Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Freddie Gray Trial Day 2: Prosecution’s Case Looks Weak

Freddie Gray Trial Day 2: Prosecution’s Case Looks Weak

Jurors leave court room to inspect police van in which Freddie Gray bumped his head

UPDATE: In response to numerous requests, we provide additional information on the demographics of the jury selected for the trial of Officer Porter:

Three white women (all over the age of 50)
Three black men (all over the age of 50)
Five black women (range of ages)
One white man

And thanks to commenter Ragspierre:  Additionally, three white men and one black man were chosen as alternates.

As we emerge from day two of the Freddie Gray trial of Police Officer William Porter, we have yet to see a compelling narrative of guilt from the prosecution, particularly on the more serious charges brought against Porter.There is no live remote access to the court room, so the information below is largely obtained from the reporting of the Baltimore Sun newspaper:

Porter’s charges stem from his decisions not to seat-belt Gray in the back of the van despite his being handcuffed with shackles on his legs, or failing to provide him medical assistance when he requested it, prosecutors have said. Porter was not the van’s driver, but responded to assist other officers with Gray at multiple stops on the van’s route.

Porter did not personally assist in Gray’s arrest, nor was Porter responsible for the operation of the police van (that duty fell to the driver of that van Officer Goodson). Interestingly, jurors had the opportunity to actually inspect that police van today, when it was towed into the courthouse. Curiously, the Baltimore Sun reports that while the jurors were allowed to closely inspect the van, the vehicle itself was not entered into evidence.

For 160 years (not a typo) the Baltimore Police Department left to the discretion of the officers on the scene whether to belt a suspect into a van (whether horse-drawn or motorized).  In fact, while seatbelt use in passenger cars is now de rigueur, there are perfectly valid and rational reasons for not belting in a prisoner in a police van.  In particular, that belting the prisoner in can lead to greater, not lesser, injuries in the event of a crash. (See my earlier post on this issue:  Freddie Gray Case: Autopsy report further undermines prosecution.)

Then, a mere week prior to Gray’s arrest a new policy was promulgated by the Baltimore Police Department that all prisoners in vans were to be belted in. The prosecution in this trial has argued that Porter was “trained” in this policy, but it appears that “trained” in this context merely means that Porter was sent a single group email, one of scores officers receive from the department each day, and that was in no way particular noteworthy.

As reported by the Baltimore Sun:

[Defense counsel Proctor] said police officers are bombarded with emails, and Porter had never seen the new directives on seat-belting that were emailed just days before Gray’s arrest. Proctor described the police academy as a crash course in police procedures and said officers instead “learn by doing” on the streets.

Even if Porter was adequately apprised of the change in policy, it is entirely unclear whether the duty to ensure that Gray was bucked in was the responsibility of Porter, an officer with only two years on the force, as opposed to more senior officers on the scene or van driver Goodson.  In other words, even if the rule existed, even if the rule was adequately promulgated, even if the legal duty had been created, it remains entirely uncertain whether that legal duty rested with Goodson.

Indeed, today’s testimony suggests that the duty, if any, would fall to driver Officer Goodson, as reported by the Baltimore Sun:

[Defense counsel] Murtha, one of Porter’s attorneys, asked [police academy instructor Officer John] Bilheimer who has responsibility for a person in the back of a police transport van, such as the one in which Gray was injured.

“It lies on the shoulders, it is actually the responsibility of the wagon operator, is that correct?” Murtha asked.

“Yes,” Bilheimer said.

Further more, there was testimony in court today that violations of such departmental policies are generally only the basis of internal discipline of officers, not felony criminal charges against them:

[Academy instructor] Bilheimer acknowledged on cross examination that violations of the department’s general orders are not typically the basis for criminal charges. [Defense counsel] Murtha read Bilheimer a passage of text indicating that violations are only the basis for internal police discipline.

Murtha asked the instructor if that was accurate.

“Yes, sir,” Bilheimer said.

After all, for 160 years prisoners were being driven around unbelted in Baltimore PD vans, presumably with the occasional injury to a prisoner, and yet the department had felt no compelling need to require belting until the week prior to Gray’s arrest.  Even ,when the promulgated the rule the department made no particular effort to emphasize it’s now claimed importance.

If the department didn’t think belting was such an imperative, why would they expect a novice officer to perceive it as such?

So what was the extent of Porter’s involvement with Gray? The police van made several stops from when Gray was initially placed inside until it arrived at the Western District police station.  At the fourth of these stops, according to the Baltimore Sun:

… Porter opened the doors and heard Gray say, “Help.”

[Prosecutor] Schatzow said that Gray told Porter he couldn’t breathe, which the defense disputes.

Porter picked Gray up off the floor of the van, but again did not place him in a seat belt, Schatzow said.

It was only after this fourth stop that Gray suffered his serious injury, and by all accounts likely because of his own conduct of standing or kneeling in the moving van. Again, from the Baltimore Sun:

Gray suffered a high-impact injury to his neck as the van continued, his autopsy states. Prosecutors were not able to pinpoint that moment, but said Gray was likely standing or kneeling when he hit his head with the impact akin to diving into a shallow pool.

I suppose if Gray had been buckled in he would have been denied the option of standing or kneeling. Even so the actual decision of standing or kneeling in a moving van was Gray’s, not Porter’s.  Gray, nor Porter, was in the better position to choose whether it was possible to stand or kneel safely in a moving vehicle while shackled wrists-and-ankles.  It would appear that Gray chose poorly, not that Porter committed involuntary manslaughter.

It’s also notable that Gray was arrested not for probable cause that he was a threat to himself, which might have warranted a more robust duty on the part of the officers to more thoroughly secure him, but merely because Gray was a street-corner drug dealer.  Further, the officers were responding to the neighborhood not on their own initiative but in response to State Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s demands for greater police activity in that particular neighborhood (which, coincidentally, was in her politician husband’s district).

Despite the claim that Gray was severely injured between the fourth and fifth stop, at the fifth stop the van would pick up another prisoner who would describe a quite different scenario:

At that fifth stop the police picked up a second arrestee, Donta Allen, and returned to the Western District police station. Allen was unloaded first, and when police looked in on Gray, he was in the same position as he had been at the fifth stop, [Prosecutor] Schatzow said.

This makes it sound as if Gray was motionless between the fourth stop, where Officer Porter last looked in on him, and the fifth stop.  But that’s utterly inconsistent with statements made to the police by the newly added prisoner, Allen, which in fact suggests that Gray’s injury was suffered by Gray himself hurling his body around the interior of the van, and only after Officer Porter’s last observation of Gray.

As for the question of whether Officer Porter had a duty to call for medical assistance for Gray upon Gray’s request, defense counsel Murtha asked Officer Alice Carson Johnson, who provided Porter with medical response training at the academy in 2013, whether it wasn’t true that the officer on the scene should take into account the circumstances surrounding a person’s request for assistance–for example, that a person complaining of shortness of breath might have just finished trying to run from arresting officers.

Officer Johnson conceded that was the case.

[The following important section has been added at the prompting of commenter Rags:

Another important issue is whether Officer Proctor was even an appropriate person, given his limited training and experience, to determine whether Gray actually needed medical assistance or what degree of medical assistance, as evidenced by the following reporting by the Baltimore Sun:

Medical technicians from emergency medical services, who arrived at the Western District station when Gray was found unresponsive, initially believed he may have suffered a drug overdose, Proctor said.

“If trained EMS misdiagnosed him, how’s a two-year veteran of the force supposed to know?” Proctor said.]

In short, at this point there certainly doesn’t appear to this attorney to be sufficient evidence to convict Officer Porter beyond a reasonable doubt of the criminal charges against him. Of course, the trial has only yet begun, and we await additional testimony and evidence.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense


Attorney Andrew Branca and his firm Law of Self Defense have been providing internationally-recognized expertise in American self-defense law for almost 20 years in the form of blogging, books, live seminars & online training (both accredited for CLE), public speaking engagements, and individualized legal consultation.
“Law of Self Defense, 2nd Ed.” /Seminars / Instructors Course / Seminar Slides / Twitter / Facebook / Youtube

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

I certainly hope you’re right, Andrew, but then everyone in the world knew that OJ was guilty as hell, but the jury let him off. Forgive me if I missed it earlier, but what’s the racial makeup of the jury here?

    Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | December 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    The jury consists of five black women, three black men, three white women and one white man. Additionally, three white men and one black man were chosen as alternates.
    —Baltimore Sun

    Demographics on the jurors has been added to the start of this post, including Rags’ helpful information on the alternates.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Bruce Hayden in reply to snopercod. | December 3, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    Not really as to OJ. He was stupid enough to later commit armed robbery in the most highly videoed place in the country (a Las Vegas casino/hotel), supposedly was able to orchestrate some pretty tight timing, and last I knew was still in prison for such.

    Back in law school, my criminal law prof was a well known criminal defense attorney (who you still see as a talking head on TV), who had tried a number of capital cases. He said that you have crimes of passion and crimes of premeditation, and they are most often pretty obvious as to which. Blood all over the place with crimes of passion, and little blood if it was a crime of premeditation. And, that got me thinking – was the OJ killing one of passion or premeditation. The blood would say passion, but the planning required would say premeditation. And, then you have this guy who was supposed to be smart enough to pull this off, timing wise, dumb enough to use a knife, then drop the gloves and head for the airport. I think that from the crime scene, that he would have had blood all over himself if he had been the perpetrator. But, was clean by the time he got to the airport.

    I read a book by a some of the (black) jurors later that year, and they indicated that the state had just not made its case. They had had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ had done the deeds. The stupid glove trick may, in itself, been sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

    By the end of the (first) trial, I was rooting for OJ. I was esp. incensed by how blatantly the police seemed to have violated his rights – notably using an obvious pretext to go over the wall at his house, where they (may have) found important evidence. I think that the pretext was so obvious that it should have been suppressed. The judge, seeing LAPD officers on a daily basis before him, believed these professional witnesses. Additionally, the blood evidence was apparently compromised. Just bad police work all around – in a case that all knew would be of international interest from the first. Why not just leave 2 or 3 of the detectives in front, and go to a judge for a warrant? Or, even get some uniforms involved – this is the sort of thing that they are supposed to be doing (including the supposed informing of OJ about the death of his former wife). Not 4 detectives(3 too fat to go over the wall, and the 4th, Furhman, who did go over, now a talking head that I see for big shootouts like we had yesterday).

    Estragon in reply to snopercod. | December 4, 2015 at 12:44 am

    Call me cynical, but this seems possibly the very weakest cast against any of the officers, isn’t it? Not to say there is a strong case against any if them, but Porter’s involvement seems almost peripheral, the case paper thin.

    So if his acquittal stirs up violent protests, would that not influence the jury pools for the rest of the trials? From what I’ve seen of the facts, jury fear is the prosecution’s best hope for convictions.

    Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | December 6, 2015 at 4:28 am

    The cases are not parallel. A jury can acquit even in the face of a slam dunk case, and that’s an end of it; but it can’t convict without sufficient evidence to support a conviction. If there isn’t enough evidence a judge must not let it through to the jury, and if for some reason he does and they convict he must set the conviction aside. Failure to do either can and should be overturned on appeal.

I still can’t wrap my head around these prosecutions. It’s just so obviously political….

It sounds as if the prosecutor has made some serious errors already.

He told jurors things that are not true, such as Porter was “trained” to use seat belts as a mandatory act. This will…and SHOULD…bite him in the ass. I love those!

**Medical technicians from emergency medical services, who arrived at the Western District station when Gray was found unresponsive, initially believed he may have suffered a drug overdose, Proctor said.

“If trained EMS misdiagnosed him, how’s a two-year veteran of the force supposed to know?” Proctor said.**

THAT, if the jurors give it weight, will be enough to save the officer.

    Oofah, I meant to include the misdiagnosis point. Damn head cold.

    Thanks, Rags.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | December 3, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Great misdiagnosis point. Its kind of a running joke in medicine because you get asked all the time about someone’s bump, bruise, cough, or ailment and expect you to be able to give them a diagnosis right on the street. What do folks expect? We don’t have Star Trek medical scanners and tricorders. There is a huge difference between triage care on the side of the street and the care I can give in a fully equipped medical facility.

    Also, since Gray’s injury was a next injury they could have killed him simply by moving him wrong without the correct spinal support.

    Of course these days I have gotten old enough that now I embrace my inner smart arse when people do this to me. My usual responses are “Aliens, do you feel as if you were probed?”, “You gonna dieeeeee!” in a raspy voice, or just “ewwwwwww!”.

    It is interesting that apparently the medics that responded thought it was an OD.

