Freddie Gray case: officer acquitted of assault charge

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Freddie Gray case: officer acquitted of assault charge

Judge Barry Williams rules he would go forward with manslaughter,
which is the most serious charge against Lt Brian Rice

Baynard Woods in Baltimore
Monday 11 July 2016 23.36 BST

In another blow to the prosecution of the officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray, a judge acquitted Lt Brian Rice of assault before the defense even presented its case. Judge Barry Williams called another of the remaining three charges “an extremely close call” but stopped short of dismissing it.

The prosecution rested its case Monday against Rice, the highest ranking officer charged in Gray’s death, after questioning several of Rice’s fellow officers.

Rice initiated a chase against Gray, a 25-year-old African American, after Gray began to run upon making eye contact with Rice last April. Gray died a week after that arrest, as a result of injuries he sustained while in police custody, setting off weeks of protests and unrest in the city.

Williams ruled that he would go forward with most of the charges, including manslaughter, the most serious charge Rice is facing.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/11/freddie-gray-case-officer-acquitted-assault-charge

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Utilizing summary judgment by a judge vs jury

has been the quickest way for them to get acquitted.

[Travis_0004]

2. There is no jury.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. That's what I wrote. nt

[dsc]

20. there still won't be a jury

even on the other charges. In MD defendants but not the prosecution have the right to a jury trial.

[BumRushDaShow]

56. I didn't say there would be

that is what I wrote- i.e., what the "summary judgment by a judge vs jury" statement means. Only judges do "summary judgment". And "vs" = "versus" = "instead of".

And as a note, one of the other officers DID go through a jury trial and that resulted in a hung jury (and thus mistrial), so that is why the rest of them have avoided juries altogether because they have a better chance of being let off by a judge.

[Ms. Toad]

65. It's actually not a summary judgment, either.

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Summary judgments are pre-trial decisions in a civil case (they play no role at all in a criminal case).

Edited to replace generalities with the correct MD law: In a criminal matter, the equivalent ruling is a judgment of acquittal.

[BumRushDaShow]

80. The quick google claims such is for civil cases only

but the deeper Google that I did before posting says otherwise when it comes to police cases. I.e., this and the previous 2 officer's cases went before a judge who decided to acquit after review of the evidence.

[Ms. Toad]

81. I think a real JD is probably more reliable than Google, Esq.

Summary judgment has a very specific legal meaning - and is exclusively limited to civil matters.

I am not saying that the judge had to wait until after the defense has presented its case to acquit the officer of some or all charges. Merely that what the judge granted was NOT a summary judgment.

In Maryland, the similar criminal ruling is a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 4-324, a motion for which can be made at the close of the state's case (or the judge can grant it sua sponte).

[BumRushDaShow]

82. The ridiculous hair-splitting that has resulted in this subthread

that you jumped into is missing the point I was making - i.e., that these cops have chosen review by a judge vs a jury, and by doing so, have achieved the better outcome for themselves. Period.

[Ms. Toad]

84. Legal terms have specific meanings.

You can't just throw them around willy-nilly.

When you insist that a particular legal event happened, when what you are claiming happened is part of an entirely different kind of law, you are likely to be corrected by lawyers who read your claims. Particularly when you repeat it (and try to prove your case by Google, Esq) after being corrected.

Not only that, but you are mangling even the point you are trying to make.

There were two points at which decisions were made, and you are focusing on least significant one (the judgment of acquittal), and seem to think it was a direct result of the most significant one (the defendant waived a jury trial). The two are unrelated.

The policemen chose to forego a jury trial before the trial started. It is their right to have one, or to waive it. Once they do that, their fate is in the hands of the judge. Period. That fate may come after a full trial - or it may come at the close of the state's case - but nothing that happened after the trial started changed the fact that a judge would decide their case.

