Professors Jose Anderson and David Jaros are quoted in a July 23 Baltimore Sun story, “Defense: Mosby either failed to turn over Freddie Gray evidence, or independent investigation didn’t happen.”
Lawyers for the six Baltimore police officers charged in Freddie Gray‘s arrest and death in April filed a motion Thursday saying that prosecutors either did not turn over evidence or else lied about conducting a full investigation into Gray’s death in police custody.
Anderson, a former public defender in Baltimore, said the defense could be trying to “sow doubt about the state’s case in the court of public opinion,” The Sun wrote. Anderson said such a strategy was “worthwhile” to “diminish the perceived strength of the prosecution’s body of evidence.”
Jaros said defense attorneys made a strong case that the work done by prosecutors is not privileged and must be turned over. He said the question before the judge who will rule on the motion is not whether the state’s investigation happened, but “at what point the prosecutors stopped ‘acting like police officers’ and started crafting their case against the officers.”
Anderson and Jaros were also quoted in The Sun earlier in the week, in a story about publicity surrounding the Freddie Gray case. Defense attorneys have been seeking a change of venue for the case, saying a “media frenzy” has tainted the jury pool in the city. The defense also has urged that Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby be removed for “trying to fan the flames of public opinion,” The Sun wrote.
Said Anderson: “This is a whole lot of case, so you have to work hard with the world watching, with your client watching, with the public watching. A case like this tests the strength of the process, and the process should be tested by a case of this size and importance, to see how it does.”
Jaros discussed arguments for a venue change. “This media question, which goes to the venue question, touches on some really deep issues both about criminal law and government accountability and the right of a community to take part in the justice process,” he said. “We’re weighing the community’s really fundamental and constitutional right to be jurors in cases in their community against due process concerns on the part of the defendants.”