Marilyn Mosby Responds To Defense Motion For Recusal – Petulance, Inexperience Permeate Motion Language…

A judge had given Mosby until June 26 to respond to three defense motions. In addition to the motion to remove her and her office from the case, defense attorneys have asked that the case be moved away from Baltimore and that it be dismissed because of “prosecutorial misconduct.” (link)

mosby screenBaltimore’s Special State Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby’s office has responded to defense motion that she should be removed from prosecuting the Baltimore Six. (Full pdf motion below)

An astoundingly petulant, and ideologically-worded, rebuttal motion claiming the accused police officers and their attorneys distort facts in the hope “vitriol will trump logic.”

Notably absent, actually glaringly absent, from the motion is anything relating to a “rough ride” despite numerous references to the construct of negligence in reference to the transport of Freddie Gray.

This excerpt screams petulance -directed at a media audience- and is seriously lacking in any foundation toward the substance of the actual recusal motion itself:

 “Mrs. Mosby did not direct the defendants to chase Mr. Gray,” Schatzow wrote. “She did not direct them to arrest him; she did not direct them to handcuff him and place him in a police wagon without putting him in a seat belt, in violation of a [Baltimore Police Department] General Order; she did not direct them to shackle his legs and put him in the wagon on the floor handcuffed and shackled, but not in a seatbelt, in violation of a General Order; she did not direct the defendants to ignore Mr. Gray’s requests for a medic; she did not direct defendants to ignore Mr. Gray’s medical condition; and she did not direct defendants to pick up another individual in the wagon instead of taking Mr. Gray to the hospital.”

Again, this shows evidence of the absurdly weak construct of her case.  She is relying on the absence of a seatbelt being the negligent contributory factor; and she is relying on the transport van being ‘the instrument’ used to create a ‘fatal injury’.  While simultaneously seeking to hide the results of the autopsy.

Nothing in the above paragraph, which is part of her response motion, has any bearing on her office request to the Baltimore police department to focus additional “actionable” and “measurable” attention to the intersection where Freddie Gray was apprehended.

Another even more glaring omission exists in the response to the conflict of interest she carries with Freddie Gray family attorney William “Billy” Murphy Jr..  Her response argument skips entirely the fact that Murphy was the personal attorney for Marilyn Mosby in prior litigation.   Marilyn Mosby is also a client of William Murphy – She/They just skip addressing that conflict entirely.

The Baltimore Sun also has an article HERE

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, Cultural Marxism, Freddy Gray Death, media bias, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, Police action, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Marilyn Mosby Responds To Defense Motion For Recusal – Petulance, Inexperience Permeate Motion Language…

  1. auscitizenmom says:

    This is a joke, right? Right!!?

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Suzy Kiprien says:

    Keep her working real hard to defend her position, this is now her worst nightmare come true.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 2x4x8 says:

      its not going to impress the udge

      Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        It may not matter. If the judge is a politically connected dimbocrat, she’ll win.

        Don’t make the mistake of assuming the judges there are any better than the prosecutor. They’re all just lawyers. One wears a suit, the other wears black robes.

        Liked by 3 people

        • skeptiktank says:

          My thoughts, exactly. If someone wanted to stop her they could have done it before now. The governor could have stepped in, just as Scott did in the Zimmerman case. The Grand Jury could have denied her request. The DOJ could step in. They have not and will not. Nor will the judge do something that might cause civil unrest. There’s a lesson here. Rioting works! It has always worked, and we should understand this. Unless we can put people in the streets we are going to sit by and grumble while our constitution and way of life are destroyed. The rioters own the justice system. At least until it gets to a jury.

          Liked by 3 people

          • art tart says:

            skeptiktank ~ well said & so true. BobNoxious, an attorney who is a treeper answered a questiion I had on “change of venue.” (BobNoxious’ paraphrased response) “That it might be successful because if it wasn’t, it would likely be appealed & Judges didn’t like that.” I feel encouraged by that, even Mosby imo, doesn’t believe the 6 Officers could get a fair trial in Baltimore, that’s what she’s counting on.

            Like

          • archer52 says:

            A lesson all of Americans should learn.

            Like

  3. justfactsplz says:

    This incompetent woman is very hateful and evil. She makes Angela Corey look like Pollyianna.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kitty Smith says:

      Not really. They’re cut from the same cloth. Corey just wears a bigger size.

      Corey is just as evil and just as political as Mosby is, but Corey is much more adroit and skilled than Mosby.

      Liked by 2 people

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Angela Corey just has more experience because she has lived longer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • skeptiktank says:

        Corey did have sense enough to say “We don’t bring charges for political reasons”, or words to that effect, even though it wasn’t true. As you say, she is more adroit. Mosby, on the other hand, made it very clear that it was political, and that justice is not blind in Baltimore.

        Like

    • archer52 says:

      No Corey is different. She is just creepy weird. I’ve worked with unhinged prosecutors where the power of the office warps them. Heck, I worked with one guy who was just weird. He was burglarized and had some property taken. So he sells EVERYTHING he has- TV, sound system, etc. and buys gold necklaces and charms. Then he wore them around his neck. His reasoning? “I’m not going to get robbed again! Everything of value I own is around my neck!”

      Yep, and he represents you in court.

      Lawyers = crazy

      Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        Yep, Corey is creepy weird and she is also power hungry. What little I have been in contact with prosecutors, I haven’t been impressed with any of them.

        Like

  4. lovely says:

    I have made it to page 2 😦 where I read this;

    A close reading of their motion does show places where some words have changed, but no discernible difference is apparent

    and my first thought was any professor would have failed a student for that line alone if they were writing this response.

    https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.NOO/87kmDwou2qt%2bK20Lgg&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

    Liked by 1 person

  5. True Colors says:

    Mosby must prove the following:

    a rough ride did indeed occur
    the fatal injury did indeed occur INSIDE the van(not before, not after)
    the fatal injury was a direct result of action(or inaction) on part of the accused cops
    and toughest of all, she most prove that the officers actually intended to injure Mr. Gray

    Where is the concrete evidence to prove any of these things?

    Mosby is obligated by law to prove these things. The police are not obligated to disprove them. She does not seem to understand that.

    TC

    Liked by 4 people

    • JannyMae says:

      There is something else that struck me too, when reading through the quoted passage above from Schatzow :
      “she did not direct defendants to ignore Mr. Gray’s medical condition; ”

      They keep repeating that he asked for medical attention. They keep implying that he was injured from the outset, and they ignored his pleas…but reportedly the first few times he asked for medical attention, he asked for an inhaler for his asthma. There is nothing, at this point, that establishes when Freddie sustained the fatal spinal injury. If he wasn’t injured until the end of the rumored “rough ride,” then that destroys the argument that they “ignored his medical condition.” It’s very difficult to believe that they shackled someone who showed evidence of a severe injury. That makes little sense.

      Like

      • Kitty Smith says:

        “she did not direct defendants to ignore Mr. Gray’s medical condition; ”

        That’s just Mosby squirming about her cross-departmental directive to the PD to aggressively work that intersection for drug trafficking.

        Like

      • Armie says:

        The “ride” from Pennsylvania and North to the police station was at an approximate average speed of seven miles an hour.

        Like

        • OP says:

          Considering the public buses, traffic lights and general normal city street congestion…I agree there was no high speed driving and or slamming on breaks nonsense.

          This case will have enough info out that the 6 will walk…

          Right before Independence Day WEEKEND….

          Let the fireworks begin!

          Like

      • smiley says:

        this might be where some of the “intention” comes in.
        “ignoring” medical attention shows their “intent”.
        she’s been harping on this “medical attention” thing from the very beginning.
        imo, she just doesn’t have the smarts for this, much less the evidence to meet the burden.

        Liked by 1 person

      • TwoLaine says:

        What “medical condition” did FG have that they ignored? Sounds to me like she is inferring he had a pre-existing medical condition? IF he was so concerned about his “medical condition”, why was he out selling drugs on the streets, and running from LE? Why didn’t he call 911 himself, and ask for an ambulance while he was on the run? Where was his family, and why didn’t they care then about his “medical condition”? Why wasn’t he in the hospital being treated for his “medical condition”?

        Like

    • joanfoster says:

      With the right jury, Mosby doesn’t have to prove anything. The “right jury” will be as ignorant and political as she is.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. nivico says:

    “Although the Application accurately points out that the knife was legal under Maryland law, it makes clear that Mr. Gray was arrested well before the arresting officers knew he possessed a knife.”

    Mosby’s stubbornly clinging to her original assertion that “the knife was legal under Maryland law” is a violation of the ABA’s MRPC. She has a duty to acknowledge and correct her error, and that’s giving her the benefit of the doubt that it was an error and not her deliberately citing the incorrect law:

    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html

    Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal

    (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

    (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

    Liked by 4 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Actually that is a correction, in a Brian Williams kind of way.

      “accurately points out that the knife was legal under Maryland law”

      That is the best you will get from Mosby as an admission.

      Like

      • bertdilbert says:

        Wait, she is still clinging to it but changing the time of the arrest to make it irrelevant. My question is what is “well before”. That just seems strange. Is a few minutes at most “well before”?

        Liked by 1 person

        • seeingeye2 says:

          Mosby originally charged the officers with an illegal arrest because she believed the knife was legal. After being corrected that the knife was indeed illegal making the arrest legal, she just merely changed the time of the arrest to when the officers first handcuffed Gray. Mosby assumes being handcuffed means arrest. That is not the case. Obviously, Mosby does not know the difference between being detained and being arrested. Her charge of an illegal arrest cannot possibly stand.

          Liked by 6 people

    • Armie says:

      Take a look at the subscript there. They’re making a point of stating that they never claimed the knife wasn’t illegal under city law.

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        Here’s my take on the knife / arrest issue.

        At page 9 of 15, the response states:

        “Mr. Gray was handcuffed at his surrendering location, moved a few feet away, and placed in a prone position with his arms handcuffed behind his back, all before the officers found the knife.”