The judgment of acquittal - what you have been calling a summary judgment - has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a jury or not. The prosecution has to prove facts that establish each and every element of the charged crime. If there are 10 elements, and the state only proves 9, with or without a jury - the defendant is still entitled, at the close of the state's case, to a judgment of acquittal (rendered by the judge).

[BumRushDaShow]

85. Again you misinterpreted what I originally wrote

in a simple one-line subject-only post to a different poster, and then go on to lecture, not even considering that I may have been following the cases, and admitting that you had not idea about how MD handles these. Sorry but you can leave your lecturing at the door.

[Ms. Toad]

86. I did not say I don't know how MD handles the cases.

I said I don't know the label they use, because the labels (and some minor details) are state-specific. I am not an MD attorney and, as I noted, so I didn't give you Maryland's label for the criminal process in my first response, and noted that I didn't have time to research the precise details at that time. But that it wasn't a summary judgment which is never an option in a criminal case.

I was responding to the entire thread, which started with this legally incorrect statement:

Utilizing summary judgment by a judge vs jury

has been the quickest way for them to get acquitted.

As I explained, the judgment of acquittal (i.e. a decision by the judge after the prosecution of its case, before the defense presented evidence) is available to each defendant regardless of whether they had a jury or not.. Waiving their right to a jury has nothing to do with the quick acquittal. A criminal judge ALWAYS, even when a defendant has not waived its right to a jury, has the obligation to acquit when the prosecution has not proven every single element of its case.

You have focused on the choice to avoid a jury ("Utilizing summary judgment by a judge v. jury&quot , a fact that is completely irrelevant to the judgment of acquittal the article is discussing.

[annavictorious]

3. Asking a lawyer

If what Rice did cannot be characterized as an assault, how can it be characterized as manslaughter?
Isn't assault a lesser included crime?

[brush]

5. Looks like the fix is in systemically against the black state's attorney

Seems to be much resentment that she bucked the system and promised justice for Freddie Gray's killing.

After the first trial before a jury resulted in a re-trial because of a non-verdict, all the other defendants attorneys' opted for a bench (judge) trial and a suitable, malleable judge was found.

What pisses me off is the judge, as expected, has found a way to find 3 cops involved in Gray's death not guilty.

He'll find the last two not guilty also. And he's a black judge. We used to call these types uncle toms.

It seems, if you draw conclusions from the judge's not guilty verdicts, Freddie Gray killed himself with no help from the cops who all, we are supposed to believe, are innocent of any wrong doing.

The judge ought to be ashamed of himself.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. The judge is the same judge whose been involved from the beginning

The cases were weak, and Marilyn Mosby overcharged.

It's pretty offensive to imply that a black judge is an "Uncle Tom" just because he doesn't rule the way you think he should.

[brush]

7. So Freddie Gray killed himself?

Saying the DA overcharged is the same thing heard after zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin.

It's seems to be a canned response to fall back on, sort of like the cops saying, "I feared for my life".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Nope

but the prosecution hasn't been able to prove that any carelessness on the part of the police officers rose to the level of criminality.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard, and they haven't been able to meet that standard yet, either by jury or judge.

[brush]

9. Not securing a Gray in the back of a police van while being transport is not a crime . . .

even though he died as a result of it?

Yeah, right.

Gray didn't sustain a sprained wrist.

He died.

It's obvious that the fix is in.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. No, it's not a crime

Marilyn Mosby screwed up, big time, both by not waiting for a full investigation and then by overcharging.

Judges are supposed to follow the law, and this judge is doing just that.

[brush]

11. Cite the law that it's not a violation.

This is so like the Trayvon Martin case, the Ferguson DA's non-indictment, the Staten Island non-indictment — the system is rigged against finding cops guilty of killing black people.

You can go on and on about overcharging and this or that is not a crime, but that's from a your perspective, apparently a non-victim one.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. Laws don't work that way

They don't list things that aren't against the law in question.

You should ask yourself why the prosecutors haven't, thus far, been able to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt to either a jury or a judge.

