MD - Freddie Gray dies in police custody #3 *INDICTMENT*

[bettybaby00]

They focused on this paragraph from NYT article, specifically the BBM

ould have caused Mr. Gray’s spinal cord injury, according to one person with knowledge of the investigation, there was no indication that he had been beaten or otherwise mistreated. That person said that without a cellphone video of Mr. Gray’s arrest, which shows him turning his neck and apparently supporting his weight while standing outside the back of the van, it would have been virtually impossible to determine that his fatal neck injury occurred in the van.

If true, I don't understand how ME could determine "homicide"

That's how I see it at least. Oh and according to legal expert on MK, whatever statements cops made prior to being charged would likely NEVER be admissible. The argument being that they gave those statements in their capacity as LE, not as defendants who weren't read their rights.

I think the bottom line is that theor defense attornies will have a lot to work with.

 

[ohreally]

Can those reports and statements before mirandizing be used against another officer if they contained negative information? Thanks for the info, appreciated.

I don't think so based on this: He said anything officers disclosed to police initially may be inadmissible if they were ordered to answer questions as part of their job, disclosing what took place while on duty. If any statements were given "under duress," Warnken said, they can only be used internally by police to determine whether officers should face suspensions, termination or other sanctions
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...ie-gray-statements-20150505-story.html#page=1

 

[dandy]

[QUOTE=BirdycatNY;11772336]In Defending Baltimore Police Officers, Lawyers Build Case From the Details. By Serge F. Kovaleski and Michael Wines
N.Y. Times May 14, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-police.html?_r=0

Hey, did anybody notice ^article links to 15 page pdf of Policy 1114, dated April 3, 2015.
PERSONS IN POLICE CUSTODY, page 2, sections 1.5.6. and 1.5.7 discuss restraints.

Why does copy & paste not work? Help, anyone? TIA.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...olicy-1114-for-persons-in-police-custody.html

[/QUOTE]

if you go over to the right of the document - it says "original document - pdf" - click on that and then you can c/p

 

[bettybaby00]

[/SIZE]




Hey, did anybody notice ^article links to 15 page pdf of Policy 1114, dated April 3, 2015.
PERSONS IN POLICE CUSTODY, page 2, sections 1.5.6. and 1.5.7 discuss restraints.

Why does copy & paste not work? Help, anyone? TIA.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...olicy-1114-for-persons-in-police-custody.html

if you go over to the right of the document - it says "original document - pdf" - click on that and then you can c/p

I can't c&p either, but I think it's b/c I'm on an iPad, and can't highlight more than one word at a time. I'm sure if I was using a mouse it would be different.

I've only skimmed the regulations. I'm not going to get into them though, cause I can see it becoming a "political" argument.

She will have to prove that all the officers were aware of the new regulations, and that they were instructed on their implementation. Did we ever find out if that particular van even had seat belts?

 

[al66pine]

[/SIZE]
Why does copy & paste not work? Help, anyone? TIA.

if you go over to the right of the document - it says "original document - pdf" - click on that and then you can c/p

Hey, dandy,
thx for the help w C&P.
I learn something everyday on W/S.
al66pine

 

[al66pine]

Looks like BPD April 2015 restraints language is tighter than 1997 policy, imo.
_________________________________________________________________
"PERSONS IN POLICE CUSTODY"
Policy 1114, dated April 3, 2015, page 2, sections re restraining detainee during transport.

"1.5. Whenever a detainee is transported in a police vehicle, ensure that:
1.5.1. Only vehicles with safety barriers are used to transport detainees.
....
1.5.6. The detainee is secured with the provided seat belt or restraining device. All passengers, regardless of age and seat location, shall be restrained by seat belts or other authorized restraining devices.
1.5.7. The seat belt or restraining device is secured around the waist or upper body of the detainee. This will prevent the detainee from maneuvering out of the restraint and possibly causing injury to himself/herself or others." bbm
from p 15:
"RESCISSION Remove and destroy/recycle General Order K-14, Persons in Police Custody dated, 18 September 1997.
"COMMUNICATION OF POLICY This policy is effective on the date listed herein. Commanders are responsible for informing their subordinates of this policy and ensuring compliance." bbm

^ from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...olicy-1114-for-persons-in-police-custody.html
= 15 page pdf, dated April, 2015
N.Y. Times May 14, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/us/freddie-gray-baltimore-police.html?_r=0

 

[katydid23]

I wish we could see a transcript of the Grand Jury presentation. Very unlikely , as it is always pretty secretive. I am very curious to see if they discuss the different codes concerning the knife, and address the ambiguity. And if they discuss how very recently the seatbelt regulations changed. Probably not, I suppose.

