Baltimore in the hot seat now!!!!!

[btq96r]

Pursuant to my previous post regarding his knife, was mentioned today it was legal, even though one of the cops swore under oath it was an illegal switchblade. Although this doesn't seem to have figured into the chase and arrest itself anyway, only found after the fact.

 

- OS

 

I think the whole cause of arrest thing is being overlooked by the injury and death, but it's just as important.  If it can be proven that the police had no cause to approach him, and no reason to arrest him, then everything after that can be related to their misconduct in that, and laid at their feet. 

 

The criminal burden of that is hard to make, but if it's found out that the cops were wrong to arrest him in the first place, that's a slam dunk for a civil trial.

[Omega]

I see the officers were charged but they have yet to explain how he broke his neck.

 
 

Anything medical is probably going to be kept at close hold until at least jury selection is done.  Put the information out now and finding enough people to serve as jurors and alternates becomes a miserable chore.

I heard a local news story last night which said he had trauma to the back of the head which closely resembled a bolt head inside the van. Could go either way as to whether a "rough ride" or intentional injury occurred inside the van.

[EssOne]

I think the whole cause of arrest thing is being overlooked by the injury and death, but it's just as important.  If it can be proven that the police had no cause to approach him, and no reason to arrest him, then everything after that can be related to their misconduct in that, and laid at their feet. 

 

The criminal burden of that is hard to make, but if it's found out that the cops were wrong to arrest him in the first place, that's a slam dunk for a civil trial.

No offense guys, but in this discussion I'd sure like to see us stay away from bouncing back and forth from criminal trial issues to civil trial issues because that's always confusing. The proof requirement for a criminal trial is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" while the proof standard in a civil trial is only "preponderance of evidence." And other rules of procedure can be quite different between them too, as we saw in OJ's two trials.

 

Also, the issue of reasonable cause for arrest can be a sticky sonofagun, since it can be rooted in both statutory law and case law. So I won't conclude they were wrong just because there doesn't appear to be an evident crime in play at the time until I hear the lawyers argue it out.  I'm sure the courts will get into the officers' state of mind at the time they saw the man and what they "reasonably believed," and other unpredictable things like that. I'm not totally convinced that the officers will be found in the wrong for pursuing even if they have no crime to use as a basis for the pursuit. I'm sure the court will also look into established procedures and training doctrine as well. The lawyers and judges will get a good workout on this one.

Edited May 1, 2015 by EssOne

[btq96r]

No offense guys, but in this discussion I'd sure like to see us stay away from bouncing back and forth from criminal trial issues to civil trial issues because that's always confusing.

 

I think they're both connected through the issue of culpability, but I wasn't trying to bounce back and forth, just saying what comes out of the one (guilty or not) will set up the other.

 

 

I heard a local news story last night which said he had trauma to the back of the head which closely resembled a bolt head inside the van. Could go either way as to whether a "rough ride" or intentional injury occurred inside the van.

 

After the perfectly timed story from the Washington Post, I'm not trusting anything until a medical examiners report comes out.  That's what they will use at trial, I'd imagine.

 

The media is in their usual game of trying to scoop each other, and I'm actually a bit disappointed that the Post would use that uncorroborated story like they did.

[bersaguy]

Well the verdict is in from Medical Examiner and 6 police officers will be charged but Police Wagon driver hit with the most at present time. In all honesty I was not expecting anything less.......................... :ugh: :ugh:  I knew they were going to file charges. I'm now wondering if it was to protect whats left of Baltimore or did they actually find enough evidence to really charge the officers. I guess that will be up to judges and jury's now................. :shrug: :shrug:

[Pain103]

 I figured they were going to charge somebody. I'll be interested to see the trial and the evidence along with the actual wording of the statutes they charged the officers with. I'm inclined to believe they overcharged but until the evidence is released who knows. But I tell you this with three of the officers being black the race baiters can go suck on an egg.

[mikegideon]

Statutes? I'm afraid this is plain ole politics

[EssOne]

 I knew they were going to file charges. I'm now wondering if it was to protect whats left of Baltimore or did they actually find enough evidence to really charge the officers..................................