        Mosby contends that the foregoing constitutes an arrest without probable cause, as opposed to a Terry stop, which requires only reasonable suspicion. Pursuant to Illinois v. Wardlow, there is no doubt whatsoever that Freddie’s unprovoked flight in a known narcotics trafficking area constitutes reasonable suspicion. There is case law to the effect that handcuffing + transport w/o consent = arrest. However, “transport” generally means put into a police vehicle and taken to the police station or to another location, such as a crime scene for identification of the suspect by a witness.

        In support of the proposition that handcuffing + transport a few feet + placed in a prone position = arrest, Mosby cites Pyon v. State, 112 A.3d 1130. The form of the citation raises an immediate red flag to lawyers, law clerks and judges. Why? Because it does not give the pertinent page, a/k/a “pinpoint citation” which is customary when a case actually supports your position. Otherwise, you are inviting the judge or the judge’s law clerk to read the entire case, and “ain’t nobody got time for dat.”

        Alerted by the lack of a pinpoint case, you can take a look at Pyon v. State:

        http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1696903.html

        Note that the case (1) does not discuss handcuffing (2) does not discuss transport (3) does not analyze what constitutes an arrest (4) does not involve an arrest and (5) does not support Mosby’s handcuff + transport a few feet + prone = arrest proposition in any way, shape or form. Here is the sum total of what Pyon v. State has to say about arrests:

        An Arrest of the Person
        The most coercive of the police-citizen encounters is that involved when the officer actually places the citizen under arrest. Self-evidently the Fourth Amendment applies and self-evidently the Fourth Amendment must be satisfied. The Fourth Amendment justification required for such a severe Fourth Amendment seizure of the person has always been nothing less than probable cause. Swift v. State, 393 Md. at 150. The Supreme Court spoke of the standard in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979):
        “The standard of probable cause thus represented the accumulated wisdom of precedent and experience as to the minimum justification necessary to make the kind of intrusion involved in an arrest ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment.”
        See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 499, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).
        The present case does not remotely involve this highest level of police-citizen encounter. During that phase of the encounter pertinent to our present analysis, the appellant was clearly not under arrest and the issue of probable cause as a justification is utterly immaterial. Our exclusive concern is with the lower two levels of police-citizen encounter.

        Why would Mosby cite a case that has nothing to do with an arrest in support of the proposition that handcuff + transport a few feet + prone = arrest ????

        Could it ever be more apparent that a case is not pertinent to the issue of arrest?

        “The present case does not remotely involve this highest level of police-citizen encounter. During that phase of the encounter pertinent to our present analysis, the appellant was clearly not under arrest and the issue of probable cause as a justification is utterly immaterial. Our exclusive concern is with the lower two levels of police-citizen encounter.”

        Like

    • Amity says:

      If I remember rightly, she specifically claimed “Maryland law” when she first declared the knife illegal. So technically she never made a false statement of material fact or law — she just ignored Baltimore law. I found her original specification peculiar enough that I suspect she knew from the git go the knife was illegal under Baltimore law, and was playing the media. Even if they eventually realized that the knife was indeed illegal, the people she’s trying to impress were not going to figure out she was likely lying. And, frankly, she is appealing to low info voters, most of whom will stick with their first impressions (or the first impressions that appeal to them), and dismiss anything else as media manipulation or political wrangling.

      Technical truth may be nowhere near actual truth — but she is a lawyer, after all…

      Like

      • nivico says:

        “So technically she never made a false statement of material fact or law…”

        Citing the wrong (non)controlling law in her Application for Statement of Charges is about as false a statement of law as it gets.

        She has an ethical and professional duty to unambiguously correct the record.

        Instead, she has seemingly dropped the false imprisonment charges in order to now claim that the legality of the knife is irrelevant so that her false statement of law is no longer “material.”

        Like

        • nivico says:

          …the question now is whether simply ‘moving the goalposts’ satisfies the correction requirement

          Like

          • OP says:

            This is greater than moving goal posts…this is a huge field of shifting sands…she lost her footing…for good.

            Like

          • John Galt says:

            She needs to move the goal posts a bit more.

            “Pointing a weapon at a suspect, ordering him to lie on the ground, handcuffing him, and placing him for a brief period in a police vehicle for questioning-whether singly or in combination-does not automatically convert an investigatory detention into an arrest requiring probable cause.   United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200, 206 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 955, 114 S.Ct. 408, 126 L.Ed.2d 355 and 510 U.S. 1014, 114 S.Ct. 608, 126 L.Ed.2d 572 (1993).   See Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 683, 105 S.Ct. at 1574 (no arrest when defendant detained 20 minutes for questioning);  Parr, 843 F.2d at 1231 (placing defendant in patrol car did not constitute an arrest);  United States v. Alvarez, 899 F.2d 833, 838 (9th Cir.1990) (no arrest when defendant ordered out of car at gunpoint), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1024, 111 S.Ct. 671, 112 L.Ed.2d 663 (1991);  United States v. Buffington, 815 F.2d 1292, 1300 (9th Cir.1987) (no arrest when defendants “forced from their car and made to lie down on wet pavement at gunpoint”);  United States v. Taylor, 716 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.1983) (no arrest when suspect stopped at gunpoint, ordered to lie face down in ditch, handcuffed and frisked);  United States v. Jacobs, 715 F.2d 1343, 1345-46 (9th Cir.1983) (no arrest when suspect removed from car at gunpoint and ordered to prone-out on ground);  United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289-90 (9th Cir.1982) (handcuffing suspect did not convert valid Terry stop into arrest), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 103 S.Ct. 1206, 75 L.Ed.2d 446, 447 (1983).   See also Courson v. McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1492 (11th Cir.1991) (no arrest when suspect ordered out of car at gunpoint, made to lie on ground, and detained for 30 minutes).”

            http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1034701.html

            Like

        • Amity says:

          Oh, I agree that it’s lying, and I think from the first she knew it was lying. Also agree that this is a violation of her ethical and professional duty. I’m just speculating on why she thinks she can get away with it.

          Like

          • franker01 says:

            Not that I can read her mind but my guess is that, first and foremost, she believes because she is Black and a member of such an aggrieved class that she should be entitled to get away with pretty much anything.

            Like

  7. James F says:

    It seems rushed. She asked for even more time from the judge but didn’t even use the smaller extension that was granted to her.

    Maybe she hurried to put it out now while the Charleston massacre is dominating the news, hoping it would go by largely unnoticed.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. nivico says:

    “This is the third time Defendants have filed this motion…”

    She does recall that she charged six separate defendants, right?

    Like

  9. jackphatz says:

    Boy, someone(s) is just going to let her hang out there all by herself to fly in the breeze.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. lovely says:

    Arrested without probable cause? << Mosby is still asserting that Freddie was arrested either when he was a) handcuffed b) moved a few feet away from where he was handcuffed or c) when he was placed in a prone position on the ground.

    This is really quite an amazing exercise in willful ignorance masquerading as a legal response.

    And then there is this;

    Mrs. Mosby has shown herself to be a strong, forceful and independent woman. She and not her husband, holds an office won in a city-wide election. The notion that she would sacrifice her moral, professional, and legal obligations to play someones’s idea of a seventeenth century housewife is condescending, demeaning and ridiculous

    Willfully ignoring the political gain for her husband aside, Ms. Mosby’s self proclaimed lioness status belongs on a legal document for what reason?

    The Defendants have not yet received discovery, so their claims about what the evidence shows must be taken with several shakers (not grains) of salt

    I have found myself reading this response in the voice of Goober Pyle.

    Rut Roh! this does look like a foreshadowing of things to come;

    What is truly stunning and disturbing about this farcical defense argument is that the Deendants contend that if the arrest were legal, there is no basis for any charges against any of the Defendants

    Bolding of any is very curious.

    And the erudite sentence to follow;

    Thus, consistent with their acts and omissions on April 12, Defendants are still of the view that once they arrest someone, they are free to engage in conduct that will cause his death, and to refrain from conduct that will save his life

    Eh? This is am amazing. I have to stop reading it.

    I am dumbfounded by the self indulgent petulant argument put forth and further astounded that this “response” must have come under the scrutiny of many eyes before it was presented to the court.

    https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th&id=JN.pnXvXrAqHGh1bUP2K/0SxA&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

    Wow.

    Then again maybe Mosby is arrogant enough to think that she didn’t need a second opinion.

    Well golly!!!

    Liked by 3 people

    • beowulf says:

      My favorite part is calling the U.S. Marshals Service, “the U.S. Marshall’s Office”. Way to convince the judge (himself a former federal prosecutor) that you’re kind of sloppy.

      Liked by 2 people

    • nivico says:

      “The Defendants have not yet received discovery, so their claims about what the evidence shows must be taken with several shakers (not grains) of salt”

      And whose fault is it that they “have not yet received discovery”…???

      The defendants are allowed to make

      Standard 3-3.11 Disclosure of Evidence by the Prosecutor

      (a) A prosecutor should not intentionally fail to make timely disclosure to the defense, at the earliest feasible opportunity, of the existence of all evidence or information which tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense charged or which would tend to reduce the punishment of the accused.

      (b) A prosecutor should not fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request.

      (c) A prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence because he or she believes it will damage the prosecution’s case or aid the accused.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nivico says:

        Mosby’s refusing to comply with discovery unless and until she is granted a gag order against the defense also brings us into ‘adverse inference’ territory:

        http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/adverse-inference-rule/

        “The adverse inference rule applies only when a party has relevant evidence within its control which it fails to produce. The logic supporting the adverse inference rule is that a party fails to produce evidence in its control in order to conceal adverse facts.

        Simply stated, the adverse inference rule provides that when a party has relevant evidence within his control which he fails to produce, that failure gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unfavorable to him.” [Langford v. Norris, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14800, 39-40 (8th Cir. Ark. July 20, 2010)]”

        Liked by 4 people

        • benzy says:

          You may be onto something here. I believe she doesn’t want to release the knife to the defense attorneys until the gag order is in place, so that they cannot show the actual knife to the public claiming it is not “legal” as she as presented in the charges and also in her reply to the court.

