Freddie Gray Thread

Our open thread is filling up with comments pertaining to the Freddie Gray case, leaving little room for other topics. Here's a thread just for the Freddie Gray case. So please put new comments about the case here, rather than in the open thread.

My opinion on recent developments: [More...]

The claim that that DA rushed to judgment and should recuse herself due to her ties to Billy Murphy, the Gray family attorney, is ill-founded. Billy has been a good friend of mine for 20 years. He's an incredibly talented attorney, completely ethical and a wonderful person. I've worked on several cases with him and I've learned a lot from him. He is very highly respected among the defense bar. Any suggestion that he would improperly influence the DA is crazy.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Bill Clinton: 1994 Crime Bill Went Too Far >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Under Maryland law, the prosecutor's office may (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oculus on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:54:44 PM EST
    present a criminal case to the grand jury. If prosecutor's office does not elect to do so, defendant may request a preliminary hearing but is barred from testifying or presenting evidence.


    Bad Laws (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    present a criminal case to the grand jury. If prosecutor's office does not elect to do so, defendant may request a preliminary hearing but is barred from testifying or presenting evidence.

    WHAT??  Gee, who wrote and got that law through the legislature? That's hilarious.


    Cursory googling: Sixth Amendment (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:48:10 PM EST
    right to confrontation does not apply to preliminary hearing.

    Confrontation clause (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by JanaM on Thu May 07, 2015 at 07:15:03 AM EST
    The right to confrontation isn't about a defendant testifying or putting on evidence. It applies to the right to confront witnesses against you and those protectionsi , e.g. hearsay.  And while certain evidentiary rules do not apply such as hearsay (which is allowed at my preliminaries), I am surprised that defendants can't testify (in that rare, rare instance you might conceivably want them to at that stage) or even more astounding to me is that the defense can't put in any evidence.

    We are limited to cross examination on matters that go to negate probable cause and how that is interpreted varies by judge. But if there is evidence that negates pc then it comes in. For instance, in a failure to appear case if there is evidence your client was detained elsewhere at the time the court would receive that.


    Are you an attorney with a (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Anne on Thu May 07, 2015 at 07:37:45 AM EST
    criminal law background?

    Just curious, because your comments have taken on a decidedly more legal tone.


    I haven't located any case i (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    re the restrictions in the Maryland crim. procedure re prelims. But I no longer have access to Lexis/Nexus etc.

    There was an interview a night or two (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    ago on NPR.  A cop who had worked in the Baltimore P.D. during the transition to Martin O'Malley's term as Baltimore mayor said that prior to O'Malley the cops were trained that arrest was a last resort.  That changed with O'Malley, who was apparently all hot and bothered to try Rudi Giuliani's Broken Windows, bust 'em for any reason approach, i.e., Total Incarceration.  

    The radio piece also mentioned that economic mobility in Baltimore was at the bottom of American cities.

    You can't have everything (3.00 / 3) (#36)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    If you want to reduce crime you're going to end up over arresting and convicting.  If you reduce excessive arrests, convictions and prison sentences, crime will go up. There's no perfect solution.

    Right now, in most areas, crime is down so we're complaining about mass incarceration. It wasn't too long ago we were complaining about crime.  People are fickle.


    But crime is also down in cities that (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    don't subscribe to the "broken windows" theory of policing, so I don't think this can be reduced to just two choices.

    See here

    And here:

    The drop in New York's violent crime rate, then and now, is consistent with a broader nationwide trend. Rates of violent crime have steadily declined nationwide over the past two decades, and nobody is really sure why. The best argument I've seen suggests that violent crime began to fall around the same time that the crack boom started to wane in the early 1990s. The rates have been dropping across the country since then.

    We do know that the declines in violent crime in New York have been comparable to declines in cities that didn't use Compstat or broken windows. As criminologist Richard Rosenfeld put it in a 2002 paper, "homicide rates also have decreased sharply in cities that did not noticeably alter their policing policies, such as Los Angeles, or that instituted very different changes from those in New York, such as San Diego." The takeaway: Crime just keeps going down everywhere. Nobody is sure why.

    The communities most affected by over-policing are those that really need better, more cooperative relationships with law enforcement, and the constant hassling over petty crimes hardens the communities against police, and in my opinion wastes valuable time and resources.


    Well Except Violent Crime is Down... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    ...and mass incarceration of non-violent offenders is off the charts.

    What happened to more guns=less crime mem, wrong thread I guess.  Tuns out today locking up non violent criminals is lowering violent crimes rates.


    Horse hockey (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:32:20 PM EST
    If you want to reduce crime you're going to end up over arresting and convicting.  If you reduce excessive arrests, convictions and prison sentences, crime will go up. There's no perfect solution.

    I don't know how many of your friends have served hard time.  I count half a dozen of mine, all Black, although I personally have never been arrested.

    The War on Drugs is a big contributor to crime.  End that, treat addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal problem, and crime will go down.

    No one decides that a life of crime is a great way to go.  In some parts of our country there are no options, because Mitt Romney and his rich friends sold the factories to China, and now there are no jobs that AREN'T criminal.

    I have a friend who is a huge Black man, played football for one of the Florida schools.  Didn't graduate, used up his eligibility, and the school threw him away.  He wound up being an enforcer for a drug dealer and did a couple of years on a weapons charge.

    My ex-con friends would have loved a real job but there weren't any.  Dealing drugs was better than starving, so that's what they did.

    Here's how to reduce crime.  Put Mitt Romney in prison for treason.


    Blackstone's Formulation (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Zorba on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:56:59 PM EST
    "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."


    When the Constitutional Convention met during the summer of 1787, nearly every delegate was familiar with Blackstone's commentaries and the principles of English Common Law. The disputes at that convention centered on distribution of power and the abolition of the slave trade. The delegates were in agreement about the principle behind what has come to be known as Blackstone's Formulation: "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." Over two years earlier, Benjamin Franklin had moved the decimal a place to the right in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan (Mar. 14, 1785), when he wrote "that it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

    The exact number is not the main issue, however. Even a quick bit of research will show that the main idea of it being better that x guilty persons go free than to condemn a single innocent has been expressed across centuries and cultures with a variety of values for x.



    Radical idea. Imprison all the buyout gurus (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:05:11 PM EST
    What about Bill Clinto and members of Congress who put through NAFTA?   The establishers of maquilladoras?

    That raises (4.00 / 3) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:55:05 AM EST
    over simplification to a whole new level.

    Do you disagree? (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    Do you think there's a way to get it just right? Please add something other than a snarky comment.

    I think suggesting that we either MUST have (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:11:43 PM EST
    rising crime OR "excessive arrests, convictions and prison sentences" fucking batsh!t howling at the moon crazy.



    PROFANITY (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    sorry.  I missed it.

    So did I (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sj on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    Maybe post corrected comment which is unlikely to be deleted? Because, in my view, your analysis is dead on.

    - and succinct. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 07, 2015 at 05:54:16 AM EST
    I think suggesting that we MUST have (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    either rising crime OR "excessive arrests, convictions and prison sentences" is (more carefully this time) fu@king batsh!t howling at the moon crazy.

    That's what I think.   That is close to literally the silliest thing I have ever heard.


    But you didn't offer a solution (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    I can deal with crime... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by kdog on Wed May 06, 2015 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    I can't deal with a police state.  

    But as others have said, it doesn't have to be an either or...we just need to tackle crime in new ways.  Working on the poverty/income gap problem would go a long way towards reducing crime, surrendering the drug war once and for all would do wonders.  Prison reform, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and less emphasis on punishment would help reduce crime.  Hard to have a long-lasting reduction in crime when you send convicts to crime school torture chambers.

    Legislatively, we could repeal a whole bunch of criminal laws that are redundant and/or need not be crimes at all.  

    Just a few ideas off the top of the dome.


    Add,, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed May 06, 2015 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    and lets not forget, if police-community relations were better, that would help solve more crimes.

    As it is, in many locations, no one wants to cooperate with the police out of fear or distrust or straight-up dislike/hatred...it's hard to solve crimes when the community won't cooperate.

    Sh*t less petty arrests and petty harassment would free up police time and resources to focus on investigation of serious violent crimes.


    Add, incidence of crime is, in part, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    a function of demographics, i.e., how many males are there between the ages of 18 and 30 at any given time.

    How about requiring (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Palli on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    corporations who use cheap prison labor to make goods or provide services to hire the released people they have trained in prison.

    If you can't have a perfect world (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by chezmadame on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:18:09 PM EST
    then err on the side that would give you the more just world.

    For those of you who find it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    reasonable to use Freddie Gray's history against him and justify him being treated like a criminal at all times, is turnabout fair play?

    Should Brian Rice's troubled past allow us to draw conclusions about his treatment of Gray and his fitness for duty?

    Disguised Character Evidence (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    Many things in an officer's past may be used to judge whether he is fit to be an officer or not. But what comes in as evidence in a criminal trial against a defendant has to pass a much higher standard than what comes in against a victim or witness.

    Without the complete facts it is always impossible to judge these domestic cases. They are usually full of false allegations and distortions. I hate them. I did see that an allegation against this officer made to Child Protective Services by the mother was dismissed as unfounded. I also see that the Temporary Restraining Order which is usually based on only the word of the complainant until a hearing is held was rescinded almost immediately by a judge as having no basis. So who knows what was going on with this trio.


    Well, there's your answer Anne (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by sj on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:30:02 PM EST
    It's perfectly fine to malign a victim -- especially a dead one who has probably committed a crime somehow somewhere along the line.

    And SOP for excusing a cop who may have engaged in wrong doing is all about hand wringing and "impossible to judge"  because... you know...  "false allegations" and "distortions".

    About what you expected?


    Has this blog changed from one that supports (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by itscookin on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:18:58 PM EST
    the defense to one that supports the prosecution? It's OK, of course, if it has, but it helps to know which way it tilts. I don't feel like I'm in the right place anymore. In this case the police who have been charged are the defendants? And everything that can be done to see they get a fair trial is the order of the day? Or are policemen guilty until proved innocent, and anything the prosecution does to get a conviction is A-OK? Because that's what I'm reading, and it's just so not Jeralyn. Freddie Gray isn't on trial here. Unfortunately, he'll never be on trial for anything ever again. But it seems like a lot of folks here have lost sight of who is entitled to a fair trial.

