Call to investigate Baltimore prosecutor for being "in violation of her professional responsibilities."

[I B Hankering]

Baltimore prosecutor's office should be investigated for Gray-related murder charge

The cardinal duty of a prosecutor under the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct is to "refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause." At least as to the second degree murder charge against Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., there is ample reason to initiate an investigation in order to determine if that duty was violated....

It now appears that Ms. Mosby never had evidence sufficient to prove that charge; Mr. Goodson, who was driving the police van in which Freddie Gray sustained a fatal spine injury last year, was acquitted of all charges against him last week.
(Baltimore Sun)

At least the idea has made the papers.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

At least the idea has made the papers.

Yes, but I think you have to prove willful misconduct, or something like that.

She is just incompetent.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

Yes, but I think you have to prove willful misconduct, or something like that.

She is just incompetent.

What I heard is an investigator for the PD working the case was instructed not to provide information when asked by a grand juror during the session and was in fact interrupted in the testimony to stop any further disclosure. The information prohibited from being disclosed was exculpatory as to the driver regarding the injuries to Gray, which showed there was not even any negligence .... Now that the case is over for the driver the investigator was "free" to disclose .... If that is even close ... willfully failing to disclose exculpatory evidence that would exonerate a defendant is "willful misconduct."

Unfortunately, prosecutors "enjoy" immunity (and at least partial immunity) from civil liability .... but "tampering with evidence" ... is a crime.

If you go back to the original news conferences she had along with Lynch, et al, cheerleading the persecution of these officers, it was along the lines of we are going to get a conviction whatever we have to do..... shows intent!

Here is her "promise" to the crowd ......

"Last but certainly not least, to the youth of the city. I will seek justice on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. Let’s insure we have peaceful and productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come. You’re at the forefront of this cause and as young people, our time is now."

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by DSK

She is just incompetent.

no she is agenda driven

seeking "justice" for 250 years of injustices, who cares if some small guy gets run over or if an individuals rights are sacrificed for the greater good

that's the way of all liberals, the end justifies the means, and as ive said before, truth is not a liberal value

[Guest123018-4]

That's for damn sure. And, they get real indignant when you point out the lie(s).

[i'va biggen]

LOL, she was prob trying to save her life from the mob if she didn't indite someone.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What I heard is an investigator for the PD working the case was instructed not to provide information when asked by a grand juror during the session and was in fact interrupted in the testimony to stop any further disclosure. The information prohibited from being disclosed was exculpatory as to the driver regarding the injuries to Gray, which showed there was not even any negligence .... Now that the case is over for the driver the investigator was "free" to disclose .... If that is even close ... willfully failing to disclose exculpatory evidence that would exonerate a defendant is "willful misconduct."

Unfortunately, prosecutors "enjoy" immunity (and at least partial immunity) from civil liability .... but "tampering with evidence" ... is a crime.

If you go back to the original news conferences she had along with Lynch, et al, cheerleading the persecution of these officers, it was along the lines of we are going to get a conviction whatever we have to do..... shows intent!

Here is her "promise" to the crowd ......

"Last but certainly not least, to the youth of the city. I will seek justice on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. Let’s insure we have peaceful and productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come. You’re at the forefront of this cause and as young people, our time is now."

If it was Brady material then hopefully it will be exposed, and she will be appropriately punished.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

That's for damn sure. And, they get real indignant when you point out the lie(s).

Yep. Just look at the lying libs here, EKIM, assup, manassmuncher, suckclown, suckingsue and the rest of the Klan, errr...clan when they have a spotlight in THEIR BS !!!! Look at how EKIM squirms and cries when is fag ways are " outed " for all to see ! Just like his mentor and butt buddy woomby did !

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LOL, she was prob trying to save her life from the mob if she didn't indite someone.

It's "indict", but otherwise I think you're right.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DSK

If it was Brady material then hopefully it will be exposed, and she will be appropriately punished.

The "screening" and "censoring" reportedly occurred in front of the Grand Jury to assure an indictment. The version I heard was a Grand Juror asked the detective who is at the center of the controversy some questions, which included an inquiry concerning the manner of injury to Gray, and she (the detective) was cut off and instructed not to respond by the assistant DA in the room (THE DA was not specifically identified, but the version suggested that it was she who was giving the orders). It is my understanding it was she or she was present.

Withholding Brady material would probably get a reversal if there were a conviction, but the customary appellate standard is ... did it lead to an erroneous verdict .... if they can't tell one way or another its customarily reversed and remanded for a new trial. Based on the level of a lack of convicting evidence in these cases I would think that would be a "no brainer"! If it didn't get reversed and rendered as "not guilty," because there wasn't sufficient evidence actually presented, it would get sent back based on the weak case presented.

Not giving up Brady material probably won't get you more than a spanking, but fabricating and manipulating the evidence gets to a level of tampering and facilitating perjury, which can have criminal repercussions, if someone will prosecute it.