Image 01 Image 03

Freddie Gray Case: Prosecutor Seeks to Seal Autopsy

Freddie Gray Case: Prosecutor Seeks to Seal Autopsy

What is Mosby trying to hide?

State Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who raised eyebrows (understatement maximus) when she abruptly charged six Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddie Gray, has now sought to seal Gray’s autopsy report from the public.

This is based on reporting by the Baltimore Sun, as brought to my attention by Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller.

As reported in the Daily Caller piece, Ivan Bates, the attorney for the only female officer charged by Mosby’s office in the case, is quoted as saying:

[Th]ere is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide. . . . It’s as if she wants to do everything to make sure our clients do not get a fair trial. . . . Nobody would know anything but the state and the defense, so they would totally hide it from the public. . . .  If your case is as good as you said it was, why don’t you just show the evidence? . . . You can’t holler and say, ‘I’m about accountability for the citizens,’ and then run around filing for a protective order.


–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

ADDENDUM [6-4-15, 10:00]:  It occurs to me it might be worth recalling how the release of the autopsy report in the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson last year exposed the falsity of the “hands up” and “shot in the back” narratives being advanced by street activists in that case:

New #Ferguson: “forensic evidence … lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events”

Michael Brown Autopsy A Further Blow To #Ferguson Racial Narrative

CORRECTION: This post previously referred to the “Baltimore Sun Times,” in error. The name of the paper has been corrected to “Baltimore Sun.” (h/t commenter gitarvarver)

NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of its online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Angela Corey ish or Nifong like?

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to EBL. | June 4, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    Agree on the Michael Brown autopsy. News of the front-entry bullet holes got out and demolished some of the MSM/streetmob’s most strident anti-Wilson assertions. It’s pretty likely that Mosby, or her innumerable leftist ‘advisors’ and narrative-keepers and puppet-masters, are doing their best to prevent a repeat. And actually, the request to seal is a step toward confirming that notion.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Insufficiently Sensitive. | June 4, 2015 at 1:20 pm

      It doesn’t matter if supposed facts get refuted — they’re out there, with people willing to believe them, and the Narrative goes on. From Duke lacrosse to Trayvon, M. Brown, and now Freddie the felon, the facts don’t mean a thing to some people. I only hope the facts can be made to matter in court, which is not a given.

Mosby thinks she has been promoted into the Ruling Class and that, therefore, she can do whatever she wants.

State Attorney Marilyn Mosby: She of the flared nostrils and pursed lips. Are they permanently glued like that? Because I’ve never seen a picture of her when she has not been flaring her nostrils and pursing her lips.

You’ve got to keep that narrative intact

Look at this picture a little more closely. ALL of the people standing directly behind Marilyn Mosby are older and white. Further, the expressions on the individuals on the right hand side of the picture seem to say “I can’t believe you’re this stupid”. This is a picture of an arrogant young black woman pushing an agenda.

This is a picture of an arrogant young black liberal woman pushing an agenda.

Not that her being black is not an issue (obviously race is a big factor in the politics of this). But this very much an issue of another prosecutor exploiting a case for political purposes. Just like Corey and Nifong did.

    Like you, I think her political activism is more of an issue than her race, and that people bringing up her race aren’t doing themselves any favors in the credibility stakes. I’ve seen memes floating around calling her “the typical angry black woman” and comparing her looks to a chimp or a monkey. But as you point out, Corey and Nifong have demonstrated that this is neither a black nor a female thing. And if civilized adults don’t yet understand that calling black people chimps or monkeys is going to make them look racist, there’s just really no hope for them.

      I didn’t bring up the First Amendment at all. I’m very in favor of free speech. Even when I was called the c-word on this very blog, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to demand that that particular commenter be banned or otherwise silenced. But just as you are free to speak your mind, others are free to judge you by your words. Men who call women the c-word, and whites who call blacks the n-word, reveal much more about themselves than they do the objects of their derision. None of it good or clever, or even edgy or bold.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 3:50 pm

        You’re either a product of modern public education or some private facsimile equally as inadequate.

        Conversational language is a reflection of spirit and opinion that is derived from experiences, observations and reasoning. When somebody uses what the media likes to call “racial epithets”, they are expressing disdain for their experiences and observations of the subject of their derision. Instead of saying “naughty, naughty” to them, why not ask what is driving their derision of whomever or whatever is provoking it.

        It’s just words. Be grateful that such people aren’t using the weasel words of the left and the nauseating politically correct euphemistic terminology they have worked to foist on honest people for decades. Your “naughty, naughty” words are the sound of rebellion. Get used to it.

        jakee308 in reply to Amy in FL. | June 5, 2015 at 9:09 am

        I’m more and more convinced you’re a liberal plant. You talk like a liberal, you act like a liberal, you attack any view that is conservative and you come off as being a bit arrogant.

        And a lot of us are tired of it.

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 5, 2015 at 10:47 am

        Well, a lot of us don’t agree with you.

        Amy is a valued member of our lil’ community here, though we sometimes disagree. She’s not a canned thinker, and I like that.

      Estragon in reply to Amy in FL. | June 5, 2015 at 6:59 am

      I hear you. People use racist slurs on the theory they will be thought or called racist anyway for being white and conservative.

      So if a guy dresses sloppily because the other kids will call him a slob anyway, and he looks and acts like a slob, how can he say the other kids are at fault?

Baltimore Sun Times?

I am pretty sure it is just the Baltimore Sun.

Just sayin’.