    If you are referring to some of the comments, (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    all law enforcement defendants are guilty w/or w/o being charged or tried.

    Woah!! Gross exxageration, counselor (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 07, 2015 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    the truth is, not all, but "most" law enforcement defendants are guilty..."

    if we're being factual, that is.


    Ha. Generality v. generality. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Wait just a minute here. (none / 0) (#157)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 07, 2015 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    Which side gets the capital "G"?

    Oh, never mind; you don't have access to Lexis/Nexus any more, therefore, nothing you say from here on out has any meaning, and may, technically, and legally, be ignored.

    Sorry, the rules, the rooolz!


    If legal research is a prerequisite, I (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Thu May 07, 2015 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    suspect we are all in flagrante delicto except Peter and J!

    Has the trial started yet? (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by CST on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    For the most part I see people arguing about whether or not there should even be charges brought.

    Personally, I would very much like to see a fair trial for the cops.  But that requires a trial.

    Also, speaking for me only, I'm not looking for a pound of flesh, or an "example" made of these officers.  I'm looking for equal treatment under the law whether you are a cop or a Joe-Baltimore.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#145)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    Just so.

    I agree, but I wish we had a meda (none / 0) (#196)
    by chezmadame on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:16:24 PM EST
    that was more interested in objectively laying out the process for laymen like me, rather than speculating and pontificating. For example, now that the six have been charged, what are the steps to getting an indictment? If there are indictments, what happens next? This is a real service that the media could provide, if it cared enough to do the research and zip the incessant (and sometimes ill-informed and ill-advised) editorializing.

    Earlier this week, I overhead someone at work complaining that police get special treatment at trial because they're allowed to opt for a judge rather than face a jury. Most of the public needs to be better educated.

    Laypeople have misconceptions about how the justice system works, and some expect it to be almost instantaneous. When the misconceptions don't play out and the process slowly winds its way through the requisite steps, people get suspicious and angry. And that sets the stage for the losing side to become further entrenched in their conviction that the system is always rigged.


    great comment (none / 0) (#198)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    this article addresses the same concerns from a somewhat different angle

    It sure seems that way (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by McBain on Thu May 07, 2015 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    I think the main reason why things have changed is Jeralyn doesn't have as much time to give her opinion and moderate the comments.  I also think, as a defense lawyer, she's probably seen bad behavior from police.

    Another reason has more to do with politics.  In the recent police shootings many liberals have taken the stance the police have a long history of racism and brutality and want to see them punished even if they're not really guilty of the current crime.


    I think you are projecting opinions on people (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by CST on Thu May 07, 2015 at 04:42:53 PM EST
    that aren't entirely fair.

    I don't think anyone wants to see someone punished who isn't guilty.

    There is certainly a difference in opinion about what constitutes guilt.

    But I don't see anyone arguing that "hey these cops are innocent, let's hang them anyway".


    Or... (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 07, 2015 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    ...the fact that Freddie Gray died because his spinal cord was snapped while in police custody.

    But if you want to make unfounded very broad general claims against an entire group of people in a very specific thread...


    many have taken this stance (none / 0) (#161)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 07, 2015 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    but i would not call them liberals because this stance does not reflect a liberal point of view

    In the recent police shootings many liberals have taken the stance the police have a long history of racism and brutality and want to see them punished even if they're not really guilty of the current crime.

    What should I call them? (none / 0) (#166)
    by McBain on Thu May 07, 2015 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    Social justice seekers?  They want paypack for crimes/events these cops had nothing to do with.  

    i guess you should ask them (none / 0) (#167)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 07, 2015 at 06:37:21 PM EST
    what they call themselves

    in my experience, however, people who take that stance are people who spit on liberals


    Who are these people? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Repack Rider on Thu May 07, 2015 at 09:18:18 PM EST
    Where did you hear about them?

    I have personal experience that cops get away with bullying and brutality quite often.  I also have a longtime friend who is a detective on a local force, with a PhD in Criminology.  I'm pretty sure he never beats people up for no reason.  In fact, when I told him about a run-in I had with one of the former types, he told me to watch my back, they would be laying for me, and he was right, they were.

    I still haven't been arrested.  Maybe because I'm white.  My Black friends have watched me confront police, and they can't believe what I get away with.  They would not DARE stand up for their rights, even though they know as well as I do what those rights are.

    I would like some of the bullies and thugs with badges to get their just desserts.  I don't wish any harm to my friend the honest cop.

    I wonder if anyone else in this thread shares that outlook?


    Let's start with the idiot protesters (1.50 / 2) (#171)
    by McBain on Thu May 07, 2015 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    I'm not talking about the ones who riot and loot, those are criminals.  I'm talking about those who protest without knowing what really happened... hands up, don't shoot.... I can't breathe.... no justice, no peace... those people.

    Then there are the ones who want to bring race into ever case.  They pretend we're still in the 1960s with racism still being a big problem. They're always searching for the great white defendant. If a black person was killed by a non black person it must be a hate crime.

    There are probably some here in TL who would love to see a cop (especially a white one) sent to prison for a murder/brutality charge, even if he didn't do it. To them, the ends justify the means and they want to see someone sacrificed to make a statement.  


    Worry about the REAL idiots (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Yman on Thu May 07, 2015 at 10:42:20 PM EST
    The ones who think racism isn't a real problem anymore (because they're white?).  Or the ones who make ridiculous claims that people on TL "would love to see a cop (especially a white one) sent to prison for a murder/brutality charge, even if he didn't do it."

    They're the ones that deserve to be pitied.


    I mean, really: how dare they? (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 06:35:57 AM EST
    How dare they exercise their rights to speak, to assemble, to be heard.  What is this country coming to?

    I'm sure if they knew that you were the arbiter of who does and doesn't know what they are protesting, they'd cede to your brilliant judgment that all is well in the land of race relations, that it's really just a matter of people being compliant and doing whatever it is the police want them to do, right?  

    I don't know if you noticed, but three of the six officers involved and charged were - better sit down now - the same race as Freddie Gray!  How can that be?  And what do you know - the SA is black, the police commissioner is black, the mayor is black.  

    I mean, what is going on here, anyway?

    This is at least the second time you have opined that there are "some" here on TL who just want a cop - any cop - to go to prison, no matter whether he or she actually did anything wrong.  You have made that accusation based on zero evidence of that opinion being expressed by anyone here.  

    I have to say that your attempts to speak for liberals and others about whom you clearly know nothing, in an effort to paint them as terrible people, is your tell.  We get it, trust me.  

    Racism may not be a problem for you, or for those in the circles in which you travel, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  Do you also believe that sexism is something liberals made up, too?

    ::rolling eyes::


    Hallelujah (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:08:06 AM EST
    It's the day of Jubilee, the great McBain has declared Racism to be over. The "idiots" under 50 have never actually seen it. The only racism they know are tales told by their grandparents or myths spun by the race baiters and hustlers.

    If they only would stop clinging to their myths the dead bodies would disappear from the streets and the backs of paddy wagons, if only they turned their backs on the Sharptons of the world jobs and opportunity would rain down upon them.

    Maybe if these Idiots had stayed home the myth would have not endured so long, maybe if these idiots had stayed home the whole silly idea of freedom and justice for all would never have been born.


    How About Just Stop... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    ...lumping everyone that sees an injustice into one word, 'liberals'.  
    • How about breaking out of the mindset that everyone who disagrees with you is the exact same, with the exact same motives ?

    • How about not disparaging people who simply want the law to apply equally to everyone and justice for those who cannot seek justice for themselves ?

    • How about you stop making claims about people with absolutely no proof beyond your gut instinct, which isn't exactly hitting 1000 ?

    • And for the love of god, quit making S up using the republican straw man that simply does not exist:
      In the recent police shootings many liberals have taken the stance the police have a long history of racism and brutality and want to see them punished even if they're not really guilty of the current crime.

    I defy to to find one 'liberal' who has said that BS, one fricken person for a claim you say is many.

    Scott, I think you mis-read his comments, (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 08, 2015 at 11:37:20 AM EST
    or, at least the motives behind them. He doesn't believe the crap he's spouting any more than you, or I, do. They're an enticement, a lure, he's just a slick provocateur.

    You can just  imagine him in his cubby hole, rubbing his hands together, snickering to himself, "watch this, I'll just write something ridiculous I just know will drive these Libs nuts, then lean back and enjoy the show."

    Anyone who can write a coherent sentence, and he can, couldn't possibly buy into the baseless crap he's expounding.

    He's not debating with you, he's toying with you.

    "you," meaning most everyone here.


    Here is your standard of proof (none / 0) (#180)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    There are probably some here in TL who would love to see a cop (especially a white one) sent to prison for a murder/brutality charge, even if he didn't do it.

    "There are probably some" is not a very high standard of proof, but it serves pretty well as an evidence-free blanket accusation.  

    Can you identify ONE?


    the FTP mob, to name one contingent (none / 0) (#175)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 03:00:08 AM EST
    Who are these people? Where did you hear of them?

    FTP (none / 0) (#179)
    by Repack Rider on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    Is that the oil additive touted by race car drivers?

    Is that an organized movement? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:54:28 AM EST
    Or a label that has been attached by others?

    organized . . . (none / 0) (#188)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 10:58:33 AM EST
    in the sense that a mob is organized

    it comes from the 1988 song "F^ck tha Police" by N.W.A.

    these days it's variously a Twitter hashtag, a chant (not as an acronym), & an element of graffiti, spelled out or in acronym form, especially as applied to cop cars, police stations & other public buildings, & corporate outposts like Starbucks, not to mention random strangers' houses, garages, cars, small businesses, &c., as the tempo of the particular Kristallnacht revs up & as the spirit moves the wielder of the spray can

    the label, or (hash)tag, such as it is, is not attached by others - it's proudly appropriated & deployed by dogmatic ("DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IS NOT VIOLENCE") authoritarian apostates of the petite bourgeoisie who style themselves "anarchists" & by their comparatively privileged bourgeois "progressive" fellow travelers (a.k.a. "useful idiots")

    & no: even though McBain does have half a point, i am not saying that all protestors are idiots, or that any protesters are necessarily idiots, or that "progressives" are all or necessarily idiots

    emphasis very much intended


    I think it's important to separate out (none / 0) (#191)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    the so-called "authoritarian apostates of the petite bourgeoisie who style themselves "anarchists" & by their comparatively privileged bourgeois "progressive" fellow travelers," and not brand anyone and everyone who chooses to demonstrate and protest as subscribing to either the tactics or the actions.  I appreciate your being able to make the distinctions, I do - at least I'm assuming that that's what the bolded portion of your last paragraph are intended to convey.

