BREAKING **** MISTRIAL In Freddie gray trial

[restorefreedom]

reported live now on fox news with shep smith

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-porter-trial-jury-wednesday-20151216-story.html

counts read by shep

reckless endangerment
assault in second degree
killing of another unintentionally while committing an unlawful act (manslaughter)
misconduct in office

UPDATE...judge just issued gag order


i am stunned..

[underpants]

1. The cops got to at least one of the jurors

[restorefreedom]

3. and several more trials to go....nt

[TipTok]

26. Defense did a solid job...

... and the prosecution took a calculated risk going after this guy first.

If it had worked, they could have flipped him against the others. Now... less so.

In any case, I'm not surprised...

It isn't always a grand conspiracy...

[Yupster]

35. I was on a hung jury once and the closest

we ever got to a decision was 5 guilty, 7 not guilty.

[wendylaroux]

2. surprise surprise

not.

[rurallib]

4. ditto

a shame.

[atreides1]

5. Not really surprised!

Juries seem to have problems with convicting police officers, the recent exception being the rapist cop in Oklahoma!

A few years ago another police officer from Maryland was on trial for making a false report...she claimed to have arrested a man and charged him with DUI. The problem was that when she arrested him...he was sleeping it off in the backseat of his car...and it was all caught on the parking lot video!

The jury found her not guilty!

I think the problem is that people still buy into the myth that the police are there to protect them, but the police are only responsible for enforcing the law...and many would be surprised by how police officers have no idea of what that means!

Of course this trial will set the precedence for the next five officers, finding a jury that won't have problems finding the remaining officers guilty of any of the charges, that will be like finding 5gallons of prop wash and 100ft of flight line!!!

Now it's up to the prosecutor to decide if there will be another trial...anyone want to take bets it won't happen?

[Ms. Yertle]

6. I thought the case against Porter

was considered the weakest of them all. Basically, he was charged because he didn't seat belt Gray in, and didn't grant his request to go to the hospital. And, IIRC, the instructions were that the jury had to find that he had an evil intent, or something. Seems that would be very difficult to prove. The fact that the jury couldn't come to an agreement on a "not guilty" verdict is surprising to me.

Anyway, it isn't over. Porter will (most likely) be tried again.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

9. Agreed. I'm not surprised

This was definitely the weakest case, imo, as well.

He didn't buckle him in, but the officers had just been told to use the seatbelt, so it's terrible hard to prove evil intent when previously others hadn't been buckled in. This LE wasn't the driver, and there is strong doubt about when the actual injury occurred.

I think there's more evidence for some of the other officers, but if they planned on this "conviction" as part of the subsequent cases, the prosecutor has a problem.

[NaturalHigh]

15. From NBC News:

Prosecutors considered Porter's case the strongest and it was seen as a signal of how the trials of the other five officers could go. The remaining trials are set for early next year. It is unclear how the mistrial will affect the prosecution's approach on the other trials, if at all.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hung-jury-trial-baltimore-cop-freddie-gray-case-n481296

[mythology]

16. CNN's analysts thought the opposite

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/us/baltimore-police-trial-freddie-gray/index.html

It's about half way down. I'm on my phone so I don't want to deal with trying to copy.

[NaturalHigh]

17. Intersting that two news groups would see it so totally differently.

[mythology]

23. It is.

I don't know enough about the case against this particular officer to have an educated opinion on which is right.

That said even in what CNN's reporting said, I would say he's at least morally guilty. It's not like he needed to go to extraordinary lengths to do the right thing.

[liberalhistorian]

24. CNN's legal analysts have been

full of shit several times before, so I'm not sure I'd really believe them when they claim that this case was the weakest. Then again, it seems that the prosecution may have overreached in charging him; he was definitely negligent (and probably indifferent to Gray's plight), but I'm not sure you could actually ascribe specific "evil intent" to his actions.

[mythology]

34. I don't know enough about the case specifically against this cop and the legal rules

to make an educated judgement of which set of legal experts is correct. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't a slam dunk that the case was the easiest to win in the minds of legal analysts. But if it is in theory the easiest, that doesn't mean a particularly good defense or a poor prosecution (for any reason, intentional or unintentional) can't win any given case.

[mythology]

42. And the latest CNN article says this was a major setback for the prosecution

So perhaps they are just pulling shit out of their ass.

[Hoyt]

7. You'd think that even the most hard assed juror could at least convict on misconduct in office or

reckless endangerment.

