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 2 | Version 3 |
---|---|
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 1 hour 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, because 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 delayed 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 that it would be unfair to force him to take the witness stand when he is facing trial. | |
It is not 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 clear when that opinion will be published. | |
Court officials also said the ruling will mean that new dates will have to be set for the officers’ trials in 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. | On Tuesday, the Court of Appeals affirmed Williams’s first ruling and overturned his second. |
Prosecutors had argued in court that they had the authority to compel Porter to testify and had said previously that their cases would be “gutted” without the witness. They said Porter’s testimony would not be used against him at his June retrial. | |
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 in April after he was arrested. Gray later died, touching off days of protests and rioting that grabbed national attention. | |
Prosecutors contend that Porter and other officers shirked their duty by not strapping a seat belt around Gray in the back of the van and failing to get medical attention for him. Porter’s attorneys argued at his trial that 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 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. |
The next step for an appeal would be to the U.S. Supreme Court, because it is not a post-conviction matter, said Bill Brennan, a Maryland defense attorney who is not involved in the case. But that depends on whether the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision is rooted in state or constitutional law. If the state appeals court issued its order based only on Maryland law, defense attorneys might not have the ability to request that the U.S. Supreme Court review the case. | |
Marshall T. Henslee, a Baltimore defense attorney, said that if Porter’s attorneys do appeal the court’s argument, it 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,” said Henslee, who is not involved in the case. “In most cases, you’d have the trial and then file the appeal, if you’re the state.” | |
If Porter’s attorneys don’t appeal, Henslee said it’s likely that 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. | |
Warren S. Alperstein, a Baltimore defense attorney and former prosecutor who is also not involved in the case, said that 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 defendant’s previous statements as a witness. They are 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 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 ever said, but that’s certainly more of a challenge.” |