‘STATE OF MARYLAND + INTHE © pistricr court + FOR * BALTIMORE CITY -CABSAR GOODSON + CASENO, 602294452. GARRETT MILLER * CASE. 380294449 EDWARD NERO. * — CASENO. 4B02294450 WILLIAM PORTER * CASENO, 0802294453 BRIAN RICE * CASENO, 2802294448 ALICA WHITE + CASENO, sBo2294451 Defendants . * Jone momioy To pisMiss AND INTHE ALTERNATIVE FOR RECUSALOF ‘BALTIMORE CITY STATI’S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendants, Caesar Goodson, Garrett Miller, Edward Nero, William Porter, Brian Scott Rice and Alicia White, by respective undersigned counsel, hereby file this Joint Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, for Recusal of the Baltimore City State's Attomey's Office in the prosecution ofeach of their respective cases and in support thereof states: INTRODUCTION ‘On May 1, 2015, in the fave of the threat of continued rots, protests, a city curfew, and civil unrest, the State's Attomey for Baltimore City, Mrs. Marilyn Mosby publicly and with inciting rhetoric announced ata press conference that she had fled criminal charges against Casear Goodson, Garrett Mille, Edyard Nero, William Porter, Brian Scott Rice and Alicia White', all "ide taste il charges, difeeat “Bron Rice and a iret “Alicia Whit,” who never ha any interaction with Me: Gray and ae not enforcement ofc, were msakenly charge wit crimes cling manslghey, 1enployees wih the Baltimore City Police Department. These charges included second degree ‘murder, manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office, and fas imprisonment? The charges were based upon events which occurred on April 12,2015. In unprecedented det, the State's Attorney read word for word the Statement of Probable Cause tothe public, Near the conclusion of her ‘ress conference, Mrs, Mosby herself directed a “message” to the world: “To the people of Baltimore andthe demonstrators across America, heard your cll for ‘no justice no peace’ Your peace is sincerely needed as I work o deliver justice onbebalfof his young man... [To the youth ‘ofthe city. wil sek justice on your behalf. This isa moment. This is your moment. Let's insure ‘we have peaceful and productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for _Eeneatons to come. You're atthe forefront ofthis cause and as young people, our time is now. ‘This was not the first nor only statement revealing the State's Attomey’s political and personal motivation, betraying the United States Constitution, the Maryland Declaration of Rights and the ‘Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility? ‘The 14 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens protection from overzealous prosecution, stating in relevant pat, “No sate shall. deprive any person of life 1ibety, of property, without due process of law." The Maryland Declaration of Rights, Ar. 24 also states clearly, “{tJhat no man ought to be taken or imprisoned or disseized of his freehold, ‘sau false ares, end miscondot in office, Bete Defendant Brian Scott Rice ad Ais White eed ‘homie in be arent wares fr hr Bren Wesley Rice andthe focorect Mis. Alia White were ntact The enor ia the delifation was om th charging documents prepared byte ShenifPs Department end adopted by the State's Atom in er press coneeoce. This war nt alec enor, bt rate nought eor by those who rere responuible for elarglng the Defendants "Garett Miler nd Edwaed Nero were chard with second degree asa, fle imprisons and misconduct in office. Wiliam Pre and Alita Who wer both charged with manslaughter, secon depee asa nd ‘maconduct in fee. Brinn Scot Rie was charged wih manelaughter, second degre san misconduct i office, td fae imprisonment. Case Goodson is charged wih second degre depraved Hert murder, anslaaghir, Second degre xs, and misconduct in office 5S, "Tbe people of Baiore City elecied me asthe State's Atomey to apy justice fit and eau to ola! epeat offenders and individuals who go and wp the authority a pie ocr" Inerviw with Don emoa, CNN (May 1, 2015).liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or, in any manner, destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the Law ofthe land.” This constitutional ‘overlay has been influential in developing further guidelines and rules of professional conduct for prosecutors and other atforneys. The Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct outline the manner bby which sttomays must porport themselves in the egal arena. Specifically there are special rules regarding the manner by which prosecutors must conduct themselves and rules governing conflicts coftnterest! In Maryland, we hold prosecutors to a higher standard fora reason ~an individual's ‘constitutional sights hang inthe balance and the prosecutor must uphold those rights, even in the face of political and personal pressures, For the reasons discussed below, each ofthese principles outlined above have been egregiously violstod by the State's Attomey for Baltimore City Rarely in the history of any criminal ease has a prosecutor so directly maintained so many conflicts of interest, Rarer still are instances where such clear conflicts exists and a prosecutor steadfastly refuses to recuse him or herself’ These conflicts include the following: (1) the seizing ‘of politcal and personal gain by Mrs. Mosby and her husband; (2) personal relationships with individuals who will be witnesses a trial; (3) the role of her office asthe “investigators” for this case; (4) the pending civil claim against Mrs. Mosby and her office; and (5) the financial interest of the attorney for the family of Freddie Gray, a close fiend, financial supporter and attorney for Mas. Mosby. ‘There is no better evidence demonstrating these conflicts than the charging documents themselves. At best, the charges levied agninst these officers are extraordinary prosecutorial overreaching. At worst, they are something far more nefarious. 4 See, e: MD. B. C15 J. AND ATTYS Rule 16812, MRPC 1.7,36,3.8 Se In esponso ta question aso her response ta reqest at se ecess hal, Mis. Mosby responded, ar” Tnerview with Doa Lemon, CNN (Mey 1, 2015. 3‘The conflicts presented by the State's Attomey's Office are doep, are real, and are imminent. ‘This motion is being filed at this junction because the Defendants have grave concems about the charging decisions which will be made inthe near future and thir ability to receive due process ofthe law. Before ths case proceeds further, the Defendants would respectfully request this Honorable Court to recuse the State's Attomey and either dismiss the case, such that an independent prosecutor, appointed by the court can make any further charging decisions, or appoint an independent prosecutor to decide how the case should proceed. FACTS ‘The salient facts of this Motion will be set forth in further detail inthe Argument section ofthis Motion, However, a brief overview of the facts surrounding this incident is necessary to set the appropriste stage. (On May 1, 2015, a Major from the Baltimore City Sheriff's Department signed, underoath, an Applicaton for Statement of Charges against each of the above-referenced individuals. The charges ranged from second degree murder to a myriad of misdemeanor offenses, The charges all, relate to the alleged apprehension of Freddie Gray on April 12,2015. Itis apparently the position of the State's Attomey’s Ofice thatthe original investigating officers lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Gray, asthe knife for which he was arested was “lawful under Maryland law.” (See “Attached Exhibit 1, Statement of Probable Cause against Garrett Miller; itis believed that this Statement is identical for each of the Defendants). No allegation of force was alleged in the ‘charging documents. tis not the position or averment of the State that any police officer beat Mr. Gray, or used excessive force upon him. Rather, itis simply the postion of the State's Attorney ‘thatthe original arest was unlawful, asthe knife was “lawful under Maryland law” (emphasisadded) and thatthe ensuing events ({.e, not seat belting Mr. Gray and not providing him with ‘medical assistance) flowed from the unlawful acest, OF significance to this Motion, there ‘was one individual inthe back ofthe van with Mr, Gray dving a portion ofthe events, Donta Alten, Unfortunately forthe Stale Mr. Gray wasnt erected and charged with violating Maryland law. Rather, Officer Garrett Mille rested and charged Mr. Gray with violating