Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Freddie Gray: Officer Edward Nero Trial Set for May 10

Freddie Gray: Officer Edward Nero Trial Set for May 10

Other charged officers to be tried in roughly monthly sequence through October

The Maryland court system has re-scheduled the trials of the six officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray, reports ABC News.

These trials had been delayed while the state’s highest court decided whether one of the officers, William Porter, could be compelled to testify against the others, despite the fact that he was to be retried after his first trial resulted in a hung jury.  Last week that court ruled that Porter could be so compelled, allowing the remaining trials to move forward.

The trial dates for each officer, and the charges against them, are as follows (in chronological order):

Officer Edward Nero:  May 10

Officer Nero was primarily involved as one of the arresting officers, and is charged with assault and reckless endangerment.

Officer Edward Nero

Officer Edward Nero

Officer Caesar Goodson:  June 6

Officer Goodson was the van driver, and is faces the most serious charge in the cases, second-degree murder, as well as manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment.

Officer Caesar Goodson

Officer Caesar Goodson

Lieutenant Brian Rice:  July 5

Lieutenant Rice was primarily involved as one of the arresting officers, and is charged with manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment.

Lieutenant Brian Rice

Lieutenant Brian Rice

Officer Garrett Miller: July 27

Officer Miller was primarily involved as one of the arresting officers, and is charged with assault and reckless endangerment.

Officer Garrett Miller

Officer Garrett Miller

Officer William Porter: September 6

This is Officer Porter’s retrial, following the first trial that resulted in a hung jury.  Officer Porter was primarily involved as one of the transporting officers, and is charged with manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment.

Officer William Porter

Officer William Porter

Sergeant Alicia White: October 13

Sergeant White was primarily involved as one of the transporting officers, and is charged with manslaughter, assault, and reckless endangerment.

Sergeant Alicia White

Sergeant Alicia White

–-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 / Instructor Program / Seminar Slides / Twitter /Facebook / Youtube

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Officer Nero was primarily involved as one of the arresting officers, and is charged with assault and reckless endangerment.

this is entered under nero and miller

Andrew, Could porter file in federal district court to stop his compelled testimony as violating his 5th amendment rights or his only appeal left directly to Supreme Court??

    Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | March 16, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    Appeal on what grounds? The bottom line of Murphy v Waterfront Commission seems very clear: Murphy had to testify. That part was unanimous. The court said state immunity is now binding on federal prosecutors, so you have to testify; the dissent said it isn’t binding, and you still have to testify. Nobody said that you can get out of testifying in state court for fear of federal prosecution. So how could any federal court entertain an appeal from Porter?

      RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | March 16, 2016 at 10:45 pm

      The perjury problems.
      Porter does not have immunity for any perjury he might have in testifying and he doesn’t have any immunity for perjury he already may have committed in testifying in his case.

      The prosecution has already stated that he lied so they are implying he committed perjury.

        Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | March 17, 2016 at 12:05 am

        That’s not grounds for refusing to testify. What’s his claim? “I can’t testify because I would lie and that would be perjury”?! Or “I can’t testify truthfully because I lied before”?! The fifth amendment does not protect anyone from being exposed as a perjurer. If he told the truth at his trial, let him repeat that truth. And if he didn’t tell the truth then he deserves to go to prison for it. No court can or should give him shelter from that.

          “I am being compelled to testify by the prosecution. If I don’t lie in their favor they will claim I committed perjury.”

          How many mistrials can they stand?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | March 18, 2016 at 6:44 pm

          There is no such thing as a right not to testify for fear that one will be falsely charged with perjury. Such a right does not exist, and no court is ever going to create one. It’s insane to even suggest it. If that’s his argument then it’s frivolous and his lawyers should be sanctioned for wasting the court’s time with it. It is his duty to testify truthfully and take the consequences.

    sequester in reply to Gary Britt. | March 17, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Porter can seek a Writ of Prohibition or order of immunity in United States District Court. The case is not without merit. I believe the Courts are misapplying Murphy. However, given the political optics no District Judge will touch this case.

    But if Porter had been ordered to not to bake a cake for a gay couple by this same Judge and Appeals Court, he could appeal to US District Court. The case would be heard and disposed of. The District Judges would be jockeying among themselves to hear the case.

      Milhouse in reply to sequester. | March 17, 2016 at 1:57 pm

      In what way do you think the courts are misapplying Murphy? Its bottom line is clear: a witness in state proceedings who has been granted immunity must testify. 9 out of 9 justices agreed that he cannot use the fear of federal prosecution as an excuse not to testify. 5 out of 9 said this was because the state immunity is binding on the feds, 4 said it’s not binding but he has to testify anyway.

        sequester in reply to Milhouse. | March 17, 2016 at 6:26 pm

        There is a reason that the trial judge said that this is uncharted grounds.

        Murphy is predicated on the assumption that immunized testimony, like a non Mirandized confession, and its fruits can be successfully excluded from a subsequent prosecution. It implicitly assumes the witness is not under indictment, but has a fear of some future prosecution.

        In this case, Mr. Porter is under indictment. He will be examined as a witness by the same prosecuting office that will try him at a later time. That is very significant.

        If there is a signed opinion, then Maryland prosecutors are free to force co-defendants to testify against each other at trial(s). Perhaps we will even see see a single trial of multiple defendants. Each defendant is compelled to testify under a grant of witness immunity against his codefendants. The Court will instruct the jury to disregard each defendants testimony as it regards that defendants guilt.

        It is a very dangerous place to go.

          Milhouse in reply to sequester. | March 18, 2016 at 6:49 pm

          He is not under federal indictment. That’s all Murphy is relevant to.