 

[KEVINinTO]

I wish we could see a transcript of the Grand Jury presentation. Very unlikely , as it is always pretty secretive. I am very curious to see if they discuss the different codes concerning the knife, and address the ambiguity. And if they discuss how very recently the seatbelt regulations changed. Probably not, I suppose.

I wonder if the officers will testify before the GJ? I think it would be in their best interest. In the MB case DW testified before the GJ and I think that was helpful for him. In this case I think that the officers would have a chance - through their testimony - to convince the GJ that the charges are completely bogus and that they are being persecuted by an out-of-control SA for simply doing their jobs.

 

[katydid23]

I wonder if the officers will testify before the GJ? I think it would be in their best interest. In the MB case DW testified before the GJ and I think that was helpful for him. In this case I think that the officers would have a chance - through their testimony - to convince the GJ that the charges are completely bogus and that they are being persecuted by an out-of-control SA for simply doing their jobs.

But the problem is that it's very rare for the defendants to be allowed to testify. Usually they are not goven that opportunity. In fact, there is ZERO defense offered. It is all info brought forward by the State, with no mitigating evidence at all/ Thus the saying---A Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich.

The only hope the officers have, imo, is if the Grand Jurors have ben following the news, and if they ask pertinent questions. Hopefully they request the necessary info and do not just accept what the SA offers them.

 

[Falcon500]

Can those reports and statements before mirandizing be used against another officer if they contained negative information? Thanks for the info, appreciated.

The officer who wrote the report would have to testify that he/she wrote the report and to the facts contained in the report. It's doubtful that it would happen.

 

[al66pine]

"Originally Posted by Peliman Can those reports and statements before mirandizing be used against another officer if they contained negative information? ...." sbm

The officer who wrote the report would have to testify that he/she wrote the report and to the facts contained in the report. It's doubtful that it would happen.

bbm

Doubtful? We're talking -- at trial, not GJ?
Hypo = LEO A wrote report stating -- LEO B did (yadda yadda, illegal action).

If at crim trial vs LEO B, for those specified illegal actions, if LEO A is asked -
1. Did you write this report stating LEO B did 'yadda yadda illegal action,' in your handwriting, dated May xx, 2015, and w your siggie, well, what does LEO A say in response?
-If LEO A disclaims authoring report, does that expose him to false LEO rpt & crim chg?
Maybe, so not a favorable outcome for LEO A.
If LEO A concedes authoring report, does he cross famous 'Blue Line' and endanger any his poss future LE career and expose him as a 'rat' to fellow LEOs?
Maybe, so, not a favorable outcome for LEO A.
IDK. Just speculating.
_________________________________________________

Short take:
Q: "Can those reports and statements before mirandizing be used against another officer if they contained negative information."
A: "...Doubtful that it would happen."

Thinking about Miranda warning - against self-criminalization, e.g. in this case, prohibiting LEO A's stmts from being used to incriminate him re his crim charges, not to prohibit LEO A's stmts being used to incrim LEO B's crim charges, IIUC.

If crim charges & trial relate to LEO B's actions, then
how does LEO A being Mirandized - or not - apply to admissibility of LEO A's stmts in crim trial re LEO B's actions?

Not understanding why - 'doubtful it would happen.' (but sometimes I'm pretty dense)

 

[DebinGA]

I think in the MB case, grand jurors were pulled from the whole county, not just St. Louis. The DA was elected by the whole county, not just St. Louis. Mosby is SA for Baltimore City, where the crime occurred and where grand jurors will be pulled, as Baltimore County has its own SA. The two jurisdictions have very different demographics:

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/agencies/statesattorney/

A grand jury only needs a simple majority to "true bill" a case iirc, so I don't see any hope that whatever charges Mosby presents them with won't be okayed.

 

[K_Z]

I think in the MB case, grand jurors were pulled from the whole county, not just St. Louis. The DA was elected by the whole county, not just St. Louis. Mosby is SA for Baltimore City, where the crime occurred and where grand jurors will be pulled, as Baltimore County has its own SA. The two jurisdictions have very different juror demographics:

http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/agencies/statesattorney/

A grand jury only needs a simple majority to "true bill" a case iirc, so I don't see any hope that whatever charges Mosby presents them with will be okayed.