Section 19.59.22 of the Baltimore City Code. It should be noted that the City Code is far broader in its prohibitions than Maryland law. This pivotal distinction was omited from the Statement of Charges sworn out by the Sherf’s Department. This distinction was similarly ited from the Statement of Probable Cause rea to the cameras by Mrs, Mosby. Iin fc, the aie was unlawful or one was reasonable in abedit that it was, the foundation ofthe Sates argument collapses. If the knife was actully legit stands to reason thatthe very people who charged these Ofiers would then be guily of false imprisonment of each ofthe OfficerDefendant, by vite ofthe logic employed inthe Site's charging decisions. It should be noted that counsel for Defendants Miller and Nero (the two officers with pending District Court tril dates) have requested to see the actual knife on multiple occasions. Each ofthese requests have been denied. (On May 7, 2015, a Notice of Tort Clsim was filed with the Mayor and City Counsel of Baltimore and the tate of Maryland, placing the City and Staten notice that the above-referenced officers intend fo purse «claim against Mrs. Mosby and those responsible fr charging his ase 1s the charging documents contain errors and omissions that resulted in the unlawful arest and ‘Ste blde fives (8) Poseson or alee, probit. I sal be unlawful fr any person Sl cay, of possess ay knife wih a astm pring ooter device fr opening andlor lowing the blade, commonly kno [es snitch bade kif (0) Any peron vesting th provisions of thir ection sal upon convistion href, be Fined ot mre than $500 or be imprisoned for not more thn I yea, or bo nh iereton othe cour” BALTIMORE, MD, CODE a 19, 5.27; Se Atached Exhibit 2, Satemet of Chars for Fede Gry. 5Aetention ofall six of the offices. (See Attached Exhibit 3, Tort Claim & Public Information Act Request) ‘Mrs. Mosby publically contends that the charges were levied against these Police Officers after a thorough and independent investigation conducted by her offive. It is the position ofthe Defendants thatthe charges against them are baseless and that there are material false statements and omissions contained in the Statement of Charges. Mrs. Mosby's office performed the investigation, and as such, the employees and agents of her office have become the central witnesses to this case ‘As discussed in detail below, the chief prosecutor ofthis ease isin a relationship with a local television news reporter, That reported conducted an “exclusive” interview with Donta Allen ‘on May 1, 2015. The story that Mr, Allen told this reporter is key to the defense ofthis case and is substantively different in certain respects ffom the story that he told the original police investigators, a5 detailed in a search warrant executed earlier in the iavestigation of this matter. ‘As such, the reporter is also a witness to this case. ‘As further discussed below, Mrs, Mosby's husband is a councilman forthe very district where these events occurred; her inciting rhetoric in this case reveal clear extra-prosecutorial motivations and ambitions. Finally, Mrs. Mosby's personal and professional relationships with the Gray family attomey, William Murphy, cast a shadow over the prosecution and all charging decisions. As discussed in detail below, Mr. Murphy is not only a mentor and financial supporter of Mrs. Mosby, Dut, also her attorney. It should be noted that yesterday, in a separate and unrelated matter to this one, a similar Motion to Recuse Mrs. Mosby ftom Prosecution was filed on the grounds that her relationship‘with William Murphy unfily biased the outoome and status ofthat case. I was alleged in thet “Motion tht two Defendants both also police offices) were charged with identical erininal charges based on identical facts It was alleged that onthe day Mrs. Mosby was swom into office, she entered a nolle prosequ (dismissal) agunst Mr. Murphy's client. A eopy ofthat Motion is altace as ie Each of these conflicts, separately and individually, as well asthe statements made by Mrs. ‘Mosby tothe publi in her capacity as the State's Attorney for Baltimore City, demand recusal, ARGUMENT [A State's Attorney's “decision to prosecute, just lke the methods [s}he employs to procure ‘conviction, must be in accord with the fair and impartial administration of justice, untainted by ‘any contatninating influence.” Sinclair v. State, 278 Md. 243, 260 (Ma. 1976). The Sinclair court further stated, “if « prosecutor has, or would clearly appear to a reasonable person having ‘knowledge of the pertinent facts to have, any pecuniary interest or a significant personal interest ina civil matter which may impair [her] obligation ina criminal matter to act impartially toward both the State and the accused, then [she i, on the basis ofthis State's public policy, disqualified {rom initiating or participating inthe prosecution of that criminal cause.” 1d at 254 “The Sinclair Court went onto hold thatthe following reasoning was apt ‘The principle long ago was recognized that no man can adequately, ‘or properly serve two masters, and this is the chief subject matter of Canon 6 [(now Canon 5) ofthe Canons of Professional Ethics. tis inconsistent with the public interest and welfare for any law ‘enforcement officer directly or indirectly to represent any person. involved in a criminal matter, except the State, or receive any personal profit or gnin as the result of the arrest, conviction ot acquital of one charged with the infraction of the Jaw or in ‘connection with the filing of any such charge. . . . The books are replete with cases indicating that any appearance of evil in ‘connection with the administration of public office should and must,be avoided; and particularly is this tre of those offices involved in the enforcement ofthe aw. ‘To permit a prosecuting attomey to have an interest of any nature whatsoever in any civil proceedings, direcly or indirectly, and Which proceedings involve similar facts or the same subject matter 1a criminal prosecution then pending or thereat initiated, can ‘only give rise to suspicion concerning and relating to the motives of the prosecuting attomey involved, and bring such office into disrepute with the public. Id, at 255-256 citing State v, Detroit Motors, 62 N.J. Super. 386, 163 A. 24.227, 229-31 (L. Div. 1960), Maryland has also statutorily addressed the inherent need for prosecutors to be held to higher standards, Section (a) of Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities ofa Prosecutor, indicates that ‘prosecutor ina criminal case shall “refrain from prosecuting a charge thatthe prosecutor knows isnot supported by probable cause.” Further, section (c) states in relevant part thatthe prosecutor shall “refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantia likelihood of heightening public condemnation ofthe accused.” These special responsibilities of a prosecutor ae in addition to Rule 3.6, which applics to all atorneys in the context of trial publicity, Section (@) of Rule 3.6 states, {a} lawyer who is participating or has participated in the ‘investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement thatthe lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have & substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding inthe mater Both the spirit and law of Sinclair as well as the statutory rules outlined above have been egregiously violated by the Baltimore City State’s Attomey’s Office, As such, this Honorable Court showld grant this Joint Motion to Dismiss and, in the Altemative, for Recusal of theBaltimore City State's Attomey’s Office in the prosecution of each ofthe Defendants’ respective 1. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARILYN MOSBY AND NICK MOSBY CAUSES AN UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT. Standard 3-1.3(0 ofthe ABA General Standards forthe Prosection Function identify the basis forthe Defendants assertion that Mrs. Marilyn Mosby/s relationship to Mr. Nick Mosby, and the respective roles thatthe payin the pottical community of Baltimore City, establishes a basis for Mrs, Mosby (and the Office of the States Attomey for Baltimore City) to be disqualified fom prosecuting the cases ofthe above-referenced defendants, officers ofthe Baltimore City Police Department Standard 3-1,3 (0) Conflicts of Interests states: “A prosecutor should not permit her professional judgment or obligations be affected by his or her own politcal, financial busines, property or personal interests,” “Marilyn Mosby, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, is married to Nick Mosby, Councilman for the 7 District of the Baltimore City Council. Mr. Mosby's distict includes many of the neighborhoods effected by the civil unrest and rioting that occured inthe City of Baltimore after the death of Freddie Gray. A review of the Baltimore City Council Webpage, and specifically, a review ofthe 7 District Communities’ chat are geographically locsted within the confines ofthe ‘Council Distt, discloses tat the Committees and Associations tht are in that District include: Mondawnin Merchants Association Mondawmin Neighborhood Improvement Association, Inc Nehemiah Homeowner's Association of Sandtown-Winchester Pena-North Nehemiah Homeowners’ Association Penn-North Revitalization Corporation Pennsylvania Avenue Merchants Association * See Attached Exhibit 5, Map of the Cy of Baltinore 7 Couns Distt and a lisig ofthe DistPennsylvania Avenve Redevelopment Collaborative Sandtown- Habitat Homeowners' Association Sandiown-Winchester Community Building in Partnership Sandtown-Winchester Improvement Association ‘Undersigned counsel believes that this Court can take judicial notice ofthe fact that the neighbochoods set forth above were harshly impacted and considered "Ground Zero" for the ‘violent turbulence that took place after the death of Freddie Gray. The images of these communities ere projected in every local and national media form and medium that covered the violence that emptied in Baltimore City. All communities that are within te confines ofthe 7 District are home to the constituents of Mr, Mosby, He clearly had a professional and personal interest in the need to climinate the rioting and destruction ofthe property in his Council District. Likewise his wite, Marilyn Mosby, bad a professional and personal interest in accommodating the needs of her husband - his politcal foture directly affects her personal, professional end political interests “The need to quell the raging infemo of human rage and revulsion within the confines of the 7 District was emergent. Failure to put an end tothe destruction of property and the ongoing violence would lead to greater degradation of a community that had existing systemic problems ‘within the community. Me, Mashy’s relationship with the State's Attomey for Baltimore City placed him in a unique position to influence the decision of an elected official who was susceptible to be influenced in choosing to file criminal charges against the defendants in this matter, It is inconceivable that Mis. Mosby was not influenced by the chellenges presented to her husband as ‘ community leader of neighborhoods that were literally "up in tlames.” “The preservation of prosecutorial impartiality is perhaps most important during the charging process, the phase of a criminal proceeding when the prosecutor's discretion is most apparent. The theme which runs throughout the criminal procedure process in this country, and in this State, is that all persons should be protected from having to defend against frivolous 0prosecutions and that one major safeguard against such prosecutions isthe function ofthe State's ‘Attomey in sereening criminal cases prior to instituting prosecution, Surely, an essential aspect of this safeguard must be the prosecutors freedom from any personal or emotional involvement in a controversy which might bias her objective exercise of judgment. Chants of "no justice, no peace, no racist police” were heard throughout the stoct of Baltimore before (and aftcr) Mrs. Mosby elected to hastily announce that she determined that it ‘was appropriate to charge the above-referenced defendants with criminal acts Soon afer a Major ofthe Baltimore City Sheifs Office appeared befor a District Court ‘of Maryland Commissioner secking the issuance of arest warrants fr the six officers who are the defendans in this matter, Mis. Mosby Reld a press conference. AL this press conference Mis “Mosby proclaimed that she brought cxsninal charges against the officers to show not only the people of Baltimore, but als “the demonstrators across America that "heard your call fr ‘no justice, no peace" and proceeded to move forward with the politically motivated prosecution of the six officers who have served the City of Baltimore as proud polie officers. Asa result, these offices son found themselves offered upto the masses by Mas. Mosby to quel! the uprising that ‘caused the most harm tothe District where her husband is the City Council representative. The National Distict Attomeys Association National Prosecution Standards offers ‘uidance to prosecutors inthe execution oftheir dues. In he iatrodution othe Standard, tis sated tha, “These standards are intended tobe an aspirational guide to professional conduct in the perforntance of profesional function. Unless otherwise indicated, they are intended to apply to the chief prosecutor (by whatever tile) in any office, as well as to deputy and assistant prosecutors.” n‘Standard 1-3.3(@) appears to be somewhat similar tothe ABA Standard, but offers stronger Tanguage in encouraging a prosecutor to recuse himself or herself from involvement in @ matter that may have the appearance of conflict of interest. Specifically, the Standard states, “The prosecutor should excuse himself or hersef from any investigation, prosecution, or other matter where personal interests of the prosecutor would cause a fair-minded, objective observer to conclude thatthe prosecutors neutrality, judgment or ability to administer the law in an objective ‘manner may be compromised.” ‘The language used by the National Association of District Attomeys in offering guidance o prosecutors in regard to determining when it is appropriste to remove oneself from the prosecutor function as it relates to an investigation or prosecution that may be influenced by & personal matter is clear, and direct. Any fair-minded, objective observer would conclude that Ms. “Mosby's neutrality, judgment and ability to administer the law in an objective manner was, and is, ‘compromised by her relationship to Nick Mosby, and his position as a. District Councilman. ‘Ms. Mosby must recognize this conflict, and make the ethically appropriate decision in regard to the conflict caused by her mariage to 7 Distiet Councilman Nick Mosby. She must remove herself and her office ffom the prosecution of this matter. U1, _ THE BALTIMORE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHOULD BE RECUSED BECAUSE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN A KEY PROSECUTOR IN THEIR OFFICE AND AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL BE A WITNESS AT TRIAL. Counsel for Defendants demand that Mrs. Mosby recuse herselt and her Office trom the above-captioned cases in light ofthe inherent and overly prejudicial conflict raised by the lead prosecutor's relationship toa potentially vital witness who is also a key member of the local media. Jan Bledsoe, Esq,, Deputy State’s Attomey and lead prosecutor forthe State, is in a relationship 2‘with Jayne Mille, an investigative reporter for WBAL-TV. This relationship was confirmed by ‘Tayne Miller tothe Baltimore Sun, as recently as Friday, May 1, 2015, (On April 27, 2015, a search warrant was executed on the home of Officer Caeser Goodson. According to the affidavit attached the search warrant, Donta Allen, the only other person inthe ‘back of the van with Mr. Gray during the ide, indicated Ww Inmicide detectives on the day of Mr Gray’s arest that, in his opinion, “Mr. Gray was trying to hurt himself” (See Attached Exhibit 6, Search Warrant), (On April 29, 2015 the Washington Post reported that a second passenger was in the van “with Freddie Gray and according toa source the passenger heard Gray “banging against the walls” of the van and described what he believed was Gray “intentionally eying to injure himself.” The Post article referenced the Search Warrant but omitted Mr. Allen's name, citing eoncems over his safety? ‘On April 30, 2015, Jayne Miller of WBAL presented an exclusive interview with the second passenger, Donta Allen. When interviewed by Jayne Miller of WBAL, the individual who vas in the van with Mr. Gray somewhat retracted his earlier statement. He now stated that he heard “Tight banging” and that he “never ever said to police that [Gray] was hurting