 

You and everybody else in the western hemisphere. This is the most suspect filing of criminal charges I can recall in my lifetime. I don't have a sense that these charges have been developed with a proper degree of careful deliberation at all, and the prosecutor doesn't impress me one bit.

Edited May 2, 2015 by EssOne

[TNWNGR]

My thoughts as well, it going to be a real dog and pony show in another venue I expect. Rushed and sloppy prosecutions generally become public spectacles.

[Sam1]

This one is going to be more of a circus than GZ's trial, and that one was at the top of the list since OJ's.

[DaveTN]

I watched the video of the States Attorney give her speech. I suspect the State Attorney General will step in and name a Special Prosecutor. She was on a soap box; not seeking justice.

While everyone (including myself) was wondering why we weren’t hearing anything; apparently the investigators were doing their job and doing it well. Either that of the SA has lost her mind.

[Oh Shoot]

I watched the video of the States Attorney give her speech. I suspect the State Attorney General will step in and name a Special Prosecutor. She was on a soap box; not seeking justice.

While everyone (including myself) was wondering why we weren’t hearing anything; apparently the investigators were doing their job and doing it well. Either that of the SA has lost her mind.

 

I wager she's overreached, unless can get super duper OJ type biased juries in each case.

 

Actually, I bet even money some if not most will have charges dropped or at worst plead to much lesser charges as the stories get closer to the truth and consolidate.

 

- OS

[EssOne]

 

 

.................Actually, I bet even money some if not most will have charges dropped or at worst plead to much lesser charges as the stories get closer to the truth and consolidate.

 

- OS

 

This appears to be the predominant view being expressed everywhere. I hope she wears her cast iron shorts to court because the opposition lawyers are going to jump at them with chainsaws and blow torches.

[mikegideon]

This appears to be the predominant view being expressed everywhere. I hope she wears her cast iron shorts to court because the opposition lawyers are going to jump at them with chainsaws and blow torches.

 

I don't know why. This thing is going they same as the rest, once the Master Baiters showed up. It doesn't even matter that everybody involved, right up to the damn president is black. They are still being picked on. 

[JPR1959]

If you read this, it kind of makes sense...or it's just another conspiracy!!!

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/310809-baltimore-prosecutor-close-ties-freddie-grays-family-attorney/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime

[mikegideon]

Simpler than that. A bunch of politicians pandering for votes (or money in Sharpton's case).

[JAB]

I think the whole cause of arrest thing is being overlooked by the injury and death, but it's just as important.  If it can be proven that the police had no cause to approach him, and no reason to arrest him, then everything after that can be related to their misconduct in that, and laid at their feet. 
 
The criminal burden of that is hard to make, but if it's found out that the cops were wrong to arrest him in the first place, that's a slam dunk for a civil trial.

I saw something on the news the other day where one of the city officials - I think it was one of the high ups in the police department - has already said that there was no cause to arrest him.

[btq96r]

I saw something on the news the other day where one of the city officials - I think it was one of the high ups in the police department - has already said that there was no cause to arrest him.

 

That's why I don't think, aside from the murder 2 charge for the driver, the list of charges are as much of a reach as some here do. 

 

If the prosecution can prove the arrest wasn't valid and the police abused their authority, the jury will be a lot more sympathetic to viewing every subsequent action without the legal actions/immunities a police officer has in the performance of their duties.

[TNWNGR]

That's why I don't think, aside from the murder 2 charge for the driver, the list of charges are as much of a reach as some here do. 

 

If the prosecution can prove the arrest wasn't valid and the police abused their authority, the jury will be a lot more sympathetic to viewing every subsequent action without the legal actions/immunities a police officer has in the performance of their duties.

There is existent case law for good faith arrests and resisting halt stop frisk. Intent is the bottom line on such findings.  Not sure which way the Baltimore case is going to go but I'm doubtful of any 2nd Degree Homicide cases sticking. It'll depend on what non disclosed information is on hand. I'm really doubtful of the entire investigation and rapidity of charging the officers. Then factor in the dog and pony press release and what was said. The State losing this  case in court will do more harm and create more civil unrest. I just wonder if a sweetheart cop a plea deal on a weak case will be accepted. Unless it can be proven intentional harm was inflicted during the transport I'm not seeing much, if any of a civil rights case either.

