We already know that they lack the ethics that prosecutors are supposed to have, announcing ahead of time (Mosby) that they will get justice for Gray and ignoring all evidence that contradicts their theory of the case. They will even argue legal positions that other prosecutors in their office oppose to get what they want. But to announce what they will prove in court and then prove the opposite reveals a level of obliviousness to the facts and indifference to the truth that would be comical if not so scary.
Schatzow promised evidence of a rough ride by Goodson. What did he present? Evidence that Goodson did not provide a rough ride. He promised evidence that Nero assaulted Gray when he arrested him. What did he produce? Evidence that Nero didn't even arrest him. And they don't seem to see this. They argue their cases as though this was some law school moot court, not as prosecutors with the ethical duty to impartially assess the facts.
The original probable cause statement produced by these three prosecutors was on its face so lacking in grounds for criminal charges that professional observers believed that there had to be more. What we have learned is that there is less. And yet Mosby, Schatzow and Bledsoe continue on, enabled by a judge who refused to change the location of the trials (as he should have) and remains reluctant to dismiss charges for which the state fails to prove each element of the crimes alleged.
Goodson should be acquitted, hands down. And as the officer with the most serious charges, his acquittal should finally send a message to Mosby and Co. that it's time to stop spinning around on their mouse wheel.
But I wouldn't bet on it. To put on the cases these three have manufactured, at such cost to the city (in public safety, morale, and money), they must suffer from permanent blindness.
Splashy, but Irrelevant
The showdown that went down in court Thursday between lead prosecutor Michael Schatzow and lead police investigator Dawnyell Jones may have entertained journalists and spectators, but it's ultimately meaningless.
Carol Allan, the assistant medical examiner who examined Gray's body, ruled his death a homicide. Jones said that Allan first called it a "freakish accident." My own personal view is that no M.E. would have called it a homicide unless led by the nose by prosecutors. What Jones alleged that Allan said - "no human hands can cause this [injury]" -- was factually true. No police officer beat up Gray. Allan was prompted by Mosby's team to call it a homicide, but she applied a legal theory that wasn't for her to decide. All the M.E. can do is tell us what physically caused a death. The legal characterization of that cause is someone else's responsibility.
So the sideshow over what Allan really thought or really said doesn't matter, as Judge Williams well knows. I am surprised he just didn't say so, since he is the one charged with rendering the verdict. On second thought, I shouldn't be surprised about anything anymore when it comes to the Freddie Gray case.