BREAKING in Baltimore: Prosecutor Mosby...ASKED cops to target neighborhood where Grey was arrested!

[The Professor]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

I disagree. There was probable cause to stop, frisk and arrest the man. There is no doubt that the knife he had in his possession was a violation of Baltimore law (in spite of what the State Attorney said). The only thing that remains is whether the police acted lawfully in stopping and frisking him and that is the reason why Marylin Mosby will be called as a witness.

I haven't tried many criminal cases in my life but I do have a JD and know the law. If I were representing the defendants, Marylin Mosby would definitely be called as a witness. You see, there are certain guidelines police must use in deciding whether to stop or frisk a suspect. One of the elements they can consider is whether the suspect is in a high-crime area. This element is not sufficient in of itself to justify a stop or frisk but can be used in conjunction with other elements such as a suspect running away or exhibiting suspicious behavior.

Since the State Attorney requested an increased police presence in that particular area her testimony is relevant to prove the police acted properly in the stop and frisk phase of the arrest. If Mosby is smart, she could stipulate that the arrest was made in a known high crime area or that police had probable cause to stop and frisk. The stipulation should render her testimony unnecessary and would permit her to try the case.

When Can the Police Stop and Frisk You on the Street legalzoom.com

Note: the reference is from legalzoom, but it is reliable. I just picked the first one I came to that was easy to understand.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Please don't tell me this media narrative is going to unravel yet again.

What else would you expect? These idiots hang themselves on a regular basis.

 

[EverCurious]

You better tell that to the prosecutor because she's doing her damnedest to do just that.

To a brain dead clown like you, it may appear that way. To those who know what a gag order is, it does not.

isn't her husband a city council member? If so, is this area not part of HIS district?....
Is the State's Attorney not an elected rather than an appointed position?
Does anyone not see a gigantic conflict of interest here?.....
Needless to say, Baltimore is a wrecking train.

No one with a brain sees one. A council person reports to the police that his constituents complained to him about open air drug dealing. They send more police. That is how it is supposed to work. What the police do once they get there has nothing to do with them being sent.

what did the police do?

Caused the death of a prisoner left unrestrained in the back of their van. Did you not know that is what happened?

You conveniently forgot about the other paddywagon rider who said the idiot was bashing himself silly during the ride.

The one who said this: All I heard was a little banging for like four seconds," 22-year-old Donte Allentold local NBC affiliate WBAL. "I just heard a little banging." Four seconds of a little banging.

You mean what the witness in the van told the /media/ ~ which I'll remind you also included the statement "I ain't no snitch" ~ anyone with half a brain can poke holes in the validity of the story with that kind of comment as covering his ass so his "friends" didn't put a hole in him.

What matters is what he told the investigator's, and that is yet to be heard.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Goes to the trustworthiness, objectivity and vested interests of the DA's office, and, if they have dirty hands as well, then, the Defense can shred the Prosecution's case.

Any port in a storm, and the dumbass may have just served-up Christmas-in-Summertime for the Defense... an extraordinary gift, to be exploited to the hilt.

Perhaps the Voters of Baltimore will remember this, the next time she runs for office - although, after this, the next time she runs, it may be for Dogcatcher - with very uncertain prospects.

Clearly, you have never tried a case from either side. The fact that the police were in a high crime area, even if it were at her request (imagine that, a prosecutor working with police to determine where the crime is occurring so they can put their resources there) is completely irrelevant to any issue at the trial. No Judge would allow a defense attorney to try to make that an issue and no defense attorney would be stupid enough to think it would make a difference. What is relevant at trial is how Freddy Gray died; not how the police happened to be in that neighborhood.

True.

I have not tried a case.

Don't really need to.

When the motives and actions of the chief prosecutor are in question and when that same chief prosecutor can be seen trying to suppress the public release of relevant information and when the court system overrides her protestations, this sets the stage for petitioning to have the case dismissed with reasonably high prospects for success.

It now seems entirely possible that the case will never even go to trial, even without plea bargaining.

Don't blame me, if the DA has dirty hands on this one.

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

So are you saying it's okay for the prosecution to with hold evidence from the defense?

No, you dumbass, it is not OK. Evidence is turned over to the defense during what anyone with a freaking clue about what happens in a criminal trial knows is discovery. Any evidence not turned over cannot be used by the prosecution and any exculpatory (look it up) that is not produced will result in a new trial being granted. What is not supposed to happen is for evidence to be released to the media. Until a photograph or video or report is required to be released TO THE PUBLIC, it has to be introduced into evidence at trial.

