It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:45 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:29 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Here's a thought.....

Its going to be a HUGE struggle finding ANOTHER 6 panels of say 16 jurors (96 people)... In Baltimore?... Get real :cool

How about sort out who the idiots were in the current Jury (and alternates) and "Recycle" the rest.... might only need to find one or two to replace morons. Use SAME JURY for all 6 trials... sounds like a great plan to me :cool

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 3:35 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
How about some honesty and integrity in reporting... REUTERS :roll

Image

IF you feel compelled to mention the RACE of the deceased

Then you SHOULD also report the RACE of the Defendant...

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am
Posts: 4280
Location: Fort Worth
Rumpole wrote:
Here's a thought.....

and "Recycle" the rest....

LOL! I was drinking HOT coffee while reading this and now it's in my lap! OUCH ;)

I never know what you are going to say and I know you are serious. Too funny tho.
----------------
Agree re Reuters. :roll

So Porter will testify against two other defendants before his trial? Got it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 6:52 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Senate president questions decision to keep Porter trial in Baltimore
Michael Dresser

Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller is second-guessing a judge's decision to keep the trial of a Baltimore officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore.

Miller told WBAL-AM that he believes the the trial of Officer William Porter, which ended in a mistrial last week, never should have been held in the city.

The Senate president, a longtime trial lawyer and Calvert County Democrat, said the mistrial shows a Baltimore jury would be unlikely to reach a fair verdict in such a case. Six officers are charges with various offenses that the prosecution contends led to the death of the 25-year-old Gray in police custody.

"To have a mistrial and have people picket a mistrial, just shows that it is very difficult to have a very fair trial in an emotionally charged area," Miller told WBAL. "You need finality in these cases."

...more at link
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am
Posts: 4280
Location: Fort Worth
Oh, I totally agree. Glad someone is speaking out.

But Judge Williams was all for grandstanding and was never going to change the venue.

They ALL need to be tried in Texas. Get them done and the officers back to work. :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:00 pm
Posts: 453
Location: Ohio
Didn't they rearrange the trial order so that Porter's right against self incrimination wasn't violated with any testimony he had on the other officers? Is there a plea deal in the works or ..yeah just scratching head on this one cuz I'm not seeing the city being okay with delaying the other five trials.

_________________
Image awww :91 made me ink


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 11:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am
Posts: 4280
Location: Fort Worth
Hi LR :28

In the several days after Porter's mistrial, I am guessing delaying the other five trials was discussed, but not to ... out-weighed any reason to reschedule.

Yes, Porter was scheduled to be tried first because he was going to testify against two other officers (for the prosecution). No plea deals have been reported in the news.

Haven't read any details about whether Porter will testify in any trials now.

I am hoping for either acquittals or mistrials for the remaining five trials. I am assuming the prosecution will reconsider to not retry Porter .. depending on the outcome of the other trials.

IMO, none of the officers actually intended to murder Freddie Gray.

( Rumpole, correct me if I am wrong in any of this. I'm trying to keep up ;) )


Last edited by Molly on Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 23, 2015 12:09 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Sounds good to me Molly.... :cool

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 381
Officer in First Freddie Gray Case Seeks to Not Testify in Other Trials
Attorneys for William Porter’s file motion to block client’s testimony

By Scott Calvert
Updated Jan. 5, 2016 11:03 a.m. ET

http://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-in- ... 1452009448

(excerpts)

BALTIMORE—Lawyers for William Porter, one of six police officers criminally charged in the death of Freddie Gray last April, asked a judge Monday to block prosecutors from forcing Mr. Porter to testify at the coming trials of two fellow officers.

Mr. Porter’s lawyers say compelling his testimony in other officers’ trials would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and expose him to potential perjury charges, according to a filing Monday that hadn’t previously been made public. In the filing, his lawyers asked the judge to quash the prosecutors’ subpoena for Mr. Porter’s testimony.

Prosecutors have previously said Mr. Porter is a “necessary and material witness” in both high-profile cases. A spokeswoman for State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby declined to comment, citing a gag order in the case.

