• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Mistrial in Baltimore

simosfrostyone said:
I am not saying she overcharged because of the mistrial. (Actually, the guy should have been acquitted.) It isn't an overcharge; the case should never have been brought at all. Eventually they are going to file civil claims against these guys, but there isn't any criminality here. But not prosecuting wouldn't have pleased her constituency, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have been brought when you just need PC yet some jurors believed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Come on now.
 
If there are seperate trials, wouldn't the first one be their strongest case? Do they retry this guy with the same charges, go for lesser charges, or cut their loses altogether?
 
I think the driver is the strongest case but I'm not sure. I don't know what order they're trying the officers in.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
If there are seperate trials, wouldn't the first one be their strongest case? Do they retry this guy with the same charges, go for lesser charges, or cut their loses altogether?
Click to expand...

They wanted to try this guy first because they thought he would be a key witness against the others. If they didn't try him first, he would just plead the Fifth on the stand
 
MysteryMen said:
They wanted to try this guy first because they thought he would be a key witness against the others. If they didn't try him first, he would just plead the Fifth on the stand
Click to expand...

Unless they gave him immunity. I'm just a civil practitioner nowadays, but it sure seems to me the prosecution fucked this royally. Give the marginal guys immunity, give them a good plea deal, get them to roll on the driver, and go after the driver first. They were litigating scared.
 
Junebug said:
Unless they gave him immunity. I'm just a civil practitioner nowadays, but it sure seems to me the prosecution fucked this royally. Give the marginal guys immunity, give them a good plea deal, get them to roll on the driver, and go after the driver first. They were litigating scared.
Click to expand...

In the circumstances of this case, I don't think immunity was an option. The whole point was to prove that the system would hold police officers accountable, rather than give five of them sweetheart deals in order to convict one. I doubt the people of Baltimore would have been happy with that result
 
MysteryMen said:
In the circumstances of this case, I don't think immunity was an option. The whole point was to prove that the system would hold police officers accountable, rather than give five of them sweetheart deals in order to convict one. I doubt the people of Baltimore would have been happy with that result
Click to expand...

I agree that they shouldn't have given all of them (but the driver) immunity. But, IMO, they should have rolled 1 or 2 of them and then used them in the first case, which should've been against the driver.
 
DG3 said:
Uh, yeah. Not going to jail.
Click to expand...

Very unlikely a cop would go to jail in the first place. So why snitch to avoid something that probably won't happen?
 
The purpose is to put these guys in jail. But that doesn't always happen.

Few cops go to jail. There's little motivation for someone to snitch on cops in order to avoid a low probability event.
 
I'm still interested in hearing how a hung jury where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" shows that the prosecutor shouldn't have brought charges in the first place. Hung jury on all charges means that at least one (and more likely more) juror believed that the cop was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If that's the case, it's pretty solid support for bringing the charges.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm still interested in hearing how a hung jury where the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" shows that the prosecutor shouldn't have brought charges in the first place. Hung jury on all charges means that at least one (and more likely more) juror believed that the cop was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If that's the case, it's pretty solid support for bringing the charges.
Click to expand...

We'll see. They are going to retry this guy and try all the others, too. They must think they can convince 12 jurors.
 
simosfrostyone said:
We'll see. They are going to retry this guy and try all the others, too. They must think they can convince 12 jurors.
Click to expand...

We will see if they can convict anyone, sure but that's not what you said earlier - you said "It isn't an overcharge; the case should never have been brought at all." If the case shouldn't have been brought at all sounds like it should have been a quick acquittal for the jury or a directed verdict by the judge. Neither of those happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top