    People are angry, and they have reason to be.  The vast majority of gatherings in Baltimore were of the peaceful, non-destructive variety, but because the city had one day/night of unrest, all of a sudden those engaged in peaceful assembly got lumped in with those engaged in destruction.

    I can condemn the violence and still acknowledge that there are valid underlying reasons for the anger.  Everyone has a breaking point.  Everyone has some thing or some event that makes them decide, "no more."  And there is power in numbers.


    certainly, Anne (none / 0) (#193)
    by The Addams Family on Fri May 08, 2015 at 01:42:56 PM EST
    just look for my "5" ratings alongside a number of yours in this thread

    what i always want to say to the clueless fellow travelers (not to mention all the hapless demonstrators who get trapped in the middle of the mayhem) is this:

    The immediate tactic of these delusional "anarchist" d0ucheb@gs is to get your skull cracked so as to "radicalize" you & secure your future collaboration in their strategy of "shutting down" law enforcement & civil society so as to bring about the goal of a glorious "anarchist" paradise.

    which is why the "anarchists" themselves are so careful to launch their bricks, bottles, flash grenades, &c, from the back or sidelines of the crowd, leaving themselves out of the police line's reactive corral while the clueless & hapless take it on the chin

    their agenda is not "justice" for Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, or anyone else - they don't care about "justice" except as they define it in the paranoid terms of their crackpot little dystopia, & they travel with this agenda from one site of "unrest" to another - anyone who doubts this has only to spend some time on Twitter, tracking a number of users & hashtags - i am not looking forward to the summer

    when i was young, i lived for several years in a Third World country, under a leftist dictatorship relieved by a coup that installed another leftist dictatorship - my dear friends in that country knew they were risking their lives just to sign a petition or attend a political meeting - i am now quite wary of aging idealists & have zero patience with our homegrown fake "revolutionaries" & their useful idiots, as well as much indignation over their hijacking of deeply felt, politically necessary protests & demonstrations, to say nothing of their programmatic destruction of people's property & often people's livelihoods as well

    i don't really need to explain any of this to you, Anne, but maybe someone else will find it interesting or helpful


    Partisans (none / 0) (#197)
    by chezmadame on Fri May 08, 2015 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    is a word that works for me.

    What does "not really guilty" mean? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Anne on Thu May 07, 2015 at 09:38:55 PM EST
    Does it mean that, yes, they did it, but it was justified, or does it mean they didn't do it, but someone has to take the fall?

    Speaking as a liberal, I have no interest in seeing someone pay a price for something he or she didn't do.  I don't regard that as justice.

    As a liberal, I don't want kangaroo courts, or kabuki theater.  I don't want the scales to be tipped by money or the lack thereof, by abusing or denying someone his or her rights.

    As a liberal, I think sending the wrong person to prison is a travesty.

    I admit that, like a lot of other people, it's hard to see people one does believe are culpable walk away from any consequence for his or her actions.  And sometimes juries produce that result.  But frequently, police-involved killings/shootings/abuses never make it past the "internal review."  In Baltimore, the police union is very, very strong.  It has vigorously resisted reforms that would make members of law enforcement more accountable - the internal review is one of those ways.

    It's ironic, but the same police union that's calling for a special prosecutor in the Gray case lobbied hard and long against reform legislation that would have required that to happen.

    For now, at least, you might want to refrain from making blanket statements about what liberals do and don't want, and just speak only for yourself.


    I'll give an example.. (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by McBain on Thu May 07, 2015 at 09:58:19 PM EST
    George Zimmerman didn't murder Trayvon Martin but he did kill him.  Many liberals/democrats/people on the left... whatever the correct term.... were rooting for a guilty verdict in that trial.  

    I'm not exactly sure why it has to be such a right/left thing.  Is it because of race? Guns?  

    I'm sure you, and most in TL, mean well and think your position/view is correct, but you don't realized how biased you are.  


    speaking for me only (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by CST on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    I don't think Zimmerman was guilty of murder.  I don't think he should've gone to prison for murder either.

    I do think he was remarkably irresponsible and should have stayed in his car and his actions resulted in someone dead who didn't have to die that night.  I think that paranoid vigilantism is reckless and irresponsible and caused the death of that young man.

    I certainly don't think he's any kind of hero.  As far from it as one can get.  I think attempts to justify the death of Trayvon Martin because of his character or past or whatever are disgusting and very biased.

    But no, I don't think Zimmerman should've gone to prison for murder.  I think he should've stayed in his car.


    Dear gawd (none / 0) (#174)
    by Yman on Thu May 07, 2015 at 10:43:25 PM EST
    Coming from you, that is seriously funny.



    Ah, so we're back to Zimmerman, huh? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 08, 2015 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    Like others here, I don't believe that George Zimmerman was guilty of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, and I'm on record in these threads in my belief that Angela Corey overcharged in that case.

    Did Zimmerman deliberately plan and set out that night to kill Martin. No, he most certainly did not. But that fact in no way should've mitigated the corresponding fact that he nevertheless had deliberately ignored the very strong suggestion of a 911 operator that he remain in his vehicle, and await the arrival of the police. Instead, he got out of the car and commenced a pursuit of Martin on his own.

    Thus, Zimmerman's irresponsible actions that night embraced the persona of a neighborhood vigilante, and proved the catalyst for a quick cascade of events which resulted in the wholly unnecessary and tragic death of an unarmed teenaged boy -- a boy who had otherwise sought nothing more than to return home safely from the local 7-11, in time to watch that night's NBA All-Star Game with his family.

    And because of that conscious, deliberate and reckless disregard for the potential adverse consequences of his conduct while pursuing Martin into the condo complex, I believe that Zimmerman should've been convicted of manslaughter, because he was the aggressor in this deplorable incident.

    And that's all I'll say on that subject, which otherwise has absolutely no bearing on the Freddie Gray case. Further, your pathetic attempts to conflate these two separate incidents, and thus simplify liberal and progressive arguments in both as somehow uniform and monolithic, are at once entirely foolish and remarkably contemptible.

    But rather than argue with you, McBain, I prefer instead to offer you my pity, because it's painfully obvious that as a declared aficionado of Fox News and AM squawk radio, you've rendered yourself utterly incapable of knowing any better.



    huh? (none / 0) (#199)
    by MikeB on Sun May 10, 2015 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    You need to go through the George Zimmerman threads and educate yourself. Little of what you said is factual. Zimmerman did go back to his car. He did not pursue Martin. This is the same thing that will happen with the Gray case. Someone will hear a convincing opinion and take it to the bank. We really don't know what happened, but the riots seemed to be justified. Many are pleased to see "justice" being served, but if the prosecutor did overcharge, I believe that Baltimore city will be burned to the ground.

    I don't think the part about getting home (none / 0) (#200)
    by McBain on Sun May 10, 2015 at 06:43:48 PM EST
    in time to watch the All Star game was correct either.  I believe it had already started before TM left for the 7-11. TM didn't seem to be in any hurry to get back.  Mark O'Mara showed he had plenty of time to allude GZ but decided to confront GZ instead of getting back to his dad's condo.

    I agree with your point about people hearing a convincing opinion and taking it to the bank.  It happens in all high profile cases.


    recusal? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by thomas rogan on Thu May 07, 2015 at 07:31:16 AM EST
    No one disputes that Billy Murphy is a wonderful fellow who surely would have no conscious intention of influencing a DA on anything.  No one suggests that he recuse himself.  The question is about whether Mosby should recuse HERSELF.  She may have done him a favor that he never would have asked for--and that is her issue, not his.  

    RE: recusals (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Palli on Thu May 07, 2015 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    Listening to this issue in reference to the cop shooting death of Freddie Gray and the road toward justice is laughable.

    When Chief Justices Scalia & Thomas think to recuse themselves from some Supreme Court case in which they are deeply self-implicated...well, than I'll take recusal questions seriously.


    Marilyn Mosby is conflicted (3.00 / 3) (#30)
    by gadfly on Wed May 06, 2015 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    because her husband, as a Baltimore City Councilman, has a political stake in the outcome of her prosecution against the officers. Further, if it is true that Billy Murphy, as the Gray family attorney, has donated $4,000 to Mosby's campaign, has acted as mentor to the Attorney General and has fully supported her campaign (which included her concocted-tale/lie about the incident that propelled her into her law career) - then he has been less than honest about his "no conflict" counterargument.

    What is the rush to judgement in Moseby's bypassing a normal grand jury indictment in favor of her concocting of charges that a grand jury must consider in the place of balanced fact-gathering normally associated with this jury conducting indictment proceedings?

    This is not a conflict created by Billy Murphy but his appearance on Morning Joe saying, "People are alleging conflict but then can't articulate it" is simply not honest.

    Methinks he doth protest too much

    Maybe you should stop gadding about (4.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    and pay attention to information already provided, some of which is even in Jeralyn's post, above.

    For what I hope is the last time, I will tell you that Mosby did not bypass the grand jury.  The normal sequence of events in Maryland is for charges to be filed via a charging document - this is what Mosby read aloud at her presser last week.  From there, arrest warrants are issued and carried out, the individuals are booked, there's a bail hearing and bond is set (or not).  This is all conducted through the District Court.  At this point, jurisdiction over the case passes to the Circuit Court, which will transmit the case to a grand jury for the purpose of hearing the facts and evidence on which the charging documents were based, and determine if indictments should be handed up.  In the alternative, where there is no grand jury, a preliminary hearing would be set and held, at which a judge would hear the basis for the charges and determine if there was sufficient probable cause to proceed with trial.

    As for Billy Murphy, I doubt you will find anyone in the criminal defense bar or on the prosecutorial side, in Maryland or elsewhere, who would agree with your assessment of or see the conflict you describe.  


    Conflict Issues (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    I understand Jeralyn's thoughts about Billy Murphy. They are well considered. Everyone loves Billy - at least at some level. But it doesn't serve the case to raise her opinion to a fact and to suggest that a defense attorney shouldn't raise it is suggesting our affection and regard for a player in any case should trump effective assistance and zealous defense of your client.

    It is always uncomfortable when you have to raise conflict issues. It's worse when it's the judge though. LOL!


