The prosecutors may have miscalculated. As soon as Mosby announced her set of charges, there were serious questions raised about them. First, she had brought them very, very quickly. Critics complained she’d done so under pressure, hoping to assuage protestors... Second, many observers felt that Mosby had overcharged, bringing a stronger set of charges than she could really prove....
Prosecutors then made a second set of strategic calculations about how to bring the case. Rather than try all six officer at once, they opted to try them serially. And they began with Porter, apparently in the hope that he would be convicted and then could be compelled to testify against other officers. But whatever advantages Porter’s testimony might have given them in a future trial, he proved impossible to convict—at least on the first try....
December 17, 2015
"Lessons From the Mistrial in the Freddie Gray Case."
"It isn’t enough to have officers on the beat, in the neighborhood.... Race is important, but it’s complicated.... It’s still very hard to prosecute police officers.... "
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
“It’s a stunning result” -- that he was not acquitted outright.
“If he wasn’t dirty”—carrying drugs—“he’d come over and talk with me.” Implication, following police logic, with a little Bayesian learning thrown in: if he runs, he's dirty.
"It’s still very hard to prosecute police officers." Especially if you stage a political show trial in front of a jury with a few of the remaining honest citizens in it.
Stupid article. David Graham doesn't tell me anything I didn't already know (from Legal Insurrection) and worse, he leaves out some crucial facts that favor the defense (again, LI). The vague and euphemistic language he uses tells me he knows he is withholding information from his readers.
I wondered if they would have been more likely to get a conviction had they tried a white officer first.
Moseby clearly was influenced by public pressure--how could she not be? Her husband is on the City Council, and everyone knew if someone didn't hang for this there could be more riots. Maybe they were hoping for either a conviction, or for time and uncovering of more information to dampen the anger in the streets. But now it just looks like they botched the prosecution by trying to get Porter first, and overcharging with offenses they didn't have enough evidence to prove. Also, the racial element that drove the public narrative of this--black man mistreated by white officers--loses a lot of sting when half the arresting officers are black.
It'll be interesting to see how the hung jury broke down--more in favor of conviction, or acquittal?--and whether they're really going through with a new trial.
This is an excellent example of politicians spending money they don't have prosecuting a crime that was not committed in order to garner votes they don't need. There's a lesson for you.
Since the riots, the drug gangs have taken over entire neighborhoods in Baltimore, so the residents therein need not call the police over criminal issues any more.
Problem of police brutality - solved!
The prosecutors may have miscalculated. As soon as Mosby announced her set of charges, there were serious questions raised about them. First, she had brought them very, very quickly. Critics complained she’d done so under pressure, hoping to assuage protestors... Second, many observers felt that Mosby had overcharged, bringing a stronger set of charges than she could really prove.... "
There is a difference between being a prosecutor and a persecutor. She should be removed from office and disbarred as an example to the rest. Indeed she should have her immunity stripped so Porter can sue her for damages resulting from a baseless prosecution.
Just as a matter of speculation: As a Utopian goal which would be easier for society to achieve: A world where young men don't engage in behavior that results in their arrest over twenty times or a world where police can interact with career criminals without using blunt force?
Mosby is the arrogance of incompetence, but she did win the case before Judge Judy.
....and she can live up to the worst stereotypes.
I wondered if they would have been more likely to get a conviction had they tried a white officer first.
Yeah, I think they misplayed their hand there. I'm guessing they wanted to flip Porter?
The case(s) hinge on Grey not being strapped in via seat belt. They tried the officer in charge of that action first because, IMO, that is the lynch pin in police wrong doing. I you can't convict him, you ave little chance of convicting the others.
He died, per reports, almost instantly from the blow to the head - seems to exonerate those that captured him and placed him in the van.
Van was not driven in a manner to toss him around - seems to let the driver of the hook.
And now Baltimore has suffered damages due to rioting and has had a massive jump in violent crime. What did President Bush say, "Hell of a job, Brownie"?
It'll be interesting to see how the hung jury broke down--more in favor of conviction, or acquittal?--and whether they're really going through with a new trial.
First vote, 12 not guilty.
First comment: "We can't go back with that and survive in Baltimore"
Second comment "I don't want my house burned down"
Much deliberation, "Let;s hang it and let the next jury worry about it"
NOBODY will say he is innocent. Either "Guilty", or "Guilty, but Prosecution didn't prove their case"
Brando said...
"Moseby clearly was influenced by public pressure--how could she not be? Her husband is on the City Council, and everyone knew if someone didn't hang for this there could be more riots. Maybe they were hoping for either a conviction, or for time and uncovering of more information to dampen the anger in the streets."
Oh, give it a rest. The dumb cow thought she could ride pull a Sharpton - use trumped-up charges of racial persecution to further her own career, and no doubt feather her own nest. And being completely without an honest bone in her body, to see the opportunity was to seize it. Her only mistake was that she over-estimated the corruption of the legal system. Probably, she just assumed that everyone else is as filthy dirty as she is.