[brush]

15. The jury trial was hung. The judge, imo, is in on the fix. Someone is culpable.

Gray didn't kill himself.

This is not unusual. These not guilty verdicts against cops who kill black people has been going on for centuries. We know it when we see it.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. A hung jury

means that the prosecution didn't prove their case.

Marilyn Mosby would have had a much better chance at convictions if she hadn't overcharged. But in the rush to make a bigger name for herself, it appears that she's going to convict fewer than half of the defendants, at best.

[brush]

17. Like I said, we know it when we see it.

We obviously have different perspectives.

You look at the state's attorney as trying to make a name for herself.

I look at her as a person, a black person, finally in a position to stop the judicial farces seen in Staten Island, Ferguson, and Florida, and determined to stop that parade of court charades and finally find killer cops guilty — you know, find justice for a black person for once.

[TipTok]

41. I would love to hear your rationale...

... and evidence that these Officers, many of whom are black, met the legal standard for these charges up to murder 2.

[Akicita]

49. It doesn't matter how he died. There has to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that this

particular officer committed a crime in order for him to be convicted.

You can't just say Gray died in police custody so every cop who had contact with him is guilty of killing him with the only evidence being he is dead.

[Ash_F]

13. If a policeman got into a car with you and came out dead, you would be found guilty no matter what

It wouldn't matter what your defense is or what they could prove. You would be found guilty.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Maybe

Maybe not.

[Nye Bevan]

21. What if the cop had a heart attack or stroke?

I think they would still need to prove that you were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ash_F]

27. Let's say his spine was mysteriously broken.

[Akicita]

50. If a cop had contact with you and a half dozen of your co-workers not all at the same time

and he turned up dead of spinal injuries you would not be convicted unless they could prove you were involved in his death. Same goes for each of your co-workers.

[Ash_F]

57. Haha no

In our justice system, politics and power trump everything else.

It is not like an episode of Law and Order.

[Lord Magus]

51. Bullshit. If anything the officers were undercharged.

And the judge is obviously corrupt for letting these cops literally get away with murder.

[TipTok]

58. Is that because you say so?

Or do you have anything to back that up?

Are you referring to the judge who spent 8 years prosecuting police in the Civil Rights section of the Justice Dept?

[NobodyHere]

18. Uncle Tom?

I guess blacks aren't allowed to have their own individual thoughts and opinions.

[brush]

19. I call them as I see them. So Gray killed himself?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. If I'm driving

and my passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt, and I'm rearended and the passenger dies, am I guilty of second degree murder?

[brush]

23. Ash F already answered that for you. See below.

If a policeman got into a car with you and came out dead, you would be found guilty no matter what

It wouldn't matter what your defense is or what they could prove. You would be found guilty.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. Nope

They would have to prove it.

Ash F specifically said police, I'm saying anyone. Would I be guilty of 2nd degree murder if my unbelted passenger died in an accident that wasn't my fault?

[brush]

25. You're getting kind of silly with that example

Nowhere near the same as cops, throwing a handcuffed person in the back of a police van, and not securing the person so they don't tumble around. It's their responsibility to secure him/her so they don't get hurt, in Gray's case, killed.

In the example you gave, the person in the back seat is not handcuffed and perfectly able to put on his/her own seat belt.

How about we substitute a baby not in a baby seat, you know, someone not able to secured themself.

You damn sure would face charges.

[TeddyR]

28. Nobody is claiming Gray killed himself

But the prosecution charged multiple cops with his death and couldn't prove that any of them was responsible. That's the prosecutions job, and if they can't prove it then in the US we don't randomly convict just any individual for a crime. Sometimes this means that guilty people go free because the prosecution can't prove the case, and sometimes guilty people aren't even charged, because even though the police/prosecution are sure the individual is guilty they don't have the evidence to take the case to trial.

[Lord Magus]

52. The prosecutor DID prove their guilt.

The judge just didn't care, because they're cops and cops are above the law.