    Be careful what you ask for (none / 0) (#56)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    I'm assuming you think Mosby should recuse herself?  Although I don't like how she's handled this case so far, I'm not convinced she's the worst option.  Bringing in a special prosecutor could mean bringing in another Angela Corey.

    Same thing when it comes to judges.  In the Zimmerman and Casey Anthony cases, the defense lawyers were able to get the original judges replaced because of bias only to find the new judges were even worse.


    Conflict (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    If you're addressing me about your assumption then all I can say is I have no idea if she should or not.

    I don't have any facts so far that makes me think she has to or even should recuse herself.  But I think it could be ineffective not to raise the issue.

    I am always opposed to prosecutors grand standing when announcing or revealing charges. If I ruled the world there would be no prosecutor press conferences like that or any at all. I see no need for them. But prosecutors have gotten away with this unseemly practice for a long time and now they almost all have public relations offices that should serve the community be just seem to serve the prosecutor's office.

    Don't get me started. ;)


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    I also detest the perp walk.  

    amen (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:31:10 PM EST
    only thing I would add to "grandstanding" is "showboating"

    i'm with Dershowitz - it was a disgrace


    On an ordinary day, in an ordinary (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Anne on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    city or town, announcing charges on the steps of the courthouse could be labeled "grandstanding" or "showboating," but this was no ordinary time, and the events taking place in the city were also out of the ordinary.

    The mayor was raked over the coals because she wasn't more present for the cameras the day the riots began.  I suspect had she been more visible, the criticism would have been, "how can she be doing her job if she's out here talking to CNN?"

    The public had been led to believe the police report would be delivered to Mosby's office on May 1; it went out a day early.  That came under fire, too: how could it be complete in such a short time?  What was the rush?  Most people didn't know that the task force was sending over copies of its interviews and information the whole time, and the report was an all-in-one-place document of material the SA's office already had.  An SA's office that was doing its own investigation.

    Marilyn Mosby spoke long enough to emphasize the thoroughness of the parallel investigation, read the text of the charging documents, reaffirm her commitment that she would not be trying the case in the media, and her promise to the people of the city that she would do everything in her power to get the justice that all victims of crime deserve.  She took no questions, she did not divulge any evidence.

    That's showboating?  Grandstanding?  I guess our definitions are different, but I have to say, I do find it highly amusing that you invoked the name of Alan Dershowitz, who knows a thing or two about getting himself in front of a camera...as he did once again in this case, one he knew probably less about than a lot of other people - people who didn't know a whole lot themselves.


    in other words (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    you agree with her critics who say that her public statements were all about riot control

    i think so too

    otherwise she would also have explicitly mentioned justice "on behalf of" the 6 cops, beyond a passing acknowledgment that they are innocent until proven guilty

    To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for `No justice, no peace.' Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man.



    appeasing the "mostly peaceful"

    & not only assuming responsibility for riot control, which is the purview of other agencies, but also handing the defense a big fat gift-wrapped present & recklessly endangering the case she hopes to make against the cops - & that's a shame

    now "demonstrators across America" & the rest of the whole world will be watching

    she (not to mention the people of Baltimore) had better hope & pray that the charges stick & that her recklessness doesn't bring out the torches & pitchforks once again


    No, I don't think her public statements (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Anne on Thu May 07, 2015 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    were about riot control, nor do I think she assumed responsibility for that.  I think she read the charging documents in public to emphasize the thoroughness of the investigation and the transparency of as much of the process as she could be open about without getting in the way of the process.

    And while I, as you, hope there is a commitment to conducting a fair and open trial, as a prosecutor, she stands in the shoes of the victims of crime, not the shoes of the accused.  The lawyers who represent the police will advocate for and seek justice on behalf of their clients, the judge will be the referee, making sure everyone's following the law, and the jury will render a verdict.  

    Mosby's commitment not to try the case in the media represents, to me, that she does, in fact, respect the rights of the accused, and believes that justice is better served when it takes place inside the courtroon, not outside of it.

    I have no idea what this "big fat gift-wrapped present" is that she handed the defense, nor do I know how her public reading of the charges endangered her case.  Asking for peace and affirming a commitment to justice on behalf of Freddie Gray endangers nothing and no one.

    Demonstrators across America were already watching, thanks not to Marilyn Mosby, but to the presence of every local and national media outlet being on site, and once Monday's trouble started, staying on-air with, as they say, "limited commercial interruption."  Mary and Joe in Ames, Iowa saw what was going on in Baltimore long before Marilyn Mosby stepped to the podium 4 days after the rioting began.

    But the question I have is, why shouldn't the people feel they have an advocate?  Why shouldn't people feel that someone is listening to them?  And why shouldn't people in cities and towns around the country make their voices heard in the quest for change that shifts the balance of power back in their direction?  Marilyn Mosby didn't start those wheels turning - a series of police-involved deaths did that, along with poverty and lack of jobs and the militarization of police forces and the flagrant abuse of people's civil and constitutional rights.

    We aren't going to agree on this: you see Mosby as a grandstander, and I see her as someone working very hard to maintain the integrity of the judicial process under very volatile and tense circumstances.


    probably true (3.50 / 2) (#159)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 07, 2015 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    We aren't going to agree on this.

    note that i have characterized Mosby's behavior, on the basis of her own choice of words

    i have not imputed a motive for it, as others have done (e.g., Page Croyder with her allegations of political ambition)

    nor have i said that Mosby is not, as you say, working hard in tense circumstances

    if i had to guess at the reason for what i have characterized as showboating & grandstanding, i would lay major responsibility on her inexperience & on the extraordinary emotional tenor of the circumstances (hence her evidently impassioned direct address of "demonstrators across America," who have not elected her to serve them in any role whatsoever)

    but the emotional tenor of the circumstances, insofar as it has to do with the riots, & as a result with Mosby's crystal-clear quid pro quo (her plea for "peace" in exchange for "justice"), would also point to the mayor, who told the police to stand down, delayed the entrance of the National Guard, & reportedly bungled the curfew at first

    & no: i am not among those who believe that the mayor actually meant to express any desire to give "space" to those who "wished to destroy"

    emphasis very intentional


    Because those are the only two options (none / 0) (#152)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    she (not to mention the people of Baltimore) had better hope & pray that the charges stick & that her recklessness doesn't bring out the torches & pitchforks once again
    ::eye roll::

    It does NOT necessarily follow (none / 0) (#154)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    that future tension is a inevitable based on the tension of the moment. The fact that this situation is being taken seriously goes a lot further than you think. And that is true regardless of the outcome.

    Even though, as you would expect, some outcomes are more desired than others.


    As a long-time (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    former resident of inner city Baltimore -- living only blocks from "ground zero" -- and furthermore, as someone who identifies brown: I not only disagree, but believe you couldn't possibly care about the well-being of the citizenry or community if you "believe" this:
    i'm with Dershowitz - it was a disgrace
    Apparently you would rather hold on to some sort of preconception than clearly face everything our law'n order society has wrought.

    And before someone brings in this straw man: the opposite of "law'n order" isn't anarchy -- it's blind justice.

    MO Blue, I'm starting to see how you felt when people who knew nothing of the community in Ferguson felt free to pass increasingly ignorant judgment.


    i understand (none / 0) (#93)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    that you absolutely OWN this issue because you can name the street corner in Baltimore where a supermarket once stood many years ago when you lived there for a little while

    but i don't give a sh!t whether or not you believe i "couldn't possibly care" about "the well-being of the citizenry or the community"

    so pardon me for having my own opinion about the prosecutor's unseemly showboating, an opinion based on what i perceive with my eyes & ears, not on your race-baiting report of your skin color


    That's a pathetic comment (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    even for this thread.  

    fire with fire, Captain (none / 0) (#97)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    Fire? (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:57:23 PM EST
    the thing I'm really happy about is that this stuff is contained.  So if you choose to wade in you at least know not to wear your good shoes.

    Howdy's right (none / 0) (#140)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:04:19 PM EST
    That really is a pathetic comment. As I recall, during Occupy, you had a great deal to say about how it manifested in Oakland. Unfortunately, you then decided that it was a microcosm of all of Occupy, but, nevertheless, your knowledge of the area was significant and you missed no opportunity to (in your view) set others straight.

    I could be wrong, but no one did to you what you are attempting to do here: which is dismiss local knowledge.

    You see "showboating". I see transparency. And, moreover, I know for a fact that the mood of that neighborhood eased post press conference.

    I know more about the area than you do. Deal with it.


    i never challenged your take on the events (none / 0) (#142)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    or even mentioned your take on the events

    but somehow, twice, you have made my perception of showboating Marilyn Mosby all about you

    & the first time, you essentially called me a r@cist - don't like that i called you on it? boo effing hoo


    Oh Lordy (none / 0) (#144)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    exaggerate much? Or is your problem poor reading comprehension?

    Assuming that the problem is that I was not clear enough, I will restate what I have already said repeatedly, it is about the area.

    Inasmuch as my brownness came in to play, it was meant only to underscore that I am not as likely to be as judgmental or dismissive of the volatility of the current residents of that community as an outsider might be.

    I'm sorry you took an accusation of cluelessness to be one of racism. I suppose I'm less sorry now than I would have been a few comments ago, but whatever. In any case, that's really your problem and not mine, because your chosen response was to get even nuttier than you were before.

    So take your crybaby self to some one who will give you a tissue.


    nice try . . . (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by The Addams Family on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:55:05 PM EST
    . . . at ex post facto self-exegesis

    but your first comment to me speaks for itself, & its vileness & egregious character assassination are on full display


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    You are determined to hold on to your grudges. I won't take up any more of the 200 comments with your nonsense because you clearly know more about my intentions than I do. And because you have apparently decided that since you started out as a judgemental a$$ you may as well see it through.

    Dershowitz, the very prototype for (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    reticence, said this?

    this and more (none / 0) (#100)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    Nice dog whistle, there... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    Here's the thing: you really don't know jack about Marilyn Mosby, nor any of her staff, nor who would or could replace her, or who the sitting judges are.

    To take a page out of your playbook, why don't you tell us who would be better - by name.  Otherwise, if you have nothing to offer but criticism that isn't based on much, stop wasting our time.


    Anne, your opinion isn't the only one that matters (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    the rest of us get to voice ours on TL. If reading my comments are a waste of your time...... don't read them.  

