This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-rules-baltimore-police-officer-must-testify-in-freddie-gray-cases/2016/03/08/b5b1aa4a-e545-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Appeals court rules Baltimore police officer must testify in Freddie Gray cases | Appeals court rules Baltimore police officer must testify in Freddie Gray cases |
| (about 4 hours later) | |
| The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that prosecutors can compel a Baltimore police officer to testify against five other officers accused in the death of Freddie Gray. | The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that prosecutors can compel a Baltimore police officer to testify against five other officers accused in the death of Freddie Gray. |
| The decision by the state’s highest court hands prosecutors a major victory, since the testimony of Officer William G. Porter is seen as key to securing a conviction against Caesar R. Goodson, Jr. the officer facing the most serious charge in Gray’s death, and other officers. | The decision by the state’s highest court hands prosecutors a major victory, since the testimony of Officer William G. Porter is seen as key to securing a conviction against Caesar R. Goodson, Jr. the officer facing the most serious charge in Gray’s death, and other officers. |
| The question of whether Porter would be forced to testify had held up the trials of the officers accused in Gray’s death as the appeals court considered the issue, which had no precedent in Maryland. Porter’s attorneys had argued it would be unfair to force him to take the witness stand when he is facing trial. | The question of whether Porter would be forced to testify had held up the trials of the officers accused in Gray’s death as the appeals court considered the issue, which had no precedent in Maryland. Porter’s attorneys had argued it would be unfair to force him to take the witness stand when he is facing trial. |
| It is not yet clear why the court sided with the prosecution, since it did not immediately release an opinion explaining the brief orders released Tuesday. Court officials said it was not yet clear when that opinion will be published. | It is not yet clear why the court sided with the prosecution, since it did not immediately release an opinion explaining the brief orders released Tuesday. Court officials said it was not yet clear when that opinion will be published. |
| Court officials also said the ruling will mean new dates will have to be set for the officers’ trials in the coming weeks. Most had been scheduled for January and February. | |
| [Attorneys argue over whether officer must testify in Freddie Gray case] | [Attorneys argue over whether officer must testify in Freddie Gray case] |
| Legal wrangling over the issue began in the trial court. Baltimore Circuit Court Judge Barry G. Williams ruled in January that Porter would have to testify against Goodson and Alicia D. White — but not against the other three officers — Edward M. Nero, Garrett E. Miller and Brian W. Rice. Attorneys then appealed the rulings to the state’s high court, which heard arguments in the case on March 3. | |
| On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals affirmed Williams’s first ruling and overturned his second. | |
| Prosecutors had argued in court they had the authority to compel Porter to testify and had said previously their cases would be “gutted” without the witness. They said Porter’s testimony would not be used against him at his June re-trial. | Prosecutors had argued in court they had the authority to compel Porter to testify and had said previously their cases would be “gutted” without the witness. They said Porter’s testimony would not be used against him at his June re-trial. |
| Porter’s attorneys argued that forcing Porter to testify would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and damage his ability to receive a fair trial. Porter’s first trial ended with a hung jury in December. | Porter’s attorneys argued that forcing Porter to testify would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and damage his ability to receive a fair trial. Porter’s first trial ended with a hung jury in December. |
| Porter and the five other officers are facing a range of charges in the death of Gray, who suffered a severe neck injury while riding in the back of a police van last April following his arrest. Gray later died, touching off days of protests and rioting that grabbed national attention. | Porter and the five other officers are facing a range of charges in the death of Gray, who suffered a severe neck injury while riding in the back of a police van last April following his arrest. Gray later died, touching off days of protests and rioting that grabbed national attention. |
| Prosecutors contend Porter and other officers shirked their duty by not strapping a seatbelt around Gray in the back of the van and failing to get medical attention for him. Porter’s attorneys argued at his trial he was unaware of the extent of Gray’s injuries and acted conscientiously in seeking help for Gray. | |
| Porter’s testimony is crucial because he met the van as it made a handful of stops around Baltimore on April 12, and he testified at his own trial that he told Goodson and White that Gray needed medical attention. | Porter’s testimony is crucial because he met the van as it made a handful of stops around Baltimore on April 12, and he testified at his own trial that he told Goodson and White that Gray needed medical attention. |
| Goodson drove the van and is facing a charge of second-degree depraved heart murder. | Goodson drove the van and is facing a charge of second-degree depraved heart murder. |
| Because the appeals court has not yet issued the opinion outlining its rationale, it is unclear whether Porter’s attorneys have standing to fight the orders in federal court, said Warren S. Alperstein, a Baltimore defense attorney and former prosecutor. | |
| Marshall T. Henslee, a Baltimore defense attorney, said if Porter’s attorneys do appeal their argument would likely center not only on whether their client’s forced testimony is constitutional, but also a procedural issue. During the hearing last week, defense attorneys argued that the state had no right to appeal a judge’s order that would have kept Porter from testifying against Nero, Miller and Rice. | |
| “There are limited things the state can ask for on appeal when a case is pending,” Henslee said. “In most cases, you’d have the trial and then file the appeal if you’re the state.” If Porter’s attorneys don’t take the case to federal court, Henslee said it’s likely the next trial will be scheduled in short order. | |
| “Judge Williams has been scheduling these things pretty quickly and there’s no particular reason to have this take a long time,” Henslee said. “The only reason that this case will take any longer is if Porter files an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court and there is somehow a stay of the proceedings.” | |
| Alperstein said even if the case moves forward with Porter taking the witness stand, prosecutors will have a difficult challenge ahead of Porter’s retrial. The state must hold a hearing to prove that none of Porter’s statements directly or indirectly as a witness will be used against him at his own trial. | Alperstein said even if the case moves forward with Porter taking the witness stand, prosecutors will have a difficult challenge ahead of Porter’s retrial. The state must hold a hearing to prove that none of Porter’s statements directly or indirectly as a witness will be used against him at his own trial. |
| “It’s very difficult to do,” Alperstein said. “If you’ve formulated a cross-examination question, how do you know it didn’t come from what he previously said?” | “It’s very difficult to do,” Alperstein said. “If you’ve formulated a cross-examination question, how do you know it didn’t come from what he previously said?” |
| In federal cases, prosecutors bring in teams of attorneys from other jurisdictions to handle the trial – a “taint team” that is seemingly insulated from a defendants previous statements as a witness. They’re people who haven’t been saturated by media reports, read transcripts or heard the testimony and can “come in with a clear mind,” Alperstein said. But that may prove to be a tougher challenge in a local case where agencies have to draw from with a smaller pool of prosecutors. | In federal cases, prosecutors bring in teams of attorneys from other jurisdictions to handle the trial – a “taint team” that is seemingly insulated from a defendants previous statements as a witness. They’re people who haven’t been saturated by media reports, read transcripts or heard the testimony and can “come in with a clear mind,” Alperstein said. But that may prove to be a tougher challenge in a local case where agencies have to draw from with a smaller pool of prosecutors. |
| “Does the state in Porter’s case, if he is ultimately prosecuted, bring prosecutors from a completely different part of the state?” Alperstein said. “The further you go, the less you’ve heard what a witness has every said, but that’s certainly more of a challenge.” | “Does the state in Porter’s case, if he is ultimately prosecuted, bring prosecutors from a completely different part of the state?” Alperstein said. “The further you go, the less you’ve heard what a witness has every said, but that’s certainly more of a challenge.” |