          The state indictment is taken care of by his immunity. Nothing he says can be used against him at his trial. Even if you wish to claim that’s hard to ensure, it’s entirely a state matter so no federal court has any business poking its nose in.

          Milhouse in reply to sequester. | March 18, 2016 at 6:51 pm

          Oh, and if you wanted to pull that trick at the same trial, you’d need separate juries, and each witness’s jury would have to step out when that witness gave his immunized testimony. Given that, I don’t see why it would a problem.

          sequester in reply to sequester. | March 19, 2016 at 1:42 pm

          Oh, and if you wanted to pull that trick at the same trial, you’d need separate juries, and each witness’s jury would have to step out when that witness gave his immunized testimony. Given that, I don’t see why it would a problem

          Ooops there you go again Milhouse. The trial Judge makes that decision and Judges have great discretion. That’s why these trials have not been moved. Judicial Discretion.

          The law in a particular Court is whatever the presiding Judge says it is. If a Judge says a mere instruction is sufficient, or separate juries are not necessary then that is how it is for that Court and that trial.

          Have you ever served as lead trial counsel in a criminal case?

My guess is the prosecutors want Porter to be called to the stand and take the 5th in each of the other trials, hoping his assertion of his rights puts the imprimatur of guilt on the others. No matter how stern an instruction to ignore, the bell cannot be un-rung, especially for a group of laymen.

Why a judge would permit such an obvious stunt against the interests of justice is beyond me, but so are many court rulings in recent decades.

    JPL17 in reply to Estragon. | March 17, 2016 at 5:21 am

    “Why a judge would permit such an obvious stunt against the interests of justice is beyond me….”

    Given the timing of the trials (i.e., 1 each month for the 6 months leading right up to election day 2016), I think their motives couldn’t be any clearer.

healthguyfsu | March 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm

Funny, the driver was supposed to be next…looks like they found their sacrificial white man to put on display.

Mr. Branca, I posted this:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2016/03/meet-obamas-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/comment-page-1/#comment-658413

about four hours ago. Had I known that yoyu would be posting a story I would have saved it. Seems there is another Trayvon case that is gaining steam in Florida.

Breaking news:

Prosecutors involved in controversial police shooting cases defeated.Ohio prosecutor McGinty who cleared Garmack and Loehmann in the shooting death of Tamir Rice was defeated. Also Illinois prosecutor Alvarez who people say dragged her feet in prosecuting Van Dyke for the shooting death of Laquan McDonald was also defeated. The proper use of power. McGinty and Alvarez didn’t do their jobs,they suffered.No sympathy.

And justice for all.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | March 16, 2016 at 7:37 pm

    The flaw in your thinking and argument is that the Rice shooting is the only reason that they were defeated, which is unlikely.

      Better than the flaw in your statement. I was speaking of a singular person being defeated in the Tamir Rice case. Not THEY being defeated.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | March 16, 2016 at 8:30 pm

        Ok the flaw in your thinking is that either of them were defeated based solely on a single case, which is doubtful. Feel better now?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to m1. | March 16, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    There is also the radical assumption that the people who were elected in their place would have handled the cases any differently given the evidence and circumstances.

    Milhouse in reply to m1. | March 16, 2016 at 10:01 pm

    Let’s suppose that McGinty’s defeat was indeed over the Rice case. What exactly do you imagine it proves? McGinty’s decision was still correct. Any honest prosecutor would have to make the same decision. If the voters dumped him out of anger, shame on them, but if a similar case ever comes up in the future O’Malley will have no ethical choice but to make the same decision. If you wish to claim that O’Malley is an unethical person who is unfit to practise law, that’s your privilege, but it won’t change the rights and wrongs of the Rice case.

At this point I am expecting a series of “reckless endangerment” convictions that will be overturned on appeal, but that’s just me.

    JPL17 in reply to Gremlin1974. | March 17, 2016 at 5:34 am

    Verdicts? They don’t care one whit about verdicts. It’s ALL about getting the base out to vote in the November elections. And 1 or more “not guilty” verdicts will accomplish that very nicely.

    In fact, since a “not guilty” verdict will probably accomplish that more effectively than a “guilty” verdict, I expect to see some very sloppy prosecutions. So sloppy, in fact, that in a few months we’ll all be scratching our heads wondering, “Gee, why are they acting so stupid, don’t they want a conviction?”

    And then it will dawn on some of us: “Gee, it’s true; they really *don’t want* to convict these guys.”

      JPL17 in reply to JPL17. | March 17, 2016 at 10:54 am

      As previously noted, down-dinging my comment doesn’t make it any less true.

      Milhouse in reply to JPL17. | March 17, 2016 at 2:00 pm

      This is more or less what I’ve been saying since the case started. I was wondering how they could drag it out till the summer; now I know. Yes, they want acquittals, and the subsequent rage, in order to boost black turnout in November.

        dmi60ex in reply to Milhouse. | March 17, 2016 at 2:55 pm

        Milhouse
        Mosby also wants little fall out before the Mayoral Race in April ?? 28th ???. Her hubby Mr” Iran Contraband ” is running. Of course in the latest polls , he was losing to Sheila Dixon and Deray

      dmi60ex in reply to JPL17. | March 17, 2016 at 2:18 pm

      JPL17
      Also in addition to these preelection cases , we have Tensing in Cincinatti , scheduled for Oct 21 Van Dyke in Chicago on Oct 24 and Slager in Charleston for OCT 31.
      Coincidence ???
      I would say that a not guilty verdict is in store for Tensing , the video has been torn apart online and I have seen 5 different breakdowns showing he was dragged .
      This should get out the vote for Granny

      Twanger in reply to JPL17. | March 17, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      JPL17 – just upchecked you to balance the downchecks.
      I think you have a handle on this. It’s all political.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend