Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[arkirk]

He wisely chose a bench trial (no jury). The prosecutors couldn't use emotion to hide their terrible case. One down, five more acquittals to go.

Yup. When the defendant chooses a bench trial it usually means the prosecution has a bad case.

....or perhaps the prosecutors sympathize with the criminals they are sworn to prosecute (cops). It is a buddy-buddy relationship between the prosecutors and the cops and sometimes the judge too. You certainly could not ever expect a fair verdict with a bench trial. Freddy will just be another in the long list of unpunished racist murders in our fair land.

 

[repoman]

I am not fully up on Freddie Gray, but IIRC his death was caused by some callous disregard and severe manhandling at a very bare minimum. Why are we arguing about the racism? Could have been a lot of classism as well, but whatever.

Just treating people with basic human dignity is what is needed. The system that had him lead poisoned into an effective retard didn't help. But cops still have to treat lead poisoned retards with dignity or get a new job, assholes!!!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/us/edward-nero-verdict-judge-ruling/index.html

Why Officer Edward Nero was acquitted in the Freddie Gray case

Nero was not an integral part of Gray's detention and arrest

Nero was one of three bike officers involved in the initial police encounter with Gray on April 12, 2015. He and Officer Garrett Miller were called to assist another officer, Lt. Brian Rice, who had initially begun chasing Gray.

Prosecutors claimed that Nero assaulted Gray by detaining him without justification. But Miller testified under limited immunity that he alone detained and handcuffed Gray, that he was the one who walked Gray to the wall while Nero retrieved officer Miller's bike. The only time Nero touched Gray at the arrest site was when Gray asked for his inhaler, Miller testified.

It explains the reasons for the acquittal very nicely.

 

[ksen]

Just treating people with basic human dignity is what is needed.

b-b-but that's socializm!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Just treating people with basic human dignity is what is needed.

b-b-but that's socializm!

No, it is far worse. It is Politically Correct.

 

[ksen]

good god

 

[Trausti]

Dirty. Dirty. Dirty.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard loud banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Judge Williams found today that prosecutors committed a so-called Brady Violation because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence and it's the state's duty to divulge this information to the defense.

“The state doesn’t get to decide whether or not to disclose information,” defense attorney Andrew Graham said. “The state sat on it for over a year. It’s not up to them to make that decision. Even a small piece of evidence may make a difference. It’s not fair to the defense.”

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer-154226833--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Dirty. Dirty. Dirty.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard loud banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Judge Williams found today that prosecutors committed a so-called Brady Violation because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence and it's the state's duty to divulge this information to the defense.

“The state doesn’t get to decide whether or not to disclose information,” defense attorney Andrew Graham said. “The state sat on it for over a year. It’s not up to them to make that decision. Even a small piece of evidence may make a difference. It’s not fair to the defense.”

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer-154226833--abc-news-topstories.html

I thought her statements were in the press?

 

[ronburgundy]

Dirty. Dirty. Dirty.

Goodson's attorneys have argued that prosecutors withheld statements made last year by Donta Allen, a key witness. Allen was picked up by the Baltimore police van after Gray.

In his original statement to police in April last year, Allen said he heard loud banging coming from Gray's side of the vehicle. He gave a similar statement in a separate interview with prosecutors a month later, but the state never turned it over as evidence to defense attorneys. Judge Williams found today that prosecutors committed a so-called Brady Violation because Allen's May 2015 statement was deemed exculpatory evidence and it's the state's duty to divulge this information to the defense.

“The state doesn’t get to decide whether or not to disclose information,” defense attorney Andrew Graham said. “The state sat on it for over a year. It’s not up to them to make that decision. Even a small piece of evidence may make a difference. It’s not fair to the defense.”

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer-154226833--abc-news-topstories.html

Nothing dirty about it. Note the part I bolded. The defense had the evidence of the witnesses's original statement. The witness repeated the same information in another interview, and that meaninglessly redundant information is all the defense didn't have because the prosecution assumed it was meaningless. Correctly, the judge is merely saying that the prosecution should not make that determination, no matter how obvious. But there is nothing that smells of intentional foul play there.