“It’s very disconcerting that six [defense] lawyers were able to write these motions in two weeks, and the state’s attorney’s office has over 200 or some attorneys and they need an extension,” [Ivan] Bates said. “To me, it’s almost as if the state’s attorney’s office is playing games.”

Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said judges sometimes grant gag orders or restrictions on evidence in high-profile cases because they feel the heightened scrutiny amounts to a “big headache” for those involved in the case.

But that isn’t how the law should work, Leslie said, and Mosby’s office should explain why it believes a protective order is warranted — especially considering that Gray’s death removed standard concerns about his medical privacy.
Officers in Freddie Gray case file for change of venue
Officers in Freddie Gray case file for change of venue

“They should have to show there is a compelling state interest served by keeping this confidential, and that their solution is the most narrowly tailored one,” Leslie said.

That could include redacting only certain details in the documents, he said.

There’s a lot in that piece about Miss Marilyn’s office’s conduct of this case.

They are asking for things from the defendants, but they won’t bend on particular issues even when the defense has offered to work with them. (Provided the account is true.)

More and more looking like an office run by a sacrificial lamb who thinks she’s a lion.

Mosby as prosecutor on this case has been a disaster from Day One. She has poisoned it with her base partisan politics, her blatant appeal to the mob, her conflicts of interest…

The truth of what happened that day and of how Freddie Gray ended up fatally injured while in the custody of police, whatever that truth is, is never going to come out; and justice, whether for Freddie Gray or for the officers involved, is never going to be served.

It’s just a complete mess, any way you look at it. I don’t see how anybody, even the most fervent of “Justice For Freddie Gray” supporters, can still support this woman. If there actually was some negligence or misconduct on the part of the police which led to Mr Gray’s death, that could and should have been carefully and soberly investigated, without all the high drama and grandiose gestures which have so corrupted this case.
#JusticeForNobody #ThanksMarilynMosbyEsq

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 11:46 am

    I disagree, starting with “Freddie Gray ended up fatally injured while in the custody of police”.

    That is ASSumption. It may be right, but there’s nothing to support it at this juncture.

    I also disagree that we will never know the what’s-what here. I think we will, but that is a time-will-tell proposition.

    Let due process…process.

      wyntre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2015 at 1:40 pm

      The FG-injured-while-in-police-custody lie along with the meme FG DIED-while-in-police-custody were reported by ALL LSM outlets, blogs, newspapers, talking heads, etc. I can’t count how many I contacted in an attempt to get them to correct their mischaracterizations.

      The truth is, FG died IN THE HOSPITAL, a week after his arrest, supposedly after suffering a seizure which prompted doctors to put him in a coma. (Maybe from swallowing drugs?)

      (But even that’s hearsay, coming from Mosby’s mentor and the FG family lawyerm whassisname).

      I can’t stand that smug-faced idiotMosby and I am stocking up on popcorn for when her case falls apart.

        Estragon in reply to wyntre. | June 5, 2015 at 7:04 am

        “The FG-injured-while-in-police-custody lie”

        Do you know something we don’t? I have seen nothing definitive on how Gray was injured, or when. You must have, to say one version is a lie.

        Of course the idea he died in custody is a lie, but that is a minor detail compared to what caused his death and when was he injured and how.

It may be that the cause of death is inconclusive. Freddie’s spine was no doubt injured in the police van. It could have caused him to be parylized but he might have lived. However they took him to surgery to operate on his spine in the hopes of saving his spinal cord. Seven days later he died. Ultimate cause of death could have been due to the surgery and thus the autopsy would be inconclusive. The surgeon will have to testify at the trial and he may have some negative things in his record that could through further doubt on the case. It will be hard to prove conclusively who did what and the accused will get the benefit of the doubt.

    Ultimate cause of death could have been due to the surgery

    But if the surgery would not have been necessary except for the actions of one or more police officers, they would still the ones responsible for his death, wouldn’t they?

    Not in a “murder” sense, mind you, I think that’s a ridiculous over-charge. But if that’s what happened, they were still in no small way responsible for his death. If they’d managed to get him to the police station in the same condition he was in when they first decided to arrest him, he would not have died some days later.

      userpen in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 12:31 pm

      At this point we do not know how severe Freddie’s injury was nor do we know if there was negligence on the part of the operating surgeon. The defense will no doubt hire expert medical witnesses who will testify Freddie need not have died from the surgery.

        Observer in reply to userpen. | June 4, 2015 at 2:29 pm

        We also don’t know whether or not Gray had a degenerative or other condition that made his spine more susceptible to injury than the average person’s. There are lots of unknowns here, but the fact that Mosby is trying to keep the public from seeing the autopsy report suggests that the facts it contains don’t help Mosby’s case.

          We also don’t know whether or not Gray had a degenerative or other condition that made his spine more susceptible to injury than the average person’s.

          I don’t think that matters. You take your victims as you find them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | June 4, 2015 at 2:48 pm

          No, Amy. THAT is a tort law rule. NOT a criminal law standard.

          Remember the elements of the crimes charged. They involve KNOWING certain things, and one of the things I’ve pointed out is that the PA has a VERY difficult requirement of showing things were KNOWN that were unknown or even unknowable by these officers. One of those, for instance, is evaluation of a cervical injury.

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 12:42 pm

      But your comment reflects all the areas of ignorance surrounding this matter.

      First, there is the concept of “intervening cause”. Case-in-point: police arrest dead Fred, put him the the van, and a careless driver rams the rear end of the van, injuring Fred.

