse yet, as time went on, the known facts continually strengthened the defense. Many of the prosecution witnesses were more helpful to the defense than the prosecution.

My position has not changed one bit since the beginning of this saga.

YMMV

I try to avoid having "positions" in litigation until I see the evidence. I am especially careful to avoid firm conclusions, or criticize outcomes in jury trials, for example, when I haven't sat in the court, heard the witnesses, viewed the exhibits.

Given what we know from long experience about the accuracy, completeness and freedom from bias in news accounts, it seems extremely difficult to evaluate these things reliably from those alone.

I realize you have followed these cases quite closely, and I was grateful for your interest and effort.

Remember the two case of the Border Patrolmen who shot the young fellow trying to smuggle marijuana across the border, Ramos and Compean? That case generated all sorts of controversy, lots of folks upset over the prosecution of these two who seemed to be only doing their jobs. Roger Hedgecock in San Diego was particularly unhappy, and critical, attending rallies in support of the defendants, interviewing their families with utmost sympathy, haranguing on his radio program at some length. The jury found both guilty of the charges, and intense unhappiness on the part of a great many followed.

When I discovered the transcripts of the proceedings online, I decided to review them, to evaluate as best I could whether this was justice or an outrageous injustice, or what. It took me weeks of nights and weekends. A lot of the testimony dealt with the scene around the border. I didn't have access to the exhibits, the maps and photos introduced at the trial, so I tried to do the best I could with Google Earth. I am somewhat experienced with trial procedures, evidentiary issues, motions, etc. I didn't have the same experience as a juror, seeing the witnesses in person, viewing the actual exhibits, but close enough that I could come to what I think is a pretty accurate view that the prosecution was amply justified. The Court of Appeals arrived at a similar conclusion.

It's not easy in these controversial cases to "know" charges are false, unless you have the circumstances I mentioned.

Hmm....maybe it was the fact it took Mosby about an hour to review the reports, all the statements, and supposed evidence to issue charges.

Now couple that with the "you can indict a ham sandwich" approach she took with the Grand Jury on the charges against the six officers and contrast that with how the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney presented the entire case to the Grand Jury in the Dipshit Brown/Darren Wilson case.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

quote:

It's pretty hard to "know" the charges are false ordinarily

Do you think that applies to this case ?

From the moment Mosby announced the charges to now, I believed these charges were false and profoundly over the top. The charges defied common and reasonable every day police operations not only in Baltimore but nationwide.


As for "you don't know what they knew", the prosecutors never came up w evidence that proved their charges or changed my belief in the slightest.

Worse yet, as time went on, the known facts continually strengthened the defense. Many of the prosecution witnesses were more helpful to the defense than the prosecution.

My position has not changed one bit since the beginning of this saga.

YMMV

I try to avoid having "positions" in litigation until I see the evidence. I am especially careful to avoid firm conclusions, or criticize outcomes in jury trials, for example, when I haven't sat in the court, heard the witnesses, viewed the exhibits.

Given what we know from long experience about the accuracy, completeness and freedom from bias in news accounts, it seems extremely difficult to evaluate these things reliably from those alone.

I realize you have followed these cases quite closely, and I was grateful for your interest and effort.

Remember the two case of the Border Patrolmen who shot the young fellow trying to smuggle marijuana across the border, Ramos and Compean? That case generated all sorts of controversy, lots of folks upset over the prosecution of these two who seemed to be only doing their jobs. Roger Hedgecock in San Diego was particularly unhappy, and critical, attending rallies in support of the defendants, interviewing their families with utmost sympathy, haranguing on his radio program at some length. The jury found both guilty of the charges, and intense unhappiness on the part of a great many followed.

When I discovered the transcripts of the proceedings online, I decided to review them, to evaluate as best I could whether this was justice or an outrageous injustice, or what. It took me weeks of nights and weekends. A lot of the testimony dealt with the scene around the border. I didn't have access to the exhibits, the maps and photos introduced at the trial, so I tried to do the best I could with Google Earth. I am somewhat experienced with trial procedures, evidentiary issues, motions, etc. I didn't have the same experience as a juror, seeing the witnesses in person, viewing the actual exhibits, but close enough that I could come to what I think is a pretty accurate view that the prosecution was amply justified. The Court of Appeals arrived at a similar conclusion.

It's not easy in these controversial cases to "know" charges are false, unless you have the circumstances I mentioned.

I think you would be a decent guy to have a beer with sir!

3 of the officers were acquitted. (Nero, Goodson & Rice)

Now those 3 will undergo an Internal Affairs investigation. Baltimore has handed that investigation over to 2 other Maryland counties.

This is the never ending accident investigation.

Meanwhile Baltimore's homicide clearance rate is 32%.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160713-story.html

Three Baltimore police officers cleared of criminal charges in Freddie Gray's arrest and death are being investigated by Montgomery County police, who are leading the internal affairs reviews that could determine whether the officers can return to policing city streets.