 

[dismal]

Dirty. Dirty. Dirty.



https://www.yahoo.com/gma/judge-finds-prosecutors-withheld-evidence-freddie-gray-officer-154226833--abc-news-topstories.html

Nothing dirty about it. Note the part I bolded. The defense had the evidence of the witnesses's original statement. The witness repeated the same information in another interview, and that meaninglessly redundant information is all the defense didn't have because the prosecution assumed it was meaningless. Correctly, the judge is merely saying that the prosecution should not make that determination, no matter how obvious. But there is nothing that smells of intentional foul play there.

Why do you imagine the judge was rebuking prosecutors for withholding evidence if they were not withholding evidence?

 

[Deepak]

Nothing dirty about it. Note the part I bolded. The defense had the evidence of the witnesses's original statement. The witness repeated the same information in another interview, and that meaninglessly redundant information is all the defense didn't have because the prosecution assumed it was meaningless. Correctly, the judge is merely saying that the prosecution should not make that determination, no matter how obvious. But there is nothing that smells of intentional foul play there.

Why do you imagine the judge was rebuking prosecutors for withholding evidence if they were not withholding evidence?

Your question is literally answered in the post you quoted.

 

[dismal]

Why do you imagine the judge was rebuking prosecutors for withholding evidence if they were not withholding evidence?

Your question is literally answered in the post you quoted.

The judge said there is something dirty about it. The judge said you don't get to decide what to withhold and what is important. Withholding something is dirty in itself.

As much as ronburgundy loves to decree things with authoritative pronouncements, he is flat wrong.

 

[Deepak]

Your question is literally answered in the post you quoted.

The judge said there is something dirty about it. The judge said you don't get to decide what to withhold and what is important. Withholding something is dirty in itself.

As much as ronburgundy loves to decree things with authoritative pronouncements, he is flat wrong.

Flat wrong in what sense? He said that the judge's determination was correct in that the prosecution shouldn't be the arbiter of what information is redundant.

He's also correct in stating that the information gleaned from Allen's second interview was essentially the same as the first. This isn't burying a witness, or hiding another person's fingerprints on a murder weapon.

The judge was rebuking the prosecutor for withholding evidence because he withheld evidence. The procedural violation doesn't change (nor is changed by) the quality of the evidence.

 

[dismal]

The judge said there is something dirty about it. The judge said you don't get to decide what to withhold and what is important. Withholding something is dirty in itself.

As much as ronburgundy loves to decree things with authoritative pronouncements, he is flat wrong.

Flat wrong in what sense? He said that the judge's determination was correct in that the prosecution shouldn't be the arbiter of what information is redundant.

He's also correct in stating that the information gleaned from Allen's second interview was essentially the same as the first. This isn't burying a witness, or hiding another person's fingerprints on a murder weapon.

The judge was rebuking the prosecutor for withholding evidence because he withheld evidence. The procedural violation doesn't change (nor is changed by) the quality of the evidence.

He is wrong in his pronouncement that there is nothing dirty. It is inherently dirty to withhold evidence, which is why the judge issued an angry, strong rebuke.

If nothing else, the existence of a second interview where the witness tells a consistent story increases the credibility of the witness. You can bet if there were differences the prosecution would be all over it.

More importantly, it is not the prosecution's or anyone else's job (let alone ronburgundy's) to assert judgement on what is and isn't important to the defense. They are entitled to everything. There is absolutely no valid reason to withhold it.

 

[Derec]

Things not looking good at Camp Mosby:
Freddie Gray case: Baltimore police investigators, prosecutors clash in court
A police detective says that the ME initially thought Gray dies due to a "freak accident" before she classified his death as "homicide". The problem being that she testified that she never though it was an accident. Was she pressured into coming up with her classification? And then a prosecutor (alas, not Mosby herself) accused said detective of sabotaging her case.

