Attorneys: Freddie Gray Case Bombshell Claim About Evidence They Say Was Withheld by Prosecution

Attorneys in Freddie Gray Case Drop Bombshell Claim About Evidence They Say Was Withheld by Prosecution
** The above is the full title, which was to long to fit in the subject line **


Attorneys in Freddie Gray Case Drop Bombshell Claim About Evidence They Say Was Withheld by Prosecution

BALTIMORE (AP) — Attorneys for the six police officers charged in Freddie Gray’s death say prosecutors steered investigators away from allegations about Gray’s behavior in past interactions with law enforcement. The attorneys claim detectives were told Gray had a history of participating in “crash-for-cash” schemes in which people hurt themselves to collect settlements – a piece of information attorneys say would be useful for their case.

Gray died on April 19, a week after suffering a critical spinal injury in the back of a police van. Gray’s death spurred days of largely peaceful protests followed by rioting and looting last April 27.


Six officers were charged with crimes ranging from misdemeanor assault to “depraved-heart” murder.

In a motion filed Thursday in Baltimore Circuit Court, defense attorneys allege that investigators for the Baltimore Police Department had information that Gray had a history of intentionally injuring himself in order to collect insurance money. The attorneys allege in the filing that police investigators knew that Gray once injured himself so severely while in a Baltimore jail that he required medical attention. The attorneys say in documents that when police investigators tried to follow up on the evidence, prosecutors in the state’s attorney’s office told them “not to do the defense attorneys’ jobs for them.”

Click link for remainder of article...

When will these prosecutors understand they cant hide exculpatory evidence from the defense? Its bad enough, the manner in which the state lawyers are conducting this prosecution. I would think if their evidence / case is on solid ground there would be no need to hide evidence.

Not only could this result in the officers walking away / unable to be charged a second go around, it also means the prosecuting attorneys involved just possibly walked themselves in a "Brady violation".

This is what I have been talking about with regards to PA's doing the 100 meter rush to judgement based on political pressure. They forget to practice the law and end up doing a disservice to the community.

For those not familiar - During criminal prosecutions the defense will file a discovery motion. This motion requires the prosecution to turn over all evidence they have to the defense. Hiding / omitting any evidence by the prosecutor is a violation, regardless of what they think about the evidence in question. Any information that can impact the defense's case must be turned over.

Secondly Law Enforcement does not work for the prosecuting attorney. Their purpose is to investigate the crime and present that information in court, regardless of which side the information helps.

Now it just looks like a malicious prosecution based on political pressure.

Unfortunately for the officers and the prosecution, we saw the video which speaks for itself. He was unjustly killed by the officers regardless of past behaviors, rendering this information, true or not, moot.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If true, I don't see how it helps the defense whatsoever. Gray wasn't responsible for the injuries he sustained in the back of that police van even if he (video and black box indicate several speed-ups and short stops) threw himself around the van... the officers involved, repeatedly DID NOT secure him.

Its not relevant if the information helps or hurts the defense. The issue here is the PA not turning the information over as required. The information can allow the defense to argue that the injuries gray sustained could have been self inflicted. A brady violation can result in no court action / prosecution occurring.

As for the video comment there is no video showing the inside of the transport van so I'm not sure what video is being referred to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Given the things that have come to light about the DA, can't say something like this surprises me at all. It's one thing after another with her and has been since she took office.

She's trying to play the game, but is out of her league.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The issue here is the PA not turning the information over as required.

If that's true and not just pretrial theatrics it still may not be relevant in Baltimore Law which states that officers must secure detained passengers. In other words let's say Gray did throw himself around the van causing the injuries that killed him... it doesn't remove the repeated gross negligence of the officers for not securing him in the van, so this defense ploy is most likely irrelevant.

I may be misremembering but I thought traffic cam footage showed evidence of speeding up and slamming on brakes.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Gotta disagree here. I don't think it's been much more than mud slinging.

a reply to: Xcathdra

In the video, I don't know about you, but I saw him being beaten down, peed his pants, and unable to stand, following a recent serious surgery. I saw what I saw.

What is your actual agenda here? Are you saying that because there *might* have been a past history of self-injurious behavior, the officers shouldn't be charged?

a reply to: Kali74

Sure however Brady is not a specific state law as it is a US Supreme Court ruling. The Prosecutor is required to turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense than can be used in the defenses favor. In this case the defense can argue that the injuries were caused by gray intentionally as a means to sue the police.

Considering Gray has a history of doing just that, causing injury and then suing, it can be agued the same holds true in this case.

Whether or not the judge / jury believes the info is up to them. Its still required to be turned over.

a reply to: Kali74

I'm not taking culpability away from the officers involved.

But I don't think the DA is impartial and I don't think she's handled this situation very well, pretty much from the beginning.

We arrive at the same result, just by different routes.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Unfortunately for the officers and the prosecution, we saw the video which speaks for itself. He was unjustly killed by the officers regardless of past behaviors, rendering this information, true or not, moot.

But if true it would paint a slightly different picture and at the very least explain how a "rough ride" as it were, turned deadly. Officers doubled down as did Freddy Gray perhaps and brought forth the tragic end. The cops didn't realize they were "helping" him hurt himself and he didn't realize that either.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pretty sure X is saying it should have been turned over to the defense. And by not doing so, prosecution has been potentially jeopardized. Which is 100% correct.

And that's it.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Link to the video? I have never seen the one you just described?

Secondly no agenda (it is really getting annoying being accused of that).

No what I am saying is that information can be used by the defense as the information has a direct bearing on this incident. By not turning the evidence over to the defense the prosecution could be charged with prosecutorial misconduct and the charges against the officers could be dropped with prejudice, meaning the PA cant refile the charges (double jeopardy).

A brady violation is a constitutional due process violation.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pretty sure X is saying it should have been turned over to the defense. And by not doing so, prosecution has been potentially jeopardized. Which is 100% correct.

And that's it.

There is more to it than that. Anybody who carefully examined the video can see there was abuse.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pretty sure X is saying it should have been turned over to the defense. And by not doing so, prosecution has been potentially jeopardized. Which is 100% correct.

And that's it.

Well maybe that's the point. Maybe they set her up to "fall on her sword" without realizing it. Now she loses a career and the police walk. That would be a crazy ending but not that surprising.

It's all moot. If the officers are in jail it's where they need to be. Hell, retry it. It will have the same result.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
It's all moot. If the officers are in jail it's where they need to be. Hell, retry it. It will have the same result.

If the prosecution overreached and they walk on a technicality they can't be tried for murder again. Double Jeopardy and all. If I understand that correctly.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
There is more to it than that. Anybody who carefully examined the video can see there was abuse.

Again that's not relevant. It revolves around the ability of the defense to mount a successful defense. In an adversarial judicial system its possible to argue 2 different theories of what occurred. The PA will make their case and the defense will make theirs.

By not turning over all evidence as required, it can be argued the entire prosecution is faulty. All it takes in a criminal trial is for one juror to have reasonable doubt. If the prosecution turned the info over and the defense used that info in court, its entirely possible one juror could vote not guilty knowing its possible the injuries were self inflicted.


a reply to: Rosinitiate
You are correct. A dismissal with prejudice means the charges cannot be refiled (double jeopardy).

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pretty sure X is saying it should have been turned over to the defense. And by not doing so, prosecution has been potentially jeopardized. Which is 100% correct.

And that's it.

There is more to it than that. Anybody who carefully examined the video can see there was abuse.

How do you know he didn't injure himself by running, following his recent serious surgery that you mentioned?

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Pretty sure X is saying it should have been turned over to the defense. And by not doing so, prosecution has been potentially jeopardized. Which is 100% correct.

And that's it.

There is more to it than that. Anybody who carefully examined the video can see there was abuse.

I have no idea what the video has to do with the prosecutor's office having a constitutional obligation to turn over any and all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense in any and every case. Whatever video exists of the arrest has absolutely nothing to do with that obligation.