One of the training officers also admitted that the computers were not individual but were communal and thay were having problems with links . They could not confirmed that Porter opened the . email .Sounds like a real CF
I notice prosecutor did not mention the inhaler ,I guess they found out he was not prescribed and was just using the old ploy to cover drug use . And who does marijuana and cocaine together , bet one was swallowed , although that is only a guess and I will change that if other evidence becomes available .
Also amazing how the Deray story about the 80 % severed spine never come up in either prosecutors remarks or autopsy .

    Gremlin1974 in reply to dmi60ex. | December 3, 2015 at 8:28 pm

    Just a note on the pot and cocaine. Some people use the pot to take the edge off of the cocaine high so they get more of the euphoria and less agitation.

    Now, the reason I know that is I am certified in Mental Illness and Chemical Abuse treatment and spent 10 years in the field.

I read where defense only used one of there challenges ,maybe they got a half decent jury and having the older people may help. The older people , sometimes it is harder to put something over on them

    Estragon in reply to dmi60ex. | December 4, 2015 at 12:49 am

    Also, experience teaches us what is possible given a normal routine. Youngsters expect that everyone will notice every single detail all the time. Older people know that is far from true.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to dmi60ex. | December 4, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    The older jurors will not be helpful if they’re ex-convicts.

sorry ” their” challenges I ‘m old too

“He told jurors things that are not true, such as Porter was “trained” to use seat belts as a mandatory act.”

As a juror this would give me pause: “Someone told you Porter had been trained to use seat belts as a mandatory act, and you accepted that without much (if any) scrutiny? Its obvious you didn’t dig deeper to get the truth behind that, so WHAT ELSE about your case is as incompetent?”

One does not need a strong case for a judicial lynching; just passion and passionate jurors.

The denial of the change of venue motion begets the outcome. A judge who denies such a motion and exposes jurors to chanting protested will also ensure that jurors have the requisite passion.

It’s time “To Kill a Mockingbird”

My fear is jurors my chose to convict just as an act of self preservation. I know that if I were on one of these juries that I would be concerned for my safety. Now that wouldn’t affect my decision, but it would affect many peoples.

A question for Andrew or one of our capable barristers. What is the significance of not entering the van into evidence have?

    I would think viewing the van is no different than driving the jury over to a house to view the crime scene. As far as I know, the crime scene is not entered into evidence.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Redneck Law. | December 3, 2015 at 11:58 pm

      See, its amazing to me that they would take a jury to a crime scene, I had no idea things like that happened while in a jury.

        There is an upcoming re-trial in Durham, NC for Michael Peterson, convicted of murdering his wife at the couples’ home. The jury and alternates were bussed to the crime scene so they could view the stairs in the house where her body was found.

        Recap: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peterson_%28murder_suspect%29

        Well, in this case it would be more accurate to say they brought to crime scene to the jury, rather than the jury to the crime scene.

        It’s pretty rare that jurors are transported to a crime scene. It’s unwieldy, and most trials aren’t long enough to make the effort. Even most murder trials are only a 2-3 of days long. It’s only these high profile cases that run on and on like this.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Andrew Branca. | December 4, 2015 at 4:25 pm

          Taking the jury to the van is just bizarre. Even cases in which the most bloody murder occurred inside a vehicle does not muster a visit. If the point was to show that the compartments had restraints and/or how they’re configured and/or constructed, a couple photographs or video of the exact van used would have sufficed.

          The only purpose for the visit was dramatic effect. That the judge allowed it is worrying.

What about Grey having injuries from an earlier accident?

    amwick in reply to Milwaukee. | December 3, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    I have no problem wondering out loud about Gray’s other arrests and injuries, if that is something that could be brought out?

    Char Char Binks in reply to Milwaukee. | December 3, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    The rumors about that have been refuted, I think, if you mean the possibility that he’d had spinal surgery.

      No. I was thinking about how he may have behaved during prior arrests. If he acted out, if he may have caused an injury, that kind of thing.

        amwick in reply to amwick. | December 4, 2015 at 6:44 am

        I wish sometimes that the down arrow person would explain what specifically they disagreed with. Not everyone here has a law background, me for example, and I do try and understand these issues and respect the posters that do. Especially since the media is such a poor and biased resource.