[TipTok]

55. How?

The prosecution's expert witness couldn't define or characterize a 'rough ride' FFS...

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. The man was in a box with no windows.

How in the UNIVERSE is it possible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what happened inside?

[brush]

46. His dead, handcuffed, unsecured body should be more than enough evidence

He was handcuffed and couldn't brace himself from tumbling around.

But nobody didn't anything wrong. They all neglected their responsibility to safely transport someone in their custody, especially the driver.

The man is dead for God's sake, yet we have all these apologists, and on a progressive site.

We've seen blatant instance after instance of cops lying to cover their asses from killing black people — like the killer/liar/evidence planter who shot Walter Scott in the back then tried to stage the scene before telling his lies — yet everyone, including the judge seems to take the cops' word.

[Akicita]

54. So which one of the officers killed him? And what proof do you have that he is the one that did it?

That's what the judge needs to convict.

If you are in a movie theater and someone is killed during the movie and the police can't figure out who did it, is it fair to convict everyone who was in the theater because the victim didn't kill himself?

If the victim was black would you call the black judge an ugly racist term like uncle Tom if he didn't convict everyone in the theater assuming the prosecutor was dumb enough to indict everyone in the theater?

[Lars39]

60. Better analogy would be getaway driver for bank robbers.

Everyone in the vehicle is guilty.

[Akicita]

64. That's crazy. Do you really believe that all the cops were involved in a premeditated conspiracy

to commit a crime, murder, like a bank robbery gang? Not at all likely. They are not even being accused of that and there is no evidence of that.

I'll stick with my analogy.

[Lars39]

67. With armed robbery you don't know if nothing, minor injuries, or death will result.

In this case they knew putting him in the van would give him some more bodily injury. They had probably already injured him prior to putting him in the van.
These types of rides are well known. I'll stick with my analogy, too.

[Akicita]

68. If they all knew that putting a suspect in a police van always causes bodily injuries those vans

Would have been scrapped long ago.

This is the first I've heard that police vans always cause bodily injuries. What do you base that on? Or are you just making that up? If true, why didn't the DA charge the city administration for buying and operating equipment that the operators knew would cause bodily injury if used as intended?

[Lars39]

70. An unsecured prisoner being given a very rough ride

has been an unacknowledged tactic of police departments for a long time.

[Akicita]

73. Yes, but there is no evidence that the victim here was given a rough ride. No witnesses and no CCTV

showed a rough ride.

[Lars39]

77. Then the injuries he was given before being put in the van killed him.

[TipTok]

78. Even in your own posts, you contradict yourself...

How exactly would they 'know' that putting him in the van would case injury? Thousands of people had ridden just like that for years before without incident.

Oh wait, are you saying that the injury came beforehand?

Maybe?

How would the driver know? Or the guy who just showed up and helped him into the van?

The real point is that you don't know and can't even prove where the injury occured, let alone who caused it.

[Lars39]

79. He was already injured and unrestrained.

Would be interesting to see what one of those devices that reord driving habits would show....lots of hard stops probably.

[TipTok]

83. Wasn't one of the key pieces of evidence for the defense...

... a series of videos from around the city showing the transport with no observable hard stops or turns?

[brush]

61. There were charges other than who killed him.

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 08:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Surely someone, possibly the driver of the van, should have been convicted of not securing the handcuffed victim in the back of his van so he wouldn't be flailing around without the ability to brace himself because of the handcuffs.

And I don't get at all why so many don't see something very wrong with all these not guilty verdicts when we know what happened in the Eric Garner case, the Trayvon Martin case, the Michael Brown case and many, many others. The criminal justice system protects killer cops.

It happened in those cases and it's apparent that's what's happening here. Why all the denials?

It's already starting to happen in the Baton Rouge case. Here's a link about the Baton Rouge cops suppressing a video from one person who taped that murder on a cell phone. Here's a link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/11/alton-sterling-witness-cops-took-my-phone-my-surveillance-video-locked-me-up.html

And in Minnesota the cops won't release the dash cam video from that murderous cops car. Wonder what they're hiding, because if it exonerated the cop they'd be showing it everywhere).