himselE.” Dring this interview with Ms, Mille, Allen described a barier which divided the rea ofthe van {nto two sections and as such, Allen stated that not only did he not see Gray, or realize there was ‘a second passenger, but that “there's no place where a man can hurt himself in there.” ‘After Jayne Miller's interview with Donta Allen, itbecame clear that Mr. Allen's story had changed. Accordingly, Ms. Miller necessarily becomes either a substantive witness or an After M.A interview with ayn Miler, the Washington Post digo ono rele is ame, 2impeachment relative tothe veracity and detsi of Mr, Allen's story. Theis simply no way around this confit Itis unclear how Jayne Miller of WBAL leamed the identity ofthe otherwise anonymous passenger. However, the fat remains that Ms. Miller interviewed Mr. Allen prior to Ms. Mosby and Ms, Bledsoe fing xi orto the results ofthe police al Larges pis the defendants and investigation being fumed over to the Stie's Atomey's Office, That interview, therefore, presumably wes considered inthe decision by the State's Attorcy's Office to ave charges filed. ‘The conflict is traly problematic in that Mr, Allen presented a difeeit version of events that is more beneficial to the State's theory ofthe case in speaking with Ms. Miller. Thus, Defendants ‘would have an opportunity to examine Ms, Miller as to the nature of her conversations with Mr. ‘Alten prior to his interview, any statements he sid while not being recorded, and any statements he made as to why he had varying accounts of key testimony in the ease. Ms. Miller may also need to testify sto the authenticity ofthe recording of Mr, Allen. Ms, Miller and er notes eve already been requested and subpoenaed by Defense counsel In further recognition ofthe inherent confit, on May 5, 2015, Jayne Miller stated, “I'm cally going tobe covering less ofthe Freddie Gray case, because Ihave a personal connection toone ofthe prosecutors” Couns! for Defendants avers that his confit has erated the ned for the parties involved thus far to recuse themselves. As others, inch 1 Jayne Miller herself have ecopnized tis confit of interests and recused herself, Mis. Mosby should els recognize this undisputed conflict and recuse herself from any further prosecution i the above-captioned eases. “This conflict seal and undeniably intertwined withthe prosecution and charging decisions ofthis MI, THE BALTIMORE CITY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHOULD BE RECUSED BECAUSE OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE'S “INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, DISREGARDING THE BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION. ‘The conflicts with Mrs. Mosby's office extend well beyond the conflict of her chief prosecutor and a witness. The conflicts involve the entirety of he investigation andthe necessity of calling all “investigators” as witnesses, Mes, Mosby has publicly stated that the Baltimore Slate's Atlomey’s Office has conducted its own independent investigation, under her supervision, apart from the Baltimore City Police Department investigation. Specifically, she has stated in her ‘press conference held on May 1, 2015, “1 thought it was very important to have an independent analysis as to what took place and transpired from the very beginning. We are independent agencies from the police department, We've been ‘working independently. And I can tell you that we put all of our resources to make sue that we were pursuing and leading where the facts took usin this case, which was to pursue justice. Ican tell you that from day one, we independently investigated. We're not just relying solely upon what we were given ftom the police department, period.” In an interview following the press conference, Mrs. Mosby publicly addressed the investigation further stating, “can tell you, a8 I stated, we had a number of investigators. You ‘ean see it's been an allchands-on approach from the very beginning. So, I sent my investigators out tothe scene. We have a ‘umber of them who are right here... So, yes, we have leveraged the police investigation, but at no point did we compromise our own independent investigation into this case.” (emphasis added) ‘Mrs, Mosby's statements are telling in that she repeatedly refers to and implies thatthe investigators essigned by the Baltimore State's Attomey’s office are under her control. She refers to them possessively because they are her subordinates and subject to her supervision and ‘management. 1s‘The fact that these investigators sre controlled by Mrs, Mosby creates a clear and undeniable conflict of interest. These investigators will necessarily be called to testify as result ofthe defendants right to attack the investigation conducted by the Baltimore State's Attomey's Office. As Mrs. Mosby is ina supervisory role, these investigator witnesses ae at her mercy in ‘erns oF Ur weil enploynca slaus. As Lely, hese witnesses cannot possibly be expected to tetity without unde influence. They undoubtedly know that thei testimony may be central to the til strategy and clear noodof their employer to biain a convietionof the defendant. As such, their testimony willbe unduly influenced by a desire to maintain employment withthe Baltimore City State's Atomey’s Office. ‘When the State's Atlomey assumes the role ofthe investigator, her office becomes the witness, In order to appropriately defend this case, the defense will be required to attack the investigation, as it was erroneous, egregious, and deeply flawed. This attack will necessarily require subpoenaing and calling as witnesses many of Mrs. Mosby's employees. Itcannot be ssid that this does not presenta confit of interest with her office. This is precisely the reason for separation of the police department and State's Attomey's Office. Here, the State's Attomey Office ha erated an indisputable conflict, simultancously taking on therole of police, prosecutor, and witness IV. THE BALTIMORE CITY STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHOULD BE RECUSED BECAUSE STATE'S ATTORNEY MOSBY HAS A DIRECT FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE As (On May 7, 2015, a Tort jms Notice was served upon both the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland alleging that false and misleading statements and omissions inthe Statement of ce offices Probable Cause resulted in the unlawful arrest and detention of each of the six po involved inthis mater. It was alleged in the Tort Claims Notice that, amongst various other issues, 16the legality ofthe knife and the law under which Mr. Gray was charged, were falsely detailed in the Statement of Probable Cause. As a result the Tort Claim’s Notice states that Mrs. Mosby and her office “do not now have any legally justifiable reason to believe thatthe above-referenced individuals had committed the crimes for which they re charged” (See Attached Exhibit 3, Tort (Claims Notice). The Tort Claims Notice yoes on to aver Ut if it ft the hie at issue was illegal (as indicated by Officer Miller in his charging document of Mr. Gray), then not only is there an absolute defense t these criminal cases, bu, there is claim for false imprisonment, arrest and malicious prosecution of the six police officers, resting squarely on the door step ofthe State’s Attomey's Office. As discussed below, because of the State's Attomey Office's investigatory role in this matter, they have forfeited immunity from ivi suit. “Moreover, The Baltimore Cty State's Attorney's reckless, careless and inaccurate public stalements are not protected by absolute immunity and have thus exposed her to civil liability and potential discipline by the Attomey Grievance Commission of Maryland, creating an impermissible personal bias and necessitating the appointment of an independent prosecutor. Despite clear guidance from the Court of Appeals discouraging public statements by a prosecutor Which may diminish a defendants right to an impartial jury and fair trial, Mrs. Mosby's inaccurate statements and inflammatory hyperbole at her press conference potentially subject her to sanction fiom the Attomey Grievance Commission and civil liability. See, eg, Attorney Grievance ‘Commission of Maryland v. Gansler,377 Mi, 646 (2003). Choosing to ignore long established Supreme Court Case law regarding the diminished immunity of a prosecutor who acts as an investigator and gives extrajudicial