But, I suppose it's positive that as long as the DA doesn't drop the case, they didn't find him innocent.

[restorefreedom]

8. i know, they had a menu of charges

and the blew them all

wtf?

[TipTok]

27. I think the defense won the day...

... with the bit about 149 folks transported sans seat belt with no injury and so no 'reasonable' expectation that #150 would be any different.

Something along those lines (numbers may not be exact)

[Calista241]

39. The judge's instructions were very specific and set a very high bar for the prosecution.

Williams instructed the jury that to find Porter guilty (presumably of the involuntary manslaughter charge) they must find that he had acted in a “grossly negligent manner,” been aware of the risk created to Gray’s life, and have departed from the behavior of a “reasonable officer.”

For the second degree assault charge, Williams instructed the jury that Porter must have acted with gross negligence, but says it is not required that Porter have actually touched Gray (so, a mere act of omission could be sufficient to support a verdict of guilty on this charge).

On the charge of misconduct in office, Porter must have “corruptly failed” to do his duty as an officer, and with “evil motive.” Mere error in judgment is not sufficient to support a guilty verdict on this charge.

[melm00se]

10. I'll be interested to hear

an accounting of the votes.

was it 11-1 for? 11-1 against? something in between?

if it was 11-1 for acquittal that should play completely different than 11-1 for conviction.

[restorefreedom]

11. i wonder if the gag order

will prevent us from knowing that.

but yes, very important info

[Doctor Who]

30. Gag order in place.

From what I've heard, no one can talk till all 6 are tried.

[restorefreedom]

31. well, then thats when we will find out

anything. gonna be a while

[TipTok]

44. Someone will talk...

[tishaLA]

12. let's hope the protests are peaceful and righteous

I don't want to see Baltimore go through more violence.

[Waldorf]

18. If any protests do get violent you can bet the remaining cops lawyers will call for a change of

venue, and this time it might happen. Reading the NBC news report the prosecutors wanted this first conviction as a key to strengthen their case in the 2nd trial.

[LittleBlue]

14. Wasn't this supposed to be the easy case among the six?

Well, apparently this isn't as straightforward as predicted.

[LanternWaste]

19. Who specifically advertised that as a premise?

"apparently this isn't as straightforward as predicted"

Who specifically advertised that as a premise? Or is this simply one of those "well, I heard it somewhere from someone..." kind of things?

[LittleBlue]

20. Read it on Twitter. Link up the thread.

My understanding is that prosecutors like to begin with victories because an acquittal causes doubt in the minds of potential future jurors. Also, wouldn't a conviction potentially create a situation where the prosecution can cut a deal on sentencing in return for testimony?

I'm not a lawyer though.

[B2G]

22. MSNBC for one

"Prosecutors considered Porter’s case the strongest and it was seen as a signal of how the trials of the other five officers could go. Those trials are set for early next year."

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/judge-declares-mistrial-baltimore-cop-freddie-gray-case

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Oh god

Time to check my locals.

[MoonRiver]

25. Very disturbing, and suspicious.

[TeddyR]

28. I'm not sure why anyone would find this suspicious

Juries sometimes get it wrong, sometimes the prosecution gets out-lawyered by the defense, and sometime the evidence simply isn't sufficient to prove the case. I don't know which of those might have happened here but certainly any are possible. As others noted above, I'd be interested to know what the breakdown was on guilty/not guilty votes.

[Yupster]

37. To me the problem with all these cases is it hasn't been established when

the injury occurred.

Was it during the arrest. In the van before one of the stops, during one of the stops?

Without knowing that how can they find someone guilty?

Each defendant will just say, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was my fault he got hurt? How can you if you don't know when or how he got hurt.

[restorefreedom]

29. definitely does not bode well

for the remaining trials

they may all get off

[MoonRiver]

33. That's my concern.

[restorefreedom]

36. esp if this was their best case, thats bad for the rest.

and if it was the weakest case, i can't imagine why they would go first with the weakest case. i am not a DA, but that doesn't make sense to me.

i got this sick feeling they are all going to get away with it.

[MoonRiver]

40. Sunny Huston, who is one of the few pundits I like, has been saying the same thing.

I really fear the fix is in, and God help Baltimore if that is the case.

[restorefreedom]

41. i like sunny too. i hope baltimore can find a way

to get through this. maybe there will be a civil case, but it will still be justice denied, and a license for the police to do more of the same

[MoonRiver]

43. People,understandably, just want to feel that the system is fair.

Still holding out hope!

[restorefreedom]

46. my hope is fading, but i will hope with you! nt

[TipTok]

45. It's not a 'fix' if they get their day in court and win...

[MoonRiver]

47. Of course

[MillennialDem]

32. Hopefully they will do another trial - and at the very least this cop was pooping his

pants at the chance of going to prison (hopefully he'll get a chance to poop his pants again during a retrial).

[NYCButterfinger]

38. It's not looking good in Baltimore tonight and it's just giving the some in the GOP more ammunition

to make fun of minorities. When some voters see looting and rioting, what do you think they say about big cities and these police issues? It doesn't look good,

[Lee-Lee]

48. It was an overreach to prosecute so many officers for such high charges

And it was a gamble that had now bit them in the ass.

If their contention is that he died from injuries sustained in the van as a result of not being buckled, then they should have focused their attention on the van driver. He was in the drivers custody and the driver was the one responsible for his safety.

Casting the wide net to all involved was poor judgement. I can understand doing it when influenced by all the public pressure and attention, that te prosecutor was definitely playing into when she went as wide as she did with charges, but that doesn't help you make your case when the time comes in court.

The problem is that to prosecute the driver and others they needed this officers testimony. You get that either by offering immunity, a plea deal or prosecuting, getting a conviction and then offering a deal before sentencing. Since their case wasn't strong a plea deal was off the table leaving either immunity or a conviction. They gambled all the other cases on being able to get a conviction on this case and them offering a deal and getting the officers testimony in the rest of the cases. That is why they scheduled this case first.

Now their inability to get a conviction here means that they can't get that officer to testify against the others unless they offer him immunity- and if he takes that deal. You can't compel a person to testify in a case related to one they still may face charges in.

I see many similarities in this case and the Trayvon Martin case. The prosecutors overcharged under political and public pressure and then failed to meet the high standard for what they charged- when they likely could have had convictions or plea deals had they brought more realistic and winnable charges in the first place.

[Ms. Yertle]

50. Questions:

IIRC, the instructions to the jury were that in order to convict, they had to find that Porter acted with evil intent. (Just paraphrasing - don't know how it was actually worded.) I don't understand that. Was it necessary to instruct that way, regarding those charges? How can the jury know what was in the defendants's mind? How is evil intent defined? Did they have to find that he was hoping Gray would be severely injured, or even killed?

I understand that the justice system is weighted in a defendant's favor--or at least should be--and there are good reasons for it. But when we want a particular outcome,it doesn't seem fair.

This is a difficult situation, no matter which way it goes.

[Lee-Lee]

51. Legal terms caan vary state by state

But if you think of malice instead of "evil intent" its the essentially same.

The charges they filed were such that to prove they happened they needed to prove the outcome that happened was intended.

Was Freddy Gray not buckled into his seat because of "evil intent" or malice so as to cause him harm, or just because it was an oversight? Were his requests for an ambulance ignored because of malice intended to bring him harm, or was that the officer judged he was just making things up (probably 90% of people I arrested who "needed" an ambulance were just stalling) because he didn't look injured and the officer made a bad call?

Think of it like this- if he had died in the back of an ambulance because the wrong medication was administered, or in the ER because the wrong medicine was administered, you couldn't convict the paramedic or doctor of manslaughter, assault or anything else criminal unless you proved it wasn't just simple negligence or an accident but was done with malice or "evil intent". You may win a civil case in court, but not a criminal one.

Same think applies to police officers.

[Ms. Yertle]

52. Thanks, Lee-Lee

That's what I thought. Sounds like those charges would be extremely difficult to prove, in this case. Also, I've read that once he sustained the fatal injury he wouldn't have been able to speak, so at that point he couldn't ask for medical attention; therefore, when he did ask, he hadn't been fatally injured. From everything I've read, Porter was the least culpable officer involved.

[RobinA]

49. My Problem

if I were on the jury for any of these guys or girl is that it's not really (as far as I know the story) any one person's fault. It's kind of a team effort plus culture. Take any one of these actors out of the picture and the same event would most likely have happened. They are guilty collectively, but I can see where I might find it hard to say any of them are guilty individually. The whole thing is the totality of the circumstances. Although misconduct in office and reckless endangerment sound pretty good.

I had a friend who was mentally ill and had many engagements with police, generally for disorderly conduct type things. They knew him and they knew his problem. He was injured several times by this kind of police behavior, once requiring surgery. This is in Philadelphia. I hope that this case will lead to an end to this kind of police behavior, for which there is really no excuse.