About . . . . . . Classes . . . . . . Books . . . . . . Vita . . . . . . . Links. . . . . . Blog

by Peter Moskos

February 9, 2016

"They pursue not the truth"

In case you missed it (I did), here's some good deep legal analysis from Page Croyder regarding the trial of the six Baltimore cops:
They pursue not the truth, but in the words of Mosby, "justice for Freddie Gray." And they will trample over the law, the evidence, their ethical responsibilities and real justice to get there.
Croyder doesn't like Mosby, in case you can't tell. And for good reason.
If the published comments from one of the jurors in the first Freddie Gray trial are accurate, then I was right, wrong, and right again.

Right that the jurors were close to acquitting Officer William Porter on the most serious count, involuntary manslaughter.

Wrong that they were close to acquitting him on the other charges as well. In fact, they were very close to convicting him for misconduct in office, and leaned towards conviction for reckless endangerment.

And right that this trial should have been moved. This hung trial makes it all so clear that the six officers cannot get a fair trial in Baltimore city.

According to the Sun, Judge Barry Williams instructed the jury that to find Porter guilty of misconduct in office, he had to have acted with "evil motive and bad faith," that he could not have made a "mere error in judgment," and that he "corruptly failed to do an a act required by his duties."

There was zero evidence of evil motive, bad faith or corruption in performing his duties. Porter acted completely consistently with other police officers. Acting in conflict with a general order does not equate to misconduct, either. If one thinks the police, as a department, act unreasonably in how they transport prisoners, that's what civil suits are for. But not criminal charges.

1 comment:

Andrew Laurence said...

It's unclear to me how you can achieve justice, except perhaps accidentally, without first discovering the truth.