          Liked by 1 person

    • VegasGuy says:

      Good points Lovely.
      You stated…..”Arrested without probable cause? << Mosby is still asserting that Freddie was arrested either when he was a) handcuffed b) moved a few feet away from where he was handcuffed or c) when he was placed in a prone position on the ground.”

      Keep in mind that she initially stated that “Gray surrendered to the pursuing Officers”. Surrendering, by definition, implies that Gray acknowledged detention & being under authority of the Police. He willingly surrendered his civil liberties, however briefly, by that “surrender.”

      Cuffing him for Officer safety, and a search for illegal goods was implicitly allowed by, and authorized by, his “surrender” to authority. The Officers had “probable cause” for potential drug dealing, given the locale, Mosbys’ own directive, & the fact that he ran upon being noticed by the Police.

      Little by little, er case is evaporating by her own doing……She doesn’t want a gag order…..She NEEDS a gag order to stop the bleeding.

      Liked by 4 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      “someones’s idea of a seventeenth century housewife”

      What is all that about? Is she trying to communicate something to the judge like, if he goes against her, he is sexist?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Les says:

        And weren’t they slaves back then? She should maybe leave that alone.

        Like

      • TwoLaine says:

        “Speaking on the House Floor, rocket scientist Sheila Jackson Lee claimed the United States had operated under the Constitution since 1614.

        “Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not.”

        Sheila Jackson Lee, March 12, 2014”

        http://www.dumbocratquotes.com/viewbyperson.php?personid=40

        Liked by 1 person

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Okay, envision REAL lawyers reading this. I see everything from mouths dropping open, to eyes rolling around in their heads, to them actually falling on the floor laughing.

      Liked by 4 people

      • DT says:

        These responses are written with the intention of being released to the media rather than just read by a judge. Mosby just can’t let a chance to get a dig in go by. Can’t let an opportunity to grand-stand slide by. She is brazen in her bias and wants everyone to know it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Col.(R) Ken says:

        Mom, that my point! If my Son wasn’t so busy, I would pass this along to him for comment.

        Like

      • lovely says:

        A virtual chuckle fest. But maybe not because of the seriousness of the charges Mosby is bringing.

        I would compare attorneys reading this more to brain surgeons reading a fellow doctors surgery plan. “First you remove the head.”

        I imagine there is a lot of cringing going on in legal circles.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          ‘I would compare attorneys reading this more to brain surgeons reading a fellow doctors surgery plan. “First you remove the head.”’ Don’t do that to me. I laughed until I couldn’t breathe. 😯

          Liked by 1 person

    • art tart says:

      lovely ~ enjoyed your comment,(he, he, he, Goober Pyle, how appropriate.)

      My take away is that Mosby/team are clearly out lawyered by the Officers Attorney’s who have challenged her & this is only the best she can do. She’ll fail miserably like we saw Corey/BDLR fail when challenged by MOM/West.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. VegasGuy says:

    It strikes me as odd that there is no curiosity on the part of the family regarding how Gray died. No public questions, no clamor for a private autopsy, etc. Why?

    It almost appears that Mosby has already shared the findings with their Attorney & an agreement was reached to proceed with the Criminal trial under the aspects of negligence alone. Whatever appears within the report seems to sit well with the family & the Attorney regarding their potential Civil actions to come.

    As I stated in prior posts, I do not believe the ME was able to establish any cause & effect regarding Grays’ injuries. Hence, her insistance on any injury merely being the result of Gray being unrestrained, without any specifeied action on the part of any defendant.

    The only rationale for the mention of the “bolt in the rear of the van issue”, IMO, is to plant a potential cause & effect theory, and that is all that it is at this point, that is just more easily visualized, but in truth, cannot be ascertained as to when it occurred. It could just as easily have occurred as PM were removing Gray from the van. So that, IMO, is a “red herring” without any evidentiary value whatsoever.

    If they ( the familt & Attorney) needed or wanted something other than a mere claim of negligence, they would be taking action independently, as past cases involving Crump & Co. have shown. A simple “Accidental Death” or death by “Undetermined Cause” is legally not a wrongful death. But, it appears that with 6 “negligence” charges, they feel confident that at least 1 will survive.

    Just a hunch on my part, but the possibility of an “accidental death” due to Gray’s own actions, would put them in a position of having little to no Civil claim standing to pursue. Potential drug induced seizures, convulsions, intentional thrashing about, or pre-existing medical conditions would seriously diminish any potential claim of negligence on the part of the defendants. That would demonstrate a related potential causation of self induced injury.

    Since no defendant actually physically interacted with Gray, directly causing any injury, the sole basis for Civil action has to be a “catch all” of negligence on the part of any or all who did interact to lesser degrees. And the only connecting appearance of negligence that is alluded to, that involves all the defendants, is the lack of seat belt restraint.

    Interestingly, Mosby asserts that each of, in essence all of the defendants, were individually responsible to follow that “Policy”.

    IMO, these so called “criminal charges” are in actuality Civil claims that Mosby is attempting to litigate through a criminal trial. That almost amounts to collusion. Even when taking into account the lower threshold in a Civil action, the lack of restrain claim to substantiate “negligence” as the cause of death, is still a weak argument that might not survive a Civil action on its’ own.