Anyway, forget the "dampen the anger in the streets" nonsense. There's nothing she would like better than more riots. She incited riots after filing the charges. Baltimore is toast, put a fork in it. It's Detroit, Jake.
"Yeah, I think they misplayed their hand there. I'm guessing they wanted to flip Porter?"
Recently in Philadelphia there were six police officers arrested and charged by the Feds for corruption. One of the six flipped and agreed to a plea deal in exchange for testifying against the others. The police were ultimately found not guilty and the only officer to do any time is the one who testified for the prosecution.
While this story was moderately covered by the national media it was closely watched by the various police organizations. It's going to be a while before you can convince a cop to flip again.
Another takeaway for me:
If your main occupation is drug dealing and you're generally a parasite on society, there's a better than average chance you'll end up dead well before the age of a - say - similar person who has a job, a family and a medical plan.
Suppose for a moment that Freddie Grey hadn't been involved in the situation he found himself in (again). Am I to believe he then would have lived to be an old guy reading books to his grandkids?
The first step to a solution in nearly any endeavor is to acknowledge the truth.
Second, many observers felt that Mosby had overcharged, bringing a stronger set of charges than she could really prove....
Probably out of habit. In what dimension do prosecutors not overcharge trying to force a plea?
It will be interesting to see if we find out what the jury verdict actually was, and, if we do, whether it somewhat broke down on racial lines. My guess is that multiple guilty votes came from the blacks on the jury, and maybe multiple not guilty votes from the whites. Why do I think this? Because I just don't see that strong of a vote to convict absent racial animus. How do you come to a vote of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in view of the expert testimony by the defense, the testimony that the officer may not have known of the new policy (of belting in arrestees), etc? Was it great care? Maybe not. But was it sufficient care? I think so, from everything I have read. And, esp. with evidence that the arrestee had gone after the city before for a settlement.
Now for a legal question - the prosecution no doubt knows, or will know, who voted for what. Or, at least the initial and final votes. Do they have to give this information to the defense if requested (if they have it)? My memory is that the prosecution did play games with what they gave the defense, and when, dumping stuff on them at the last minute that arguably should have been provided earlier. If that is true, I question whether the prosecution should be believed if they don't provide this information to the defense ASAP (assuming again, that the prosecution does get some of this information).
Still, the result could have been much worse, and some observers of the trial expected Porter to be found not guilty.
Isn't it interesting the author asserts a guilty verdict is good and acquittal is bad - even though the article also outlines the weakness of the case. It's pretty clear the legal standard wasn't met and likely a guilty verdict would have been reversed on appeal, but an acquittal as appropriate still would have been "worse".
I hold most journalists in low esteem but sometimes they still surprise me.
Hard to describe just how much damage has been done to the rule of law over the last 6-7 years.
Almost as much damage as has been done to race relations, or Universities, or the Armed Forces, or to US-European relations, or to middle east peace, or to the work force...
I got to the end and almost forgot how well the healthcare industry has gone.
But the big banks are doing well. Despite the dwindling work force unemployment is really low! The top 10% got a lot richer.
History will treat Obama harshly. History majors will do their best for him if he can forgive their student debt.
@ William -
Actaully, cops interact with career criminals all the time without using any force at all. The relationship only becomes problematic when the cops attempt to interact at the same time as the career criminals are in the process of committing (or just committed) some crime which, considering their career status, represents a risk of significant sanctions if caught. Included in the potential downside is forced withdrawal in the county jail if you're into some serious substance abuse (like Grey). The criminals react by flight and/or resistance if apprehended, and brute force is met with brute force.
You seem to think there's a perpetual war going on. Untrue. It's more like an uneasy truce. Cops and bad guys talk all the time. When the bad guys avoid the cops, hide or run, they're wanted or holding (a gun or dope), or they just did something like a robbery and think the cops know about it (even if they don't).
That's how it works.
@ Eric -
Depends on your POV. If you're on the government (in a hypothetical case, not this one specifically), you charge every count that can be proven, with the idea you can plea bargain down some of the counts and still have plenty left. From the defense side, I have heard it said that it's unreasonable to charge someone with 10 or 20 (say) burglaries when it's more reasonable to expect a sentence for only 2 or 3 counts, the actual number of committed crimes notwithstanding. But I may not be representing that position very well.
Either way though, 'overcharge' is definitely a point-of-view term. One man's overcharge is another's justice. But lots of (provable) charges tend to help/hurt your negotiating position, depending on which side of the jail bars you're on.
Using "overcharge" in the Grey cases I think means that the prosecutor actually charged higher level crimes than she can prove, so her office prepared charges of murder, when perhaps manslaughter would have been more in line with what she described as her evidence, sicne she will have some diffculty proving intent versus carelessness or indifference.
