The Latest in the Freddie Gray Case.

The next step in the trial of six Baltimore police officers over the death of Freddie Gray was supposed to be a plea hearing scheduled for July 2nd (2/7/15).

The purpose of the this type of hearing is to give the Judge another opportunity to assess whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to a full trial. In a case such as this where there is a Grand Jury indictment this is generally just a formality. However the defence are provided the opportunity to apply for the charges to be dismissed if for example a suspect who wasn't able to provide an alibi to the Grand Jury is suddenly able to prove that he was in police custody in a different state or even nation at the time of the alleged offence.

If no such application is made or is rejected then the defence is able to offer a plea of either "Guilty" admitting the offence or "Not Guilty" to dispute the allegation. If they plead not guilty they have to give a quick explanation of the type of defence they intend to use. This normally just one or two words such as "Insanity" or "Dispute of Fact" with the latter generally covering most things.

However on Monday (22/6/15) the presiding Judge - W. Michel Pierson - who due to the circumstances I have to report is black made an extraordinary order cancelling the hearing and instructing the defendants to enter a plea by Friday (26/6/15). All the defendants immediately entered not guilty pleas and the next part of the trial was scheduled for September 2nd (2/9/15).

Judge Pierson offered not explanation for his actions but although extremely unusual it is within his power to make such an order. As such we are not able to directly infer prejudice on the part of the Judge contrary to the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution. However this is certainly the sort of move that can harm a defence because no-one likes being told that they've suddenly got to hand in their homework 10 days before the agreed deadline.

One possible explanation for the Judge's actions could be last Thursday's (18/6/15) shooting at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in South Carolina. This has prompted US politicians of all political affiliations and levels to publicly condemn the evils of racism and once again protesters are out in force across the nation including in New York City where there have been some violent clashes. This creates an environment where nobody is in any mood to ask tough questions about racially charged issues for fear of being accused of insensitivity or become targets of protests themselves. This lack of scrutiny would certainly assist the prosecution in the Freddie Gray case.

The prosecution's - led by Baltimore States Attorney Marilyn Mosby who is also black - narrative of events has been clear from the start. The police in America are nothing more then a racist white gang who rather like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) will harass and murder black people at every opportunity. Therefore Americans need to elect politicians such as herself and her husband Nicholas Mosby in order to protect them from the police.

As such on April 12th (12/4/15) Freddie Gray was innocently walking down the street when white police officers decided to racially harass him. Tired of this persecution Mr Gray ran and was chased down by three police officers. When they eventually caught up with Mr Gray the police officers decided to hand down an extra-judicial punishment for making them chase him. This involved inventing a false allegation of carrying an offensive/deadly weapon and using this as an excuse to transfer Mr Gray to a police station. They then conspired with the three further police officers who were in charge of transporting Mr Gray to give him what is known as a "rough ride" to make sure that he sustained physical injury during the journey. Mr Gray later died of those injuries.

When the case was finally brought before a Grand Jury on May 21st (21/5/15) two interesting things happened. The first is that the Grand Jury dismissed the allegation that Mr Gray had been unlawfully imprisoned. Amid all the injunctions that Ms Mosby has applied for in the case I have been unable to find out why the Grand Jury made that decision. However the only rational explanation I can think of is that they were shown the knife that Mr Gray had in his possession and concluded that it so closely resembled an offensive/deadly weapon that it provided legal grounds for both the knife and Mr Gray to be forcibly transported to a police station where the matter could be examined in more detail and a decision to charge or release Mr Gray could have been taken.

You would think that this would be enough for the prosecution of the three arresting officers to be terminated immediately. After all with them having no responsibility for Mr Gray's transport there is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on their part. The fact that they had behaved entirely properly up to that point removes any incentive on their part to conspire with the three transporting officers to injure Mr Gray. 

The second interesting thing the Grand Jury did was to add on the charge of  "Reckless Endangerment" while upholding the charges of "Second Degree Murder by Way of Depraved Heart" and "Manslaughter" that the prosecution initially sort.

If murder is an "intentional act intended to cause death" and manslaughter is "an intentional act not intended to cause death" then depraved heart murder is "the intentional failure to take an action knowing that it could prevent death. The UK equivalent offence that I'm most familiar with is "Manslaughter by way of Gross Negligence." This is hardly ever used because it is almost impossible to prove. However an example would be if you and a co-worker with tasked with cleaning an industrial oven and you failed to make sure it was switched off prior to your co-worker climbing into it despite it being your designated responsibility to do so then you could be charged with the offence.

Obviously for any murder or manslaughter offence to have occurred a person must have been killed. However if a victim survives but is left with life changing injuries such as severe burns, the loss of limbs or paralysis confining them to a wheelchair then society has deemed that there still needs to be a punishment. This is where the Reckless Endangerment charge comes in with it essentially being the same offence only with no death occurring.

The fact that the Grand Jury decided to add on the reckless endangerment charge in this case suggests to me that they were far from convinced that Ms Mosby can prove that Mr Gray was killed in police custody. This raises serious questions of why the prosecution against the three transporting officers continues and even further questions of why the case against the arresting officers. After all if the prosecution cannot prove that the transporting officers contributed to Mr Gray's death it certainly cannot prove that the arresting officers conspired with them to do so.

It is worth noting in such a racially charged case that the three arresting officers are all white while the three transporting officers are all black.

Judge Pierson's actions on Monday were so controversial that they seem to have prompted someone in the Baltimore Medical Examiners office to defy Ms Mosby's many injunctions and yesterday release the prosecution's autopsy report to the press. This found that Mr Gray died of a high impact injury that fits all the medical and legal definitions of an accident. However the death was ruled a homicide on the instruction of Ms Mosby's office.

So as with the Eric Garner case it seems that the prosecution's expert witness is viewed as lacking credibility. With Mr Gray's body being immediately released for burial it will be interesting to see if the defence will be permitted by Judge Pierson to introduce expert witnesses of their own. Those experts will be able to draw their conclusions free from the influence of Ms Mosby

14:35 on 24/6/15 (UK date).