    But that potential Civil claim stands a far greater chance if it were a Jury finding in a Criminal trial, and she can get at least 1 conviction on “negligence“. That would substantiate a “cause & effect” that would survive a Civil action and be grounds for a wrongful death claim with any associated contribution by Gray himself eliminated.

    Again, FWIW.

    Liked by 3 people

    • nivico says:

      “Just a hunch on my part, but the possibility of an “accidental death” due to Gray’s own actions, would put them in a position of having little to no Civil claim standing to pursue.”

      Your hunch is correct… Maryland is one of only four states to follow the contributory negligence standard in civil litigation.

      It essentially means that if a plaintiff was in any way responsible for his own injuries, he is barred from recovery.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kitty Smith says:

        Would one conviction for some form of negligence eliminate the contributory negligence standard in the civil case?

        Like

    • art tart says:

      True Colors ~ I agree w/most of your comment, well said.

      The most important part of a Civil Suit is that Batt’s has taken responsibility for the City when he stated “it was mandatory policy suspects be belted/restrained.” The argument is: If Gray had been seat belted/restrained, would he be dead? We don’t know, but we do know Gray wouldn’t have had a bolt to the head.. The City will pay the maximum $ 200,000.00 Civil Cap to the family regardless.

      I don’t think the 3 arresting Officers should have been charged, but there may be convictions for the 3 AA Officers for not calling paramedics when Gray was unresponsive, instead continuing to the Station where it took 5 1/2 minutes for parmedics to arrive. Then, Goodson had several opportunities to belt/restrain Gray & didn’t.

      Like

      • Armie says:

        It took five and a half minutes from the time the paramedics were called to the time they were DISPATCHED. The paramedics arrived at the station roughly nine minutes after Freddie got there.

        What I found interesting about the current document is that their second guessing “woulda – shoulda” scenario now includes driving Freddie to the hospital in the van. That would be precisely the wrong thing to do for a multitude of reasons. Moreover, they seem to be claiming that doing so would have “saved his life”. So, follow the logic there: they’re claiming that transporting him killed him, so their solution is that when he complained about his asthma, they should have… immediately… transported him.

        There was one individual with whom police had contact who was treated in accordance with Mosby’s ideal scenario, and that’s the individual at Pennsylvania and North who (not unlike Freddie) complained about his/her arm being injured. Police immediately responded by requesting an ambulance. That’s the ambulance that could have gotten to Freddie six minutes sooner than the one he actually got if it hadn’t been sent to Pennsylvania and North. So an argument could be made that the officers on the other case, through following Mosby’s “stop everything and call an ambulance as soon as the prisoner complains” strategy, actually contributed to Freddie’s death.

        Like

        • art tart says:

          Armie ~ I agree w/you, it’s true that it took 5 1/2 minutes for paramedics to reach Gray when he was pulled from the van at the Stationin cardiac arrest, but, the fact is we don’t know if Gray was even breathing when Sgt. Alisha White talked to the back of Gray’s head when he was unresponsive. Hopefully we will eventually see how much brain damage Gray suffered when he arrived at the hospital & in the autopsy report. You continue to speculate about Gray’s unresponsive & making excuses why paramedics weren’t called, a total fail imo.

          Could an argument not be made that an ambulance/paramedics could have been called by Sgt. ALisha White when she knew Gray was unresponsive? YES! Jurors use common sense. Using your common sense, would you call 911/parmedics for someone not breathing? Of course you would & I would in a heart beat because being unresponsive is a sign of a bigger problem. Sgt. White was called because it was protocal for Goodson to call her to look at Gray after Gray requested “help” from Goodson, Gray didn’t get better, that’s why Goodson called Sgt White.

          imo, common sense prevails, your argument fails by jurors usiing common sense if they were in this situation. The 5 1/2 minutes only adds to the negligence since the van could have veered directly to the hospital or called paramedics at the earlier stop when Gray was unresponsive.

          Like

          • Armie says:

            Art: You’re starting out with the assumption that Freddie was unresponsive at Pennsylvania and North, a notion that’s been floated around, but for which there’s currently no substantive evidence. I’m not willing to make that leap of faith until I hear credible testimony to support it.

            Like

            • art tart says:

              armie ~ what difference does it make? That’s ridiculous! In what universe do you find it acceptable that a person is unresponsive, a Sgt. is called by Goodson because of Gray’s condition/protocol, Sgt. Alisha White said “she talked to the back of Gray’s head & did nothing. Add the down time from the moronic Sgt. White/Goodson doing nothing, the time it took to get to the Station, then the 5 1/2 minutes it took for paramedics to get there.

              armie claimed: “I’m not willing to make that leap of faith until I hear credible testimony to support it.”

              armie ~ do you not believe Sgt. Alisha White/Goodson? WHY would that be a leap of faith, do you think Sgt. White lied? So you can see it “wasn’t a leap of faith,” unless you think Sgt. Alisha White is a liar, look up the facts. You may continue to remain in denial, your argument fails for all the reasons I have told you repeatedly!