The issue is expected to be argued in court Wednesday, defense lawyers Joseph Murtha and Gary Proctor said in their motion Monday, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

According to Mr. Porter’s lawyers, prosecutors argue that Mr. Porter can’t refuse to testify at the two coming trials because, they say, they plan to offer him an immunity grant that would prevent them from using his own testimony against him.

Mr. Porter’s lawyers argued in their motion to the court that compelling his testimony would violate his right against self-incrimination. Even with such an immunity grant, calling him to testify in two trials about the same matters related to his pending manslaughter charge wreaks of impropriety, they said in the filing.

Mr. Porter’s lawyers said a continuing federal probe of Mr. Gray’s death could lead to federal charges against Mr. Porter, noting that members of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office were present when Mr. Porter testified in his own defense. “It is therefore, surely, undeniable that Officer Porter remains in the sights of the United States,” the defense lawyers wrote in the motion.

Mr. Porter’s lawyers also said his compelled testimony at the other officers’ forthcoming trials could expose him to perjury charges. If the state believed his testimony differed from testimony he gave during his own trial, “all the immunity the state could confer would be rendered meaningless,” they said.

Because a convicted perjurer can’t testify in court, calling Mr. Porter to testify at the two trials could strip him of his ability to testify at his retrial, they said,
__________________________

Click on the link for the full article.

I put in bold the paragraph that I think is important that many might not consider. He not only has to worry about the State charges but also possible future Federal charges. It would shock me if the Judge rules in the prosecutions favor. This seems like an easy call IMO.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 381
Here also is a link to an article in the Baltimore Sun on the same issue:

Baltimore Officer Porter seeks to avoid testifying at Goodson, White trials
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

Here are some good excerpts from this article:

In a motion filed Monday to quash a subpoena requiring him to appear as a witness at Goodson 's trial, Porter's attorneys say he plans to assert his rights under the state and federal constitutions to decline to testify. Porter also plans to decline to testify in the trial of Sgt. Alicia White.

"… Calling Officer Porter at the Goodson and White trials will not only result in his rights being violated, but will necessitate a quagmire in which rights are trampled on all sides in the ensuing free-for-all," his attorneys wrote.

-=-=-=-=-=-

"The state wishes to compel Porter, through the farce of a grant of immunity, to lay a foundation for evidence that the state has deemed as constituting an obstruction of justice and perjury," they wrote.
______________________________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:24 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Thanks She Stone.

I am going to follow each of the Baltimore 6 in separate threads. Obviously this info pertains to Goodson as well as Porte, and I read also relates to Sgt. Alicia White.

I'll note this info in Goodson and White threads..... :)

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 4:06 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Pertinent news for Porter at Goodson Trial....

Breaking News: Judge Williams has ruled #WilliamPorter is compelled to testify in the #GoodsonTrial.

Ron Snyder(Verified account)
Porter attorney Gary Proctor to file injunction with Court of Special Appeals to block order to compel in #GoodsonTrial

Judge warned prosecutors if Porter testifies in #goodsontrial it could impact their ability to retry him.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:05 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
From the Goodson Trial.....

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/judge-issues ... Type=Story

Quote:
BALTIMORE —Circuit Court Judge Barry Williams denied a motion by Officer William Porter's attorney to squash a subpoena for him to appear at the trial of fellow Officer Caesar Goodson trial, the second of six Baltimore police officers to face trial in the death of Freddie Gray.

Williams said Porter will be compelled to testify. Porter's attorney, Gary Proctor, is expected to file an injunction with Court of Special Appeals to block the order to compel his testimony in Goodson's trial.

Porter was called to the stand prior to the ruling and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Williams warned prosecutors if Porter testifies in the Goodson trial, it could impact their ability to retry him after Porter's case ended in a mistrial in December.

Should Porter testify, Williams said, the state has been placed on notice that they have an interesting burden to show they did not use the testimony in any shape or form.

