I was taught that the number one reason why criminal convictions are reversed on appeal are due to mistakes in instructions to juries. What Judge Barry Williams tells the jury before they deliberate this week in State v. William Porter, the first of the Freddie Gray trials, is therefore crucial to a just result.
One thing State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby has successfully (and wrongfully) done is create in the public mind the idea that failing to use a seat belt is a criminal offense. She mentioned the police failure to seat belt Gray over and over again in her speech announcing criminal charges. Michael Schatzow and Janice Bledsoe, the trial prosecutors, have harped on it repeatedly with every witness.
But it's not a crime. In fact, in Maryland the failure of persons injured in an auto accident to use seat belts isn't even negligence on their part. Yet Mosby uses lack of a seat belt as the crux of her criminal case, and so do people who want the police department to be held "accountable" for Gray's death, not accepting the fact that accountability came through a civil settlement.
The seat belt issue is now even more critical to Mosby's case after defense experts persuasively testified that Gray was not suffering from his injury at any point when officers were talking with him. At the very least they cast more than a reasonable doubt upon the medical examiner's claim that the police were talking to a man with a broken neck and did nothing about it. That jettisons the failure-to-get-medical-help as a crime. Mosby is left with homicide-by-no-seat-belt.
I don't know on what basis Judge Williams decided to permit the seat belt issue to even be discussed in the case against Porter. My guess is that it was a novel issue for him, applying civil law to a criminal case, and he decided to let the jury decide. But he can't pawn the decision off on the jury until he first explains the law to them. What will he say? If he gets it wrong, and the jury convicts, Porter will have to wait on an appeals court to get justice.
I have yet to see the courage I expected from Judge Williams in his rulings. He should have changed the location of trial, but didn't. He should have tossed the assault charge after the state's case because they presented zero evidence Porter assaulted Gray. Will he allow the jury to think -- as many in the public think or want to think -- that failure to put a seat belt on Freddie Gray could be considered a criminal act?
It's possible that even if Judge Williams allows them to think that, they will acquit anyway, on the basis that the van driver had the responsibility for seat-belting his passengers. The right result for the wrong reason.
But here's hoping we get the right result for the right reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
You have written the first article that is truthful. The only people by law that must utilize a seatbelts is the front seat driver and passenger. If anyone is under 16 year old must wear a seat belt.
ReplyDeleteBaltimore City has a no chase policy. Every lawyer knows this General Order is wrong. I hate the fact that these officers might get convicted of violating a General Order.
Will anyone state true facts, it was Freddy Grey'stood action that resulted in his death. He was looking at a civil payout but he injuried himself to the point it caused his death.
Question: Why didn't the other passenger in the van suffer any injuries? The answer is the passenger used common sense and sat on the seat in a normal seated position.
A guilty verdict will dive the homicide rate up. More people will be victims of violence crimes. Police Officers will continue to do there jobs but they will be reactive instead of proactive.
Why does our society make criminals heros? Baltimore City is so corrupt.
I love the City I once worked in but the politicians should be charge criminally with "Depraved Murder" for every person who was murdered because it was there failed policies that were responsible for people deaths. The officers on the street are the soft targets.
I would love to know what his toxicology autopsy report said and also what was his prior medical history? Especially any history of spinal surgery??? And/or neurological deficits and substance abuse. The whole narrative sounds much to vague and superficial to come to any truthful and informative conclusion. The whole thing feels like a ruse.
ReplyDeleteCan you explain why the medical document that the prosecution withheld was not brought up in the trial? Also, why wasn't Donta Allen called? He said Gray was moving in van. Was Donta Allen in a seatbelt? Why leave this out considering he was not injured? To protect Mosby, the reporter, and Bledsoe?
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Allen wasn't called because he recanted his statement and the defense could not be sure of what he would say. They did appear to get his statement in second-hand by way of the medical examiner. As for the issue of Gray's previous back injury, I am not aware of whether the defense did or did not introduce it. If they did not, it is probably because their own experts dismantled the contention that Gray suffered his back injury when the prosecution said he did, or because a pre-existing condition was irrelevant to the catastrophic injury that he suffered.
DeleteYou know why Williams didn't rule the way he did-- this is all politics, Williams is afraid of the backlash.
ReplyDeleteThoughts on today's mistrial Ms Page?
ReplyDeleteWith the evidence that was introduced, this was an easy acquittal. The State failed to prove that Officer Porter was guilty of gross negligence in any way on any count. My best guess is that most of the jury probably recognized this, and that one or two came into the trial determined to convict (and thus lied to the judge that they could be fair.) Otherwise they would have spent more time discussing the issues. A hung jury after a mere one day (Which the judge properly forced into two days) means people came to conclusions very quickly, one way or the other. Since the only easy conclusion was for acquittal, I am speculating that this was the majority of the jury, and the holdouts were not willing to listen to any reasonable argument.
DeleteDear Page: Assuming arguendo that your 8:30AM summary is accurate, why shouldn't voir dire from hereon include a series of questions that seek to explore the state of mind of the members of the array before trial? Why not ask a question like this: "As you sit here in the courtroom, do any of you hold the belief that the defendant must have done something wrong, otherwise the prosecutor wouldn't have charged him with a crime? Put another way, do you hold to the adage that, where there's smoke, there must be fire?" In other words, why shouldn't the judge want to find out whether the potential jurors already suspect that the defendant must have done something, so that it is up to the defendant to prove to them that he is innocent? Jurors may think that before the trial starts, they are supposed to believe that they can't have a view of the case until they hear and see the evidence. Why shouldn't every single potential juror instead be challenged on that mindset, so that unless the person says, "As I sit here right now, before the trial starts, I believe that the defendant is not guilty," s/he will be disqualified?
DeleteDid Williams actually tell the jurors they could compromise on a verdict, or was he misquoted?
ReplyDeleteI plan to listen to the jury instructions for myself at some point and can respond then.
Delete"why wasn't Donta Allen called? He said Gray was moving in van." - I've read else where that while Mr. Allen had said Mr. Gray was moving in the van and hitting the van/cage with some part of his body during transport, he later reversed/withdrew his statement about this. The speculation I've read is that the neither side felt he would be seen by the jury as a credible witness and was very unpredictable about what he would say on the stand. In the case of the Defense by all accounts including Ms. Croyder's they've had the facts of the case on they're side from the start and all the way though the trial so why muddy the waters.
ReplyDeleteMs. Croyder, I very much look forward to your perspective on the reports that 'Judge William Barry told the hung jury to “Compromise if you can do so without violence to your own moral judgement'".
Thank you again for the time you've taken to share your perspective on this trial.
See my response to Cloud of Haze.
DeleteMrs Croyder
ReplyDeleteI have been asking a couple questions about this case in many forums and not getting answers. The questions requires people familiar with the Baltimore/Maryland legal scene, so you might be able to answer them.
The first question is why didn't the defense appeal the change of venue denials? Are interlocutory appeals not allowed in Maryland?
The second question is can the defense appeal trial rulings now, so that the second trial can be held more properly?
It certainly would have saved everyone a lot of time and anguish had this appeal been taken immediately, wouldn't it? But not all issues are ripe for interlocutory appeals, and this was one. And with a mistrial, we are unfortunately back to square one.
DeleteI've never really understood this case. If there isn't a legal obligation to buckle a prisoner in a police transport van, then how could Porter be charged with a crime for not doing that? Or if there is such an obligation, does every unbuckled prisoner constitute a crime committed by the police?
ReplyDelete