Mosby should do the right thing and drop all other cases after this one is done, regardless of the verdict.

 

[Arctish]

Things not looking good at Camp Mosby:
Freddie Gray case: Baltimore police investigators, prosecutors clash in court
A police detective says that the ME initially thought Gray dies due to a "freak accident" before she classified his death as "homicide". The problem being that she testified that she never though it was an accident. Was she pressured into coming up with her classification? And then a prosecutor (alas, not Mosby herself) accused said detective of sabotaging her case.

Mosby should do the right thing and drop all other cases after this one is done, regardless of the verdict.

Why do you think that's the right thing?

A citizen died in police custody. If it looks like gross negligence led to his death - which it does - then the Prosecutor shouldn't drop the cases against those involved. The prosecutor's job is to represent the People, citizens and civilians, in matters of law. If he or she isn't doing that, then he or she isn't upholding the law or fulfilling the duties of their Office.

 

[Derec]

Why do you think that's the right thing?

Because criminal prosecutions are expensive, both for the accused and the taxpayers. A prosecutor should pursue prosecutions based on available evidence, not "throw the book" at people because of personal ambition or political conviction, as Mosby had done.

A citizen died in police custody. If it looks like gross negligence led to his death - which it does - then the Prosecutor shouldn't drop the cases against those involved.

The problem is that she overcharge from the beginning. Cesar Goodson should never have been charged with murder and some others (like the already acquitted Edward Nero) should not have been charged at all. She based the charges not on law or available evidence but on "black lives matter" politics. Furthermore, she announced the charges very quickly, much too quickly to allow for any through or impartial investigation by her department.

The prosecutor's job is to represent the People, citizens and civilians, in matters of law. If he or she isn't doing that, then he or she isn't upholding the law or fulfilling the duties of their Office.

Yes. She is to represent the people of Baltimore and she is tasked with upholding the law. She is not to charge people based on her political convictions. For example, when she announced the charges she repeated the #BLM activist chant "no justice no peace". That is not about upholding the law, it's about politics. A prosecutor that makes charging decisions on politics rather than law or evidence does not deserve the position. Especially when the political "sense of mission" leads one to withhold exculpatory evidence or engage in other unethical behavior.

 

[dismal]

Things not looking good at Camp Mosby:
Freddie Gray case: Baltimore police investigators, prosecutors clash in court
A police detective says that the ME initially thought Gray dies due to a "freak accident" before she classified his death as "homicide". The problem being that she testified that she never though it was an accident. Was she pressured into coming up with her classification? And then a prosecutor (alas, not Mosby herself) accused said detective of sabotaging her case.

Mosby should do the right thing and drop all other cases after this one is done, regardless of the verdict.

Why do you think that's the right thing?

A citizen died in police custody. If it looks like gross negligence led to his death - which it does - then the Prosecutor shouldn't drop the cases against those involved. The prosecutor's job is to represent the People, citizens and civilians, in matters of law. If he or she isn't doing that, then he or she isn't upholding the law or fulfilling the duties of their Office.

What words of hope and faith!

Surely it could never be possible for a prosecutor to wildly overcharge citizens a politically charged case.

 

[Derec]

Officer Goodson found not guilty of the most serious charge against him, 2nd degree (depraved heart) murder
Freddie Gray case: Officer Caesar Goodson found not guilty of murder
Verdict on other charges not announced yet.
Edited to add: apparently not guilty on all charges. Catastrophe for Marilyn Mosby.

Also, it was a bench trial, not a jury trial. It brings to mind this old Richard Dawkins essay.

And should I be charged with a serious crime here’s how I want to be tried. If I know myself to be guilty, I’ll go with the loose cannon of a jury, the more ignorant, prejudiced and capricious the better. But if I am innocent, and the ideal of multiple independent decision-takers is unavailable, please give me a judge.

 

[Trausti]

Wow. If you can't even get a lesser conviction against Officer Goodson, the guy alleged to have actually killed (err, fatally injured) Gray, just let it go. But Mosby won't. Pride is a sin for a reason.