I don't know if she was trying to force a plea so much as trying to please her constituency. Or maybe she's just stupid. Or counting on stupid jurors. Who knows?
".. she over-estimated the corruption of the legal system."
Not possible.
I'm no criminal lawyer, but for what little it's worth I assumed that all the defendants were overcharged to induce some of them to plea bargain and support the cases against the others. I assume that can still happen, but the result of the first trial should make that objective more difficult to achieve.
JCC,
98% of federal prosecutions are pled out. We used to laugh at the commies for putting up those kinds of numbers.
Blogger Ignorance is Bliss said...
I wondered if they would have been more likely to get a conviction had they tried a white officer first.
Only for a lesser charge on the white patrol officers. They needed this one first to support the greater charges on the patrol guys. The case against the patrol officers is the weakest. That is why false imprisonment was dropped and reckless endangerment added. All they did was stop and arrest Gray, they didn't bounce him around the transportation, which caused his death.
If Porter was found guilty, then the dominos would fall in order. I think the prosecution was shocked at the decision and their strategy is destroyed.
Mosby arguably presumed because he was black he would cut a deal and roll over on his white buddies. She has no honor just the narrative and is ignorant of how cops feel about each other. They take care of their own especially when the prosecutor goes rogue. Stacking the jury won' see her, either.
In the 1990s when I lived in Bawlmer, I got summoned to jury duty and served as a juror to a guy representing himself, no lawyer, on a cocaine dealing charge. After we'd heard two days of the rather overwhelming audiotaped evidence against him, heard the undercover agent describe her buys from him, heard the amounts seized, and then heard his ridiculous attempt at a defense, including his wife taking the fifth when he called her, we the jurors retired to consider his case.
The first thing we each saw as we entered the Jury Room was a copy of Sports Illustrated on the jury table, with University of Maryland basketball player Len Bias on the cover. It was his memorial issue, published shortly after he died of a cocaine overdose. The issue was from 1986, when he died. It sat at the top of a pile of a dozen or so magazines, apparently in the room for our perusal if we got bored.
We all immediately agreed that after two days of being on this jury for this farce of a trial, we weren't about to self-report that we'd been unduly influenced by the presence of an overdosed sports hero on a magazine cover. We weren't about to offer the guy a mistrial opportunity. We sentenced the pitiful drug dealer to all three counts against him, each carrying a mandatory 10 year term, and kept our mouths shut about the magazine, which remained in the Jury Room, and is likely there still.
That is my experience with Bawlmer's Criminal Justice System.
Similar to the police brutality trials of the officers who arrested Rodney King. They were tried on attempted murder charges, instead of simple brutality. The officers are then acquitted, which led to the riots.
Overcharging essentially means charging defendants with crimes that might, but very likely won't, end up with convictions. They have to be somewhat plausible, but not much more. Or, sometimes just packing them on. For example, sitting in Maricopa (AZ) court a year or so ago, watched defendant after defendant on their initial arraignment get charges added. For example, one person I knew had five felonies on the initial charge, and a sixth one, for possession of drug paraphernalia, was added. They settled out for two of the six. Probably better than even chance at beating any one of the charges, but with six, the odds were that they would lose at least one (as the jury split the baby), and if they lost all six, could spend a decade or more in prison.
So, here we have one of the cops charged with second degree murder. Is that plausible? Barely. Arrestees had not been seat belted for 160 years in Baltimore (apparently actual defense testimony), and all of a sudden, a week or so before the death, the dept. got an email about the change in policy. And, the prosecution couldn't, of course, prove that the responsible cops had received it. Or, that it had been read to them. Etc. Is that sufficient for depraved heart murder? If everything went perfectly for the prosecution, they still probably wouldn't get a win there, though maybe for some level of manslaughter. And, yes, it is probably unethical for a prosecutor to prosecute someone for a crime that they don't have a good faith belief that they will win. Except that prosecutors are never called to task by the ethics people for this sort of stuff. (But, then Mosby should probably be disciplined for filing charges against at least some of these officers in order to reduce the rioting).
It is apparently going to be interesting. Apparently, the big reason to try Porter first was to be able to get him to testify in the trials against the other officers. Win or lose, jeopardy had attached, and so he couldn't invoke the 5th Amdt. (except that the feds are looking in, thanks to the racial makeup of Obama's AG and racial orientation of his DoJ). And, this guy's testimony is apparently useful in some, if not all, of the other cases. But, with the mistrial, they are essentially back to square one. Except that they had somewhat scheduled the next trial, and it isn't clear that they can get away with pushing that back just to retry this guy first.
And, someone brought up something else - that the prosecution had essentially called the officer a liar in their summation. Which the prosecution will have to face every time that they try another one of the officers with this one's testimony. And, to make things worse - they gave this up, without getting a conviction in return.
Post a Comment