[Akicita]

66. Most progressives believe that the evidence in a criminal case must show beyond a reasonable doubt

that the accused person is guilty of a crime. Unless a premeditated conspiracy is proven, and that is not even being alleged in this case, the DA must prove which cop caused the fatal injury and which cops are guilty of others crimes. If the DA cannot prove the charges then the judge can't convict.

I don't believe many progressives think that if a person is injured, but the DA can't even prove how he was injured, that a judge should convict all of the people who came in contact with the deceased because one of them probably caused the injury.

[brush]

69. Seems most progressives would recognize the pattern of the criminal justice system . . .

protecting killer cops too.

And I just don't get at all is why so many don't see something very wrong with all these not guilty verdicts when we know what happened in the Eric Garner case, the Trayvon Martin case, the Michael Brown case and on and on and on.

It's a well establish pattern nationally.

It happened in those cases and it's apparent that's what's happening here.

[Ash_F]

59. Reasonable doubt.

[TeddyR]

26. The case wasn't particularly strong to begin with based on the evidence

And the prosecutor overcharged several of the officers. Not only that, her office withheld evidence it was required to turn over (more than once). In other words, she did a poor job. The prosecution had every chance to prove its case and failed to do so multiple times. And one of the officers was acquitted by jury (well, a hung jury, which means no conviction), though he'll be retried. Regardless of whether we think someone is guilty the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if they don't then the accused is set free. And not sure why you think this judge is an "Uncle Tom" - do you think he should have found the defendants guilty even though the prosecution failed to prove its case?

[brush]

29. Yeah, yeah. That's always the fallback excuse — they overcharged

Like in the Trayvon Martin case, or Ferguson or Staten Island.

There's always an excuse to find killer cops not guilty.

Finding cops who kill black men not guilty is nothing new. It's been going on for centuries.

The state attorney thought she could stop the systemic injustice but she ran up against forces in the criminal justice system that was/is determined to keep the status quo going.

Cops can still kill unarmed black men with impunity.

Might as well go ahead and say it, Freddie Gray killed himself.

The cops had nothing to do with it.

[TeddyR]

30. You didn't actually address any of the points I made

The attorney prosecuting the case didn't run up against anything other than her own incompetence and lack of evidence. And if her case is really that strong and this judge fixed the case then it will be overturned on appeal. Just because you want someone, anyone convicted doesn't mean they should be.

[brush]

31. All of them found not guilty of EVERY charge? Yeah, right.

That's real justice .

Every charge? Come on. Someone did something wrong or Gray would still be alive.

[Nye Bevan]

32. Did you even follow the trial of the van driver?

The other prisoner being transported described the trip as a "smooth ride" and said that Gray banged his own head repeatedly against the van wall. And there was no evidence, eyewitness, video, anything, to corroborate the "rough ride". How could you possibly argue for a murder conviction, given all of this?

[brush]

35. And cops never lie. How naive are you to believe that after all the high profile cases . . .

of cops caught in blatant cover-their-asses lies after they've klled a black guy, over the last couple of years?

The judge is as naive as you if he believed that crapola, or he's in on the fix.

Innocent of all the charges, even the lessor ones. Come on. This is just another case of cops getting off after killing a black guy — whose life doesn't matter.

[Akicita]

75. So all cops should be convicted of every crime they are ever accused of because many cops have been

lying in past cases. Even if CCTV evidence and witness testimony corroborate their story. Makes perfect sense to me. Would you apply that same standard to all black defendants if it can be shown that many previous black defendants have lied to save their skins? Or is that standard reserved for cops in your mind?

[Yupster]

33. If someone is killed and there were

five people that might have done it, but you know that one of them did it, you can't just convict all five of them because someone obviously did it.

