Althouse: "Mistrial declared in trial of Officer William Porter in death of Freddie Gray."

December 16, 2015

"Mistrial declared in trial of Officer William Porter in death of Freddie Gray."

"Gray, 25, suffered a broken neck and severe spinal cord injury in the back of a police transport van after his arrest on April 12. His death a week later prompted widespread protests against police brutality, and his funeral was followed by the most intense rioting and looting in the city since the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968."

54 comments:

Michael said...: Seeing the video of Freddie Gray's arrest has left me thinking that there was something terribly wrong with him at that point, before he was placed in the van. He does not seem in control of his legs and is being dragged, not because he is resisting but because he does not appear to be able to move on his own. Given the sentiment in Baltimore the case must be weak against the police.; 12/16/15, 3:00 PM
Brando said...: Oh great--and I have to drive through West Baltimore on my way home tonight.

It was nice knowing you all.; 12/16/15, 3:01 PM
Rae said...: Overcharged. I don't see the intent necessary for a charge of murder, despite the outrageous nature of the crime.; 12/16/15, 3:17 PM
CJinPA said...: The gender of the jurors was reported - seven women and five men - but not the races. Like most readers, I have a Why Didn't They Report That? system I activate to try to make an educated guess at what was omitted.

I guess the jury was overwhelmingly black, so 'racist jury' was off the table as possible narratives. (The city is overwhelmingly black, too.) Regardless, it was a conscious omission.; 12/16/15, 3:21 PM
traditionalguy said...: So do the Soros/Obama Gangs declare a mis-riot for now?; 12/16/15, 3:24 PM
madAsHell said...: It always looked like over-reach. This won't end well.; 12/16/15, 3:41 PM
Rick said...: http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com/

A local former prosecutor's take on the case, she's not impressed.

In summary to sustain the manslaughter charge legally the state had to show the officer knew or should have known not seat-belting Gray was likely to cause his death. But since it was common practice to not seat-belt people in the van and Gray was the first person to die the required element was demonstrably false. In her opinion the criminal charge should never have been made and the jury should have voted to acquit. Both failures she attributes to politics.; 12/16/15, 3:48 PM
Rick said...: CJinPA said...
I guess the jury was overwhelmingly black, so 'racist jury' was off the table as possible narratives. (The city is overwhelmingly black, too.)

The three officers facing the most serious charges are black also. Nevertheless it is still a racial issue.; 12/16/15, 3:51 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Rae, so far there are only allegations of a crime.; 12/16/15, 3:59 PM
David said...: Better than an acquittal from a public order perspective, but not a good thing for the police department, the prosecutors or the politicians, who are all on trial here too.; 12/16/15, 4:01 PM
Rick said...: P.S.

Croyder also said (heard on the radio this morning before the mistrial announcement) the speed of the jury announcing a deadlock was likely because juror(s) not only announced their vote definitively but also refused to even review the evidence or their reasoning. This was a very important case with a lot of evidence. Serious jury deliberation with opposed conclusions should have taken much longer to analyze.; 12/16/15, 4:11 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: A couple of notes. It was interesting that the policy there for 160 years, apparently, was not to seat belt arrestees when put into the wagon for transport to the jail. It was only changed a week or so before this happened. And, there was testimony that seat belting in that configuration of paddy wagon was dangerous. But, also, that the state could not prove that the officer had seen the email telling officers about the change in policy.

Another one was that the judge appears to have committed significant error when he told the jurors to compromise when they came to him deadlocked. Apparently, that is a major no-no. Jurors can compromise, but cannot be told to do so (apparently because that means trading guilty votes here for not-guilty votes there, which means that the charges may not be weighed independently)

I am agreeing with the poster above who questioned the racial composition of the jury - I find it hard to believe that they were deadlocked, instead of coming back with a quick not guilty verdict.; 12/16/15, 4:14 PM
rhhardin said...: The panel, made up of seven women and five men,

Reporters are trained not to notice color.

It might be a smart/moron juror divide.; 12/16/15, 4:23 PM
H said...: Washington Post: "The jury made up of what appear to be 7 black and 5 white jurors..."; 12/16/15, 4:32 PM
Big Mike said...: I've been watching the local TV news channels. There is a distinctly disappointed tone the there aren't any riots (yet!), but they seem pretty hopeful that the city will bitml; 12/16/15, 4:58 PM
Jupiter said...: I suspect that right about now, Marilyn Mosby is wishing she had been a little more circumspect.; 12/16/15, 5:30 PM
mccullough said...: The defendant is black. The case was weak and Baltimore is a shithole with the highest murder rate its ever had, more than 50% higher than last year.