You're an idiot with little to no knowledge of how the legal system in this country works.

There is no requirement to release shit to the public, EVER. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike have been known to leak evidence to the public, and UNLESS a judge orders them not to, there is nothing illegal about doing so. In fact, if you DO ignore a judge's gag order , the crime you are guilty of is contempt of court, there is o law against releasing evidence to the public.

As for calling this DA as a witness, you are wrong on that front to, defense attorneys are given a WIDE lattitude in presenting their case, if they want to make a case that this woman was involved in a decision that led to Gray's death, any court will let them pursue that lead.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

...They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

If it DOES go to trial, the charges will be reduced to something like 'reckless endangerment', not some flavor of homocide. Might as well be jaywalking, in relative terms.

Reckless causing another person's death is a degree of homicide. That is the most likely outcome. There is no charge of intentional killing.

You enjoy being wrong don't you?

Homicide is not always illegal. And yes in fact first degree murder is the INTENTIONAL killing of another human being

 

[bucs90]

Her career as a prosecutor is gonna crash due to this kangaroo court shit.

But...her career as a guest speaker at colleges and on MSNBC...and with the NAACP and NAN....is bright.

 

[paddymurphy]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

I disagree. There was probable cause to stop, frisk and arrest the man. There is no doubt that the knife he had in his possession was a violation of Baltimore law (in spite of what the State Attorney said). The only thing that remains is whether the police acted lawfully in stopping and frisking him and that is the reason why Marylin Mosby will be called as a witness.

I haven't tried many criminal cases in my life but I do have a JD and know the law. If I were representing the defendants, Marylin Mosby would definitely be called as a witness. You see, there are certain guidelines police must use in deciding whether to stop or frisk a suspect. One of the elements they can consider is whether the suspect is in a high-crime area. This element is not sufficient in of itself to justify a stop or frisk but can be used in conjunction with other elements such as a suspect running away or exhibiting suspicious behavior.

Since the State Attorney requested an increased police presence in that particular area her testimony is relevant to prove the police acted properly in the stop and frisk phase of the arrest. If Mosby is smart, she could stipulate that the arrest was made in a known high crime area or that police had probable cause to stop and frisk. The stipulation should render her testimony unnecessary and would permit her to try the case.

When Can the Police Stop and Frisk You on the Street legalzoom.com

Note: the reference is from legalzoom, but it is reliable. I just picked the first one I came to that was easy to understand.

Legal zoom? Brilliant resource. I would imagine that the Supreme Court will cite that in their Obamacare decision. You do not need probable cause to stop and detain someone; you need probable cause to arrest. All you need is reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate, detaining the person while doing so. If you had a JD, you would have learned this in your 1L Constitutional law class. And I pointed out in one of my first comments that they did have the right to stop and investigate, based on the high crime area and the flight. They did not, it seems, have the necessary PC to arrest. Those are different standards, by the way, probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Her testimony would not be relevant in any way to the issues at trial. It is not relevant why the police were there. Relevant evidence is evidence that makes a material fact more or less likely to be true. Why they were there is not material to any issue that could be raised pre=-trial or at trial. As for the knife, the Baltimore Ordinance states:
§ 59-22. Switch-blade knives.

(a) Possession or sale, etc., prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife.

(b) Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this section, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The knife he carried did not meet this definition. More importantly, even if they had PC to arrest, that only applies to the charges of false arrest or imprisonment; not to the charges arising out of his death. The defense lawyers are doing what defense lawyers do; everything they can, within the bounds of the rules of professional conduct, to advance the interests of their clients. Here, with these baseless claims that Mosby may have to testify, they are stretching those bounds.

 

[paddymurphy]

Sounds like she has a major conflict of interest.

Indeed. And had one, at the time she filed charges. And knew it. And made the mistake of trying to suppress the information. So that a court had to overrule her. Whoooops...

She did not try to suppress anything. The gag order was rejected on the procedural grounds raised by the defense. Your willingness to lie or you utter stupidity are tiring.
"Circuit Judge Charles Peters ruled last week that the request lacked standing because it was filed May 14 in Circuit Court. The officers' cases were in District Court until May 21, when they were indictedand the case transferred to Circuit Court.

Defense attorneys asked the judge to strike the motion on procedural grounds. Media organizations, including The Associated Press, also opposed it."