Proctor said "once the cat is out of bag, you can't put it back" when it comes to Porter's testimony.
[.......]
Prosecutors consider Porter a material witness against Goodson and White. The state wants Porter to testify that he told both Goodson and White that Gray wanted medical treatment.

Porter testified at his own trial and told investigators that he informed Goodson and White that Gray wanted medical attention.

In the motion, Porter's attorneys argued that he cannot be compelled to testify and that while prosecutors consider Porter a credible witness in the Goodson case, they called him a liar on multiple occasions in his own trial.

Porter is set to be retried in June.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:33 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
From CTH.......

Gobsmacking – Baltimore Judge Orders Officer Porter To Testify Against Fellow Officers….
Posted on January 6, 2016 by sundance

Image
Judge Barry Williams

Well, we can put the entire question about whether Judge Barry Williams is an “activist judge” to rest. This ruling is a direct contradiction to the 5th Amendment and an accused person’s right not to testify in trial. The state cannot force a defendant to accept immunity.

Officer Porter’s trial ended in a “mistrial” (hung jury); as a consequence, the prosecution has announced their intent to re-try Porter later in the year which means any testimony he gives can/will be used against him at a later trial date; despite the judge saying the prosecution cannot use such testimony – it becomes impossible testimony to parse.

In addition the federal DOJ has previously announced their intentions to investigate/charge based on civil rights violations, so any testimony carries an additional overture of concern with future prosecution.

udge Barry Williams says he finds himself in “uncharted territory”. Really? Not-so-much, the law is very clear on this matter. It would not be surprising if an appellate court strikes down this judicial decision as clearly outside the bounds of legal authority.

...more at link
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... -officers/

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:38 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
ABC2NEWS (Verified account)
Porter's lawyers to argue for injunction to prevent his testimony in the #GoodsonTrial in Court of Special Appeals tomorrow. #abc2infocus

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:22 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
"Immunity", granted (by prosecution and/or Judge) is not exactly what is on offer is it?
It is some sort of half-assed immunity now, an agreement to not use Porter's testimony in this (and Sgt. Alicia White's) trial ( if it is possible to isolate such testimony from other statements by Porter), but Porter still faces same charges and another trial. "Immunity" is not much cop anyway these days, since all cases involving a black "victim" come with a built-in "Get Out of Double Jeopardy" card for political hack to use to keep threatening a Federal "Civil Rights" investigation and subsequent charges regardless of any State court decision (or deal)

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:07 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Quote:
Alex says:
January 6, 2016 at 6:57 pm

In Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that if the government confers “use and derivative use immunity,” then it can compel a witness to testify. It’s not a question of whether the witness “accepts” the immunity or not. In a subsequent prosecution of the witness, the government will have the burden of showing that evidence was not derived from the compelled testimony.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 6:19 pm
Posts: 2955
If the law is followed the injunction will be granted and the appellate court will take that idiot judge to task and not compel Porter to testify.

I can use my impolite words here :77 this is straight up Fuck Me immunity. It is terrible.


Mosby is lost and desperate, not a pretty color on anyone.

_________________
If your mind is agitated you will find agitation everywhere. Where else will you find peace if not within you? __ Papaji


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:32 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 44733
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Quote:
John Galt says:
January 6, 2016 at 9:13 pm

http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/20 ... 9-123.html

https://govt.westlaw.com/mdc/Document/N ... sc.Default)#co_anchor_IDAB09FD04AE611E59E42BBEB6869DD2C

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 381
Rumpole wrote:
Alex says:
January 6, 2016 at 6:57 pm

In Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441 (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that if the government confers “use and derivative use immunity,” then it can compel a witness to testify. It’s not a question of whether the witness “accepts” the immunity or not. In a subsequent prosecution of the witness, the government will have the burden of showing that evidence was not derived from the compelled testimony.


As long as 'government' applies to both State and Federal I can see where this would apply. If the Feds though don't agree or by law have to also abide by the immunity then I would think they couldn't force Porter to testify. :46

JMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 193 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group