statements, Mrs. Mosby has subjected herself to civil suit by the officers she secks to prosecute. ‘The threat of ”‘pecuniary and professional sanction have stripped Mrs. Mosby of the impartiality necessary to fairly make prosecutorial decisions moving forward ‘The United States Supreme Court in Buckley », Fitesimmons gives clear direction that a prosecutor enjoys “absolute immunity for the initiation and pursuit of « criminal prosecution, ling pesentation of tho tte’ case a il” Ducky v. Fssinmons, 09 US, 259, 270 (1993). This absolute immunity includes “the professional evaluation ofthe evidence assembled by the police and appropriate preparation forts presentation at tial..” However, Mrs. Mosby has gone to great lengths to stress he decision to levy charges was based on her offices “independent investigation,” and not reliant on the Baltimore Police fon. Furthermore, Mrs. Mosby declared at her press conference that her office performed the role ofan “independent investigntion.” The Cour in Buckley, relying on its decision in Imblerv, Pachonan, 424 U.S. 409,432 (1916), retrates that prosecutor who act as an investigator and not as an advocate doesnot enjoy absolute immunity Furthermore the comments have violated Maryland's Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.6 and 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor) which require attomeys to reffain from making extrajudicial statements that have “a substantial likelihood of maesially prejudicng an adjudicate proceeding” and probit a prosecutor fom filing charge not supported by probable cause, Mrs, Mosby's public assertions at her press conference fly in the face of the Court of [Appeals stem warning to prosecutors that “a prosecutors, in particular should be even more ‘cutious to avoid making potentially prejudicial extrajudicial statements.” Gansler at 698. ‘THE BALTIMORE STATE'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHOULD BE RECUSED BECAUSE OF THE COMPELLING INTERESTS OF THE ATTORNEY FOR THE FAMILY OF FREDDIE GRAY, A CLOSE FRIEND, FINANCIAL SUPPORTER AND ATTORNEY FOR MRS. MOSBY. 8tis the position ofthe undersigned counsel that Mrs. Mosby, andthe Office of the State’s ‘Attorney for Baltimore City, be recused from further prosocution ofthe named Defendants in the ahove cited case numbers. There is an overwhelming conflict of interest that has arisen, and continues, in the State's Attorney's representation of the City of Baltimore. Mrs. Mosby has a guile personal wel profesional ielaioahip with Wilians H. “Dilly” Murphy the founding partner of Murphy, Faleon & Murphy. This ongoing relationship has created a confit for which the only remedy isthe reeusal of Ms. Mosby and the Baltimore State's Attomey’s Office, Mr. Murphy is the Gray family atomey and presents himself as their confidant nd spokesperson, He has repeatedly appeared on television, both locally and nationally, on behalf of the Gray family, Mr, Morphy has a substantial financial interest in the outcome of any criminel case against these six police officers, as any guilty finding will improve his positon in any potential civil suit against the City of Baltimore and its police department. With reference to any potential civil claim by Gray fuily for whom Me. Murphy is counsel, ifthe death of Me. Gray was found to be scidentl and in the couse ofa legal detention, at best 2 claim under Maryland State law claim for negligence or gross negligence would be supportable. As a result ofthe Local Goverment Tort Claims Act and Maryland tort law, there ‘would be a limitation of les! goverment lity, and Me. Murphy would notable to rsover attomey’s fees. Tat cap in local government liability would not be applicable i the Gray faily hud a viable federal Consttatona claim under § 1983, and atomey's foes could be awarded to ‘Mc. Murphy, Notably the charges agnnst Ge Defendants that Mrs, Mosby most clearly overreached on are false imprisonment, assault, and second degree murder, each of which involve some level of intent, Intentional action under color of law wihich deprives and individual of @ 19Constitutional right allows for a Constitutional § 1983 claim, ‘Therefore, Mrs. Mosby's pursuit of criminal charges involving intent, potentially has dies financial impact on Me. Morphy. ‘Mrs. Mosby's connection to Mr, Murphy is of great concem othe undersigned counsel, and it shouldbe of even greater concer tothe residents of his ity. Ms. Mosby had Mr. Murphy has a member of her team as she began the process of trailing aloe sole as the State's ‘Attomey for Baltimore City. Me. Murphy also donate significantly to Mrs, Mosby's campaign, in essence helping her win her postion. The connection between Ms. Mosby and Mr. Murphy is undeniable and the conflict it cretes is detrimental in the pursuit of justice. “The Maryland Rules f Professional Conduct equie attomeysin all positions to adhere to 2 stiet code of ethical conduct. Mrs. Mosby's coated prosecution of the named Defendants ‘woefully underrepresents justice, which is at the core of any prosecution. Maryland Rule 1.7 specifically stats that there is a conflict if “her is a signicant sis tha the representation of one ‘ormore clients willbe materially limited bythe lawyer's responsibilities to another cient, former lien ora third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer” (emphasis added), In adition to her personal relationship, Ms, Mosby as a professional relationship with Mr. Murphy. A complaint was filed against Ms. Mosby to the Attomey Grievance Commission of Maryland lato last year. In an email dated October 29, 2014, Mr. Murphy outlines his representation of Ms. Mosby. (See Exhibit 7) It is elear from the exhibit, and from the response ofthe Attomey Grievance Commission of Maryland, that Mt. Murphy was tained by Ms. Mosby. "Not only was Mr. Morphy’s fm retained but he personally handled her matter. ILis unclear as to whether this professional relationship is sill ongoing with regards lo any subsequent lings. ‘When interviowod recently by CNN's Don Lemon, Mis. Mosby was asked about her contact with the Gray family. She indicated that she had brought them in to her office and “spoken 20With them and their tomy.” Mrs, Mosby has clearly had direct contact with Mr, Murphy in regards o this case ‘The Maryland Roles of Professional Conduct are very clear when it comes to confit of| interest. Its plainly stated in Comment 8 under Maryland Rue 1.7 that, “elven where there is no direct advorences, a onic of interostoxcaif thro i a ignfiont rie that a lawyer bility to consider, recommend oF cary out an appropriate course of action forthe client will be meteilly limited as result ofthe lawyers other responsibilities or interests." The Court can glean guidance fiom Comment 26 of Rule 1.7, which states tha, “relevant factors in determining whether there is a significant potential for material imitation include the duration and intimacy ofthe lawyer's relationship with the client or client involved, the functions being performed by the layer, the ikethood that disagreements wll arise and the likely prejudice tothe client rom the conflict." ‘Yesterday, in a separate and unrelated mater to tis one State of Maryland v,Jeftey Bolger, a nearly identical Motion fo Recuse Ms. Mosby ftom Prosecution was filed on the grounds that her relationship with William Murphy unfsirty biased the outcome and status ofthat cas. It ‘was alleged in that Motion that two Defendants (bth police offers) wore charged with nealy {identical criminal charges based on identical facts. It was alleged that the two defense attomeys (Mt. Murphy and Steve Levin) had hoon roqueting the State's Atomey's Office, prior to Me Mosby taking office, to dismis all charges as they were not supported by any expert opinions (to the contrary the medical examiner's report actually supported dismissal of Mr. Levin's lent, not ‘Mr. Murphy's). According tothe Motion, on Mrs. Mosby's fist official day after being sworn into office, she entered a nole prosequi (dismissal) in favor Me. Murphy's client. See Attached Exhibit, Motion, State v.Bolger). ‘The Motion cites the unftir and undeniable intertwined nrelationship by Mrs, Mosby and Mr. Murpay, The same reasoning applies with even greater force to the instant case CONCLUSION Each of the above-captioned Defendants have fundamental concems about undeniable ‘coullicts of interest which have turned the prosecution of this case into