      You can say, “But for the police arresting dead Fred over some nothing charge, he’d be alive today”. People have said, are saying, and will say that. But LEOs were not the cause IN FACT of any of Fred’s injury in this hypothetical.

      Take another: Fred swallows a balloon of high-grade smack while in transit that he concealed in his mouth. A good arrest procedure should have found the balloon, but didn’t. Fred goes into a coma and later dies. Is Freddie responsible, or are the police, or do both bear some degree of blame?

      Here, we simply don’t know how, where, or when Freddie was injured. We can expect to learn at least some of those things, if not all of them.

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2015 at 1:46 pm

        I think your example sucks. Careless drivers ramming cars are enough of an occurrence that we have seatbelts and airbags. Further, in the example case the officers may not be at fault because of the arrest, but they may be liable for placing someone in a vehicle without properly securing that person. Especially since constraints prevented the person from securing himself.

        A better example would be the surgeon doing the operation while under the influence.

        As for your drug example, similar things have been speculated. Mr. Gray was arrested on a suspected drug deal, There were drugs in his system. No drugs were found on him. He was out of sight for part of the chase. Perhaps he swallowed the drugs which took effect during the trip and caused a seizure. The seizure caused his neck to snap.

          Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 4, 2015 at 2:28 pm

          As so often lately, Mouse, your gnat-straining and bad wiring are showing.

          The issue was not “liability” but causation. Whose act…IN FLUCKING FACT…was the cause of the injury? Not a contributing factor (or not) in severity, but THE cause?

          If you really want to play “lawyer”, you should go to law school and pass the bar.

          If I come screaming up behind you at a red light, rear-end you, and send your car flying into the intersection, where you get t-boned by a semi, and after a week in hospital they pull the plug on you and you die, am I in no way responsible for your death? I mean, because it wasn’t *I* that killed you.

          If I punch you in the face, and my fist itself does no serious damage, but after I connect, you do somehow fall backward and crack your head open on the sidewalk, am I in any way responsible for your death? After all, my wussy little girly-punch probably wouldn’t have even left much of a mark, let alone killed you. If you hadn’t lost your balance and fell, you’d be fine!

          My original query was, “But if the surgery would not have been necessary except for the actions of one or more police officers, they would still the ones responsible for his death, wouldn’t they?” (I put a question mark there because in common sense, and in a moral sense, they would have born responsibility, but I don’t know how the law would treat it — laws not necessarily being based around common sense.)

          Also, I was remembering how James Brady’s death at age 73 was ruled a homicide, even though it was more than 30 years since he was shot and by then he was suffering other (presumably age-related) ailments. If your death can still be deemed a homicide due to a non-fatal injury you received 33 years ago…?

          Ragspierre in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 4, 2015 at 3:24 pm

          First, I’m trying to deal with legal questions.

          If you want to go to a moral blog, you should. I’ve made the point MANY times that the criminal law is a clumsy hammer, not an elegant scalpel.

          Second, you’re being silly, and you know it. Can’t every murderer claim their victim was in the act of dying when they injured them? We ALL are, you know. Who knows when the Grim Reaper would have struck down your victim? Maybe in the next instant, right?

          My point was…and still is…we do NOT know how, where, or when dead Fred was injured. We don’t know who…or what sequence of events…is responsible.

          DO WE…???

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 3:36 pm

      You have absolutely no basis on which to claim the police actions caused Freddie’s death unless you are propounding that anybody who dies as a result of being arrested for criminal conduct is the fault of the police. The logical extension of your reasoning, to the extent there is any, is that nobody should be arrested because they might die as a result of that arrest. We’ve already examined that loony idea in the Eric Garner case.

      Stop being sucked in by family mouthpiece hustlers, undereducated, agenda-driven loudmouth prosecutors, and preferred media narratives that repeat everything the hustlers claim as though God himself had confirmed its truth.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm

      Not necessarily. Spinal injuries don’t always lead to death. If Gray could have survived his injuries had the surgery not gone awry then how do you charge the cops with Murder or Manslaughter? Basically it gives the reasonable doubt that the surgeon killed him not his injury. At least I believe that would be the argument.

      Also, at this point we don’t know that it was the spinal injury that killed him anyway. We actually only know that he had a spinal injury and then died. What if the report shows that his death was actually from an unknown cardiac condition unrelated to his injury, granted that is just speculation.

      The point is that the ME report is what will tell us the actual cause of death and she is trying to hide it.

    mariner in reply to userpen. | June 4, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    Not only that, but paramedics worked on Gray before he arrived at the hospital. Their attempts to save him may exacerbated his injury, despite their best effort.

    (Notice I’m NOT suggesting the paramedics did anything wrong–bad outcomes happen.)

    I cannot see any basis in what we know for claims that police caused Gray’s death.

I also love how she uses the courtesy title “Esquire” in her Twitter handle. I mean, who does that?

    It’s been my experience that the only lawyers who make use of “Esquire” as a title are those for whom their law degree (JD) is merely a social or political credential, rather than a foundation for the practice of law as a vocation.

    Now I’ll get hate mail from some actually practicing lawyer who uses “Esq.” 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      I suppose Esq. is slightly better than Juris Doctor.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 4, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      I suppose Esq is a lot like PhD. But maybe a bit less for Esq.

      The whole PhD thing is not something you acquired. It’s something you’ve become. Like the dragon/tiger scars/tatoos that one acquires moving that pot of coal in Kung Fu. It’s not just carrying that pot that gives you the scars, it’s the whole process leading up to the scars. ( Dammit now you’ve got me all contemplative and everything! )

      Me I don’t write PhD when sigining my name. Mainly because MouseTheLuckyDog is a lot to write already! But even after thirty years, the rare times that I get told things like “you can’t be a PhD, no one calls you doctor ( or there is no PhD after your name )” cause me to rethink things.

      I suppose though that with Esq people do not expect you to use it, unlike PhD where the default choice is to use it. Also unlike getting a PhD I don’t think that when you pass the bar someone tells you by saying “Congradulations Anrew Branca, PhD”.

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 4, 2015 at 1:17 pm

        Oops. That last line should read– no one told you by saying
        “Congratulations Andrew Branca, Esq”.

        PS: Doesn’t her name also appear in legal documents with Esq behind it? Maybe she couldn’t get the twitter handle MarilynMosby so settled for MarilynMosbyEsq. Hey we have to be fair even if she isn’t.

        Most people I know with PhDs do not write PhD after their name or refer to themselves as “Doctor” unless they are in an academic setting. And if they used PhD in their Twitter handle, I’d hold them in as low regard as I’d hold someone who uses Esquire in theirs.

        If other people want to bestow upon you a courtesy title, let them. But outside a professional setting, insistently conferring it upon yourself might make people think you’re a bit “up yourself”, as the kids say.

          J Motes in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 5:00 pm

          Dr. Jill Biden.

          Michiguy in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 6:15 pm

          Most people I know with PhDs do not write PhD after their name […] unless they are in an academic setting.
          Personally, I’d amend that to “Most PhDs I like do not write PhD …” A friend and fellow academic physician has a rant about dual-doctorate medical doctors who sign hospital charts with “MD, PhD” because, so far as he is concerned, that’s essentially bragging. As this friend argues, you sign the chart with “MD” to show your role in the clinical care process in the same way the respiratory therapist signs “RRT”. It’s not a genital-measuring contest. The PhD is (generally) irrelevant to the physician’s role as a clinician. I’m not as offended by people signing “MD, PhD” but I agree in the sense that one might as well note that one is an Eagle Scout, scratch golfer, or 3-star Michelin chef. All worthy achievements, but not relevant in the particular context.

          In the same vein, I never socially introduce myself as “doctor” or sign my name with “MD” appended except on medical documents. On top of being at least faintly pretentious, sometimes it’s stupid (e.g. car repair bills may go up if you sign MD, or worse DDS after your name!).

          Back on topic: I wish I could say I was surprised by this latest Mosby maneuver, but somehow I’m not. From my perspective it looks damaging to the State’s case, but I’d bet nearly anything that social justice/community organizing types will not see it that way.

          Estragon in reply to Amy in FL. | June 5, 2015 at 7:10 am

          Anyone with a Ph.D. who refers to themselves as “doctor” and signs their name with their degree is advertising to the world that they are a vacuous, pretentious twit. My sample of those who have done so may not be large enough to prove statistical validity, but so far the results show the presumption is 100% correct.

      Ragspierre in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 4, 2015 at 1:20 pm

      Being the sardonic feller I am, I gave some consideration to having cards printed after passing the bar that said, “Ragspierre: Lawyer At Law”. Which made exactly as much sense to me as the redundant “Attorney At Law”.

      Yeah. WTF would an attorney be “at” besides law?

        WTF would an attorney be “at” besides law?

        Attorney in Fact?

        Hey, if you want an honorific, I’ll bestow one upon you:

        Ragspierre, Learned Scoundrel and Rogue
        I was going to go for
        Ragspierre, Affable Raconteur
        but you’re a little too growly sometimes for that one to always fit 😉

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2015 at 2:06 pm

        Technically an attorney is someone who acts on behalf of someone else. Not necessarily in a legal manner. Attorneys can often act in a business manner that involves little or no legal work.

        An examine of this is “power of attorney” which is a grant to someone to act as your agent in a certain circumstance. It may be something legal, but it may also have very little to do with the law. For example a negotiation.

        So an attorney-at-law is someone who acts on behalf of other people in legal matters. Later attorney-at-law became abbreviated as attorney. So when you use attorney-at-law, you are not being redundant. You are just using the full title.

        mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2015 at 2:08 pm

        In Fact.

        At Equity.

        Not saying those would make sense today, but some legal customs survive the reasons for them.

          Ragspierre in reply to mariner. | June 4, 2015 at 2:39 pm

          …as does the pretentiousness of people who use archaic terms to boost their self-importance.

          Like “Esq.”… I can’t remember the last time I gave someone a key to a property and announced they were “enfeoffed”.

          I hope it was never, because it would be stupid and pedantic.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 4, 2015 at 3:16 pm

      I pretty much agree with AB. Proper courtesy is to address other attorneys as “Esquire” in written communications – except that you shouldn’t be surprised to be addressed as “Doctor” when dealing with foreign associates and the like. But, you don’t use it on yourself – rather, you use “Attorney at Law”, etc. as a job title instead. As long as you are using a job title that requires a law license, “Esquire” is not only unnecessary, but also redundant and, I think, pompous. I have always viewed “Esquire” as more an honorific used mostly by lawyers for other lawyers.

      I should add that very few attorneys actually use JD – the only ones I know who routinely do, have multiple doctorate degrees (e.g. MD, JD, PhD). Mostly though, it suggests to me that the person using “JD” by their name never passed the bar.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Andrew Branca. | June 4, 2015 at 6:11 pm

      My brother is a lawyer and he uses JD behind his name.

      I actually had the administrator at Red State pull my post/rant about FOI honcho Malik Shabazz and his “Jewish Doctorate Degree.” They had a sense of humor about it, as they substituted a music video under my byline “One Toke Over the Line” but didn’t ban me.

      I’ll have to dig that up some time.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    I sometimes append my name with Esq., because it’s my privilege as a gentleman, and because it pisses off a lawyer friend of mine. I never feel the need to clarify it, or any statements I make online, with IANAL, because I think it’s obvious, and because it sounds kinda dirty.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Char Char Binks. | June 4, 2015 at 3:20 pm

      Well – talking about arrogance, I sometimes use Dr. or JD with medical people when they have expanded the use of “Doctor” to include PhDs and PharmDs. Mostly good friends who understand what I am doing. Oh, and my kid, who is working on a PhD right now.

    J Motes in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    Esquire: It sounds so veddy, veddy British, which makes it kind of cool _if_ you come from across the pond but slightly affected if you live on the American side.

Question since knife not released with defence request what is the legal status of being entered by prosecutor do you think illegal arrest will be quietly thrown under table

    That part was already modified when a grand jury approved updated charges, though Mosby is arguing that there was an illegal arrest prior to knowledge of the knife therefore the search was also illegal.

    Most knowledgeable legal minds (including on this blog) have mocked the assertion. At any rate, a “Terry stop” is not an arrest in the first place, nor is it unconstitutional. They’d probably have to prove some kind of prior malice.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JBourque. | June 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm

      Mosby is either too stupid or too zealous, or both, to acknowledge or possibly even know the difference between a stop and an actual arrest.

      I would love to see her investigation report conducted by the fired BPD guy who generated phony crime statistics and nutted up because he got he got busted down for it.

I would think a reasonable judge would find it hard to countenance this motion, if he considers the very public statements made by this prosecutor.

I think the illegal arrest is just a way to prejudice the jury pool someone mentioned that since both misconducts are 8th amendment instead of one being the 4th that it will never even be brought up by Mosby. I heard her and the city council are arguing over money.SHE can’t get approval to ship 12 kangeroos from Australia

I was a little dubious of the pre-existing injury before. Not so sure now. Especially was interesting when his lawyer (Freddie’s said he was not aware of anything. I am sure he would ask family and the answer would have been a resounding NO , after all he had a definite answer for the knife.(He and Freddie peeled potatoes every Sunday at the soup kitchen and compared knives)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to dmi60ex. | June 4, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    “I am not aware of anything” are Hillary Clinton-style weasel words for, “Dang, you’re getting warm.”

    The lawyer will not seek any of Freddie’s previous medical records and will do all he can to keep the defendants in the lawsuit from getting them. The first words out of his mouth to his clients was probably something like, “We don’t need to speak about Freddie’s medical history until the day he was arrested because it’s not relevant. Understand?”

Mosby: The autopsy results prove beyond any doubt that Freddie Gray was murdered by the police.
Reporters: Can we see the autopsy results?
Mosby: ……….. No.

    Yeah, if she hadn’t wanted this case argued in the press, she really shouldn’t have set the precedent of arguing this case in the press. If she had felt strongly that this was a case where details should be suppressed until the trial, she should have been more circumspect about releasing (her version of) certain details herself.

    It’s here that she’s so like Nifong in the Duke case that you could swear that she’s following his playbook. Didn’t anyone ever tell her how that particular story ended?

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      One big divergence is that Nifong never conducted the requisite investigation.

      Here, Miss Marilyn did a cursory (highly suspect) investigation, at least.

        I thought he did do an investigation, but when it turned out unfavorable to the narrative, he neglected to share it with the defense. He asked all the accused players to provide DNA samples, and then when it turned out that the alleged victim’s rape kit showed more than one man’s DNA, but none connected to any of the accused players, he deliberately hid that. I’m pretty sure that’s what got him in the most trouble: concealing the exculpatory DNA evidence.

        I was thinking more about the way that he tried his case in the press, making all sorts of accusations and egging on all the pot-bangers and “activists”, then went all coy and “it would be inappropriate to try this case in the press” as soon as it became evident that things weren’t turning out as he had hoped.

          Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 2:08 pm

          Nifong stated in a court hearing on October 27, 2006, that, six months after the arrest of the Duke lacrosse players, he had not yet interviewed the alleged victim. “I haven’t talked with her about the facts of that night. … We’re not at that stage yet.” According to Nifong, none of his assistants had discussed the case with her, either.

          That would be like any civil attorney failing to talk to a new client about the merits of their case. One of our ethical requirements is that we have a well-founded basis for anything we plead. We can plead on faith that what our clients tell us is true (and we have to, in fact), but I don’t see how anyone pleads in good faith on studied ignorance. It’s MUCH worse, of course, for a prosecutor to act in that kind of reckless disregard for the effects of his actions.

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Amy in FL. | June 4, 2015 at 6:29 pm

      It’s here that she’s so like Nifong in the Duke case that you could swear that she’s following his playbook. Didn’t anyone ever tell her how that particular story ended?

      Shhhhh. I wanna see her pee on the electric fence.

Is not providing the Defense with discovery, against the law and is also an ethics violation? Seems to me that she would have been taught that in Law School 101. She might have been out with her choom gang that day.

I agree that the State’s Attorney is hiding something and she is getting extreme pressure from the Obama Administration and the race hucksters to not release the results.

    Did she say she wasn’t going to provide the defense with the autopsy results, or did she just say she doesn’t want them made public? I’m pretty sure the defense get to see them.

    Ragspierre in reply to Stan25. | June 4, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    She’s not refusing to provide discovery. She’s dragging it out all she can, I think.

    The orders she’s seeking prevent public disclosure of the information she has to divulge to the defendants.

Very interesting. Just to clarify, Mosby is not seeking to deny the Defense access to the autopsy report. She seeks to have it sealed from the Press and the public. A case of role reversal. It is usually the Defense that seeks a protective order to limit pre-trial publicity.

In some jurisdictions autopsy reports are considered private. On the other hand Professor Erwin Cherminsky feels that gag orders are almost always unconstitutional.

Can someone enlighten me on Maryland Law and the legal basis for sealing the autopsy report?

Did she have a toxicology report done ? I would think it should be ready soon( usually those take some time. I guess that will be the next secret . I can’t imagine why you would need the autopsy(sans pictures) to be secret.If she did not order a test would samples be safer or would they need to dig him up.Did it seem strange to anyone they couldn’t wait to bury him. Michael Brown was kept on ice and examined ad nauseam

    Stan25 in reply to dmi60ex. | June 4, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    One would think that he could be disinterred to get a tox screen; but wouldn’t the results be skewed because of the embalming process?

    That would also take a court order, because I am sure that the family would refuse to have that done

    Ragspierre in reply to dmi60ex. | June 4, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    I doubt very much that a PA has any say in whether a tox screen is conducted or not.

    There is a standard of care for medical examiners, just as for other professions, and a tox screen would be a requisite in modern practice.

    IF one were not done, the ME would be toast as a witness, IMNHO. Unless his report were signed AND under the seal of his office (which I’ve never seen), it would never come into evidence in most jurisdictions UNLESS he sponsored it in testimony, which would open him up to scathing impeachment.

    Generally, I think it’s common practice for samples to be preserved by the ME, and made available to the defense on proper discovery requests.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Ragspierre. | June 4, 2015 at 2:49 pm

      There is a major problem with tox screens in this day and age. ( Actually it’s with a lot of test results, not just tox screens. )
      You get a print out. That print out looks something like: “No detectable traces of this”, “x amount of that”.

      Let us say that some drug dealer discovered you get a better high if you cut the drug with a bit of arsenic. That arsenic is not going to show up on a tox screen. Unlike the bad old days when all the details were present.

      Such a hidden thing could have a major effect on Freddy’s system.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | June 4, 2015 at 6:47 pm

        Actually from what I know both a tox screen, a heavy metals screen, and a screen for common poisons would be included in any competent ME report.

        I had a sister that passed away from accidental overdose and all of these things were done even though the cause of death was, at least to me, apparent. They are done for the simple fact that the ME is supposed to be looking for the real cause of death, not the apparent one, nor the one that the DA wants.

        (On a personal note: Still miss you Sis.)

    Bruce Hayden in reply to dmi60ex. | June 4, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    I may be missing something here, but I don’t see a tox screen all that important, unless taken almost immediately after arrest. My understanding is that the suspect died maybe a week after being arrested, and I suspect that it would be pretty hard to distinguish what he had taken the day he was arrested, versus the day or two before. And, ignoring all the drugs he got in the hospital in the meantime.

    Besides, a tox screen would seem to be much less important here. The basics are that he saw cops, ran, was run down, checked for weapons, and upon the finding of an illegal one, was arrested. Then, he then may have been injured by his ride in the paddy wagon. This isn’t like Big Mike Brown, stoned to the gills, attacking an officer, trying to take his gun away, and then continuing to charge the officer, despite taking a half dozen or so .40 S&W rounds. Where, exactly, would a negative tox screen fit into the defense of the six officers?

      Ragspierre in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 4, 2015 at 3:47 pm

      Dunno, so this goes with some salt grains…

      I’m a LEO in supervisory position. I’ve got a guy in the hospital who is in pretty bad shape, but was under arrest prior to being admitted, so he’s still under arrest.

      I can take…or have taken…finger prints, blood samples, DNA swabs, hair samples, etc., all without a warrant (I think) due to the arrest status.

      I believe I’d have the snap to do that.

      Michiguy in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 4, 2015 at 6:34 pm

      Do we know that a tox screen wasn’t done on arrival to hospital, as part of Gray’s clinical care? Depending on the presentation, a tox screen may have been ordered by the medical team to help them better plan for appropriate care. (This example is not exactly germane to the FG case, but what would be appropriate care for a patient having a “garden variety” heart attack could be harmful or even fatal for a person having a cocaine-induced heart attack.) As a physician, I want and need to know what drugs, legal and illicit, a patient has aboard when I have to take care of him in the acute setting.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Michiguy. | June 4, 2015 at 6:59 pm

        Speaking from a nursing standpoint I really only see tox screens ordered if there is an apparent cause of trauma or the injury is work related. Of course there are exceptions, like if someone is acting erratic or “high” or is unconscious for no apparent reason.

        Take the extreme example of a Gunshot wound. There is really no clinical reason to pull a tox screen in the trauma phase of care.

        Now in this case, since Mr. Gray was a known drug user and was going into surgery, you can bet that at least a low level tox screen was done to make sure there was noting in his system that would interact with the drugs used for anesthesia.

        I guess the police could ask the ER to pull a tox screen, but as far as I know the physician would not be mandated to comply, though I can’t imagine why they would resist the request.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 4, 2015 at 6:52 pm

      You have to remember most tox screens actually look for the drug itself and they look for the “metabolites” or by products of the drug. For example, THC is the by product of Pot, or what is left over after your body has metabolized that drug, usually through the liver.