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

I disagree. There was probable cause to stop, frisk and arrest the man. There is no doubt that the knife he had in his possession was a violation of Baltimore law (in spite of what the State Attorney said). The only thing that remains is whether the police acted lawfully in stopping and frisking him and that is the reason why Marylin Mosby will be called as a witness.

I haven't tried many criminal cases in my life but I do have a JD and know the law. If I were representing the defendants, Marylin Mosby would definitely be called as a witness. You see, there are certain guidelines police must use in deciding whether to stop or frisk a suspect. One of the elements they can consider is whether the suspect is in a high-crime area. This element is not sufficient in of itself to justify a stop or frisk but can be used in conjunction with other elements such as a suspect running away or exhibiting suspicious behavior.

Since the State Attorney requested an increased police presence in that particular area her testimony is relevant to prove the police acted properly in the stop and frisk phase of the arrest. If Mosby is smart, she could stipulate that the arrest was made in a known high crime area or that police had probable cause to stop and frisk. The stipulation should render her testimony unnecessary and would permit her to try the case.

When Can the Police Stop and Frisk You on the Street legalzoom.com

Note: the reference is from legalzoom, but it is reliable. I just picked the first one I came to that was easy to understand.

Legal zoom? Brilliant resource. I would imagine that the Supreme Court will cite that in their Obamacare decision. You do not need probable cause to stop and detain someone; you need probable cause to arrest. All you need is reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate, detaining the person while doing so. If you had a JD, you would have learned this in your 1L Constitutional law class. And I pointed out in one of my first comments that they did have the right to stop and investigate, based on the high crime area and the flight. They did not, it seems, have the necessary PC to arrest. Those are different standards, by the way, probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Her testimony would not be relevant in any way to the issues at trial. It is not relevant why the police were there. Relevant evidence is evidence that makes a material fact more or less likely to be true. Why they were there is not material to any issue that could be raised pre=-trial or at trial. As for the knife, the Baltimore Ordinance states:
§ 59-22. Switch-blade knives.

(a) Possession or sale, etc., prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, carry, or possess any knife with an automatic spring or other device for opening and/or closing the blade, commonly known as a switch-blade knife.

(b) Penalties. Any person violating the provisions of this section, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The knife he carried did not meet this definition. More importantly, even if they had PC to arrest, that only applies to the charges of false arrest or imprisonment; not to the charges arising out of his death. The defense lawyers are doing what defense lawyers do; everything they can, within the bounds of the rules of professional conduct, to advance the interests of their clients. Here, with these baseless claims that Mosby may have to testify, they are stretching those bounds.

Yes it did. Which is why the prosecutor refused to show it to the defense.

 

[Roadrunner]

Theres gonna be dead n!ggers littering the streets this summer.

We are one heat wave and one dead idiot away from the whole country blowing.

Police are now being provoked and goaded as the agenda demands "victims".

 

[Roadrunner]

Do you know that there are left wing morons who still think Mike Brown held his hands up and was shot in the back? A lot of them post here.

I thought he was shot in the nape of the neck while on his knees begging for his life?

 

[bucs90]

Yes. Its scary. People are seeking fame by provoking cops and filming it. Its gonna spark a damn mini civil war.

 

[bucs90]

Do you know that there are left wing morons who still think Mike Brown held his hands up and was shot in the back? A lot of them post here.

I thought he was shot in the nape of the neck while on his knees begging for his life?

No. Michael Brown was laying down his Spongebob blanket to have a skittles and tea picnic with his good pals before heading to an innocent pool party. Then....out of nowhere....Darren Wilson came in and did a Rambo barrel roll with pistols crossed in each hand and shot him 35 times in the back while screaming "YEEEEEHAW MUTHAFUCKAS"!!!!

 

[paddymurphy]

Clearly, you have never tried a case from either side. The fact that the police were in a high crime area, even if it were at her request (imagine that, a prosecutor working with police to determine where the crime is occurring so they can put their resources there) is completely irrelevant to any issue at the trial. No Judge would allow a defense attorney to try to make that an issue and no defense attorney would be stupid enough to think it would make a difference. What is relevant at trial is how Freddy Gray died; not how the police happened to be in that neighborhood.

True.

I have not tried a case.

Don't really need to.

When the motives and actions of the chief prosecutor are in question and when that same chief prosecutor can be seen trying to suppress the public release of relevant information and when the court system overrides her protestations, this sets the stage for petitioning to have the case dismissed with reasonably high prospects for success.

It now seems entirely possible that the case will never even go to trial, even without plea bargaining.