          Don’t worry about the “thumb down” thing, I’m assured by Professor Jacobson that it has no actual function on the site as constructed here.

          It’s just some nut job who likes clicking things–and, sometimes, it’s just an accident I expect, as the “thumbs down” is positioned so closely to the “Reply” button.

          –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          Gremlin1974 in reply to amwick. | December 4, 2015 at 9:52 am

          They don’t explain because they are just a troll who thinks acting like a 13 year old is funny, they just come through and down vote ever post.

          It is probably some 40 year old adolescent, who takes a break from watching animated porn in mom’s basement to down vote while waiting on his government check.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to amwick. | December 4, 2015 at 4:31 pm

          Grem, LMAO 🙂 🙂 You just described m1 🙂 🙂

          Gremlin1974 in reply to amwick. | December 4, 2015 at 5:10 pm

          @ JackRussellTerrierist

          I’m not saying that’s who I was thinking of…but I am not saying it isn’t who I was thinking of. 🙂

Believe it or not, this LI reader was screened for this jury, on the 2nd day (Tuesday). All those selected were from Monday, my number wasn’t even close. The thought definitely crossed my mind – “if selected, I hope I’ll have the option to be anonymous.” Not scared for myself, but for my family. Anyway, the most noteworthy part of my experience in court was overhearing another prospective juror talking to his neighbor about his life in Baltimore. Said he’s had four uncles die in prison. Also talked about a time when he said those from the east side were going to fight those from the west side and he went to make peace, warning them that if they fought, the police would come and bump heads and shoot people, “AND THEN WHAT WOULD YOUR MOTHERS AND YOUR AUNTS SAY?” Something missing from this picture? Do any of the protesters or politicians care about the vast human wreckage left in our cities by leftist welfare policies which have pushed men (Dads) out of the picture so that boys never learn self control, delayed gratification, discipline, etc?

Gremlin, you mentioned medical training. Freddie arrived at 9.26 ,He was resuscitated at 9.36. I would think he did not have significant brain damage they did surgery Tues. morning .The van took appx 8 min to go from 1400 main to station .Loading Donta had to take several minutes at least.The last leg of the journey from arriving at 1400 main to resuscitation time appx 25 minutes. How long could the involuntary muscle breathing Schatzow mentioned keep him alive ,.Would it be safe to assume fatal injury would have had to been after they arrived at the next to the last stop or am I not seeing this right. Does this type of injury usually instantly stop breathing.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to dmi60ex. | December 4, 2015 at 12:38 am

    Let me see if I can answer your question in a more general way, than specific to Gray.

    From the time a human arrests (i.e. the heart is not capable of pumping oxygen to the brain) and has a significant lack of oxygen to the brain you basically have 10 minutes to get them advance life support (this basically takes an ambulance or better medical facility), that is with good quality CPR.

    For each minute that the person is without advanced life support there is a compounding 10% chance of sever/deadly brain damage. So someone who has already been not breathing and without a pulse for 10 minutes, yea sometimes we can bring them “back”, 99.9999% of the time they will never wake up and an EEG will show no brain activity.

    Sorry to but all those action hero fantasies of the hero going down and then someone pumps his chest a few times and he hops back up into the fight, it just don’t happen. CPR by itself has a less than 3% chance of actually getting someones heart to beat again and even then the heart probably won’t stay beating long without advance life support and the person sure as heck isn’t getting up.

    So when you say Freddie arrived at 9:26, I am guessing at the police station, and resuscitated at 9:36. If he was truly down with no pulse for that amount of time even with the best first aid/CPR care he was most likely never going to recover. You also have to consider that there is no way of knowing when Mr. Gray stopped breathing before he was discovered at the police station. So that 10 minutes may be closer to 15 minutes.

    Which is one of the problems I have had with Gray’s following hospitalization and surgery. Why would you do surgery on someone who was down without a pulse for an unknown but greater than 10 minutes length of time without advance life support, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry to be so wordy, but I hope that helps.

    Jesi7145 in reply to dmi60ex. | December 4, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    I have been saying all along that the medicine is what will win this case for the defendants. With a high paralyzing neck injury like that he would have stopped breathing extremely quickly. Two minutes max. The mere fact that the paramedics were able to “resuscitate” him, as in getting him to breath again and have a heart beat, means the injury could not have realistically happened very long before that. The prosecution case is doomed as long as the jury understands that. There is literally no possible way that he sustained this injury 8 minutes or longer than before they pulled into the final station. If he had, resuscitation would have been impossible.