      Also many drugs stay in they system for short periods of time, its the metabolites that linger. So if you know someone’s metabolite levels x number of days after when you suspect they last used, you can get a pretty accurate idea of how high their levels were.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 4, 2015 at 7:02 pm

      Another possibility that most people don’t realize, is that any blood that is left over after testing is actually kept for about 7 days, so a tox screen could have been ordered later and done on that blood. It would also make sense that any samples in storage would be given to the ME for analysis.

Sorry meant were samples SAVED in previous post new phone keys very small

Midwest Rhino | June 4, 2015 at 2:12 pm

“Gray, 25, died in April after suffering a severe spinal cord injury in police custody.”

So many possibilities, but perhaps the spinal injury was not the cause of death, but rather the broken balloon of heroin he swallowed. If he throws the drugs they have evidence, so he swallows them and it makes him go crazy in the van, then kills him.

Or he is so high he desperately flops around and a normal stop (or start) by the van throws him head first into the front (or rear) wall … snap. But that doesn’t kill him, the drugs do.

He asked for the hospital because he knew he swallowed a big dose of heroin, or just as a delay tactic. Then maybe he passes out from drugs, dies from drugs, not from the broken neck. The article linked above now calls it “severe spinal cord INJURY“, and clarifies he died AFTER that, not necessarily BECAUSE of that.

They said there was a wound that matched a bolt head from the van, but that could have happened while Freddie was thrashing. My complete medical knowledge of broken necks is in this brief article, which seems to say a certain break might paralyze the lungs and lead to asphyxia, or another would shut down everything. But such breaks are usually survived I think.

But Freddie was asking for a hospital, and it seems unlikely such paralysis had occurred at that time. But since they spotted him in the very spot they knew he sold drugs, it seems likely he may have swallowed drugs and knew he was in trouble.

Anyway, put me down for $20 in the pool on “autopsy found large dose of drugs in stomach”. afaik, no actual cause of death has been officially announced, only “sources” claiming what the ME said. One said “sources claim” ME said he died from the broken neck. But it would be the paralysis of the heart or lungs, it would seem, not the break.

Another possible finding is the lead paint story, that his paint chip eating days made his bones weak. That seems more doubtful, but put me down for another $10 on “fragile bones condition”, maybe from a lot of drugs, lead, and bad life choices.

    gmac124 in reply to Midwest Rhino. | June 4, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    There is only one problem that I see. If blood and tox screens weren’t done while he was in the hospital they may not have accurate tox info. He lived for 7 days after the arrest. Depending on the type of drugs I am not sure how long the traces will be in his system and if they can tell when he used them. So unless the balloon was still in his body, they pumped his stomach and recovered the balloon, or took blood and tested it right after he went into the hospital we will never know if a drug induced seizure was likely. I would be surprised if the hospital didn’t do a full tox screen when he first came in so they knew how to treat him.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to gmac124. | June 4, 2015 at 3:35 pm

      And, I would think that it would be quite hard post mortem to determine if he had ingested/taken the drugs the day he was arrested, or the day before, etc., when his body had a week to assimilate the drugs, plus the reality that he likely was given many others while in the hospital.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Midwest Rhino. | June 4, 2015 at 3:33 pm

    I only question your suggestion that the autopsy may have shown high levels of drugs in his stomach because that would be legal suicide for Mosby. If she takes the cases to trial, and is found to have hidden this sort of thing, I very much think that disbarment is warranted. I would like drawing and quartering, but that, alas, is mostly likely beyond the jurisdiction of the MD bar. Which brings us back to disbarment.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 4, 2015 at 8:50 pm

      Well I’m just drinking and playing in the dead fred casino … but given the career ending moves by Holder in Ferguson, or the career ending moves by Lois Lerner in the 90’s (telling the Sen. Durbin competitor she’d lay off her bogus prosecution if he would drop out of politics) or Hillary’s career ending taking of money from foreign governments in return for arms or other favors … and so on. Given all that, a sellout to leftist politics has only enhanced commie careers.

      Given that Mabry promised a political prosecution … I think we have a drugged majority has, gone down the rabbit hole. Or at least the LIV and others that are fully baptized in the PC religion, have gone down that rat hole and they like it. It’s like trying to convince those in a rave club to quit dancing, drugs are BAD. It’s like trying to convince those on the meth of DC politics that their teeth are falling out. They don’t care, we fly over dweebs just don’t understand how awesome a meth high the power game is.

“Look at this picture a little more closely. ALL of the people standing directly behind Marilyn Mosby are older and white. Further, the expressions on the individuals on the right hand side of the picture seem to say “I can’t believe you’re this stupid”. This is a picture of an arrogant young black woman pushing an agenda.”

Think in terms of ideology not race. All the conservatives would have been removed as soon as she took office.

ALL of the people standing directly behind Marilyn Mosby are older,white[and liberal].

I, for one, am thrilled that, knowing absolutely nothing about what really happened in this case, I am still free to comment about it.

Apparently many agree with me.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Anchovy. | June 4, 2015 at 8:47 pm


    Midwest Rhino in reply to Anchovy. | June 4, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    good point I guess … except we know a LOT about Mabry and her ambitions, and her “justice for Freddie” campaign. The righteous uproar is about the subversion of due process. We do know a lot about that, don’t we?

blacksburger | June 4, 2015 at 6:21 pm

I have heard that the medical examiner did not want to call the death a homicide. Mosby insisted.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to blacksburger. | June 5, 2015 at 1:52 am

    I remember there being something said about the initial report listing the cause of death as “accident” and then there was a “meeting” and after the “meeting” the cause of death was homicide then she made her announcement. However, it was never anything but speculation and rumor.