Don't blame me, if the DA has dirty hands on this one.

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

So are you saying it's okay for the prosecution to with hold evidence from the defense?

No, you dumbass, it is not OK. Evidence is turned over to the defense during what anyone with a freaking clue about what happens in a criminal trial knows is discovery. Any evidence not turned over cannot be used by the prosecution and any exculpatory (look it up) that is not produced will result in a new trial being granted. What is not supposed to happen is for evidence to be released to the media. Until a photograph or video or report is required to be released TO THE PUBLIC, it has to be introduced into evidence at trial.

You're an idiot with little to no knowledge of how the legal system in this country works.

There is no requirement to release shit to the public, EVER. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike have been known to leak evidence to the public, and UNLESS a judge orders them not to, there is nothing illegal about doing so. In fact, if you DO ignore a judge's gag order , the crime you are guilty of is contempt of court, there is o law against releasing evidence to the public.

As for calling this DA as a witness, you are wrong on that front to, defense attorneys are given a WIDE lattitude in presenting their case, if they want to make a case that this woman was involved in a decision that led to Gray's death, any court will let them pursue that lead.

Not sure who you are replying to, but I wrote that there is no requirement to release anything to the public until and unless it is introduced into evidence in Court. Once that happens, it is available to the media. And you are right, that both sides do sometimes leak things to the media to gain advantage. Here, the solution to that is precisely what Mosby requested, a gag order preventing both sides from discussing the case in the media. As for calling her as a witness, that will never happen. Evidence has to be relevant. She can offer no relevant evidence. To say that she was involved in the decision that led to Gray's death is beyond stupid. The only thing that is reported is that she passed on to the police information that was received from residents that there was open air drug dealing on that corner. So the police sent in more officers. The suggestion that that somehow is part of a chain of causation that ends with Gray's death is absurd. I guess we can call the police officer's high school guidance counselor who suggested the would make a great cop since that decision, like Mosby's, led to the encounter between the officer and Gray and his ultimate death.

 

[bucs90]

True.

I have not tried a case.

Don't really need to.

When the motives and actions of the chief prosecutor are in question and when that same chief prosecutor can be seen trying to suppress the public release of relevant information and when the court system overrides her protestations, this sets the stage for petitioning to have the case dismissed with reasonably high prospects for success.

It now seems entirely possible that the case will never even go to trial, even without plea bargaining.

Don't blame me, if the DA has dirty hands on this one.

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

So are you saying it's okay for the prosecution to with hold evidence from the defense?

No, you dumbass, it is not OK. Evidence is turned over to the defense during what anyone with a freaking clue about what happens in a criminal trial knows is discovery. Any evidence not turned over cannot be used by the prosecution and any exculpatory (look it up) that is not produced will result in a new trial being granted. What is not supposed to happen is for evidence to be released to the media. Until a photograph or video or report is required to be released TO THE PUBLIC, it has to be introduced into evidence at trial.

You're an idiot with little to no knowledge of how the legal system in this country works.

There is no requirement to release shit to the public, EVER. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike have been known to leak evidence to the public, and UNLESS a judge orders them not to, there is nothing illegal about doing so. In fact, if you DO ignore a judge's gag order , the crime you are guilty of is contempt of court, there is o law against releasing evidence to the public.

As for calling this DA as a witness, you are wrong on that front to, defense attorneys are given a WIDE lattitude in presenting their case, if they want to make a case that this woman was involved in a decision that led to Gray's death, any court will let them pursue that lead.

Not sure who you are replying to, but I wrote that there is no requirement to release anything to the public until and unless it is introduced into evidence in Court. Once that happens, it is available to the media. And you are right, that both sides do sometimes leak things to the media to gain advantage. Here, the solution to that is precisely what Mosby requested, a gag order preventing both sides from discussing the case in the media. As for calling her as a witness, that will never happen. Evidence has to be relevant. She can offer no relevant evidence. To say that she was involved in the decision that led to Gray's death is beyond stupid. The only thing that is reported is that she passed on to the police information that was received from residents that there was open air drug dealing on that corner. So the police sent in more officers. The suggestion that that somehow is part of a chain of causation that ends with Gray's death is absurd. I guess we can call the police officer's high school guidance counselor who suggested the would make a great cop since that decision, like Mosby's, led to the encounter between the officer and Gray and his ultimate death.

You're wrong.

Anything that isnt evidence...is subject to FOIA. So if she hasnt introduced it as evidence...then they can FOIA it.

Second...her testimony is relevant. Part of her charges are simply "misconduct in office". Which means their conduct...as a whole. Defense will paint the entire scenario...from start of shift to end...to show all their "conduct"....to include why they stopped Grey.

Shes charging them for their conduct. A significant part of their conduct that day...was in response to her order for heavy drug enforcement there.

Shes getting called as a witness. Bet on it.

 

[blastoff]

Sounds like she has a major conflict of interest.

Indeed. And had one, at the time she filed charges. And knew it. And made the mistake of trying to suppress the information. So that a court had to overrule her. Whoooops...

And shes racist for targeting black areas for heavy enforcement.

Oh, c'mon. She was just...profiling!

 

[Muhammed]

... and then she throws them under the bus and has them arrested after they follow her orders.

Hmmm... I see trouble for that little bubble headed retard.

So, she ordered them to arrest him without probable cause, to put him in the back of a paddy wagon without restraining him but with his hands cuffed behind his back so he could not protect himself and to drive around the neighborhood, making sharp turns and sudden stops to bounce him off the walls? She did not "order" them anywhere. She does not have that authority over the police. She, along with the police command, decided to send more cops to where there was more crime. Imagine that? Doing that has absolutely nothing to do what the police did to Gray when they got there. Talk about bubble headed retards. Look in the mirror.

He's a known drug dealer and he ran.
Sounds to me like the cops were just following orders.

Running is not illegal.

 

[dannyboys]

...Following orders by patrolling in that area. Did she order them to put him in a paddy wagon, cuffed and unrestrained and then to drive around Baltimore bouncing him around the back of the wagon? Do you people think before you post? Do you have any idea who moronic your comments are?

Goes to the trustworthiness, objectivity and vested interests of the DA's office, and, if they have dirty hands as well, then, the Defense can shred the Prosecution's case.

Any port in a storm, and the dumbass may have just served-up Christmas-in-Summertime for the Defense... an extraordinary gift, to be exploited to the hilt.

Perhaps the Voters of Baltimore will remember this, the next time she runs for office - although, after this, the next time she runs, it may be for Dogcatcher - with very uncertain prospects.

Clearly, you have never tried a case from either side. The fact that the police were in a high crime area, even if it were at her request (imagine that, a prosecutor working with police to determine where the crime is occurring so they can put their resources there) is completely irrelevant to any issue at the trial. No Judge would allow a defense attorney to try to make that an issue and no defense attorney would be stupid enough to think it would make a difference. What is relevant at trial is how Freddy Gray died; not how the police happened to be in that neighborhood.

True.

I have not tried a case.

Don't really need to.

When the motives and actions of the chief prosecutor are in question and when that same chief prosecutor can be seen trying to suppress the public release of relevant information and when the court system overrides her protestations, this sets the stage for petitioning to have the case dismissed with reasonably high prospects for success.

It now seems entirely possible that the case will never even go to trial, even without plea bargaining.

Don't blame me, if the DA has dirty hands on this one.

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

God you're a fucking idiot.
The fucking van had a functioning GPS installed. The GPS recorded every movement the van made.
The officer KNEW the van had a GPS for Christ Sake!
A computer model has already been generated PROVING the driver did nothing but ordinary driving. No sharp high speed turns. No sudden braking. No fucking nothing.
The Police Union has hired the best lawyers in the country. When they get finished having the entire case thrown out our little negro fuckwitt simian Pros. is going to find a fucking rock to hide under somewhere in Nevada. There she will be the counter clerk for a oil change business.

 

[paddymurphy]

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

So are you saying it's okay for the prosecution to with hold evidence from the defense?

No, you dumbass, it is not OK. Evidence is turned over to the defense during what anyone with a freaking clue about what happens in a criminal trial knows is discovery. Any evidence not turned over cannot be used by the prosecution and any exculpatory (look it up) that is not produced will result in a new trial being granted. What is not supposed to happen is for evidence to be released to the media. Until a photograph or video or report is required to be released TO THE PUBLIC, it has to be introduced into evidence at trial.

You're an idiot with little to no knowledge of how the legal system in this country works.

There is no requirement to release shit to the public, EVER. Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike have been known to leak evidence to the public, and UNLESS a judge orders them not to, there is nothing illegal about doing so. In fact, if you DO ignore a judge's gag order , the crime you are guilty of is contempt of court, there is o law against releasing evidence to the public.