a platform for oxtra- ‘prosecutorial motivations. These concems are rooted in the United States Constitution, the ‘Maryland Declaration of Rights, the Meryland Rules of Professional Conduct and the ABA’s ‘Guidelines for Prosecutors. As stated earlier, these concerns are deep are real and are imminent. ‘They require a dismissal ofthese cases, with he ability of an independent prosecutor to re-evaluate the charging decisions, or, in the least « recusal of Mrs. Mosby's office. Respectfully submitted, Mtl B. rang? Sean Malone Harts Jones & Malone, LLC 2423 Maryland Avenue, Suite 100, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 366-1500 Attorney for Offteer Caesar Goodson Meer Zonwgeos © Mare. Zayon Roland Walker & Mate L:Zayon,P.A. 201 N. Charles Stet, Suite 1700 Balimore, Maryland 21201 (aio) 7.3710 torn) for Ofc Béward Nero Catherine FI Mead, Flynn & Gray, P.A. (One North Charles Street, Suite 2470 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 727-6400 Auiorney for Officer Garrett Miller Heat fteatle * Murtha, Pores, & Lanasa, LLC 1301 York RA, Suite 200 Lutherville, Md 21093 (410) 583-6969 Attorney for Officer William Porter 2bo M Elet © Whe Bey Chaz. Ball Scblachman, Belsky & Weiner, P.A. 300 Bast Lombard Street, Suite 1100 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 683-2022 Attorneys for Lieutenant Brian Rice 2 SRA © ivan Bates Tony Garcia 201 N. Charles Street, Suite 1900 Baltimore, Maryland 21201, (410) 814-4600 Autrey for Sergeant Alicia WhiteCERTIFICATE OF SERVI U HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 8 day of May, 2015, a copy of Defendants? Joint Motion to Dismiss or Inthe Alternative Recusal of Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office was sent via first-class mail, with exhibits, postage prepaid, to Janice Bledsoe, Deputy State's Attorney, Office of the State's Attorney for Baltimore City, 120 ast Baltimore Stret, ! Moor Baltimore, Maryland 21202, dal | e— cm L de fA | if} — Mifiael Belsky Ma Bates 4STATE OF MARYLAND * INTHE * pisrricr couRT + FOR * BALTIMORE CITY CAESAR GOODSON + CASENO. spo2294452 GARRETT MILLER + CASENO. sBa2204449 EDWARD NERO + CASENO, 4B0z204450 WILLIAM PORTER + CASENO. oBoz204453 BRIAN RICE + CASENO, 2Baz204448 ALICA WHITE + CASENO, sba2204451 Defendants : Defendants request a hearing on their Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss or Inthe Alternative Recusal of Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office. a Gatferine Flynn roa te fueRs [A om [t— 4a [A Micha Belsky Tran Boles 2s‘STATE OF MARYLAND + INTHE * — pistricr courr "FOR * BALTIMORE CITY CABSAR Goonson + CASENO, cno22o4ss2 GARRETT MILLER + CASE NO, spozz94469 EDWARD NERO + CASE NO, apaz2944s0 WILLIAM PORTER + CASENO, ono2294453 BRIAN RICE. + CASENO, 2no2204448 ALICA WHITE, * CASBNNO. sH02294451 Defendants . ORDER ishereby ORDERED on this__day of. thatthe Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or i the Alternat Attomey’s Oltice is HEREBY GRANTED, ‘o Recuse the Baltimore City State's JudgeDISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Baltimore City Lect 5800 Wats Aven, ior, ind 2115 Case No. 302294449 ‘STATE OF MARYLAND VS." MILLER, GARRETT EDWARD. a ye Phone ‘come | State | Ast Charge | site est ASSAALT.SEC DEOREE Jo 9208 agsauursceoreare jon aes | teeconauer Norncd (ai?! eiSconobr RSeree Ta. FACS PSONMENT TOL ARREST WARRANT ON CHARGING DOCUMENT - Warrant No. D150291702 Ra ea —— YOU ARE ORDERED to arrest ap tid before judicial officer the above-named Defendant as soon as Practicable and without necessiy dels, Ia judi officer is ol realy avilable, tis Ware shel ‘authorize the prisone?s detention until éomplane shad with Rule 4212 andthe eres offices uthovised and required to comply with Rae 4212 Mf THE DEFENDANT IS NOT IN CUSTODY FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE, Initia sppearane if be hed in county ia which Warant was saved i i banENDAs Ith CusvOar FON SNRTER SS 6 Warne bene | deren oe NeTREEINE Yara oe ae a a | ‘efor a judicial fice ofthe Diniet Cou / i Dale: 050172015 Tine:02:31 AM. JudpComaoed IIs Rarsrarv Given: BALTIMORE CITY SHERIEF'S DEPT RETURN OF SERVICE CrGority tow at free pm on_shehes “uC Sprrmat Bookings 4 _ exe his Aves Waray resin te Deen sadn iy aie tag af Te etna Cre asopya te Warn and GPa a ees orth cote detonate Defeat a espn Ceca. tSpeimte Location: Abi i Signature & Tie of Pete OMT Printed Name of Of Agency, Sb-Agoney, LD: EXHIBIT, Date _ h } ‘Tracking No:_ 181001323896 § ARREST WARRANT ON CHARGING DOCUMENT DartsAN DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Baltimore City enaaeae eee _—}__* "ae STATEMENT OF CHARGES UPON THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION OF MAJOR, SAM COGEN IT'I$ FORMALLY CHARGED THAT MILLER, GARRETT EDWARD at the dies, times and lotions specified below: NUM CHOICIT STATUTE PENALTY DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARGE nee aben ou2015-ou.annis ih NR FREDDIE CARLOS GRAY, J, in te end dee ‘tin fH .03, entry te en of be nara ech LAY. , + Stent nd proved wean pa, greed es a *. Mrs Kai the ace, Govermen nd igi ote Sie oo sis naa wyasebasond ASSAULTS DecaKE On EE avaois AUG oibatocK oF Nene Sacer BALTIMORE MARYLAND isa FREDDIE CARLOS GRAY. J, i te sod dep elon 25, oye om fe state em om 20668 cn ’ sasconouer otic Foo. OF PReShun SIRT BALIINORE MARYLAND THAT GARRETT EDWARD MILLER. A PUBLIC OFFICER, WHILE ActIngUNDEA Colon ar gore. commun Dib | [REQUIRED BY THE DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE AND CORRUPTLY DID A. | fave Acton VoL ation Ti CowaON LAW OF ‘Asai Fee, rene an Die Sins, oe 2065 eu wlsconpuctw ornce Ttsn00Beocx oF Moun STREET TAT owAneersoWwARD cen a vue uence, ws seth oom coon or gon coanry Sib [REQUIRED Ay Te DUTIES OF Hs OPE AND CORKOPTLY DIO A ‘ene Pe, Gave a Diy ote Se ‘Ono About D220 5 "doo Rao BLOCK OF Date: 0811/2018 Time : 09:31 AM isomer! SY. Martin (318 isis ‘Tracking No, 151001323896 bens‘CONTINUATION PAGE 1 OF STATEMENT OF CHARGES DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Baltimore City Loci a S800 Wabash Aves, Balimore, Maryané 21215 Cave No, 32294049 STATE OF MARYLAND VS. MILLER, GARRETT EDWARD cra i ly an moral eM, FRED CARLOS GRAY, ‘ite Pes ovement, Nebeodt. Maiti 5 Date : 051012015 Time: 09:31 AM Judit Otic 15 ste ‘Tracking No, 151001323896DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR _ Baber Cly, Wabash Ae, ee IEattmore. Mo 21215-8530 © Casa No soezo4ee9 ‘Cope. Ya. Sm, = 00 NCalver Stet sen Balle, MD 2 410-396 1155, Sremmepeg rae. AN SS, Buin iy Shr One e073 DEFENDANTS DESCRIPTION aI; ——e oir. Byes. Corleone —_. a APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1, the undersigned pply for statement of charges and summons or warat which may lea othe aes he above named Defendant because on of bout APLI2.2015 _ (See Below) 7 + the sbove area Defiant yee “Se spe Ba 18 a esa aoa ‘ofthe Hana Pls rata HAPS We a ul SiR DRSGY CARN BAT We, cae rede Carls Gray. (008 816198). Having made eye conte, Mr, Gray sbscguesy en 1 Rigs, Rice then digi oer adpartmeatal ido dt be was volved ina fon puri which pe ke “zal Offices Miler and Nezo slg began fo pee Me. Gay, (cote) (Comins on ataced res) DOCK Ta) | eaten ais under the pele of pray th he conta hie plc are rc to the best of my knowledge, Information and bli - May 12015 : ~ en Tavera adm nd ie Ni ii ay uans - srg gem gents LAE ot a ‘Te M oe ‘understand tat charging docomest wil be suds hat most appear for wil) on : igs tonene Llwhen slid bythe Cl the Ova natn slarnn wap oP am GE RE YS tneve avd appa of sing sght Aplin etn sili a eh ie IE herring document ese i of probe b ; rearssoorazsnes © over ex 2206) ° iDISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FoR Bslimare Cl, Wabash AVE, tyro) 1c ave Ne: suozzecea | sin Bator, wo 21296-2590 ier, Garrett Edward APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) Page 2... of « Having.come in. contact with the pursuing officers, Mc. Gray surrendered to. Officers. Miller.and.Nero.