    If you do read them, make sure you understand what I'm saying.  I said, replacing Mosby might not be such a good idea.

    If you think I'm not qualified to criticize her, I just posted a link to a CNN interview with someone who knows Baltimore law and politics very well.    


    McBain, you were the one who, (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:50:05 PM EST
    when Capt. Howdy offered his opinion on your two-choice approach to policing, told him to either offer an alternative or shut up.  

    If you don't like your own tactics turned on you, don't use them on others.


    Dog Whistles ?? (none / 0) (#68)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:39:21 PM EST
    That is so blatant my ears are ringing.

    Recusal consequences (none / 0) (#76)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:06:44 PM EST
    I understand what you're saying. When there is a potential for conflict you have to deal with that issue and sometimes you can't worry at that point about the substitution.

    But it's sort of like striking someone from the jury when you see that the next person up is even worse. All you can do is inform your client and what the repercussions may be one way or the other - if you file and lose and if you file and win - and let your client decide. And then get it in writing.

    In Maryland they have in the past brought in a State's Attorney from another county. I remember when one SA Office was prosecuting someone in the office and they brought someone from another county to handle the case.  Substituting judges is no big deal - except to the judge.

    And, yes, of course the sub could be worse than the original.


    I'm not lawyer, so maybe someone can enlighten me (none / 0) (#86)
    by chezmadame on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:14:47 PM EST
    Does this mean that the prosecutor does not have the discretion to bypass the grand jury? Does the Circuit Court have this discretion?

    In other words, must this go to a grand jury?


    No. Maryland law leaves to the (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    prosecutor's discretion whether to present the case to a grand jury:

    link to link


    But is Mosby talented and ethical? (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by McBain on Tue May 05, 2015 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    She's in a tough spot but I wasn't impressed with her announcement of charges.

    They weren't meant to ... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Yman on Tue May 05, 2015 at 09:41:16 PM EST
    ,,, impress you.

    Do you have any evidence that she is not talented and ethical?


    Prosecutor experience (none / 0) (#66)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    I like the structural changes she has made to the office which I've only read about. I find it rather regressive that the former prosecutor eliminated community policing/prosecuting. Not sure how it's done in Baltimore but in DC it is a decidedly beneificial thing for the prosecutor's office.

    She just took office so how can there be ethical questions about her tenure already? I would be interested in hearing from defense attorneys about her conduct of cases when she was an ASA.  That may or may not be instructive on how she will conduct her office and how her ASAs will behave.

    However, in this case - and maybe she was just speaking inartfully - but I was more than a bit troubled when she said she didn't have to reveal or release evidence before trial when responding to the defense motion to inspect the knife.  Of course she will have to turn over evidence before trial during discovery and via other specific defense requests and prosecution obligations. So not sure what she meant by her almost adamant refusal to discuss what she had already discussed in her well publicized press conference - the legality of the knife.

    I don't know what experience she had as an ASA. What level of cases she handled or other duties she performed and for how long? Some people move into administration rather quickly both because they are good at it but also sometimes because they are not all that good at trial work. So since I don't have these answers about her as an ASA I can't say she is experienced enough or not.  But 7 years as an ASA is not all that long in my opinion but it can be enough to know how to run the office.


    What she said was that she wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    going to try this case in the media, that she felt to do so would compromise the integrity of the process.

    So, she's not going to disclose evidence in the public arena, she's not going to provide a public airing of the evidence she has.  What she discussed in her press conference - what was in the charging documents - is just the outline, and having read those to the public does not obligate her to open up her files and let us see it all, now.


    In my experience, people who cavalierly ... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 06, 2015 at 03:41:10 AM EST
    ... accuse others of incompetence and unethical behavior without any evidence in support thereof, are more often than not hardly pillars of moral rectitude themselves.

    Would you want others to not think twice about offering a similarly serious accusation about you without foundation? I very much doubt it.

    Find another way to make your point about Ms. Mosby's case, without mindlessly impugning her professional and personal integrity like that.



    Is McBain a Commusinst (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 06, 2015 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    ...who hates the United States ?

    I doubt it, so please stop using Fox News tactics to imply that your opinion is a foregone conclusion without having to take any responsibility for making S up.

    It truly is the lowest form of disingenuousness.


    Freddie Gray Flight Path (1.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    Here is Freddie Gray's Flight Path

    We're led to believe that it was a short distance but note that how far he ran.

    It was over 3 blocks and then he ducks into a building to dump his stash.

    Then comes back out, doubles back, circling around and gets caught.

    What is the possibility that he initially injured himself jumping over something on his flight???

    Afterall he is limping before he gets in the van and there was nothing the officers did to cause that limp.

    Yet another fact-free comment from you. (5.00 / 6) (#150)
    by Anne on Thu May 07, 2015 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    1.  Three blocks is a long distance?  Since when?  And who has led you to believe it was a shorter distance?  

    2.  What stash?  You don't know that he had anything on him.  Well, he had a knife - when will you address the logic of why he didn't ditch that?

    3.  You think he severed his spine jumping over something?  Guess you haven't yet read any of the medical opinions on how hard it is to sever your spine.

    4.  Nothing the cops did to cause that limp?  I tell you what - let's put you in a leg-lace hold, with your legs bent back up toward your head, for a couple of minutes and see if you have a limp when you get up.

    So, four more items you won't address.  

    If Billy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 05, 2015 at 09:32:09 PM EST
    is that talented and ethical then he should be able to talk some sense into her --

    In the meantime she will have to deal with the demand to produce the knife sooner rather than later:

    Officer requests to see knife as part of defense in Freddie Gray case

    And when that happens a whole lot of her case goes away.

    No. Even if the knife was not legal (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Peter G on Tue May 05, 2015 at 09:44:20 PM EST
    in Baltimore (and the real issue, by the way, in this regard is whether the officers had probable cause to believe the knife was illegal, not really whether it was or wasn't), it would still be second degree murder to place an injured arrestee, shackled, in the back of a police van, without seat-belt-like restraints as required by regulation, and then drive the van wildly for the purpose of "teaching him a lesson" (so to speak), that is, for the purpose of terrorizing and injuring the arrestee, thereby unintentionally (but maliciously) causing his death.

    Driving the van "wildly" (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jack203 on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    I must have missed the evidence for this...

    And you're also aware of the motive...Mr. Goodsen was out to terrorize and teach Mr. Gray a lesson?  He must be a real psychopath.  Hopefully he gets locked up for a few decades and his kids grow up fatherless.


    Known in Philadelphia as (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Peter G on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:44:43 PM EST
    a "nickel ride."  Enough of a systematic problem among Baltimore police that it was exposed in a report a few years ago, leading to the attempted reform of requiring safety restraints for prisoners being transported in such vehicles.
         I don't favor harsh punishment for anyone, by the way, what with being a defense lawyer and all. Candidly describing the accusation is not advocacy for conviction or for any particular sentence. I am more than willing to hear the accused officers' defense, when the time comes for them to articulate a defense, and to give each of them the benefit of reasonable doubt. And if any of them is convicted, I look forward to hearing any arguments in mitigation of punishment. I am just stating the basis, as I understand it, for the charge of second degree ("depraved heart") murder. It does not serve the cause of truth to soft-pedal that.

    Nickel rides (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    have been around for a long time.  In fact so long that the term comes from a time when amusement park rides cost a nickel.  They are nothing new and no surprise for anyone who actually has any desire to know what inner city police departments are up to.

    Nickel rides (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jack203 on Wed May 06, 2015 at 10:45:14 PM EST
    The fact that nickel rides exist does not prove Mr. Goodsen gave Mr. Grey a nickel ride.  It's a logical fallacy to claim otherwise.

    I just saw a conversation (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 05, 2015 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    about this with some Baltimore lawyers.  It's more complicated than its being presented a being.   The defense lawyer of one of the cops has filed a whatever to be able to examine the knife because he believes it may be illegal under a Baltimore law.  It's not at all clear he is correct.  
    The conversation was on Lawrence.  It should  be up soon.

    There is (none / 0) (#8)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:01:02 PM EST
    no claim in the charging documents that any of that happened.

    Charging documents (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Peter G on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:35:47 PM EST
    allege the elements of the offense, not the underlying factual theory. At least in all the jurisdictions I am familiar with (which admittedly do not include Maryland; perhaps they're unusual in that regard).

    Freddie's still dead, Uncle. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 05, 2015 at 09:47:05 PM EST
    That part will never go away.

    What's also not going away is the memory of the barely concealed snickering and winking in the initial P.D. claims that Freddie had injured himself by throwing himself against the transport van walls or door.


    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue May 05, 2015 at 09:52:23 PM EST
    he was trying to frame the police by beating himself to death.



    Freddie's still dead (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:10:49 PM EST
    Freddie's still dead

    And he is still dead from banging his head on the backdoor of the van.

    The question is did he do anything to contribute to it -- like trying to stand up while the van was moving and lost his balance.


    No, that's not the question. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    It's really not.

    But I guess when you can't answer the intelligent questions many have asked you, the only thing you can do is ask questions that aren't.


    Oooh, golly...a defense attorney (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:01:13 PM EST
    asking to see the knife.  Bet Mosby never expected that to happen, eh?  Surprising given her experience, you know?

    Oh, and I'm pretty sure that if Billy Murphy did talk to Mosby, you'd have something snappy to say about it, and I don't think it would be complimentary.


    Jeralyn's friend, Mr. Murphy (and mine) (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Peter G on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:49:41 PM EST
    represents the deceased victim's family, not any defendant. He has every right to advocate with the D.A.'s office, and the State's Attorney has a duty -- I would venture to guess, under Maryland "victims' rights" law, which conservatives ordinarily profess to support -- to consult with him.

    For some reason, there has been (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:46:22 AM EST
    much made both of Mosby's stated conviction to advocate for victims of crime, as well as her pre-Gray connections to Billy Murphy; I suspect that reason is that on the one side are 6 members of law enforcement and on the other is a young man with a long list of arrests, as if somehow neither  Gray nor his family is entitled to any voice via the prosecutor's office nor representation by one of the leading lights of the defense bar because Gray had an arrest record.

    This has been a common thread in all of the recent police-involved deaths: that these men didn't deserve better than to die at the hands of police who were just doing their jobs, that having an arrest record or just living in a high crime area gives police license to do whatever they want.  