You have to prove that one of them actually did it.

If you can't prove one of them did it, then all of them are going to get off, the four innocent ones and the one guilty one.

[brush]

34. Like that makes sense. There were lesser charges against all of them.

[TeddyR]

36. For arguments sake

I'll concede that "someone did something wrong." What the hell does that have to do with the acquittals? The prosecutions job is to prove which "someone did something wrong" according to the elements of the crime charged. The prosecution doesn't get to identify 6 potential suspects and throw darts at a board.

[brush]

37. At lease find the driver guilty of a lessor charge, since he is the one who is supporsed . . .

secure a handcuffed suspect in the back of his van so the suspect is not rolling around with the possibility of getting hurt, in this case, getting killed.

This is just another case of cops getting off after killing a black guy — whose life doesn't matter.

[TeddyR]

38. First, I'm not making any judgment about whether Gray's life matters

I'm simply saying that the prosecution has a job to do (prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) and the defense has a job to do (create reasonable doubt). The defense failed to carry its burden. Second, my understanding of the evidence (not having followed this case in detail) is that the prosecution failed to prove that the van ride caused the injuries. If you are going to convict the driver then you have to prove the driver's actions resulted in injury, and the prosecution did not.

[TipTok]

43. Maybe...

Mosby would have been better off charging for that instead of murder 2 and on down the line.

All of her wounds are self inflicted...

[brush]

45. All exonerated of ALL CHARGES? Even the lessor ones. Come on.

None of those cops did anything wrong?

Yeah, right .

[TipTok]

47. What can you prove?

[brush]

48. You can't prove anything if the judge doesn't think so

So if the judge goes along, all cops will be exonerated of ALL charges, even though a man is dead.

Somebody is obviously lying, it's up to the judge to figure out how to deliver justice because a man is dead.

Seems a cop out by a lazy judge to find all innocent of all charges.

[TipTok]

53. Uh huh...

That awful, terrible, lazy judge (who is also African American) who helped prosecute police misconduct in the Civil Rights section of the Justice Department for 8 years?

That judge?

[brush]

62. Yeah, that judge

And I don't get at all why so many don't see something very wrong with all these not guilty verdicts when we know what happened in the Eric Garner case, the Trayvon Martin case, the Michael Brown case and many, many others.

The criminal justice system protects killer cops.

It happened in those cases and it's apparent that's what's happening here.

[TipTok]

71. Mosby took a calculated risk...

... and banked on the conviction of the first officer to push him into testifying against the others.

Once that blew up in her face, she only had the evidence on hand and it wasns't much other than the fact that something had happened.

[brush]

72. The criminal justice system protects killer cops.

[TipTok]

74. Are you suggesting that they should be held to a different standard of proof...

... than everyone else?

Reasonable doubt but only for some?

[Rex]

39. Maybe the cops knee on his neck fucked him up.

Put the knee in the right place and break someones neck.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-gray-video-moore-20150423-story.html

[TipTok]

44. That's kind of the point...

Maybe it was during the detainment... Most of which was filmed

Maybe it was during the ride... most of which was also filmed...

Lots of maybes and no definitive proof...

[KMOD]

40. This is so very sad and frustrating.

The young man is dead and no one is responsible.

Do they want us to believe that this was just an accidental death?

This is just so very wrong. The police have a very hard responsibility, but the mission is to serve and protect.

We all know that they were careless in their handling of Freddie Gray. His arrest was a sham, and it just went downhill from there.

[melm00se]

63. As a lawyer buddy

reminds folks when they talk about the legal cases and trials:

There are things that you know and then there are things that you can prove.

The two sometimes overlap and sometimes they don't.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

76. This is a culpability shell game.

Whoever is on trial will pass the buck elsewhere and in the end, no one will be called to account for it.

And make no mistake about it, Freddie Gray did not break his own neck.

I haven't seen this much ridiculous legal posturing inexplicably used to success since the George Zimmerman trial.