Yeah I said that.
And I am correct. But I bet you a six pack the judge will issue a gag order to save her from herself and avoid a lot of wasted time and expense, just like the judge did in the theater shooting case being tried here.
Justice...
- Thread starter toastedbread
- Start date
And I am correct. But I bet you a six pack the judge will issue a gag order to save her from herself and avoid a lot of wasted time and expense, just like the judge did in the theater shooting case being tried here.
COH...
Are the comments of Mosby's husband not a conflict in and of themselves? This is a man who is presumably sleeping in the same bed as her at night.
The Prosecutor's husband is a City Council Member for a district which involved much of the rioting according to reports. The family attorney of Mr Gray is a personal friend, political supporter of the Prosecutor and her husband and contributed cash to their campaigns. EC 9-6 required that Prosecutors and for than matter every attorney shall "strive to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety".
No. They aren't. No matter what sort of sex they have in their marital bed.
If you're going to make sweeping over-the-top allegations, it's on you to substantiate them. You haven't because you couldn't, and therefore you wouldn't, even if you tried, which you won't.
You know much less than you think you do. This is a marker of immaturity. Grow up.
He represents the district where Grey was from. Please explain to me how that is not a conflict? I believe the officers should be charged, but I don't believe Mosby was the right person to do it.
Edit: Perhaps there is no conflict. But imo there is an "appearance" of a conflict of interest.
They don't have to avoid the appearance of impropriety to people who "think" like they have open head wounds. I have no idea how this prosecutor will respond to the reflexive wave of stupidity illustrated by posts like yours, but I know how posters here should respond.
And with this much public interest why not remove the appearance of impropriety? If she wants to discuss "keeping the peace" that's a pretty safe move imo. Why not bring in an outsider? There will be questions raised rightly or wrongly.
I would have been fine with someone from the AGs office leading the investigation. I believe them to be objective, fair, and balanced.
You've discovered that there are politicians involved in politics. If you determinedly put your young mind to it, you may also discover that politics affects all elected offices, including prosecutors and judges -- and even the unspecified others that you'd prefer to handle this case instead of the person whose job it is to do so.
Again, I have no idea whether the evidence supports the charges. But there is an "appearance" of a conflict only because people like you either (1) don't know what you're talking about; (2) don't like black people; or (3) both.
Here is our rule on prosecutor statements:
SCR 3.130(3.8) Special responsibilities of a prosecutor.
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:
***
(e) refrain, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent
of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, from making
extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of
the accused, and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel,
employees or other persons under the supervision of the prosecutor in a criminal case from
making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under
Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
SUPREME COURT COMMENTARY
2009:
(1) A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.
This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded
procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.
.....
(4) Paragraph (e) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a
substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal
prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of
increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for
example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and
should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a
substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. ....
(5) Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to
responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the
lawyer's office. Paragraph (e) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in
connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In
addition, paragraph (e) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons
under the supervision of the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements.
Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate
cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.
If I was a defense lawyer for those 6 cops, I'd file ethics charges against the prosecutor - and a motion to disqualify - on the grounds that her statement "there will be justice for Mr. Gray" evidences a conclusion about guilt in advance of the investigation, and intentionally increasing public condemnation of my clients, after AFTER A KNOWN RIOT.
Public matters require good, impassioned, and fair judgment.
She has disqualified herself.
I can see her leading a lynch mob, but not a prosecutors office.
(Glad I'm NOT a criminal defense lawyer. Those folks have a tough row to hoe.)
If you were a defense lawyer for those cops, you'd be laughed out of court. "There will be justice for Victim X" is the kind of thing prosecutors say all the time. No one ever has a problem with it. But Holder in Ferguson and Mosby in Baltimore went too far! Out of the millions of times prosecutors have made those types of comments, those are the two that people get up in arms about. I wonder why?
Or perhaps there actually is an "appearance of conflict". I've found it hard to acquire exactly what defines an "appearance of conflict" as 2 minds can differ.
The "appearance" speaks to a reasonable mind, and not that of a spoiled child.
I can reconcile that statement because she is a prosecutor and her job is to get a conviction. What I have trouble avoiding is her husband's political position and this cases impact on him. (And her political situation for that matter). The average case does not receive this amount of media or public attention. To me this is no different to the Ferguson case where I believe the prosecutor also should have recused himself as many on this board were calling for.
If you're tasked with deciding whether or not to charge your own spouse with a crime, that's an appearance of conflict. Even if you are fair, it's not going to look good.
If you're tasked with making charging decisions in a city where your husband happens to be on the City Council, that's not an appearance of conflict. That's just two people who happen to both be doing government work while married.
Child maybe. Spoiled not. There are reasonable people far brighter than me who do believe there is a potential "appearance". If you can't recognize that a reasonable mind could reach that conclusion then you are being purposefully ignorant.