    Has it always been this way?  Or has this mindset been nurtured and encouraged by the post-9/11 with-us-or-against-us attitude, and the perception that anyone who wears a uniform - whether it's a police uniform or a military one - is engaged in a battle against an enemy, so those who are killed or injured must have somehow deserved it.

    It feels very much to me like the balance of power is tilted much too far to the side of authority and not enough to the side of the citizenry, and the disturbing part is the way this has become normalized, and in some cases, wholeheartedly accepted.

    I'm fully aware that there are times when police must use force to protect others and themselves, and that there are many fine police officers out there with a commitment to good policing; that they get tarnished by the actions of their comrades has to be hard for them, and it certainly makes the job harder to do.


    Personally (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    i think the mindset, which did not always exist, is at least partly the result of decades of politicians left and right running on "law and order".  And building more and more prisons which of course can't sit empty.  In fact it could be said Bill Clinton gave it a big boost even if it probably was not his intent.

    Ms Mosby's ASA experience (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    Thank you for the link to the State's Attorney website and Ms. Mosby's CV.

    It looks like after only 5 months as a line prosecutor she was "promoted" to an administrative position. That could have been for any reason or a number of reasons - such as wanting more normal hours for family reasons. Then it seems to say in 2011 she moved to what they call in the CV "General Trial Division" which probably means Circuit Court with jury trials. She left in 2012 for work in the insurance industry so that only means about one year handling jury trials which could mean misdemeanors or felonies which may not have been as lead counsel on, as they put it, the "most heinous" cases. If that's the reality of her prosecutor experience then I hope she is listening to her more seasoned prosecutors who I imagine are going to handle this case anyway.


    WTF is this fascination (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:19:35 PM EST
    ...with a purported knife?

    Does the presence of a knife, or a bag of heroin, or the loot from a bank robbery, or a kidnap victim somehow excuse the depraved indifference and/or malice it takes to reduce a healthy man to a mortally injured victim?  Does it excuse ignoring a plea for medical assistance from an injured victim?  While that victim is helpless, in handcuffs and leg shackles?

    Do you think the people who took responsibility for Freddie Gray by placing him under arrest should face criminal charges arising out of his injuries?

    Yes or no.

    If yes, what charges?

    If no, whatever you are smoking should be illegal.


    Yeah, as if a knife (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue May 05, 2015 at 11:36:23 PM EST
    could justify murder.

    Yet, another unarmed black man killed by the police.....

    And another round of apologists for the police.


    If the knife wasn't important I don't think Mosby (2.00 / 2) (#16)
    by McBain on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:38:47 PM EST
    would have mentioned it in her speech, but I understand your point.    

    "Do you think the people who took responsibility for Freddie Gray by placing him under arrest should face criminal charges arising out of his injuries?"

    I don't know yet but this is looking more like a civil victory than a criminal one.  


    Two arresting officers were charged (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by gadfly on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    with making an illegal arrest since the knife that Mr. Gray carried was legal in length and not a switchblade - but that turns out not to be true. The blade was spring-loaded - a switchblade.

    So this bit of negligence on the part of the prosecutor puts two innocent cops at risk. What other rush-to-judgement assumptions are affecting the charges? Perhaps the "other paddy wagon witness," being paraded about and identified by the prosecutor's office as Donta Allen, who it turns out, was not the other prisoner riding in the police van.  


    This is made up (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    you do not know this.  There has been a suggestion that it's possble.  Yet to be proven either way.  

    A bit of negligence on your part.


    I can't stand it. It's just not going to (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:45:21 PM EST
    stop, and every day there's going to be this kind of spurious attack based on conspiracies and facts-that-aren't-facts.

    I wish someone would discover the crack in the universe from which all the stupid is emanating.


    It's Not a State Secret... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 06, 2015 at 12:57:37 PM EST
    ...what is the lowest common denominator, Fox News.

    I can almost tell when they come out with a new mem in that it's repeated here almost instantaneously by numerous folks.

    The crack is not in the universe, it's in their brains.  They are broken toys that, more or less, all write the exact same thing over and over and over and over.  Like the energizer bunny on a meth binge, speaking gibberish, highly annoying, and won't shut the hell up no matter how many people they bother.


    It won't stop (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 01:12:06 PM EST
    i suppose we can point at the stupid and laugh.  Beyond that....

    RR (1.50 / 2) (#15)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue May 05, 2015 at 10:36:36 PM EST
    So you are saying that no arrestee ever tries to hurt themselves while in police custody???

    Buy that straw in bulk (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:56:58 AM EST
    No one is (or would) make such a silly claim, except someone trying to defeat their own, straw arguments.

    OTOH, they're is absolutely ZERO evidence he did that.


    straw arguments??? (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 06, 2015 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    straw arguments

    The only straw arguments here are coming from Mosby who appears to need that knife that she won't produce to cut up more straw to prop up her collapsing case.


    "Won't" produce? Where are you (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    getting that?

    If you mean, "won't share with the public," do you have some reason to think that she has any obligation to make it public?  To satisfy your questions?

    From her statement yesterday:

    In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Mosby said she would not discuss the evidence gathered in her case against the six cops.

    "While the evidence we have obtained through our independent investigation does substantiate the elements of the charges filed, I refuse to litigate this case through the media," Mosby said. "The evidence we have collected cannot ethically be disclosed, relayed, or released to the public before trial."

    Unfortunately, I suspect that while Mosby may have a commitment to not trying this case in the media, those charged may not feel bound by that decision.  And for sure the media isn't going to respect it - they are probably already working their sources and it's going to be nothing by dueling leaks before too long.

    Look, I don't have any problem with the attorneys for the defendants doing whatever they can to mitigate the charges or even get them dismissed - that's their job.  But I don't think you should mistake the request to examine the knife as meaning there is or will be any intent to withhold evidence on the part of Mosby's office.  

    I do agree with PeterG, who has raised the issue of probable cause: did police even have probable cause to conduct the search that resulted in discovery of the knife?  

    Whether the knife is or isn't legal will certainly affect the charges that Gray was falsely arrested, but it doesn't change the fact that Gray went into that wagon alive and came out essentially dead.  


    No - it's YOUR silly, straw (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:35:18 PM EST

    So you are saying that no arrestee ever tries to hurt themselves while in police custody???

    But you use straw because you have zero evidence to support your claim that Gray may have "contributed to" his own injuries.  But if straw is all you've got ..


    If straw... (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:41:53 PM EST
    Meant to reply (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu May 07, 2015 at 04:39:48 PM EST
    To uncle chip.

    I made no claim either way (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:14:23 AM EST
    Read it again.  I said nothing about prisoners trying to injure themselves.

    You did.  If you have evidence that Mr. Gray tried to inure himself, please present it.

    Ironically, you demand that the prosecutors meet every standard of proof, while you just throw out accusations based on sheer hatred.

    I said that once he was a prisoner, Mr. Gray had the right to a trial.  His captors held his life in their hands, and he was fatally injured less than an hour after being seen in apparent good health.  If you do not accept those statements, please elaborate.


    Inferences (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 04:58:37 PM EST
    I'm not sure that the public yet knows when Mr. Gray was injured (there may be a number of injuries along the timeline) and to what extent that injury or injuries caused his death in the hospital.

    Suggesting possible actions by Mr. Gray is as speculative as suggesting the police van driver gave Mr. Gray a wild ride with the intent to injure or with careless disregard for his safety.

    The same thought process that allows some to infer Mr. Gray was given a "nickel ride" because a report claimed it had happened before by other officers is the same thought process that allows for inferences as to Mr. Gray's actions that may have contributed to his injury because other arrestees have behaved similarly. None of that is getting into a criminal trial. It is about what evidence exists about what these people in this case did or said.


    That you could allegedly read Repack's (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    comment and then ask this question speaks volumes about your ability - or, I should say, "inability" - to conduct an honest discussion about this case.  You've done the same thing to me, and to others whom you perceive to be on the "other side."

    There is no evidence that Gray attempted to injure himself, none.  There have been countless opinions by various well-respected members of the medical community with expertise in the area of spinal injuries who have stated that the kind of force and the positioning of the head and neck needed to produce such severe injuries is extremely unlikely to have been self-inflicted.  Perhaps you have no interest in such things, getting in the way as it does of your repeated efforts to blame Gray for his injuries.

    You have also shown a remarkable ability to ignore the numerous facts that have been provided, and create your own out of rumor, supposition and conspiracy.  

    You are not adding to the discussion, Chip, you are getting in the way of it.  Given that the way you are going about it verges on, and often crosses over to, trolling, perhaps that is your goal.

    In any event, try reading for comprehension once in a while, and then you won't have to put words in people's mouths to make whatever contorted argument you think makes your point.  Maybe when you move on from middle school to high school, the debate coach can give you a few pointers.


    "Officer requests to see knife" (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    Officer requests to see knife as part of defense in Freddie Gray case


    A Baltimore police task force, commissioned to investigate Gray's death, analyzed the knife and determined that it was "spring assisted" and in violation of the city's law.


    In a statement Tuesday, Mosby said "the evidence we have obtained through our independent investigation does substantiate the elements of the charges filed."

    Seems to me she must have the law on her side re: the knife.

    Sorry, linkage (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    Former Baltimore SA slams Mosby (none / 0) (#59)
    by McBain on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:11:05 PM EST

    Page Croyder said Mosby's charges are "Incompetent at Best" and goes on to explain why.

    Her main beef seems to be that Mosby rushed the charges and "didn't use the tools available to her" to investigate.  

    Page Croyder left the SA's office in 2008. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    That was 7 years and three SAs ago.

    Croyder can say whatever she wants, but in reading her post, it's obvious that she knows what the rest of us know, and not much more.

    She wasn't part of the investigation, she's not on the staff, and clearly does not even understand the basic fact that police were providing Mosby's office with evidence and progress of their investigation right from the beginning.

    She has an opinion.  And that's about it.


    She has definitely (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:46:41 PM EST
    found her niche and her audience.   Like ppj and that Popper guy.

    Page Croyder's Take on prosecution so far (none / 0) (#99)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:53:49 PM EST
    Whoa!  This is a prosecutor who does know what she's talking about. Of course, I don't know if all her intel is completely accurate but I suspect it mostly is. But she does understand what it takes to build a case and get it right before charging people in a case this complex.

