Rice Acquitted as Predicted - Mosby Disbarment More Likely

WASHINGTON - July 18, 2016 - PRLog -- Rice Acquitted as Predicted - Mosby Disbarment More Likely
She and Other Prosecutors Can't Still Reasonably Believe They Can Convict

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 18, 2016):  The acquittal of Lt. Brian Rice on all charges in connection with the death of Freddie Gray - as predicted by public interest law professor John Banzhaf - greatly increases the chances that Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby will be disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct, says Banzhaf, who has filed one of the two formal disbarment complaints pending against her.

        Each case against a Baltimore police officer which she brings to trial, especially after the earlier two complete acquittals, much more seriously jeopardizes her career as a lawyer, and makes it even more likely that she will suffer the same fate as Mike Nifong who likewise continued to prosecute Duke student lacrosse players even after it was clear that there wasn't sufficient evidence to sustain a rape conviction.

        Former Durham County, NC, district attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred for very similar prosecutorial misconduct, including likewise failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense, says Banzhaf, who notes that Nifong, like Mosby, was also sued by those who were prosecuted.

        Banzhaf played a role in bringing down Nifong; his bar complaint filed against then-Congressman Barney Frank helped lead to his censure by the House; his similar complaint against then-Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro helped to discredit her in the 1984 presidential election; and a law suit he orchestrated forced former vice president Spiro T. Agnew to return the money he had taken in bribes.

        Mosby, like Nifong, already faces civil law suits brought by at least five officers.  It appears that the officers are about to supplement and strengthen their law suits by adding stronger civil claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process.  They are also expected to add to the existing law suits, or bring new law suits, based upon Judge Barry William's recent finding that the prosecutors violated the officers' constitutional rights by not turning over to the defense certain exculpatory information in their possession.

        The suits against Nifong eventually forced him into bankruptcy, and led to his arrest.

        Rule 3.8(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct [RPC] for attorneys requires that a prosecutor refrain from prosecuting a charge unless it is supported by probable cause, while national standards establish that a prosecution should only proceed if there is sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction.

        Many attorneys in private practice and not involved with the police prosecutions, as well as many Maryland law professors, opined at the time that there was insufficient evidence to support all - or at least many - of the criminal charges which were brought originally against the six Baltimore police officers.

        It also appeared then from the timing that there may have been a rush to judgment, and that Mosby's extensive public remarks - which may have independently violated RPC 3.6(b) and 3.8(f) - arguably also indicated that the charges against the six officers were brought not because they were warranted by the weight of the evidence, but rather to quell unruly crowds and try to prevent further street violence.

        Regardless of the strength of the cases at the time they were announced - i.e., whether fair prosecutors could then reasonably believe there was sufficient evidence to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt - any such belief has been very substantially weakened if not destroyed by the recent decisions finding that there was insufficient evidence to support any of the many charges, says Banzhaf.

        "The careful and impartial weighting by a respected trial judge of all of the evidence which was presented at the trials, and finding it grossly insufficient to convict on any charge, is far more important than the prior conjecture of so-called experts made months earlier largely on the basis of the words of the criminal complaints, and conjecture about what the evidence might be," says Banzhaf.

       A preliminary review of the Judge's verdict suggests that the judge simply reached the same legal and factual conclusions which he had articulated in his earlier decisions. says Banzhaf.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW, Wash, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhaf@law.gwu.edu  @profbanzhaf