The country is becoming less white, but not more black. As Latinos and Asians continue to expand their percentage of the population, BLM bullshit will be gone.; 12/16/15, 5:32 PM
Big Mike said...: ... That the city will burn. Sorry 'bout that.; 12/16/15, 5:37 PM
Mike Sylwester said...: Freddy Gray was going to die soon anyway. His health was extremely bad, and he was living a life of crime.; 12/16/15, 5:37 PM
Fritz said...: The Baltimorons still trying to figure out if they're supposed to riot or not.; 12/16/15, 6:37 PM
William said...: I haven't been following the trial, but I note that the police officer is black and comes from a less privileged background than the mayor, the DA, and most of the black campus protesters. If Freddie Gray and the city honchos had been white, Al Sharpton and the usual crew would have been protesting the outrage of this officer's trial.; 12/16/15, 6:41 PM
chickelit said...: Has Porter been decried as traitor to his race yet?; 12/16/15, 6:43 PM
chickelit said...: Perhaps the plan now is get one or more of the white defendants on trial quickly, then get as many guilty verdicts as possible, and then slowly acquit the others as people perceive that "racial" justice was done.; 12/16/15, 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Time to rob a liquor store.; 12/16/15, 6:59 PM
jr565 said...: One of the defense atty talking heads made a point thet all he did was ask for a medic. And the officers were assuming he just didn't want to go to jail. But if the cops are found guilty, imagine what will happen when the cops react to the loss
. Every time a perp asks for a medic mid arrest they will need to drive him to the hospital to make sure he isn't in fact hurt. Which is absurd.; 12/16/15, 7:01 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Michael said...
"Seeing the video of Freddie Gray's arrest has left me thinking that there was something terribly wrong with him at that point, before he was placed in the van. He does not seem in control of his legs and is being dragged, not because he is resisting but because he does not appear to be able to move on his own. Given the sentiment in Baltimore the case must be weak against the police."

Gray was ACTING. He was being dragged because he was passively resisting arrest. He was howling because he was trying to make a scene, and build a case for a brutality/injury suit, which, after drug dealing, was his major line of work. He actually stood on his own just before he was put in the van. Someone narrating on the original video claimed his leg was broken based on how it was bent, a comment easily demolished by noting that Gray's leg had a knee.; 12/16/15, 7:23 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: chickelit said...
"Perhaps the plan now is get one or more of the white defendants on trial quickly, then get as many guilty verdicts as possible, and then slowly acquit the others as people perceive that "racial" justice was done"

Very possible. I think one reason they went with Porter first was because even one conviction against a black cop would have meant a near certainty of convictions against the white cops, and they figured Porter was the easiest to get. The SJWs and the BLM mob are in this to get white cops convicted for Freddie's suicide, but they don't mind burning a few black cops to get it done.; 12/16/15, 7:29 PM
Hagar said...: I think Freddie Gray stood up inside the van, possibly tryed to create some kind of ruckus by banging his head on the partition to the drivers cab, lost his balance and fell, cracking his head on the seat. So, really a freak accident.
Should he have been tied down to the seat? Probably so, but it seems the Baltimore police generally did not tie prisoners down, maybe being reluctant to get within reach where HIV positives could bite them, or whatever.
And Freddie Gray was a known small-time hood and actor, i.e., known for acting up and claiming "police brutality," etc., when he got arrested, so "Yeah, yeah, Freddie. Pipe down in there, will'ya?"; 12/16/15, 8:19 PM
JCC said...: Porter was tried first because they needed his testimony against the others. The plan has always been to convict Porter, and then offer him a deal to become a government witness. There is some question now about the timing of the other cases, and Porter's re-trial, since the best guessing is that the other cases are sketchy without Porter's co-operation, which is not likely without his conviction and a long sentence hanging over his head. His prosepctive co-operation is also damaged by his testimony at his own trial, which can't now be changed very easily even if he gets convicted at a future re-trial.

@ Rae -
What outrageous crime was that? In case you missed it, the original ME finding was accidental death, and medical testimony presented by the defense was exactly that: accidental death when the victim fell inside the van between the last two stops. The Baltimore ME changed his finding only after pressure from the DA, and was apparently unable to explain that changed finding with any lucidity at trial.