[btq96r]

There is existent case law for good faith arrests and resisting halt stop frisk. Intent is the bottom line on such findings.  Not sure which way the Baltimore case is going to go but I'm doubtful of any 2nd Degree Homicide cases sticking. It'll depend on what non disclosed information is on hand. I'm really doubtful of the entire investigation and rapidity of charging the officers. Then factor in the dog and pony press release and what was said. The State losing this  case in court will do more harm and create more civil unrest. I just wonder if a sweetheart cop a plea deal on a weak case will be accepted. Unless it can be proven intentional harm was inflicted during the transport I'm not seeing much, if any of a civil rights case either.

 

There is going to be level of rioting no matter what the verdict is, I think we all know that's going to happen.  But yeah, acquittals would make it worse than convictions.

 

Only one officer (the driver) is charged with 2nd degree murder, which I doubt results in a conviction.  All the manslaughter charges (4 of the 6, including the driver) are involuntary.  I think those four have the highest chance of getting a conviction, especially since it seems the department has an SOP these officers didn't follow when securing Gray in the van, and there are officials from the BPD on public record about it.

 

Misconduct in office, (which I want to see a lot more of when it fits) seems another one that can be made to a jury if they can prove the arrest wasn't valid or procedure wasn't followed.  2nd degree assault will stick or not depending if they can show the arrest was valid or not, but you bring up a valid point about the good faith issue.

[DaveTN]

This is just a WAG, I have nothing to back this up, but I’m guessing the murder charge comes from a claim the driver intentionally brake checked or maneuvered to throw the guy around in the back. I can’t see any other reasoning that would support that charge.

It appears to me she charged all of the Officers that were there. So she’s going to have a hard time proving that with no witnesses.

The rest of the charges appear to stem from them not getting medical attention right then. From what I have read there were two Command Officers on the scene, a Lieutenant and a Sergeant that checked him at one point or another. One of them may be held responsible for not getting medical treatment; but not every cop that happened to be in the area.

However, we have no idea what evidence she has. As I said before, she may be holding the results of very good thorough investigation. Otherwise she’s lost her mind.

Apparently a Grand Jury isn’t required in Maryland, or was one convened and I missed it?

This is the second person to die from a van ride in Baltimore. I would think that if failing to strap them in could rise to the level of criminal charges; the city would have invested in a van with seats and seatbelts after the first incident.

[EssOne]

And to complicate matters further, it's a common prosecutorial tactic to unload the entire Penal Code on a number of people hoping to scare a couple of them into rolling over on the others. This is risky as heck and, suggests in my mind anyway, that her evidence in support of all the charges may be less than solid, or stated differently, good enough for an indictment but not good enough for a conviction. If so, and if that's the only reason she filed voluminous charges, she'll need a carload of ketchup to eat all the crow the defense, the media, and the Police Unions will throw at her once it becomes known. She will drown in criticism if she has done that and can't back it up, IMHO.

Edited May 3, 2015 by EssOne

[DaveTN]

Well, if she doesn’t have the proof for the charges she is bringing; she’s done as an SA. She would be doing what she is accusing the cops of doing and according to her that is criminal.

[TNWNGR]

Well, if she doesn’t have the proof for the charges she is bringing; she’s done as an SA. She would be doing what she is accusing the cops of doing and according to her that is criminal.

Which is what most concerns me in this prosecution. If she has/had a remotely solid case on one or more of the defendants then her actions have weakened the chances of conviction. Make no mistake if an officer involved in this mess had actionable criminal charges then I'm solidly behind due process and letter of the law. As has been said what remains to be seen is what evidentiary material has yet to be released.    

[EssOne]

Which is what most concerns me in this prosecution. If she has/had a remotely solid case on one or more of the defendants then her actions have weakened the chances of conviction. Make no mistake if an officer involved in this mess had actionable criminal charges then I'm solidly behind due process and letter of the law. As has been said what remains to be seen is what evidentiary material has yet to be released.    

 

Yessir. Amen and then some.