As for calling this DA as a witness, you are wrong on that front to, defense attorneys are given a WIDE lattitude in presenting their case, if they want to make a case that this woman was involved in a decision that led to Gray's death, any court will let them pursue that lead.

Not sure who you are replying to, but I wrote that there is no requirement to release anything to the public until and unless it is introduced into evidence in Court. Once that happens, it is available to the media. And you are right, that both sides do sometimes leak things to the media to gain advantage. Here, the solution to that is precisely what Mosby requested, a gag order preventing both sides from discussing the case in the media. As for calling her as a witness, that will never happen. Evidence has to be relevant. She can offer no relevant evidence. To say that she was involved in the decision that led to Gray's death is beyond stupid. The only thing that is reported is that she passed on to the police information that was received from residents that there was open air drug dealing on that corner. So the police sent in more officers. The suggestion that that somehow is part of a chain of causation that ends with Gray's death is absurd. I guess we can call the police officer's high school guidance counselor who suggested the would make a great cop since that decision, like Mosby's, led to the encounter between the officer and Gray and his ultimate death.

You're wrong.

Anything that isnt evidence...is subject to FOIA. So if she hasnt introduced it as evidence...then they can FOIA it.

Second...her testimony is relevant. Part of her charges are simply "misconduct in office". Which means their conduct...as a whole. Defense will paint the entire scenario...from start of shift to end...to show all their "conduct"....to include why they stopped Grey.

Shes charging them for their conduct. A significant part of their conduct that day...was in response to her order for heavy drug enforcement there.

Shes getting called as a witness. Bet on it.

I was not talking about FOIA. I was talking about the release of evidence by the prosecution. While the investigation or prosecution are pending, they do not have to release anything publicly and are bound by the rules of professional conduct to not make comments or provide information that would affect the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. And, no, the fact that they were there because she passed on information three weeks ago regarding criminal activity there will not be, in any way, relevant and not judge will permit that silly and unethical stunt from defense counsel. They are charged for their conduct that she alleges violate the law. Why they were there is wholly irrelevant. Your idiocy grows with every comment.

 

[paddymurphy]

...Following orders by patrolling in that area. Did she order them to put him in a paddy wagon, cuffed and unrestrained and then to drive around Baltimore bouncing him around the back of the wagon? Do you people think before you post? Do you have any idea who moronic your comments are?

Goes to the trustworthiness, objectivity and vested interests of the DA's office, and, if they have dirty hands as well, then, the Defense can shred the Prosecution's case.

Any port in a storm, and the dumbass may have just served-up Christmas-in-Summertime for the Defense... an extraordinary gift, to be exploited to the hilt.

Perhaps the Voters of Baltimore will remember this, the next time she runs for office - although, after this, the next time she runs, it may be for Dogcatcher - with very uncertain prospects.

Clearly, you have never tried a case from either side. The fact that the police were in a high crime area, even if it were at her request (imagine that, a prosecutor working with police to determine where the crime is occurring so they can put their resources there) is completely irrelevant to any issue at the trial. No Judge would allow a defense attorney to try to make that an issue and no defense attorney would be stupid enough to think it would make a difference. What is relevant at trial is how Freddy Gray died; not how the police happened to be in that neighborhood.

True.

I have not tried a case.

Don't really need to.

When the motives and actions of the chief prosecutor are in question and when that same chief prosecutor can be seen trying to suppress the public release of relevant information and when the court system overrides her protestations, this sets the stage for petitioning to have the case dismissed with reasonably high prospects for success.

It now seems entirely possible that the case will never even go to trial, even without plea bargaining.

Don't blame me, if the DA has dirty hands on this one.

They are not in question; gag orders are requested in most high profile cases and granted; it is unethical for a prosecutor to release evidence such as an autopsy report prior to trial; and there is not probability at all that the case could be dismissed on any of these. Some of the charges will be dismissed and some of the defendants dismissed from the case. But it will go to trial for the officer who put him in the back unrestrained and for the officer who drove the vehicle.

God you're a fucking idiot.
The fucking van had a functioning GPS installed. The GPS recorded every movement the van made.
The officer KNEW the van had a GPS for Christ Sake!
A computer model has already been generated PROVING the driver did nothing but ordinary driving. No sharp high speed turns. No sudden braking. No fucking nothing.
The Police Union has hired the best lawyers in the country. When they get finished having the entire case thrown out our little negro fuckwitt simian Pros. is going to find a fucking rock to hide under somewhere in Nevada. There she will be the counter clerk for a oil change business.

So, she will be working next to you?