I wonder how long the gag order on the jurors will hold. Not long, I'm thinking. I'm also going to suggest a break along racial lines with the obvious positions, which will fulfill everyone's preconceived notions of how this would play out.; 12/16/15, 9:03 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: I've said from the beginning that the only way the prosecution can get a conviction here is to show (a) that the cops intended to hurt Gray by deliberately giving him a rough ride, and (b) that Gray's fatal injury resulted from the rough ride. Apparently the prosecution failed on both accounts. They failed to show intent to injure, and Gray's injury resulted from his standing up or kneeling - if he had stayed lying down on the floor of the van, he would not have fallen into the wall and broken his neck.; 12/16/15, 9:05 PM
JAORE said...: Isn't it more likely this was the first trial because the primary cause of death, per the prosecution, was failure to buckle Mr. Grey in the van? All the other officers had, apparently, far less to do with his injuries in the van.; 12/16/15, 9:39 PM
The Godfather said...: I don't know what happened. I wasn't there. But that's what we have juries for. They aren't always right, of course (e.g. O.J. Simpson's murder trial, and a gazillion trials in the segregationist South in the old days), but it's what we go by.; 12/16/15, 9:40 PM
JAORE said...: Of course i you can not convict the officer that was in charge of belting Mr. Grey into the van, what chance is there to convict the others?; 12/16/15, 9:40 PM
cubanbob said...: I'm trying to find a reason to give a damn about Freddy Gray but I just can't think of one.; 12/16/15, 9:47 PM
ga6 said...: Can't win anyway: belt 'em in , auto accident, truck turns over fire, can't get 'em all out in time and momma is on TV crying he was trying to turn his life around and get his GED.

No belt and nitwit bounces himself off the metal walls just because he can , a little blood equals a payout by the agency..; 12/16/15, 10:13 PM
Rae said...: @ Rae -
What outrageous crime was that? In case you missed it, the original ME finding was accidental death, and medical testimony presented by the defense was exactly that: accidental death when the victim fell inside the van between the last two stops. The Baltimore ME changed his finding only after pressure from the DA, and was apparently unable to explain that changed finding with any lucidity at trial.

You don't find Gray's death by "accident" (Ooopsie! Butterfingers!), while in police custody, to be outrageous?

I don't it rises to the level of murder, I do think it reaches manslaughter. They put him in that van with his hands bound, not strapped in and took him for a "rough ride". No I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I also wasn't born yesterday.; 12/16/15, 10:23 PM
Todd Roberson said...: Rae -

Do you get this worked up when innocent, law abiding citizens get murdered or mistreated by criminals? If so, you must be in a state of near constant mania, as this case - no matter hat happened - is such an anomaly compared the near continuous backdrop of damage done by the criminal element in Baltimore and other large cities.; 12/16/15, 11:22 PM
JAORE said...: " No I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I also wasn't born yesterday."

Should I ever be on trial, please Lord, do not let people that think this constitutes evidence on the jury judging me.; 12/17/15, 12:04 AM
Fen said...: "No I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I also wasn't born yesterday."

That's unfortunate, because at least then you would have an excuse for being such an idiot.

"They put him in that van with his hands bound, not strapped in and took him for a "rough ride"

Eyewitness testimony and evidence presented by the PROSECUTION proves that a "rough ride" never took place.

"You don't find Gray's death by "accident" (Ooopsie! Butterfingers!), while in police custody, to be outrageous?"

Even the PROSECUTION agrees that Gray's death was an accident. Their own medical experts testified that it was accidental.; 12/17/15, 12:05 AM
Carnifex said...: Rae said--
You don't find Gray's death by "accident" (Ooopsie! Butterfingers!), while in police custody, to be outrageous?

def. 1)an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury
2)an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

Fail to see any mention of outrageous...You must be a recent college graduate. Here's a life lesson...Snowflakes melt in the heat. Don't be a snowflake.; 12/17/15, 1:57 AM
Brando said...: Fortunately, the drive home was uneventful--some crowds gathering at the same corner where the CVS on North Ave was destroyed last spring, but otherwise just the usual (people walking in front of traffic, bad driving).; 12/17/15, 5:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Porter's case was very weak.
1. There was a Black Female SGT on the scene who had overall charge
2. There was a Black Van driver who had charge of transport
3. There was testimony that Gray was talking nearly the whole trip asking for medical help, and talking shit
4. MD's testified that the injury was so severe that once it occurred Gray could neither speak, breathe and would have been paralyzed from the neck down. If so It had to have happened just before arrival at the jail, and therefore Porter was not negligent earlier.

The cases against the driver or SGT might have better luck. Both being expected to read memos on transport.; 12/17/15, 6:08 AM
JCC said...: @ Rae -

No.

Literally thousands of prisoners are transported yearly, handcuffed, in vans without being seatbelted in and without it being seen as crulety or negligent. Grey died after falling, probably because he was standing up, kicking the walls of the van and/or banging his head against the sides. This according to the testimony of another prisoner - not the cops - who later changed his story after realizing everyone in his neighborhood would be trying to kill him if he said anything seen as supportive of the police. That other prisoner, BTW, said that the entire van was swaying and moving from Grey's hitting the sides of the van...until it suddenly stopped.

Not one person, not even the other prisoner who has already shown a predilection for changing his narrative, has claimed that the cops took Grey for a spin around town while hitting the brakes, taking sharp curves or the like. There was not one word of testimony at the trial alleging this.

So, your thought that the "rough ride" killed him? See that in a vision? Read about it on the Internet? Or just know it has to be true, you know, because?; 12/17/15, 6:49 AM
damikesc said...: There is no way they can get a conviction in a case that looks like a self-inflicted injury that got serious.

You don't find Gray's death by "accident" (Ooopsie! Butterfingers!), while in police custody, to be outrageous?

I honestly don't. And I'm not one of those "Well, the cops SAID it happened like this, so..." guys.

Nothing in their behavior seemed criminal and some of the defendants charged make NO sense in being charged. The DA is not terribly good at her job and screwed up here...but she is the one person who will come out ahead because of this travesty.; 12/17/15, 6:54 AM
Vet66 said...: Rae: it becomes apparent that families know one of their own is a two time loser in the criminal justice system and a functioning moron continuing his affiliation with dope dealers. The family is in on the ultimate scenario that he will die in his profession. The big lie is already in regarding the final denouement for Freddie. Cash in on the hush money received for his death then weep and wail at his legacy during the trial against "the man!" Note to Rae; you were born yesterday, my friend. They do pimp out their own kin for cash, the DA will pimp out the police for political gain pushing the narrative that reparations will be paid one way or another. Broadway screen writers could make a stage play out of this fiasco and white guilt would bring out the usual apologists for their wealth consoling themselves that they support the "arts" and drama they live in a gated/protected neighborhood to avoid this sort of insanity. Went through two Watts riots and nothing changes but the venue and names of the victims and the lives they destroy including the immigrants and their own race whose livelihoods were destroyed in the ritual burnings.; 12/17/15, 6:55 AM
MayBee said...: I don't it rises to the level of murder, I do think it reaches manslaughter. They put him in that van with his hands bound, not strapped in and took him for a "rough ride". No I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I also wasn't born yesterday.

If they took him for a "rough ride", then that's on the driver, not on Porter. In this trial, they didn't give any evidence of a rough ride.

They actually didn't give any evidence of exactly when Freddy Gray died, or exactly how. They couldn't put a timeline together that was enough to convict Porter.

Mosely should definitely drop the charges against the cops who loaded him into the van.; 12/17/15, 7:11 AM
JCC said...: @ Rae -

And I guess you missed the part when a neurosurgeon and a nationally known pathologist testified that the inuries suggered by Grey were not survivable, even if medical assistance was instantly available, thus negating the governemt theory that Porter was culpable - not for any rough ride since he wasn't driving - for not summoning aid when Grey asked for it. Both defense medical experts also said that it would have been physically impossible for Grey to have spoken (and asked for assistance) after the injury, which also would seem to argue against that theory of criminal liability, but hey, pesky facts and all that....

I mean, the guy's dead, someone has to pay, right? Why not the cops?; 12/17/15, 7:23 AM
JCC said...: I don't see the prosecution dropping any charges at this point, so a retrial for Porter is coming. And another hung jury I assume. Eventually, they'll have to try the others, and they'll get more hung juries, because (some of) the jurors will predictably - and sadly - break along racial lines for-or-against, disregarding factual and legal issues and voting along the community beliefs, which you can see even here.