              Can you not understand the 5 1/2 minutes it took paramedics to get to the Station only makes it worse since Sgt. White/Goodson + their down time doing nothing hurts your argument? I thought the common sense statement I made to you that you would digest, but you didn’t. Denying the facts doesn’t support your argument!

              Like

  12. peppie says:

    Maybe I’m jaded but look at the perpetual scowl/angered indignation that she portrays in every picture I’ve seen of her? Her attitude is less than stellar and obvious to any fair minded person.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. MouseTheLuckyDog says:

    Who wrote this Schatzow or Mosby?
    Schatzow signed it. But I’ve heard from others that he is a pretty good lawyer and figure he might be hanging around till he gets another job.

    Like

    • non agenda says:

      A DA or SA is often a pol type who would finish near the bottom in a legal analysis or writing test. Every office has wonks for that. No one expects a pol type to do this work.
      Maybe she has no one to do it, ?, Why not? Or maybe this is the local standard. ?
      What is the reading-comprehension level of the judge?

      Liked by 1 person

    • John Galt says:

      It might take awhile. I have declined to hire junior associates with better writing samples.

      Like

    • TwoLaine says:

      She wants someone else to take the fall/fail for her incompetence. Plausible deniability. I never saw that motion. I didn’t author it, approve it, or sign it.

      Like, the other one never said to give them space to destroy… Or, I never said the knife was legal, or illegal.

      Like

    • James F says:

      While she probably rubber stamps most of the day to day cases her office deals with, I am pretty sure she is micromanaging every detail of this landmark case herself. It could make or break her and her husbands careers.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. True Colors says:

    In some ways, the Baltimore 6 case reminds me of the Casey Anthony case.

    The Casey Anthony case was built on evidence which was almost completely circumstantial. The prosecutors had extremely weak physical evidence, they had no direct witnesses, no confession, no clear theory of death, etc. etc. Add it all up and there simply was not enough there to justify a murder conviction in court.

    Consider the parallels to the B6 case. Mosby appears to have little or no physical evidence, no direct witnesses observing the police officers inflicting fatal injuries on Mr. Gray, no confessions by the accused, no clear theory of death, etc. etc. The core of her case is almost completely circumstantial — guy gets in van, then dies a week later.

    Casey Anthony was demonized(rightfully) for not reporting her child missing. But guess what? There was no law against that. Bad mom? Definitely. Sufficient basis to convict of murder? Nope.

    Mosby wants to demonize the cops for not following department policy and using a seatbelt. But guess what? There was no law requiring them to do so. A policy is not the same thing as a law.(Mrs. Mosby stubbornly refuses to acknowledge something even as simple as this).

    Question — as of today, right now, is there any NON circumstantial evidence to support the charges against the Baltimore 6?

    TC

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kitty Smith says:

      I completely disagree with you about Casey Anthony and the case presented. there was plenty of evidence to convict her. Not every case has “CSI” level physical evidence.

      Scott Peterson and many others have been convicted on less and are right where they belong.

      Casey Anthony, as much as OJ, had a jury of her peers – all morons.

      Liked by 1 person

      • True Colors says:

        kitty,

        Do I think that Casey Anthony was guilty? Yes. I would bet money on it.

        However, did the prosecutors prove it in court? No.

        Did she confess to a murder? No.
        Did anyone witness her murder? No.
        Was Anthony’s DNA or fingerprints found with the corpse? No.
        Can the police even tell us how the infant died? No.

        How much further do we need to keep going with this?

        The prosecution did prove lots of things. They proved that Casey Anthony was a thief, a liar, a forger, a slut, and all kinds of other things — but not a murderer.

        If you disagree, then please cite the non-circumstantial evidence that was used against her in court.

        TC

        Liked by 1 person

        • art tart says:

          TrueColors ~ I agree w/Kitty, but my comment is in moderation.

          Who in the world did you think rode around in KC’s car until she dumped her car because she couldn’t stand the smell of Caylee’s dead body any longer & it got towed? LOL, did you believe it was a dead squirrel that KC claimed in texts? The experts on the case didn’t agree you, sadly the Jury did, but the public that watched every aspect of this case/read over 10,000 documents/understood the forensics disagree w/you, even Chief Justice Belvin Perry stated there “was more than enough evidence to prove the Prosecution’s case.” Sometime murders go free. WHY? incompetent jurors, like in OJ’s case, & Casey ANthony’s. Baez’s book on some facts were proven wrong, one in particular that “only GA had the ability to use a certain computer site,” was exposed by an Attorney/Computer Blogger at “webslueths site for proving Casey Anthony did use the site! Baez relunctannly admitted he was wrong in his book.

          You might think Casey deserved a “not guilty verdict,” but America/legal scholars,Chief Justice Belvin Perry/Chief Medical examiner don’t agree w/you & that’s why Casey Anthony remains among the most hated female Americans for murdering her child. She too is shopping an interview, imo, no one reputable will pay for what she wants to sell, America wants the truth, something KC can’t chance telling.

          Like

      • art tart says:

        Kitty ~ I wholeheartedly agree w/you on the Casey Anthony case. Even Chief Judge Belvin Perry said “there was more than enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony. I never read a single opinion other than Casey’s own team that thought she she was not guilty, all other Legal Opinions by Professors, etc. said the evidence spoke for itself.