Officers from the Washington suburb — with help from Howard County police — are interviewing Baltimore police officers and witnesses and examining city policies to determine whether Lt. Brian Rice and Officers Caesar Goodson Jr. and Edward Nero broke department rules during Gray's arrest and transport.

While it is rare for outside agencies to investigate officers, Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis said the city asked the other departments a few months ago to lead the internal affairs reviews to assure the public of fairness and objectivity in the high-profile case.

The process, largely shielded from public view, can stretch hundreds of days before it is determined whether officers are exonerated or face reprimands or firings in the wake of misconduct allegations.

Administrative reviews for the other three officers charged in the Gray case will not begin until after their trials conclude

Police say privacy laws prohibit them from releasing the results of an officer's internal affairs review to the public

Chief Rodney Hill, who runs the city's internal affairs division, said Baltimore police have turned over evidence to Montgomery and Howard police, but those agencies will be collecting more evidence and interviewing witnesses.

"They're doing everything from scratch," Hill said. "We've given them full copies of the casebook — it's an extremely large casebook."

The outside agencies will determine whether the officers broke policy. Davis would then decide whether to fire or otherwise discipline them.

"The discipline is not up to Montgomery or Howard counties, it's up to me," the commissioner said.

If Davis decides to discipline the officers, they could request a police trial board — a tribunal of fellow officers who would reconsider the discipline.

Davis said every city officer who responded to or witnessed the Gray incident will be compelled to cooperate with the Montgomery and Howard investigation.

More fluff to try and placate the hungry masses.

After what has happened to them, why would any of them ever be comfortable working in or for the City of Baltimore again?

Before next trial in Freddie Gray case, prosecutors face legal 'minefield' over immunized testimony

http://www.baltimoresun.com/ne...-20160724-story.html

Officer Garrett Miller, 27, was compelled against his will to testify in the trial of Officer Edward Nero under a limited form of immunity that prevents prosecutors from using anything he said on the stand against him at his own trial.

prosecutors will face a barrage of legal questions about whether they gleaned any evidence or strategic advantage from his forced testimony

Judge Barry G. Williams is expected to hold a hearing to determine whether prosecutors took the proper steps to ensure the terms of that immunity agreement — designed to protect Miller's constitutional right against self-incrimination — have not been violated.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys have filed written motions about that so-called Kastigar hearing, and Williams is expected to hear arguments on those and other pretrial motions Wednesday morning.

Never in Maryland has a defendant gone to trial after having been compelled to testify against a co-defendant.

senior prosecutors Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow and Deputy State's Attorney Janice Bledsoe will not lead the prosecution. Instead, Assistant State's Attorney Lisa Phelps, a veteran of the city state's attorney's office, and Sarah David, who joined the office in 2014, will assume the duty of seeking a conviction

Miller is charged with second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and two counts of misconduct in office.

The assault and one of the misconduct charges are associated with the prosecution's claim that Miller arrested Gray without probable cause. The prosecution says Miller stopped, handcuffed and moved Gray from one location to another before finding the knife that would be cited as the reason for his arrest.

The defense has said Miller's actions were consistent with established case law around police stops of suspects in high-crime areas such as the West Baltimore neighborhood where Gray was detained.

The reckless endangerment and the second misconduct charge against Miller relate to his failure to secure Gray in the van with a seat belt.

While presenting to the MD Court of Appeals, Assistant Attorney General Carrie Williams, representing Mosby's office, said:

"Sooner or later, we must all sit down for a banquet of consequences."

Geez Louise, I would think one could fill an entire semester or two at Law School covering just this debacle.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Geez Louise, I would think one could fill an entire semester or two at Law School covering just this debacle.

This might be fairly close, except that isn't what law school teaches.

Surprising as it may sound, you are not taught law in law school. For one thing, the law isn't the same everywhere. For another, the law doesn't stay the same. The laws that might have been taught 45 years ago when I was in law school are in many ways a lot different now. Precedents overruled, codes rewritten, new provisions never heard of, etc.

Law school trains one to "think like a lawyer." I call it brainwashing which may be a bit dramatic but not entirely inaccurate. Reading cases, picking out relevant issues, discerning material facts, and applying them to legal principles, to be hammered into an argument, is what they look for. Once you get the hang of it, you are pretty much worthless for other honest work thereafter.

This might be fairly close, except that isn't what law school teaches.

Once you get the hang of it, you are pretty much worthless for other honest work thereafter.[/QUOTE]

Pretty funny...

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
This might be fairly close, except that isn't what law school teaches.

I never heard it expressed that way before, but it explains why I often knew the laws I was arguing with Army attorneys better than they did. Of course, I’m not sure they understood that they didn’t learn the law in law school because never once did one say to me, “Oh, you’re right, and I’m wrong.”

Prosecutors have dropped ALL charges against ALL remaining officers

http://live.baltimoresun.com/E...y_case_live_coverage


charges against Officers Miller, Porter and White in #FreddieGray case just DROPPED. Other three officers acquitted. NO convictions.

Suck it, bitch.