I assume the DOJ will step in and some point, and at least threaten trials in District Court, trying to intimidate the cops to plea to something relatively light but which will allow the government to claim a victory. They will try to grind down and bankrupt the cops, and may very well succeed in this, especially if they can flip one of the cops. If one of the defendants has something else going on - completely unrelated, say, but a violation of something somewhere - they're all in trouble. You can believe that every one of the defendants is under a huge FBI microscope, looking for tax issues, insurance fraud, off-the-books cash jobs, etc.

This assumes the legal observers have this right, and there isn't even enough here for a legitimate charge, let along a conviction.; 12/17/15, 7:35 AM
Brando said...: It's certainly possible the cops were trying to rough up Gray during the ride, and likely they were negligent in not fully strapping him in (the Dept. may not require strapping in, but it seems common sense to strap in prisoners just as you would anyone in a patrol car). Whether the failure to strap him in rose to the level of criminal negligence and what charges were filed I don't know, but regardless, it can be hard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt even where it seems improbably that no crime was committed--the prosecution may not have had the weight of evidence on their side.

A lot of the usual dynamics in criminal cases were turned on their head here--jurors who might naturally be suspicious of the police and usually lean towards acquittals now would have to consider where the police are on trial, and the cop here was a black man from a humble background so the racial angle is blunted. It doesn't fit neatly into the racialist narrative, but the whole matter is an embarrassment to "blue city" governance.; 12/17/15, 7:47 AM
James Pawlak said...: Did anyone comment on some reports that Gray was"
1. A supporter of the trade in illegal drugs; And,
2. Reports that he recently had neck surgery as might have contributed to his death?; 12/17/15, 7:51 AM
damikesc said...: It's certainly possible the cops were trying to rough up Gray during the ride, and likely they were negligent in not fully strapping him in (the Dept. may not require strapping in, but it seems common sense to strap in prisoners just as you would anyone in a patrol car). Whether the failure to strap him in rose to the level of criminal negligence and what charges were filed I don't know, but regardless, it can be hard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt even where it seems improbably that no crime was committed--the prosecution may not have had the weight of evidence on their side.

I doubt they could prove negligence unless they uncover a history of deaths that doesn't seem to exist. Given his past "activities", it looks a lot like a self-inflicted injury that got out of hand for him. He was hoping to be hurt enough to sue and overshot his mark.; 12/17/15, 9:40 AM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: Brando said...
"It's certainly possible the cops were trying to rough up Gray during the ride..."

Possible, but there's no evidence of a rough ride, and plenty that it was a smooth, easy ride, except for Freddie's violent writhing.

"...likely they were negligent in not fully strapping him in..."

There's no evidence that strapping a prisoner in in a van like that, with the prisoner facing to the side, is any safer than not using a seatbelt. Besides, I'd like to see you put your face and throat near a violent, possibly drugged or deranged prisoner's teeth while fiddling with a strap and buckle near his genitalia. Mind your sidearm!; 12/17/15, 5:11 PM
Big Mike said...: I own up to mixed feelings. On the one hand, I don't have much respect for prosecutors (or the law itself, for that matter) when people are put on trial merely because an angry mob is howling for blood and threatening riots. On the other hand, once a person is in custody I think that police have a responsibility to look after the health and safety of the prisoner, who is not in much of a position to look after his or her own safety.; 12/17/15, 5:31 PM
Rick said...: Rae said...
I don't it rises to the level of murder, I do think it reaches manslaughter. They put him in that van with his hands bound, not strapped in and took him for a "rough ride". No I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, but I also wasn't born yesterday.

Not only did you not witness it, literally no evidence of a rough ride was presented by the prosecution. What sort of evidence might exist if a rough ride occurred?

Witness testimony of the van leaving the scene where Gray was apprehended.

Witness testimony - journalists or bystanders - from the multiple other stops the van made to pick up and transport.

Drivers and bystanders of other areas who remember watching a transport van driving recklessly.

Security cameras along the routes the van passed or at the station, or evidence of tampering with these.

Testimony of the other passengers in the van.

Critics like to overlook that there were other people in the van - and discount their denials of a rough ride alleging fear of retaliation. That might have been true that night, but months later? Those people are out and if they came forward would immediately be given high level legal protection. We're supposed to believe they're still so scared they won't speak up even though doing so would earn the support of the City Prosecutor?

People are hanging on the their initial impressions despite the fact that the evidence contradicts it.; 12/18/15, 9:11 AM