Well, this is interesting. The editors of the Chicago Tribune disagree with those of the Washington Post:
Mosby [ed. the Baltimore state’s attorney] bypassed a grand jury, declaring unflinchingly that she had found probable cause to file the charges herself. She batted away a call for her to step aside and let a special prosecutor handle the case because her husband is a Baltimore city councilman.
She owned the decision. She projected a sense of urgency. We pray that her confidence is well founded, that she did not act in haste in the midst of a political and social firestorm.
These are serious charges, and rare. Six officers are accused of arresting Gray for no good reason, roughing him up and ignoring his pleas for medical attention as he bounced around, unrestrained, in the back of a police wagon that made four stops on its way to the station.
[…]
This case needs to be about what happened between Freddie Gray and the six police officers who interacted with him on April 12, not about righting the entire criminal justice system. The stakes are high enough already.
Again, let’s not rush to judgment. Justice will emerge from the trial not from op-ed pages, tweets, or Facebook posts.
We don’t have a justice system, we have a system of due process which gives people opportunities with various risk trade-offs, including the right to remain silent so that the whole story never actually emerges. Prosecutors have a responsibility to the system to make it resemble justice, including taking the case to grand jury to confirm that the charges are not simply personally motivated. They have a responsibility in their public statement to maintain confidence in the system, and avoid such troubling statements like she is responding to mob cries for “no justice; no peace.” She better have evidence to meet the burden and not simply be over-charging six individuals with the hope that someone will roll-over to save themselves.
Given that (according to Mosby) that nothing occurred when Gray did not respond after one of the officers spoke to him, there’s ample proof that Gray’s condition was known to at least one officer. Then the driver was told that a prisoner was not responding, I’m guessing. 5 of 6 officers cooperated. Mosby’s story, unless she made it all up, has to come from this cooperating. It’s not too much of a stretch to think that the driver’s response will be the same as ‘fuck your breath’.
So if this is the story that the prosecutors will be offering in the trial, based on their interviews with all of the officers except one, I think they have a fairly good case, even for the reckless heart second degree murder charge.
I meant to add earlier in the context of “rush to judgment,” the prosecutor certainly rushed to announce charges to stop the protests, and in doing so adopted a theory of the case that will hamstring her far more than had she given the case(s) time to develop. Note that prior to announcing the charges the family attorney was making the same complaints about the medical report that I observed about the likelihood of some injury occurring prior to placement in the van. That’s because officer culpability and chance of error was much higher when “hands on” Gray. The incentives to get charges out there ASAP are clear and not entirely selfish on her part.
I’m just arguing against preconceived notions of guilt, innocence, or what the likely outcomes of trials might be. I’ve also tried explaining how likely defenses might be argued but people don’t want to hear that.
Forensic evidence can’t establish intent. It can be established by direct testimony or from a pattern of action but in the absence of either of those the cases for the more serious charges probably aren’t that easy to make. Videos of Freddie Gray being put into the paddywagon aren’t testimony and don’t establish much. “Well, he looked okay” probably isn’t going to carry a lot of weight.
Keep in mind that I wasn’t there and don’t know what happened. I’m just trying reason my way through and I don’t think that when it gets down to what can be established beyond reasonable doubt with sworn testimony or forensic evidence it probably isn’t quite as clear cut as MM, above, suggests.
I didn’t say it was clear cut. I said they have a fairly good case, if the account the prosecutor gave is based on the statements made. And they do. The difficulty for the prosecution will be in proving what it means when procedures are not followed and when the condition of the prisoner is ignored. The defense can blow all of this off, and assume that the prosecution can’t prove that the police were acting intentionally rather than stupidly. Maybe that will work. Maybe that’s what happened. At the same time, the defense has to hope that the escalation of stupidity is believable. What it means that nobody did anything when they found Freddie Gray unconscious approaches the limit of this believability.
Also, the rapidity with which these charges were filed could be political. Or it could be because the statements were so damning that the prosecution felt confident enough to move fast and skip the grand jury.
MM: I think you are being naive. She selectively used their statements. Do you think the cops told investigators that they knew Gray needed medical attention, but didn’t give a crap? The person she holds most responsible called for help to check on Gray’s status. Occam’s razor is that he knew Gray’s condition was worthy of observation, but didn’t realize how serious it was.
A grand jury would have evaluated the entirety of the statements, which is part of the reason they were bypassed.
There are various obligations that one may have, professional or occupational duties which cause one to be suspended or fired, civil liabilities for failing to adhere to a standard of care, and at the extreme end failures which are criminal nature. The prosecutor muddies this for her advantage. Taking a seat belt policy that was days old and turning into a criminal matter is overcharging. Why? Because all of the cops in Baltimore can testify that they’ve done it and nothing like this ever happened before. It’s the equivalent of pinning a murder charge for someone driving 35 mph on a street that recently had the speed limit lowered to 30 mph. Sanctionable? Yes. Evidence of a depraved heart murder? No, particularly if the government didn’t get around to posting the change yet.