    Some may not want to hear her but she was a prosecutor for a long time and after 21 years in the office and working with the police you don't lose your contacts and sources in 7 years when you are still involved with that community.

    Her issues with the way this case has been handled are sound and are very troubling if accurate. The video is worth viewing and she explains very clearly what the issues are and why it's a problem case. That blonde reporter in the video was having a hard time grasping what I thought was pretty well spelled out.

    The issues she raises if true: not working with her experienced homicide prosecutors, not using the grand jury for investigating the case and pinning down witness statements under oath, the fact that she didn't have the autopsy results until the morning she announced the charges - and still the cause of Mr. Gray's injury is unknown, not taking the time to build her case carefully. The officers weren't going anywhere and could have been kept on suspension until a proper and thorough investigation was completed and the consequences of such charges were thought through.

    Croyder also pointed out that the reasons Ms. Mosby cited as grounds for her charges don't support some of the charges. She seems to have some intel from some source that Ms. Mosby drafted this herself. Should be interesting and I suspect some heads will be rolling as people suspected of leaking.

    Also if true then Ms. Mosby never handled a case of this magnitude and so it is even more important that she at least work with and listen to her homicide prosecutors.

    I don't agree with some of Ms  Croyder's opinions like not needing to have legal representation at  initial court appearances where bond is set - all I can say about that is Yikes! But she is a prosecutor after all. ;)


    Re your final paragraph: her opinion that (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:11:29 PM EST
    ra defendant should not have a right to epresentation at the bail hrg. undermines her credibility as an expert on investigating and filing charges in a crimiinal case. Betting she belongs to the Federalist Society.

    Federalist Society? (none / 0) (#111)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    not likely

    she ran as a Democrat for election to the 8th Judicial Circuit not quite a year ago


    Page Croyder is not a Democrat. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    She cross-filed as a Democrat, which is not the same thing.  At the Circuit Court level, candidates for judgeships can and typically do file to run in both Democratic and Republican primaries.  If she cross-filed as a Democrat, her actual affiliation is Republican.

    ok (none / 0) (#118)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    so does that mean she is a member of the Federalist Society, which was the original speculation?

    No it doesn't. (none / 0) (#121)
    by JanaM on Wed May 06, 2015 at 09:50:11 PM EST
    It just shows that prosecutors have different priorities than defense attorneys. It doesn't take anything away from understanding how to build a case and trying a case. I also thought Maryland was supposed to remedy this.

    Croyder seems more concerned with (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 09:57:51 PM EST
    the burden to the system than she does with the burden to poor defendants who have no representation at a pivotal point in the judicial process.

    This isn't about prosecutors v defense attorneys, it's about the haves v the have-nots.


    Croyder does not have access to the (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:39:12 PM EST
    evidence, which means her opinion about Mosby lacking grounds for the charges is just that - an opinion.

    I have to kind of marvel at the irony of people being so sure that Marilyn Mosby is acting out of political ambition now holding Page Croyder up as some kind of heroine who couldn't possibly be looking for some press.  Check out her cv, and especially, check out her blog - and the comments to her posts: those should clear up a few things, I think.


    & neither do you (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 09:08:11 PM EST
    but which "people" are "so sure that Marilyn Mosby is acting out of political ambition"?

    i know that Page Croyder alleges political ambition as one of three possible explanations for Marilyn Mosby's actions - who else is saying that?

    regarding grounds for the charges, quite a few people are saying that it will be difficult to get the charge of 2nd-degree "depraved heart" murder to stick, since a state of mind has to be established - do you disagree with that view? no opinion?


    People commenting here have (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 09:36:28 PM EST
    raised political ambition as a reason why Mosby "rushed" to judgment; it appears to be a reaction to her age and her quick rise to her current position.  

    I don't believe I've ever implied that I know more than anyone else about the evidence; I don't.  But there seems to be a tendency on the part of more than a few people to state things as fact that we don't know are facts, or to make more facts on the basis of what little is out there in the public domain.

    At the risk of incurring your derision because I live in the area, I'd remind you that during the Occupy movement's heyday, you took the time to educate people about what things were really like in Oakland.  I know I'm not on the actual inside of this case -  and I've never claimed to be -  but as someone who works in the city and has lived in the area for most of my life, I've absorbed a lot about how things work here, what the culture is - legally and politically - and I think that while it isn't the last word by any means, it does have value.

    As to the chances of getting a conviction on 2nd degree murder, or of those charges not being reduced, I don't think we know enough to venture an opinion.  I have some thoughts on the subject, some of which I've shared, so you could look at my previous comments if you wanted to.  Most of my thoughts have to do with the pure geography of that trip from site of the arrest to the eventual arrival at Western District.  I don't know, Addams Family, Caesar Goodson had the ability to drive that young man to a medical facility, to call for help for him, at each of the stops he made that morning.  And yet he didn't.  That seems indifferent to me, and given that someone's life and health were at stake, that indifference seems callous.

    Maybe the evidence won't show that.  And I'm not saying what I've put together as a possibility in my mind is a fact.  

    We'll see where this goes, and all I can do is hope that my city doesn't explode; the calm is there, but it's tenuous.


    tenuous calm (none / 0) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 10:22:53 PM EST

    & i'm sorry but i think Marilyn Mosby is going to have a lot to answer for if/when riots break out again - mark my words (or not)

    Occupy Oakand: no derision from me, & maybe i misremember, but IIRC you were not all that open to hearing about what was actually going on in my backyard - if i'm mistaken about that, my apologies


    If I wasn't as receptive to your (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    perspective on Oakland, it is I who owe you an apology; these last two weeks or so have taught me something I won't soon forget.

    As for Mosby, and the mayor and the police commissioner and a host of other city and state officials, they answer to the people no matter what happens; seriously, though, there's been more second-guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking here, and everyone seems to have an axe to grind.  They acted too fast, not fast enough, they overreached, they underplayed, they were too passive, they were too strong - it's as close to being a no-win situation as you can find.  The whole country is watching and there's a long, hot summer coming...


    stay safe (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 11:04:59 PM EST
    Ah, you remembered that as well (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Thu May 07, 2015 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    I'd remind you that during the Occupy movement's heyday, you took the time to educate people about what things were really like in Oakland.
    There was quite a lot of it, wasn't there?

    Key & Peele (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:25:34 PM EST

    I was going to put this in the open but it seems quite topical.

    and NSFW.

    This is my favorite: (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    Key & Peele Racist Zombies.

    Also NSFW.


    Awsum (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    fhe best part was seeing fascist shill Kevin Sorbo eaten by zombies in he first 10 seconds.
    Which is really funny because the cop in the one I posted was Nick Searcy who is another noted right wing kook.

    Very interesting nexus


    Mosby does not want to try this case in the media? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Redbrow on Wed May 06, 2015 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    So why did she embed media reporters in her police task force, as pointed out by Anne in the Sunday open thread?

    "Her" police task force? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:00:20 PM EST
    Did you read the article? Can you point to where it states that Mosby not only set up the police task force, but gave access to The Sun?

    These were parallel investigations.

    Can you point to where that article reveals anything of an evidentiary nature that was not already in the public domain?  

    I didn't think so.


    The Baltimore Sun (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Redbrow on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    Was first to report that the task force determined the knife was illegal under Baltimore law.

    Since they did not attribute this information to an outside source, it is reasonable to deduce that the information came first hand from one of their embedded reporters.


    Ah... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sj on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    it is reasonable to deduce
    you "deduce" and then accuse. As if your deduction was a fact.

    So unimpressed.


    You u still have missed the part where (none / 0) (#77)
    by Redbrow on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    It clearly states her staff worked side by side with the task force.

    Later on Friday, Mosby said the charges were the result of prosecutors working 12- and 14-hour days alongside police investigators. She also said prosecutors had been working on a "parallel investigation" that included using city sheriff's deputies.


    And you missed the part where ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:49:27 PM EST
    ... you said this - "Mosby does not want to try this case in the media?  So why did she embed media reporters in her police task force, as pointed out by Anne in the Sunday open thread?"

    The fact that she worked with the parallel task force has nothing to do with your claim that she embedded reporters in her task force.


    Motion to Inspect the Knife (none / 0) (#78)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:22:01 PM EST
    Here is Officer Nero's

    Motion to Inspect Physical Evidence'

    The date for the probable cause hearing is May 27th as noted in the Motion.

    If Ms Mosby tries to take this case to a Grand Jury before that date, and fails to disclose this standing Motion to the Grand Jury, then she could be in big trouble.

    Get the popcorn --

    "Brady . v. Maryland". Imposes a (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    constitutional duty on the prosecution to produce to the defense any and all possibly exculpatory evidence. This is not a recent development.  

    But from an historical perspective, ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 07, 2015 at 08:38:34 PM EST
    ... the rights to discovery as presently enjoyed by a defendant, which were clarified and conferred by the 1964 SCOTUS ruling in Brady v. Maryland, are actually of fairly recent legal vintage.

    During my research for the producers of the PBS documentary The Massie Affair, I learned two rather disturbing things about the application of law at that particular time in U.S. history. The first one was that women were barred from jury service in Hawaii until 1955 -- Yikes! -- but for purposes of this discussion, that's another interesting topic for a later Open Thread.

    The other thing I learned was that prior to the 1964 Brady ruling, prosecutors actually enjoyed a legal right in the Territory / State of Hawaii to withhold from the defense any or all exculpatory evidence (real or potential) in their possession -- even if the defense knew about such evidence and requested to see it, as they repeatedly did in the first of the two Massie trials, Hawaii v. Ben Ahakuelo, et al. In that particular trial, defense counsel William Heen's repeated subpoenas to that effect were just as repeatedly quashed by the presiding judge, Alva Steadman.

    Ironically, Judge Steadman later freely admitted to a New York Times reporter that his rulings from the bench against Heen were an attempt on his part to compel jurors to convict the five Native Hawaiian and Asian-American defendants in that rape trial, because:

    • The U.S. Navy, which had tremendous political influence in the Territory's affairs, both in Honolulu and in Washington, D.C., demanded justice for alleged rape victim Thalia Massie, "A white woman of refinement and culture," which meant the defendants had to be convicted of the crime, come hell or high water; and

    • In his professional opinion, the actual circumstantial evidence arrayed against those five defendants at trial was remarkably weak and unconvincing, and became even more so after Mrs. Massie took the stand as the prosecution's chief witness and for all intents and purposes, proceeded to effectively perjure herself.