Henry Hawkins | June 4, 2015 at 6:34 pm

RE: “PhD”….. I am required to identify my credential when signing clinical documents, records, and charts, but I don’t include it on non-clinical docs, like checks, insurance docs, etc.

As for the academic setting, I do my flat level best to stay off campus and away from any and all university settings. It’s 90% liberals and I’ll get arrested for my reaction if forced to listen to them more than ten minutes. It is that bad.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 4, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    Same here, except I sign my name so much at work that I would be that my checks are signed with my nursing credentials as well just from force of habit, lol.

    MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 4, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    I often populate University libraries. Though less now because the internet surplants much of that. I’ve always considered it a safe zone where most liberals will avoid like the plague.

I can’t understand how it could be said that Freddie hit the bolt on the back of the van and it is not known when the injury took place. It could only be after the Druid street stop when officer Porter sat him up and the 1400 Street when he was laying with head to the back ( he had been in head first position before(She spoke to the back of his head I would assume meant he was laying that way ) so I’m not convinced of the bolt at the back of the van being the culprit . If it is I can’t understand why they didn’t identify this as the place of the injury( Porter spoke to him he answered and he was unresponsive at next stop) Maybe because that time of injury leaves all White police in the clear. This is why I’m leary of the bolt story (Can anyone verify whether the bolt story was a leak or official

By the way the kangaroos in the joke,Are needed for the Kangaroo court

The question I have is this: Although Mosby is withholding the autopsy records *now*, will she be able to withhold them from the defense as the case goes forward (I’m presuming not) and can she somehow forbid the defense from releasing the records (I’m presuming not also).

If indeed there is a smoking gun/evidence of massive heroin OD in the autopsy that will kill the case against the cops, how miffed will the judge be at her when she finally gives up the report, and will it involve some legal disciplinary action, do you think?

Why don’t we just save some time and nuke Baltimore now?

“What is Mosby trying to hide?”

Her incompetence?
Her arrogance?
Her ignorance?
Her malfeasance?

all of the above

April 22 2015 Baltimore Sun. Councilman Mosby says Police should release all information to the public.Guess he forgot to inform the little Misses

Someone on another blog checked Maryland laws on reckless endangerment and there was an exclusion for motor transport .I read it and appears to be . Could one of our law trained contributors look at statute.I’m not a lawyer. (But I did stay at a Holiday Inn one-time

FrankNatoli | June 5, 2015 at 10:00 am
2010 Maryland Code
Subtitle 2 – Assault, Reckless Endangerment, and Related Crimes
Section 3-204 – Reckless endangerment.
§ 3-204. Reckless endangerment.
(a) Prohibited.- A person may not recklessly:
(1) engage in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another; or
(2) discharge a firearm from a motor vehicle in a manner that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another.
(b) Penalty.- A person who violates this section is guilty of the misdemeanor of reckless endangerment and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.
(c) Exceptions.-
(1) Subsection (a)(1) of this section does not apply to conduct involving:
(i) the use of a motor vehicle, as defined in § 11-135 of the Transportation Article; or
(ii) the manufacture, production, or sale of a product or commodity.
(2) Subsection (a)(2) of this section does not apply to:
(i) a law enforcement officer or security guard in the performance of an official duty; or
(ii) an individual acting in defense of a crime of violence as defined in § 5-101 of the Public Safety Article.
[An. Code 1957, art. 27, § 12A-2(a)-(b); 2002, ch. 26, § 2; ch. 44; 2003, ch. 17.]

Where are the rest of the comments?

Since the injury happened in the van between 2nd and last stop shouldn’t that motor transport exclusion apply to the last three officers Goodson,White and Porter since he was never out of the van . Come on ,those with law experience, help us legal dummies out here

The autopsy like states that the dead drug dealer swallowed a huge dose of heroin/cocaine and that caused his death. Injuries were after his brain was dead from the drugs.

Lawyer here responding to some above comments. The Maryland Code does not appear to define “use of a vehicle”. It is unlikely that failing to put on a seat belt would be considered use of a vehicle. Driving the vehicle would clearly be use of a vehicle. However, Mosby can’t prove that any rough ride occurred, so that will not be her theory. She is seriously grasping at straws to suggest that failing to put on a seat belt was reckless endangerment. Especially since the police policy to do so changed only 6 days prior to the incident.

The better theory for reckless endangerment is alleging that the officers knew Gray was in need of immediate medical attention and failed to provide it in a timely manner. Obviously, the officers can’t just stand around and let someone in custody die. There are many problems with this theory, assuming that none of the officer’s statements will support that they knew Gray urgently needed medical care to prevent possible death or serious injury.

One of the biggest problems is going to come out in the autopsy report. While the spinal cord injury will be listed as the primary cause of death, what really killed him was brain damage from coding in the van. (Spinal cord injury and likely also positioning on his stomach caused him to stop breathing.) The problem is that Gray was resuscitated which means he only stopped breathing about 4 to 6 minutes prior to when CPR started. This occurred during the last leg of transport when no one was watching him.

Seems to me that Mosby is scared sh_tless and she’s trying to anything to save her bacon.
Trouble is, she has not learned the first rule of being in a hole: Stop digging.