        Only in America could a failed Attorney, Jose Baez who was denied a Legal License for his moral character for 88eight years* *represent to a jury, total circumstancial evidence that Caylee drowned, no evience of such existed, even w/the Chief Medical Examiner explaining “that she had never seen an accidental drowning where duct tape was applied to the orffices” of a victim to an incompetent jury.

        The take away imo for the Prosecution: they should have had a Jury Consultant even though it isn’t paid for by their employers, never understatimate the stupidity of jurors that could be convinced by a “used car salesman” that Chief Belvin Perry compared Baez to.

        Like

    • Suzee says:

      I would think a confession would pretty much nullify any need for ANY prosecution… or other evidence, for that matter.

      Like

      • Amity says:

        Plenty of confessions are renounced, and plenty of people who have confessed plead “not guilty.” People can and do confess to crimes they did not commit, either because they’re easily bullied, or because they think the cops will let them go if they say what the want (suspects, even the innocent ones, may not be the brightest bulbs), or because they’re psychologically disturbed and wracked with irrational guilt they’ll confess to anything but their “worst crime” (which can have been something incredibly minor they over obsess on), or because they want to protect someone they think is guilty (or think will be accused and want to spare them), etc. etc.

        A good prosecutor is never satisfied with just a confession.

        Like

    • McBain says:

      I agree with your summery of the Casey Anthony case. There wasn’t enough evidence to convict her of murder yet the state of Florida was seeking the death penalty. Although, there was lots of bad behavior from the prosecutor (Ashton) and the two judges, the jury did their job and based their opinion on the evidence presented. Had they not been sequestered, it might have been another verdict.

      If this case ever goes to trial, the defendants will need a change of venue and a sequestered jury.

      Like

  15. Sentenza says:

    Isn’t a prosecutor testifying in her own case the appearance of a conflict?

    Like

  16. Justice_099 says:

    After this embarrassing display of incompetence, I guess we will get a taste for whether or not this judge is as corrupt as Little Debbie. There is simply no way he should allow that to stand as a proper defense. He gave her an opportunity to respond and she did so incompetently. Now all eyes are on him to do the right thing.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. SouthCentralPA says:

    It’s the first time in her life that she’s played the race card, and someone called “shenanigans”. She is in sheer, blank system error … she has NO idea how this is happening.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. BobNoxious says:

    Wow…. Where to start w/ this mess….

    First, the judge presiding over to case needs to get all of the state’s attorneys & defense attorneys into chambers to have a long talk about civility, professional responsibility, etc, especially as it relates to the State’s Attorney’s office. As an attorney (thankfully not in Baltimore), I see stuff like this as embarrassing, unprofessional and immature & as something that damages the whole profession.

    The last time we saw a filing from Mosby’s office w/ the same type of tone, I said it had allay become too personal (due to inexperienced, unprofessional SAa) and the judge almost certainly will need to call for Mosby’s recusal. After reading this newest filing, I’m even more convinced that the judge MUST pull Mosby from the case, in addition to recommending the search or a special prosecutor (that might have to come from Gov.)

    Mosby’s office has intentionally made this personal and no longer has the mindset necessary to fairly prosecute these officers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Armie says:

      You know the old story about the criminal defendant who claimed to have been elsewhere then, following eyewitness identification, said, “see, that proves I’m innocent, she wasn’t wearing her glasses that night”? Mosby fell into that trap of refuting the minor allegation and unwittingly admitting the major one in the process. Her “I never said the knife wasn’t illegal under Baltimore law” comment was an example of that. I’d love to see her on the stand with a skilled attorney pursuing where that claim leads. Oh my!

      Like

    • jms says:

      I think that at this point she’s TRYING to get herself removed from the case. This is so over the top. I think that she sees (or has had explained to her) that her case is blowing up and this is the only way left to her to pull the rip cord and bail out.

      Like

  19. Mel B says:

    Facts! We don’t need no stinking facts! What must be understood is this is not a case that will be decided in a court of law. No. This case is about mob rule. The verdict is already in and the Africans are waiting to see if justice for Freddy is coming. If not, then it’s anybodies guess what the crips,bloods, and panthers have in store to make things right.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. TwoLaine says:

    Pg: 9 – “Putting to one side that it ignores the essential facts that (1) Mr. Gray was a healthy enough young man to run immediately before being arrested without probable cause but allegedly died as a result of his treatment while in police custody, (2) that a judicial officer found probable cause to support each and every one of the initial charges against each Defendant, and (3) that a grand jury found probable cause to support each and every one of the current charges against each Defendant”

    Once again, what, and where, is the “medical condition” they ignored?

    Like

  21. goodoldboy66 says:

    She will prevail. That’s what time it is. Like you I wholeheartedly despise her, her tactics and her ilk. Yet, that’s what time it is. Whatcha going to do? Keep up the great work TCT.

    Like

  22. jameshvarney says:

    She is Nifong-ing herself in slow motion.
    This will not end well for this petulant spoiled brat.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s