    It's hardly reassuring to note that in that very same interview, Steadman also granted that had those five defendants been convicted on his watch, "I'd have never felt quite right about it." I find it very scary to consider the true extent throughout most of our country's history, in which our system of justice was actually tilted quite baldly against the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.

    In that regard, thank heavens for the Warren Court. Aloha.


    is there something (none / 0) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    that leads you to think she would fail to disclose this standing motion?

    You would (none / 0) (#82)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:41:21 PM EST
    have to ask her that. She knows that as the knife goes so goes her case.

    If she is willing to so blatantly lie to the public in public, then what makes anybody think that she won't do the same before a handpicked jury in private.


    wait (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 06:49:29 PM EST
    i have to ask her what leads you to think something?

    anyway, do you know that she lied? or is that your opinion?


    Chip has been working overtime trying (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Anne on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:04:20 PM EST
    to convince people that someone whom he doesn't know, in an office he knows nothing about, in a city he's not familiar with, which has laws and procedures he's failed to educate himself about, is lying.  That the dead man is probably responsible for his own injuries, in spite of expert opinions that severing your own spinal cord is so unlikely as to be nigh impossible.

    Chip is that guy.  That guy at the party who gets in your face, who jabs his finger at you and spits a little.  The one you can't wait to get away from.

    Welcome to the party.


    she lied (2.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 07, 2015 at 09:06:14 AM EST
    do you know that she lied?

    She lied when she said that the knife was legal and thus the arrest was illegal.

    How do I know???

    1] Because she hasn't shown the knife which is so easy to do and is done by police/prosecutors all the time.

    2] Because officer Miller signed the charging document describing the illegal knife that was seized -- and she didn't charge him with filing a false police report which she should have if the report was false.

    3] And the Motion filed by officer Nero's attorney demanding production of the knife essentially calls her claim that the arrest was illegal a big fat lie.


    Uhhmmm, ... No (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Thu May 07, 2015 at 10:13:17 AM EST
    The fact that she described the knife as legal does not mean she "lied".  The legality/illegality of the knife is a matter of legal opinion.  Moreover, for it to be a "lie", she had to have known at the time she made the statement that it was false.  There is no evidence of this.  Moreover, the fact that she didn't charge the officer with filing a false statement means nothing.  It's extremely common for DAs to determine that charges are not warranted after an arrest.  It doesn't mean the DA OR the officer are "lying".  Just a different interpretation of the facts/evidence/law.

    S for what you think the motion "essentially" calls her statement, ... so what?  Attorneys on opposing sides frequently disagree about the facts.  It doesn't mean the other side is wrong or that either side is "lying".


    So is it your claim ... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Wed May 06, 2015 at 07:58:19 PM EST
    She knows that as the knife goes so goes her case.

    ... that if the knife is, in fact, illegal, that her case is without merit and will be dismissed?

    You DO realize that even if it is assumed (for the sake of argument) that the police had grounds to arrest Gray (i.e. possessing an illegal knife), that this in no way absolves the officers of the charges against them, don't you?  All of which ignores the issue of their initial search where they discovered the knife.


    A better question IMO (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:00:50 PM EST
    if it is legal will they all STFU?

    Of course they won't, Cap'n. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 08, 2015 at 03:16:21 AM EST
    And further, I hear from quasi-reliable sources that they've retained the services of the ACME Goal Post Relocation Co., which remains on call at this time.



    Has the question of the legality of police (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 07, 2015 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    pursuing, and, apprehending Freddie been established?

    I know that there are times when simple fleeing an area when police appear may give police probable cause. But, in light of what all the videos we've seen lately show, and what Freddie's death proves, his fleeing at the sight of the cops was a perfectly normal & intelligent thing to do.


    A Supreme Court case from 2000 (none / 0) (#139)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 07, 2015 at 11:35:23 AM EST
    A Supreme Court case from 2000, Illinois v. Wardlow, "is so much at the root of what's going on," Steve Zeidman, a CUNY law professor and police reform advocate, told Business Insider.

    The ruling in that case found that cops have a right to stop people for fleeing at the sight of officers as long as other suspicious factors are at play -- like a high-crime area.

    I don't do criminal work (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Thu May 07, 2015 at 03:08:30 PM EST
    But the Wardlow case appears to hold that flight from police in a high crime area is enough of a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a stop/frisk.  I don't know how analogous the facts were in this case, but it's not a high bar to meet, assuming the knife was discovered during a frisk /pat down.

    Please review peter g's comments (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oculus on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:22:07 PM EST
    re the knife. Law enforcement officers must have probable cause to arrest. More than a "mere scintilla."  But they are not required to have actual knowledge b/4 making an arrest.

    GJ disclosure (none / 0) (#131)
    by JanaM on Thu May 07, 2015 at 07:41:20 AM EST
    Why would she have to disclose a defense motion for discovery?

    Why??? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu May 07, 2015 at 08:25:01 AM EST
    Because she is now under a microscope and every dishonest thing she does and says and every piece of evidence she tries to hide will come back to bite her.

    That Motion is now in the public domain and the facts therein will have to be dealt with sooner than later.

    An honest prosecutor would by now have held a news conference to show the knife to the public to back up her charges. The authorities do that in cities all over the country to keep the public apprised of the facts behind an arrest.

    A competent prosecutor would also have investigated Freddie Gray's flight into a building and then doubling back before falsely accusing the officers of making an illegal arrest.

    The question at this point now goes beyond the knife to what Freddie likely dumped in that building before he came back out and surrendered and was searched.


    Chip, you have already demonstrated (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Anne on Thu May 07, 2015 at 09:12:09 AM EST
    such a lack of knowledge about the law and about the process, and have so often put words in people's mouths and ducked and dodged almost every attempt to address the questions that have come your way, that you are one of the last people who has any right to judge Mosby's honesty.  She has already said that she is not going to try this case in the media, and further, she is under no obligation at this point to make public the evidence she has.  And when that time comes, that evidence will be disclosed in a trial, not on the steps of the courthouse.

    You have no idea what Mosby has or has not investigated, nor do you know the results of the many things that have and are being investigated, because her obligation is not to you, it is not to the media, it is to the process.  

    As for Freddie Gray running through a building because he wanted to ditch something, here's a head-scratcher for you:  why didn't he ditch his so-called illegal knife?

    Regardless of whether he did or didn't do what you've more or less accused him of doing, it still doesn't change the fact that he went into that wagon alive, and came out so severely injured that his life could not be saved.  That's not going away, Chip.  But I sure wish you would.


    So Anne, (none / 0) (#181)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 08, 2015 at 08:44:18 AM EST
    Who was the man in the Freddie Gray van???

    Kind of has a nice little hip hop ring to it.

    Are you still sticking with the Jayne Miller Donta Allen story???

    BTW what has happened to her???

    She has disappeared from the airwaves and down the proverbial rabbit hole along with Donta ever since they came forward with their .... tale.


    I see Jayne Miller almost every night (none / 0) (#183)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 09:04:49 AM EST
    on the local news broadcast, on this story when there is something to report, and on other stories she's working on.  I think it's frankly hilarious that you think she's "disappeared."  

    I note once again that you have failed to address any of the questions put to you about all the rest of your wild-a$$ and irresponsible allegations and accusations.  I guess you know how to make the accusations, you just aren't able to credibly defend them.

    Here's another question you won't answer: even if there was no other prisoner in that police wagon, what would that change about the fact that Gray went into the vehicle alive, and came out essentially dead?  


    other things (none / 0) (#186)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 08, 2015 at 10:31:51 AM EST
    Well I'm glad to hear that you still see her.

    Why would she abandon this Donta Allen angle when it is her baby???

    Has she been relegated to stories about school bake sales now???

    Perhaps you can ask her her why in Baltimore snitches like Donta apparently don't get stitches???

    Why would a snitch like Donta deliberately out himself on tv and why would she participate in  doing so thus putting his life at risk???

    Here in the Baltimore police arrest records is a good place for her to start. Which one was Donta???

    Oh that's right -- according to him he wasn't processed but sent right down to "homicide" who according to him are NOT the police. I'm sure the police and homicide are surprised to hear that.

    Anyway -- that was rather prescient of the police to do that given since the police didn't know they had death for 7 days, and a "homicide" until even later.

    BTW Happy Mothers Day -- you too Jayne.  


    It is very common for homicide to (none / 0) (#187)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    get involved when it looks like the victim is not going to survive his or her injuries.

    Just yesterday, there were multiple shootings in Baltimore, as reported here; please note, from the article:

    And shortly after that, a man and woman were reported to be shot in the 500 block of N. East Ave. Homicide detectives were called to the scene.

    You've got nothing, and all your finger-pointing and chest-jabbing and flying spittle isn't going to turn it into something.


    Well (none / 0) (#189)
    by Uncle Chip on Fri May 08, 2015 at 11:22:29 AM EST
    Freddie Gray has his own wikipedia page now but Donta hasn't made it there yet.

    Perhaps he needs a better PR person or maybe another Jayne Miller interview.

    Either way he did say that he heard Freddie Gray doin' a little banging and the ride to the station  was smooth -- and that's not good for Mosby.

    Maybe Jayne could ask him if he feels even a little bit guilty that the van could have gotten to the station 20 minutes earlier for Freddie to get medical attention had the van not had to go the opposite direction to pick him up???

    That might get Jayne back into this story again. It's worth a try -- right???


    The van didn't "have to go" to (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Fri May 08, 2015 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    Penn and W. North Avenues - that was a decision Goodson, the driver, chose to make, in spite of the fact that Gray had indicated distress at every point along the way - distress for which medical help was never requested or rendered.  There was no need for Goodson to go pick up the second prisoner, none.

    Once the van took on another passenger, it also took on another potential witness - so it's no surprise to me that the ride was smooth.  Gray was unresponsive at that point, remember?  And medical experts have suggested Gray may have had or been having seizures - which could account for some noise from his side of the van.

    And I do have to say that your fixation on and obsession with Jayne Miller is getting more than a little creepy.


    indeed (none / 0) (#113)
    by The Addams Family on Wed May 06, 2015 at 08:21:48 PM EST
    it seems like a lot of folks here have lost sight of who is entitled to a fair trial

    & not just here

    New Freddie Gray Thread (none / 0) (#194)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 08, 2015 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    is up here. This thread will close at 200 comments.