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

a reply to: Shamrock6

Touché. Adios.

a reply to: Xcathdra

In this case the defense can argue that the injuries were caused by gray intentionally as a means to sue the police.

I'm arguing that probably they couldn't have used that in the officers defense therefor Mosby's team wouldn't have been required to turn it over...

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.

If he had such a history in the first place. The defense attorney's are being defense attorney's... they say things that aren't necessarily true in order to cast doubt. This story came out a week ago yet the case hasn't been dismissed, that ought to tell you something.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Honestly, I think people are just shocked to see a prosecutor come out so strong against the police... it's usually the other way around.

I think she's brilliant and has been on point from the beginning.

a reply to: Kali74

And I think the DA handling the UC shooting is miles ahead of the one in Baltimore and she could learn a lot from how he's doing things.

But anything more than that is for a different thread I suppose.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You could be right I guess we'll see how the trials go. But it pretty telling that despite the RW media buzz about this, the case has not been dismissed and no one has been removed from the case. I'm guessing that Brady Disclosure wasn't applicable.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
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?

What video?

originally posted by: Kali74

I'm arguing that probably they couldn't have used that in the officers defense therefor Mosby's team wouldn't have been required to turn it over...

The argument is gray died of injuries received. The information can allow the defense to argue the injuries were inflicted by gray himself and is therefore responsible for his own death. The information is exculpatory and would be allowed to be used in court.

As for dismissal the motion must be made by the defense team. The only involvement by the judge would be ruling on the motion. Considering how our judicial system works it could take some time before any motions get in front of the judge.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Shamrock6

You could be right I guess we'll see how the trials go. But it pretty telling that despite the RW media buzz about this, the case has not been dismissed and no one has been removed from the case. I'm guessing that Brady Disclosure wasn't applicable.

Are we talking about the motion filed Thursday, as in two days ago?

a reply to: Xcathdra

There's a lot of if's involved that you're treating as facts. Only time will tell.

What difference at this point, does it make?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Xcathdra

There's a lot of if's involved that you're treating as facts. Only time will tell.

Except I am not. The information should have been disclosed and it wasn't. The fact the PA told the police not to do the job of the defense is telling since it shows the PA knew about the info and knew that it could be used by the defense.

The entire case of the prosecution is based on grays death. His death is based on his injuries.

The question then becomes -
Did the police do this or did Gray do this.

A question for the jury, if it makes it that far. In this case I don't think it will as I think this violation is going to severely undermine the prosecutions case, if not sink it all together.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

According to the July 30th Baltimore Sun the motion had already been filed.

They asked the Circuit Court to sanction prosecutors in Mosby's office for the alleged omissions and remove them from the case, to exclude evidence that they say was improperly omitted from discovery, to force the release of a long list of withheld information that they say they found through their own investigation, and to compensate them for that investigative work.

Also of note... from the end of the Sun article:

They have also said that they intended to ask for sanctions against the defense for raising "deliberate falsehoods" in motions in the case.

Sounds like the judge has a whole lot of BS to sort through before this trial ever takes place.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If such 'evidence' exists.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Xcathdra

If such 'evidence' exists.

Fair enough..

show me the video from inside the transport van.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I never said anything about video from inside the van.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I see a whole lot of wiggle words in here... much as I would expect from desperate defense attorneys resorting to drastic measures.

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.

Steered away? That's not withholding information, which would constitute a Brady violation. Apparently, they were given the information... how is it even possible for the prosecution to "steer away" the defense? Because the defense lets the prosecution determine their case? No. Of course not. Wiggle words.

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.

More wiggle words. Who told them? The prosecution? (Before/as they "steered them away" from this so-called excuplatory evidence?) That's not withholding evidence according the Brady ruling.

I'm not sure, but 404B might be relevant here, regarding the inadmissibility of previous bad acts, although that may just apply to the defendant and not the victim. I don't know. But even if the 404B ruling doesn't apply to the admissibility, the principle stands: Just because Freddie Gray may have done it before, doesn't mean he did it this time.

Further, that's just all the more reason that the officers should have followed proper procedures and secured the prisoner. Freddie Gray is responsible for whatever he did or did not do... and the officers are responsible for whatever they did or did not do. So I do not see how such information would be exculpatory in nature.

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.”

Again, the defense attorneys do not say how they learned this information, and do not specifically say that the information was withheld constituting a Brady violation. Further, since Freddie Gray is dead, there was no practical reason for the prosecutor to investigate Freddie Gray's past bad behavior... however, it is the prosecutor's job to investigate -- and prosecute -- the bad behavior of the police officers.

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.

Am I missing something? Where do the defense attorney's say it was hidden or withheld? I just see the defense claiming they were "steered away." How?

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".

Are you sure about that? Please school me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe a Brady violation -- especially pre-trial -- would allow for dropping all charges or a mistrial. At this point in the process, I believe the worst that would happen is that the prosecution would be somehow sanctioned. Even if the information came to light post-trial, it would simply be cause for appeal.

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.

This is true... but far less concerning than cops rushing to judgment, forgetting the limitations of their duty, and appointing themselves judge, jury and executioner.

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

Only to those who mistakenly believe that anything and everything attorneys say is gospel truth. Any judge will tell you that what attorneys say is not evidence -- even in court.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Xcathdra

I never said anything about video from inside the van.

I know.. You are saying the judge has to sort through "bs". You also stated "if such evidence exists". That very argument is what I am referring to in terms of how it can be argued by the defense. Remember the burden of proof is on the government.

There is no video evidence showing the police causing his injuries. Even a video of the transport van driving / stopping still does not show that's how the injuries occurred.

if the judge grants the defense motion I think we will see a motion to dismiss.

However I agree.. lets see what the judge says.

It would be nice if there are examples to be had, but I see no mention of any in the link, so I will have no comment one way or the other. Until someone puts their money where their mouth is, it is still tittle tattle, legal eagles or not.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Xcathdra

There's a lot of if's involved that you're treating as facts. Only time will tell.

It seems that way. The 'surgery' for the 'injury' has been known for some time, and talked about for some time, that's all that has been talked about. There should have been nobody dealing with the case that did not know about the surgery, To say that it was something secret is just wrong. As for Gray being a serial self-hurter, where are all the other incidents?

originally posted by: smurfy
It would be nice if there are examples to be had, but I see no mention of any in the link, so I will have no comment one way or the other. Until someone puts their money where their mouth is, it is still tittle tattle, legal eagles or not.

Apparently the info on crash for cash came from the Prosecution witnesses when they were interviewed by the defense. Apparently the prosecutors office also had improper communications with the medical examiner. They also failed to provide statements to the ME.

Here is some more detailed info -
Defense claims Freddie Gray had history of 'crash for cash' schemes