Well there are degrees of appearance. Clearly the first case is an egregious example. The second case involves an expanded definition. But there is no defined delineation in the legal definition of "appearance of impropriety" as far as I can tell. I would love to read more about this if you have a link.
I did find a legal article criticizing this expansive definition as being wasteful and bogging down justices.
Again I'm not an attorney.
Restating your conclusion is not an argument, and since this is all you have done, you have made no argument at all. If you wanted to construct a real argument to support your hyperbolic claims, you'd need to cite the applicable rules and explain how, under those rules, this prosecutor's statements differed materially from the statements that prosecutors make every day. I'm very confident that you lack all of the deliverables necessary to support even a reasonable reinterpretation of your wild allegations.
I don't know about the ethical rules in Maryland. I'm not even sure if there is an "appearance of impropriety" rule there. It's been dropped from the model rules, and some states have dropped it, as well.
However, in states that still have the rule, a common definition is this: a lawyer may not represent a client if there is even an appearance of a conflict of interest because the lawyer may have confidential information from an opposing party. This can apply to entire law firms, if appropriate insulation measures aren't taken.
I've never heard of any case where what you're talking about here would actually be an ethical violation. But, while I passed my MPRE with flying colors, I am not an ethics expert.
Here is what I've found.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/md/code/MD_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.7
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest exists if:
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
I would argue that "third person and personal interest" both apply here.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
Clearly this is not "illegal". I believe there is a conflict. I don't believe it is illegal. Thus the smart move was to recuse herself imo.
Up in arms?
I already said mosby's comments were no biggie. Holder is a different story completely. He has a body of work showing questionable ethics.
First, it is NOT the kind of thing that prosecutors "say all the time."
That's one of the falsehoods that help perpetuate the practice.
99 cases out of 100, the prosecutors keep their mouth shut.
But usually, the one time they don't, is the one time for which the rule was most designed - when its most important - when the lynch mobs have gathered - and when they lack the guts to what the job requires. Instead of doing the right thing, they seek public adoration and feed the crowd rather than stand up for the system of justice they swore they would stand up for. They take a step AWAY from a nation of laws, and TOWARD a nation of men.
I take legal ethics seriously.
The reason "no one ever has a problem with it" is because too many other lawyers don't.
The first time a lawyer ignores an ethics rule, it bothers them
The next time its easier.
By the third time, nobody ever has a problem with it.
If you wanna be popular, don't run for office.
99 cases out of 100, prosecutors don't say anything publicly, because no one cares.
But in cases with public interest, prosecutors have a right (duty?) to keep the public informed.
There are only two ways that Mosby's comments could be unehtical (assuming Maryland follows the model rules):
1. If they would materially prejudice the upcoming trial.
2. If there is a substantial likelihood they would heighten condemnation of the accused.
I am sympathetic to the idea that prosecutors should be held to a very high standard, I really am. But it's more than a stretch to suggest these comments do either of those two things.
Do you have any proceeding in any state where these specific types of comments have led to sanction? I can't find any. I can find some people complaining about the increase in prosecutorial extrajudicial comments. And I can find people weighing the First Amendment implications. I can't find a case where someone said something like this and was actually sanctioned for it.
On another note... If the Boston Bombers trial wasn't moved, I don't see this trial being move either.
A lawyer's responsibilities to a third party refers to fiduciary duties and the like, and her personal interests would refer to business, job prospects, etc. Simply having a politically-interested husband isn't covered by Rule 1.7.
As far as I know, it's not covered by any of the rules. COH and MTIOTF have a better case for 3.6/3.8 violations than you do here (and I don't think they have a very good case at all).
You are looking in the wrong places
I mentioned she was unprofessional which is different from unethical. I don't think what she did is ethical misconduct. But it is below high professional standards because she is giving the defendants legal arguments that she doesn't need to give. As I said--a rookie mistake.
Pretrial publicity is already a huge problem in this case. She shouldn't make it worse. She is an officer of the court. You know damn well if you represented the cops you'd be all over this.
Why didn't you reply to that post, then?
I referred to you bringing up possible 3.8 violations. Which you did. I suppose you didn't actually mention 3.6, so that's sloppy citation on my part.
COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE
I didn't realize until just a few minutes ago that Gray's arrest was supposedly for having a switchblade, which would be a valid arrest in Maryland. However, apparently he didn't actually have one. I'm not sure what the details on this are going to turn out to be, but if the officers inappropriately applied the switchblade law against, say, a non-covered knife, that's a very sad irony, since it's been just slightly more than a decade since the same exact issue was litigated in Maryland. That speaks to me to a problem with police training.
Toast, I completely agree. What those cops did to that guy for being black and having a pocket knife is straight out of Putin's Russia. If that's what justice looks like I don't think any of us want a part of it.
Similar threads