(n.the.vicnity.ofthe.41700 black of Presbury. Skeet ono. Officers Miller. and. Nero. then handcuffed Mr..Gray.and.moved him.to a location a. few. feet away. from_his surrendering location, Mr-Gray.was then, placed. in.a prone position. with his,arms.handouffed behind his back. It was at this.time.that Mr. Gray. indicated. that he. could not breathe and requested an jnhalat.to.no.avail. Officers. Miller.and.Nero then. placed Mr. Gray in.a.seated position andu..aisusna subsequently found. a knife clipped to.the.inside.of his pants pocket. The biade of the. knife, was folded into the.handle, The knife was not a switchblade knife and is Jayful under. Maryland law.. These officers subsequently removed the knife, and. placed iton the sidewalk. Mr. Gray was then placed back down on his stomach, alwhich time Mr. Gray began to fail his legs, and scream as Officer Miller placed Mc. Gray in.a restraining technique known as.a "leg lace" while Officer Nero. physically held him down against his will unt a BPD wagon arrived to transport Mr. Gray. Lt, Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable, cat Mr, Gray's arrest as.no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray, Accordingly, Lt. Rice, Officer Mille, and Officer Nero illegally arrested Mr, Gray Upon arrival of the transport wagon, driven by Oifice Officer Nero, and Officer Miller loaded Mr, Gray into, PD, wagon to stop at Baker Street, At Baker 9. Officer Nero and Officer Miller removed Mr. Gray from. the wagon, placed flex cuffs on his wrists, placed leg shackles on his ankles, and completed required paperwork, Otticor Miller, Offi oxic. “7ra#951001329098 | PE DCICR 1A ev. 2) ‘courT coPYDISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Salinere CW. Wabash AVE. cure APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) Page. of 5. loaded. Mr. Gray_back into.the. wagon, placing him.on.his. stomach, head first onto {he-fleor.of the wagon..Onee. again, Mr. Gray.was not secured by.a seatbelt in the .wagon..contrary.t0.a BPD. General Order. Lt. Rice. then directed Officer. Goodson {9 transport Mr. Gray.to the. Central Booking and Intake Facil, _ Following transpert.from Baker Street, Mr, Gray suffered a severe and orilical ‘eck Injury. as.a result of belng handcuffed, shackled by his feet. and... unrestrained inside.of the BPD wagon...From Baker. Street, Officer, Goodson broceeded to the vicinily.of Mosher Street.and Fremont Avenue, where he... Subsequently parked the wagon and proceeded to the back of the wagon in. ord fogbserve Mr. Gray. Despite stopping.for the purpose of checking on Mr, Gray's, condition, at no point did he seek, nor did he render, any medical assistance for Mr..Gray...Offcer Goodson relumed to his driver's seat and proceeded toward nttal Booking and intake Facility, with Mr, Gray still unsecured by aseat belt, contrary to.a BPD. General Order . Several blocks later, Officer Goodson. check on the status of his pflsoner and request Street ang ll Avenue. Officer William Polphin Street and Druid Hill Avenue. Both ,Goodson al proceeded to the back of the wagon to check on the status of Mr. Gray's Gray requested “help* and indicated that he could not breallie, ‘asked Mr. Gray ifhe needed a medic, at which time, Mr. Gi indicated at least twice that he was ir physioally assisted Mr. Gray from despite Mr. Gray's appeal for a oster uf, | Tepers1001923606, ‘court cory PCDOICR 1A (tev 12)DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Satine Cy, WBE AYaciomn ‘ote Ns: ozaaaes nl iy MD 212163990 ler, Garett Edward APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) Page-4....0f © oneiition. and at.no. point id elther of them restrain Mr. Gray, pet BPD General Order, nor.did. they. render.or request medical assistance... ~ While discussing the transportation.of Mr. Gray.for. medical attention, a request. for additional units. was. made for an arrest at. 1600, W. North. Avenue. Officer. Porter left the vicinty.of Dolphin Street.and Druid Hill Avenue,to assist in.the arrest of another. prisoner at North Avenue, Despite Mr. Gray's. obvious and recognized need for medical assistance, Officer. Goodson, in a grossly negligent manner chose to respond to the 1600 block of W. North Avenue, with Mr. Gray. stil unsecured by a, seat belt in the wagon,, without rendering to or summonsing medical assistance for Mr. Gray smi Officer Goodson arrived at North Avenue to transpx vidual arrested at the location of North and Pennsylvania Avenues, at which time he was again met by Officers. Nero; Miller, Porter, and Lt. Rige. Once the wagon arrived, Of ‘Goodson walked to the back of the wagon and again opened the doors fo wagon to, make observations of Mr. Gray. Sat. Alicia White, Officer Porter, and Officer Goodson observed Mr. Gray unresponsive on the floor of the, wagon, Sat. ‘White, who was responsibie for investigating two citizen complaints pertaining to. Mr. Gray's illegal arrest, spoke fo the back of Mr. Gray's head, When he did not respond, she dd nothing futher despite the fat that she was adi Besplto Mr Grays seriously delererating medioal condition ‘no medical assistance was rendered to, or summonsed for Wr. ey at that time by any officer... ‘ys 191001320800 PC DCIER 1A (Re. 18) ‘court corySCAT ED A COURT ADORE 800 Wabash Av Balt, MD 21215, fparoare noe cast rast fille, Garett Bird APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) rge 5 [ne be woes caving Mr. rey, GF Undine proceed oth Wess Dia Polls Sans whos Int toe BPD Gencal Order, he gan edi retina Me. Gray nto wage oe cane ee At he Wenem Dit Flic Shion the detent reset Neth Avene metros seed at ured isd ofthe rolex santo tending Mr Gra. By te ee Oe Zac Now Sp, Wits stood to emore Gay fo the watn Mr. Go wan lng onting wat Ame ee ae ons San Gee Hes reasons | Decnnia tec eunisIMPORTANT NOTICE ‘The attached papers charge you with committing s crime. Depending on te erime charged, & jail sentence could be imposed by the Court if you are foun! guilty. You should be represented ata trial by alawyer, ACTIMMEDIATELY to contact the Publie Defender orto hire private counsel. Ifyou do not have the money to hie private counsel, you should contat the OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER immeditely. Ifyou wait o acrange for a Pubic Defender or private counsel, you can be made o stand wil without a lawyer. You may contact any Public Defender office including: : * si00 WABASH AVENUE, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21215 “oS g10-978.8114 [ PUBLIC DEFENDER TOLL FREE NUMBER FOR ASSISTAN 877-430-8187] ‘The following papers re required 1 obtain Public Defender Services 1, Court charging documents/Traffic tickets, (Statement of ChargesAll documents issued to you by Court, 2. Thal date notices from the Cour: (Contact the Public Defender as soon as possible even ifyou have not received a trial date notice.) 3, Lfyoware employed: Proof of current income i the foem of slay or paystubs forthe last wo pay periods 4, Ifyou ae unemployed, Proof of publi assistance} radical assistance, AFDC, Socal Seewity or Supplemental Secuity Inedme (SSD, or other assstnee you are receiving. ‘The Office ofthe Public Defender is open weekdays ffom 8:30 ni 04:30 pan, Cll immediately o find out when and how you can make your application, RECEIPT ‘Thave read or have had r08d 1 me, the contents ofthe shove notice and acknowledge receipt of copy thereo. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A-LAWVER ON THE TRIAL DA’ HAVE TO GO TO TRIAL WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A LAWYER,Fygzraaon usc PIRI Selatan yu enna tee td Sacer > Stanmore rrp nt sd pcan cas aac ae te orga nee fet pater areatimetate ett Ginagienestae eater eee am Sse eee ate 3 Setar remot seer marae Simi ier Fpecragie CRITE nt any amet i es ter retires ch cncrn tart eat a gene terete hl legate ote orice Se Sriealeareerrenen ee cane pmecepereai hat aetna np neem Sohtatne taco aman cece oes sea soimsearivantess NOTICE TO DEFENDANT. |. MUST APPEAR Ife wih yu ne cnae sa MUST APPEAR alee, yu my Wb ee ope tes en tnd PLEASE NOTE TAT FALRETO APPEAR AY RESULT BEA WARKANTPOR YOUR AROS 2 PRESET FINE= Yume yt a, sey sae ann ae meta Note ies con. ily ncn on sin CHARGED BY STATEMENT OF CHARGES SUMMONS OR ‘Wana, cituck Ove OFT FOLLOWING OPTIONS SGN AND DATE, AND MAL THIS POR, LONG WI & ory on tie STATEMENT OF CHARGHSGUNMONS ON WARKANTTO Tt ADDRESS SHOWN HELO Cornoxm: yt leon of ret fl a my Dist Cot My ean oh ocr the Maye ain We oy one Gn be) yma ethene sau blo Tony mal {te rsh. my oni tes Cour a ryan. Ine cain mabe yo wo yon h, | Anion 10 sere elle nga fret ire, a on Reqs Waive Hey aici non nh Smet Cage and rete «miner apn he ‘tests toed undsun saa tl fee and whe wi at ese dy eens et i er See on Regi il et et i he fr Be lain) hg. —— a tres Cour Trae Provaung Cet ‘iste Coert of Marylee imap MD 360.4676 Pies tht jy nil oft re wl see ian sd heey of sevice th an Paseo ae "ht pin wi based by Motor Vic Aten (VA) on your ving erate encore Wolo of Be Mer Veil Lt ‘fl Sat tye iio amply wit ent be aoe epions ihin 30 afr cala/sumeonaran, MVA wl oie et ‘nye wos ped ours Diving co ped esa ater for wl you cube news TOK MORE INFORMATION AND TO PAY CITATIONS ‘isn Mb dary Wee xsd ends he nese Vo Repose VR) Sem rl nes, ‘ots nd dso. pa From ll ses incon a fui i002. 