    As for the surgery, well there was likely a powerful incentive to prevent the officers being accused of murder. I have definitely seen cases where doctors try to keep a patient alive, even though brain dead. A powerful lawyer, an upset public and family, all eyes on the hospital… Darn right they would have done the surgery. There is no hope of keeping him alive, even if brain dead, without stabilizing the spinal cord, and with lawyers circling around they weren’t risking a med mal case. He could have possibly lived brain dead for years, while all the furor died down. Brain death can be tricky to definitively diagnose. Doctors and hospitals won’t go there and abandon care with lawyers sniffing around.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Jesi7145. | December 4, 2015 at 5:40 pm

      Today the medical examiner testified that his spinal cord was “kinked” and that it wasn’t cut it was compressed or pinched and was; “functionally it was cut through, but anatomically not.” So it was pinched to the point that it was functionally severed.

      Not a great deal of info has been released about Gray’s hospital course, though according to the family the doctors told them that “even though Freddie was without oxygen for a time he hadn’t suffered any brain damage.” I call 100% bull crap on this, no doctor in his right mind is going to make a statement like that when they are still trying to repair the mans spine.

      Also, I had forgotten that Gray had a heart attack after his surgery and was without oxygen once again while in the hospital.

      I hope the defense has a medial expert come in and just shred all of the bull.

What I am trying to say is if his injury was from Druid street, when Porter put him on bench to 1400 main, would he have been able to talk. He answered yeah when they ask his name .If the injury was in this leg , He would have had to go 25 plus minutes until resuscitation, is that likely.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to dmi60ex. | December 4, 2015 at 12:41 am

    “If the injury was in this leg , He would have had to go 25 plus minutes until resuscitation, is that likely.”

    Sure, we can do some amazing things so they could get his body running again, no problem. Now did he ever have a chance of waking up, less than zero.

I also believe the Donta Allen testimony,even though it will be like pulling teeth ,may be a disaster for prosecution. If his original statement is as was reported by ( WaPo) and by B Sun it should give reasonable people doubt on the Freddie injury timeline given by prosecutors. The subsequent retraction to the reporter most reasonable people will see it for what it was insurance premium to protect from the stitches for snitches network. Prosecutors may see Porter as the key ,but he may be the key to their unraveling

Sorry missed some commas in there, luckily on this site , as compared to others ,ideas are more important than grammar.Having big dumb ox fingers and small buttons doesn’t help either.

I think the prosecution knows that they are doomed and that’s why they chose to go with one of the Black defendants first. Acquitting him doesn’t look racist and sets the tone for future trials. (And future trial losses.)

One point: even supposing that Porter’s attention had specifically been called to the new policy on seat belts, and even if it could be proven that he knew about it and deliberately ignored it, how could that create a legal duty for him to obey the policy, or criminal liability for not doing so? If I deliberately defy a company policy I may be fired, but how can it be the basis for a criminal conviction?

New update ME stated that she determined his death was homicide due to exchange Porter and Freddie had at Druid Street , bizarre, especially since Freddie was sitting up and talking at that time . The defense doctors are going to have a field day.
Baltimore Sun live feed, Murtha asked her about Freddie having previous neck injuries ” We discussed that ” ( who discussed , what was the answer , huh ) I can’t imagine Murtha let that go , So unless Baltimore Pravda has Headline: Freddie Gray Not Injured , you can bet he was.

Platypus says Big ox fingers are the ones that do the work and make America great. Just saying.

Thanks from one proud ox to another

Milhouse commented

The cases are not parallel. A jury can acquit even in the face of a slam dunk case, and that’s an end of it; but it can’t convict without sufficient evidence to support a conviction. If there isn’t enough evidence a judge must not let it through to the jury, and if for some reason he does and they convict he must set the conviction aside. Failure to do either can and should be overturned on appeal.

Yes that is assuming he cares whether he gets reversed or not , It appears you can get away with anything in that city. No repercussions

Gremlin said It is probably some 40 year old adolescent, who takes a break from watching animated porn

Like Woody Allen said about ma$terbation” Hey don’t make fun of a man’s hobbies “

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend