Baltimore Prosecutor Mosby Charged With Lying and Violation of Election Law

Mosby's Disbarment Even More Likely Now After Judge's Ruling Permitting Discovery
 
 
Mosby Accused of Additional Ethical Violations
Mosby Accused of Additional Ethical Violations
WASHINGTON - Jan. 18, 2017 - PRLog -- A complaint which may lead to her disbarment has been filed against Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby charging her with violation of the state's election law, tampering with evidence of that violation, misrepresenting the truth with "actual malice," and that she "caused false and misleading evidence [to be provided] to the grand jury" investigating the death of Freddie Gray, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

        In the complaint just filed with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Mosby is charged first with violating Maryland election law which prohibits the use "electronic communication devices," specifically cameras and cellular telephones, in polling places.  It notes that she posted a picture on the Internet of her ballot and of one of her daughters, apparently taken with one of the prohibited devices in a Maryland polling place.

        The complaint notes that this is not a mere technical nor minor violation of law because the Maryland State Prosecutor's Office has said it takes violations of the state's election laws seriously.  The complaint also pointed out the difficulty of enforcing election and other laws if the prosecutors themselves openly violated such laws with no consequences.

        As a separate element, it is alleged that Mosby tampered with the evidence by removing the picture - the clear evidence of her violation - from the Internet, shortly after the Baltimore Sun and other media sources pointed out that the posting showed that she had blatantly violated Maryland election law.

        The complaint also includes numerous allegations of wrongdoing contained in the lengthy opinion by a federal judge upholding the validity of a civil complaint filed by several police officers against Mosby for malicious prosecution, defamation, and invasion of privacy.  The complaint provides:

        "Since these [rulings] were all made by an impartial federal judge after Respondent had a reasonable opportunity in an appropriate proceeding to contest them, it is respectfully suggested that Bar Counsel must consider them as very serious, and necessarily requiring full investigation.  They are obviously highly reliable, and perhaps should even be considered prima facie correct and accurate, and in any event must be treated so as a part of this complaint."

        As one example, the judicial opinion states that "Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that, in the press conference, Mosby made statements to third parties, i.e., the public. Some of Mosby's statements at the press conference are at least plausibly, if not obviously, defamatory" - and thus untrue.

        Moreover, the federal judge found that these statement were made by Mosby in her official capacity as prosecutor, and evidence that they were made with "actual malice."

        As examples of statements which the court found to be "plausibly if not obviously defamatory," the complaint cites the following:

* "the knife [found on Gray] was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law,"
* "Lt. Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray's arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray."
* "Gray exhibited an obvious and recognized need for medical assistance."
*  that officers White and Porter observed "Mr. Gray unresponsive on the floor of the wagon."
*  that "when [Gray] did not respond, [Officer White] did nothing further despite the fact that she was advised that he needed a medic."
* Officer White "made no effort to look, assess or determine [Gray's] condition."

        The same court opinion, which was incorporated into the complaint, also spoke to the very serious allegation that Respondent caused false and misleading evidence to be presented to the grand jury - an obvious ethical violation which, by itself, would require immediate disbarment since any repetition in her current office could similarly jeopardize the constitutional rights of additional defendants.

        As the court ruled, "plaintiffs allege that Mosby caused false and misleading evidence to be presented to the grand jury that indicted them. For example, she required a grand jury witness to testify pursuant to a 'script' that included false and misleading statements and not to answer pertinent questions."

        Finally, the complaint notes that pre-trial discovery is about to begin in the civil proceeding, and that plaintiffs' attorneys - armed with the legal power to require Mosby and her associates to answer questions under oath, to provide copies of previously secret documents including emails, etc. - "is likely to uncover further and perhaps even stronger evidence of the ethical violations already set forth by Complainant, and may perhaps also about additional violations not previously raised, for two reasons."

        "First, it appears that the judge's ruling provides attorneys for the police officers with discovery powers which - if they do not in fact exceed - may at the very least complement the discovery vehicles open to Bar Counsel, and open these door with fewer impediments and conditions. Second, as the old adage reminds us, 'never underestimate the tenacity of an attorney on a contingency fee.'"

        Prof. Banzhaf played a role in bringing down former Durham County, NC, district attorney Mike Nifong over his role in the infamous Duke lacrosse rape cases; his disbarment complaint filed against then-Congressman Barney Frank helped lead to Frank's 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.

        Banzhaf subsequently filed a second complaint against Mosby adding several different counts of deliberately lying to the public about why the cases against the remaining officers were dropped.


http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhafATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf

Contact
GW LAW
***@gwu.edu
End
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf News
Trending
Most Viewed
Daily News



Like PRLog?
9K2K1K
Click to Share