2686 ‘THY wer ea velo RELAYS ZI "have ad erhoe tin edo mete cone he lps ad towels rei of op ttt, De acer) Dee Teles Connisinerar04sas007 Comtar* 23572 cicurr court oR DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR BALTIMORE CITY “Tore Hoveabie Jas (9) —— ofthe). athe undenignee ‘rng dy swova depos wid a athe) Rs) tess TROVE ut onthe preniag inthe Cty oftatinore this now eng conte ei property, ney, (2 limes Plc naruto, dpartnent nud lang erst deptimestah ‘a pots nts and Mack wrk shoe or oa TEER Go) viene relating the commision of ce perth ()_inesta deh rpoetnd nde Daluore City Compaen nae spate AND ta thefts ending to esablsh sounds fori of Seach Warren are efor the Av © atacand ade a tee! WHERETORS your hfloa(o pn) ‘hata Stash and Sere Want be need rd Sworniobetoce mend mbsritedoinmy pesencethis aay of 20k AAA DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND FOR Baltimore City ‘oca t S00 Wabath Avene, Baltinore Magand 21215 Case No, 6802294074 ‘STATE OF MARYLAND VS. GREY, FREDDIE CARLOS JR STOR ELMLEY AVE. COMPLAINANT: a LS AVE MILLER, G OFC ATOR 201 2a was st BALTIMORE, MD 21211 Sp sores Bu Race) SEM eSB" Wes Hic BLX Eye ORN DOB:ONNESES! Phone Poon) STATEMENT OF CHARGES TON THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION OF MILLER, G OFC IT'IS FORMALLY CHARGED THAT GREY, FREDDIE CARLOS JR atthe des, tmes und lnctieas ested bles NUM cholo sraTuT PENALTY DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARGE on 95900 yaessonee wire BLADE naves 0 narabat i205 Troi enesouny sr ALTIMORE Mo aval cry, roses, na aco known sich ‘dh its orate ng er rds geod ay ‘ais te ina of ano ap * a ‘Agente Fee ovens nt Dig of be Se Date : O4/122018 Time: 11:25 PM ‘Tracking No, 151001271606DISTRICT COURT OF My .¥LAND FOR _ | Berinpanrspescumor nave Lieses E =GO0~261~ 02-640 sex 0A. nese wT! yn E> © ti BUC tyes Grsata Complexion oer. —— oa Gc f24_ APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES Fa tof _ 5, thewnderigned, app fe satement of charges aa sume OF wat which may lead othe ape othe ovemmet Dena bene oor abn nf 2005 wa! Blas ol tery Balin MO QD SE Ateod no the, fad os z Sra recoured/ (Cominued on ances Pag) (DICK 1A) ‘lenny ffm ud the pestis of peru thal th one fis Appleation se tus othe best of ny knowlege, information and belie "iver ord mse te Neola om Apel ors er Sutsrited and sworntobeireme this LPH. gy op ARP PEM ety Te MSC A alpine. yee ip J underst fot op lien nd tate git on ZBL - ot Se Bes RN "Ten ona by te Ur he Cot leon sown ihe eo is oom S500 Cagaty a ~ ive advised applicant of shielding right. PR Applicant declines shielding, ‘D1 detned ossue a charging document because of lack of probable cause, us ce Qe DBCICR (er. 122006) Pan Dae (e209DISTRICT COURT OFM._YLAND FoR. [oocares ar eouRr ADRES er Ne [bnnaNis ya naar FST re Sr, Freckle. Cocks APPLICATION FOR STATEMENT OF CHARGES (CONTINUED) Page_ by hes cfhce= ol Pantha gas, asenk a chisel ported fevbe, ta —— lt Apel Jor i “Savor ] DCICRIA(Rev, 17002) Pv Da ava014 coi er |MRS. Sail Aeroaneve a0 Lair www MasionanaeCoo.con May 7,2015 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND CERTIFIED MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, George A. Nilson, Esquire Baltimore City Solicitor BALTIMORE C1Ty LAW DEPARIMENT City Hall, Room 31 100 North Holiday Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND CERTIFIED MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT REQUFSTED. ‘The Honorable Nancy K.Kopp, Treasurer Louis K. GoLbsTeIN TREASURY BUILDING 80 Calvert Steet, Room 109 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Re. TORT CLAIM & PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUEST Claimant ‘Bdwaed Nero and Garrett Mller ‘Agency/Agencies: Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, State's Attorney's Office of Baltimore City, Baltimore City Sheriff's Department & the State of Maryland ‘Date of Incident(s)-_May 1.2015 to Present and Continuing ‘Dear Mz, Nilson and Ms. Kopp: ‘Our firm represents Edward Nero and Garrett Miller in all clsims against () the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Maryland and its agencies, and their agents, servants, and employees; (il) the State's Attomey’s Office of Baltimore City and its agents, servants and employees; (ji) the Baltimore City Sheriff's Deparment and its fagents, servants and employees; and (3) the State of Maryland and its agencies, and their, agents, servants, and employees (collectively, the “Governmental Eattis”), arising out of charges filed against them on May 1, 2015 (the “Occurrence”), These charges resulted in the arrest and detention of each of the above-teferenced individuals. The myriad of charges levied against the above-referenced individuals include false imprisonment, 2°° degree assault, and misconduct in office. These charges, and the charging documents in EXHIBIT H 3 ‘Wastrnoron, DC Orie» Kreme, NW Sons» Wassoncten DC sab FL 20859870‘Tort Claims Letter May 7, 2015 Page? support of them, were not and are nat supported by probable cause or arguable probable cause. ‘These claims include, but are not limited to, al claims falling under Maryland Code Annotated, Courts & Judicial Proceedings, §§ 5-301 et seq. (the “Local Government Tort Claims Act”) and Maryland Code Annotated, State Government, §§ 12- 101 ef seq. (he “Maryland Tort Claims Act”), This letter serves to saisfy the requirements ofthese statutory provisions. ‘The State's Attomey's Office af Baltimore City ("SAO") and its employees acluding but not limited to Ms. Marilyn Mosty) involved in the investigation, who by the SAO's admission took an investigative role inthis matter, as well asthe Baltimore ity Sheriff's Department and its employees involved in the investigation, each did not ‘on May 1, 2015 and do not now have any legally justifiable reason to believe that the above-roferenced individuals had cornmitted the crimes for which they are charged. In point of fact, many ofthe fats contained in the Statement of Probable Cause not only fail {o establish probable cause, but are patently false. Relative to each of the above-referenced individuals, charges were brought ‘against them including false imprisonment, 2" degree assault and misconduct in ofice ‘based in parton the legal argument that they arrested and detained Freddie Gray without probable cause. The charges state that the knife, which was the basis of Freddie Gray's ‘arrest, was lege and therefore no probable cause existed to arrest him. [Fin fact the knife ‘was illegal, as the above-referenced individuals contend that it was, then the underlying ‘acts that form the basis of the Statement of Charges against the police officers would be false. Accordingly, the charging documents, the arest and detention of the above- referenced officers would itself lack in probable cause. ‘The SAO and the Baltimore City Sheriff's Department are hereby put on notice that they, infact, akin tothe same logic invoked by the charging documents against the police officers, would themselves be osponsible forthe false imprisonment and assault ofthe above-referenced individuals (eot to mention false ares) As aresult of the Occurrence, the above-referenced individuals lost ther freedom, and dignity and suffered physical and psychological harm from being arested, detained, {imprisoned and assaulted without cause. ‘The above-referenced individuals’ claims identified herein relate to wrongftl conduct engaged in by the Governmental Entities at the time of the Occurrence, with legal damages accruing as of that time and continuing thereafter. ‘One of the central purposes of this letter isto make a formal settlement demand ‘This setlement demand is made without prejudice to the above-referenced individuals’ rights, should settlement not occur, and no stetements contained herein may be used in Sitigation including as evidence) or for any other purpose, The stelements and representations in ths letter constitete an offer in compromise of ligation and none of