The Grand Jury for the Michael Brown/ Darren Wilson case had already been seated for almost a year when they received the Brown/ Wilson case. They were not selected specifically for the Brown/ Wilson case, and their service time was extended beyond their end date so they could finish that case. They had already been hearing dozens/ hundreds of cases together as a group when they received the Brown/ Wilson case.

IMO, that was the best thing for real justice that could have happened in that case, because there was no possibility of controversy generated by those who may have promoted the idea that Grand Jurors were selected because they had a certain agenda "for" or "against" a particular side.

 

[K_Z]

I wonder if the officers will testify before the GJ? I think it would be in their best interest. In the MB case DW testified before the GJ and I think that was helpful for him. In this case I think that the officers would have a chance - through their testimony - to convince the GJ that the charges are completely bogus and that they are being persecuted by an out-of-control SA for simply doing their jobs.

I think the main difference in the Baltimore case and the MB case in MO is that the prosecutor in the MB case did not bring charges against DW-- he brought the evidence to the GJ instead, and asked them to evaluate it and go forward, to see if charges were warranted.

A GJ in Baltimore will now necessarily have to focus on the charges brought by MM, instead of the evidence, and work backwards, IMO. I think that's exactly why Mosby charged it herself the way she did-- and for other rather transparent personal agendas.

Prospective versus retrospective, inductive vs deductive reasoning. Marilyn Mosby appears to prefer the retrospective approach, which I happen to think is very unwise in situations such as these. It's a knee-jerk reactionary way to think, versus a thoughtful way to build an argument. Starting with a conclusion, then working backwards to make the evidence fit the conclusion, rather than building the evidence toward a logical conclusion. IMO.

 

[DebinGA]

True, K_Z, that the grand jury has probably been hearing cases together for awhile, unless this jury is newly "sitting". But this jury imo will be more alike than if they were from the whole county and not Mosby-friendly BC only.

 

[DebinGA]

A GJ in Baltimore will now necessarily have to focus on the charges brought by MM, instead of the evidence, and work backwards, IMO. I think that's exactly why Mosby charged it herself the way she did-- and for other rather transparent personal agendas.

I doubt there will be much (if any) "working" backwards, forwards, or sideways going on, which is the case with most grand juries imo. Unless a majority view the prosecutor before them as untrustworthy, they rubber-stamp the request and move the case along to the trial jury as the trier-of-facts.

 

[MissSunshine]

Baltimore Police added Freddie Gray's death to their list of city homicides Thursday, nearly two weeks after city State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby filed charges.

snip

But in Gray's case, police have not received autopsy information beyond details shared by Mosby when she announced the charges against the officers at a news conference on May 1.

snip

A spokesman for the medical examiner's office said state law requires only that the office to deliver autopsy information to prosecutors.

snip

The medical examiner now provides two copies of an autopsy to the State's Attorney's Office, one with a letter that says prosecutors "may provide this to law enforcement at your discretion when you feel it's appropriate," Goldfarb said.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...grays-death-as-a-homicide-20150514-story.html

 

[ohreally]

I do worry that if there is a grand jury it will come back with a true bill based on false statements before them. In the MB case they were given all of the evidence, and were allowed to request witnesses to be questioned. I don't see that happening in this case. I worry that they will be told things such as the knife was legal. I don't know if it is true in Maryland, but in Florida the defense is normally not privileged to any of the grand jury testimony. In the CA case Baez kept trying to find out what GA said in the grand jury, but was denied. In the MB case a judge ruled it will all be released.
I do hope the judge makes a decision that the grand jury testimony will be transcribed before they hear the case. I believe it will make a big difference in how testimony is presented.
If testimony is not transcribed, I think there will be a true bill, but it will be lost in trial.

 

[MissSunshine]

Don't have link atm but MM is requesting a gag order on the case.

 

[KEVINinTO]

Don't have link atm but MM is requesting a gag order on the case.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutor-freddie-gray-case-seeks-gag-order-31079972

In a joint statement issued Friday, the defense attorneys said it is "imperative that the public understand the facts and the law beyond the bald allegations publicized by Ms. Mosby." The charges, the attorneys said, "have yet to be supported by a single piece of evidence. We have made one simple repeated request: Show us the evidence."