(Close Window)
Topic: Hey, let's not release the autopsy report...
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Jun 3, 2015 04:54PM)
[b]State's attorney to seek protective order blocking release of Freddie Gray autopsy[/b]

"Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order blocking the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy and other "sensitive" documents as she pursues charges against six police officers involved in his arrest.

Mosby discussed that intention in a court filing Monday, in which she also asked the court for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside of Baltimore.

Mosby's office has also sought a gag order, which would prevent those involved in the case from discussing it in public, [b]and broken with tradition by not providing the autopsy report to Baltimore Police[/b].

On Wednesday, a defense attorney for one of the six officers said Mosby efforts to get a protective order is a sign that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-gray-protective-order-20150603-story.html]Baltimore Sun[/url]

Nothing to see here...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 3, 2015 05:15PM)
I smell a rat.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 3, 2015 09:42PM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[b]State's attorney to seek protective order blocking release of Freddie Gray autopsy[/b]

"Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order blocking the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy and other "sensitive" documents as she pursues charges against six police officers involved in his arrest.

Mosby discussed that intention in a court filing Monday, in which she also asked the court for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside of Baltimore.

Mosby's office has also sought a gag order, which would prevent those involved in the case from discussing it in public, [b]and broken with tradition by not providing the autopsy report to Baltimore Police[/b].

On Wednesday, a defense attorney for one of the six officers said Mosby efforts to get a protective order is a sign that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-gray-protective-order-20150603-story.html]Baltimore Sun[/url]

Nothing to see here... [/quote]
For the sake of argument, I imagine an autopsy report that showed Freddie Gray was abused / beaten before his death would not go over well with members of the Baltimore public. Especially those with a tendency to riot? Just maybe the report is being held back from the public and the media so as not to add fuel to the fire? The defense still gets total access, so what is the big whoop?

IOTW, perhaps she is protecting the reputation of the Baltimore police from being further damaged by restricting access to an incendiary autopsy report that showed police clearly abused Gray.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 3, 2015 11:23PM)
Whitewash.
Message: Posted by: NicholasD (Jun 4, 2015 08:45AM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[b]State's attorney to seek protective order blocking release of Freddie Gray autopsy[/b]

"Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order blocking the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy and other "sensitive" documents as she pursues charges against six police officers involved in his arrest.

Mosby discussed that intention in a court filing Monday, in which she also asked the court for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside of Baltimore.

Mosby's office has also sought a gag order, which would prevent those involved in the case from discussing it in public, [b]and broken with tradition by not providing the autopsy report to Baltimore Police[/b].

On Wednesday, a defense attorney for one of the six officers said Mosby efforts to get a protective order is a sign that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-gray-protective-order-20150603-story.html]Baltimore Sun[/url]

Nothing to see here... [/quote]
For the sake of argument, I imagine an autopsy report that showed Freddie Gray was abused / beaten before his death would not go over well with members of the Baltimore public. Especially those with a tendency to riot? Just maybe the report is being held back from the public and the media so as not to add fuel to the fire? The defense still gets total access, so what is the big whoop?

IOTW, perhaps she is protecting the reputation of the Baltimore police from being further damaged by restricting access to an incendiary autopsy report that showed police clearly abused Gray. [/quote]

Judging from the prosecutor's past actions, if the report shows abuse, she'd be chomping at the bit to get it out.
Message: Posted by: Kabbalah (Jun 4, 2015 11:00AM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, balducci wrote:

The defense still gets total access, so what is the big whoop?

[/quote]

Actually, Mosby's office is hindering discovery...

from the cited article -

"In a response to Mosby's latest filing, [b]defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest[/b]."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 4, 2015 11:29AM)
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[b]State's attorney to seek protective order blocking release of Freddie Gray autopsy[/b]

"Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order blocking the release of Freddie Gray's autopsy and other "sensitive" documents as she pursues charges against six police officers involved in his arrest.

Mosby discussed that intention in a court filing Monday, in which she also asked the court for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside of Baltimore.

Mosby's office has also sought a gag order, which would prevent those involved in the case from discussing it in public, [b]and broken with tradition by not providing the autopsy report to Baltimore Police[/b].

On Wednesday, a defense attorney for one of the six officers said Mosby efforts to get a protective order is a sign that "there is something in that autopsy report that they are trying to hide."

[url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-ci-gray-protective-order-20150603-story.html]Baltimore Sun[/url]

Nothing to see here... [/quote]
For the sake of argument, I imagine an autopsy report that showed Freddie Gray was abused / beaten before his death would not go over well with members of the Baltimore public. Especially those with a tendency to riot? Just maybe the report is being held back from the public and the media so as not to add fuel to the fire? The defense still gets total access, so what is the big whoop?

IOTW, perhaps she is protecting the reputation of the Baltimore police from being further damaged by restricting access to an incendiary autopsy report that showed police clearly abused Gray. [/quote]

Why is it "for the sake of argument" you ALWAYS come down on the side of liberal bias?

SHOULD the report be protected? IS IT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE? If not then release it. Otherwise it stinks. Even IF she is "protecting" the reputation of the police things HAVE to be done a certain way.

Oh and yea what odds will you give on her protecting the police?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 4, 2015 12:24PM)
I did not realise this was a 'liberal bias' issue.

Furthermore, if "for the sake of argument" I had simply agreed with everything Kabbalah said in the OP that wouldn't lead to much of a discussion now, would it?

"SHOULD the report be protected? IS IT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE?"

What happened in Baltimore was hardly NORMAL (or so I hope). Special circumstances call for special measures. So long as everything is legally proper, of course.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 4, 2015 12:32PM)
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:
[quote]On Jun 3, 2015, balducci wrote:

The defense still gets total access, so what is the big whoop?

[/quote]

Actually, Mosby's office is hindering discovery...

from the cited article -

"In a response to Mosby's latest filing, [b]defense attorneys said Wednesday that they have been denied an outline of evidence and claims against the officers, and have not been allowed to inspect a knife that was taken from Gray during his arrest[/b]." [/quote]
I don't know the details about all that. I will guess there is a delay because Mosby's office wants the protective order in place first. No point in closing the stable door after the horses bolt, after all. But the defense will clearly get total access in the end. Otherwise I imagine it would lead to a mistrial or certain appeal if anyone was convicted.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 4, 2015 12:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
I did not realise this was a 'liberal bias' issue.

Furthermore, if "for the sake of argument" I had simply agreed with everything Kabbalah said in the OP that wouldn't lead to much of a discussion now, would it?

"SHOULD the report be protected? IS IT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE?"

What happened in Baltimore was hardly NORMAL (or so I hope). Special circumstances call for special measures. So long as everything is legally proper, of course. [/quote]


It is either special or it is normal procedure. Pick one. Those in charge decide what is legal. normal or special and what is not. Right now it is Mosby who is in charge. She may have a change latter like many of those when it is more in her favor, but now this secret fits her agenda. Till then she does not care what is right or wrong. It is Mosby law. Can you imagine if she was white? Lets riot, I mean protest.

If she was white, she is trying to cover something up. If black it is special circumstances. I think I see it clearer now.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Jun 4, 2015 01:30PM)
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
I did not realise this was a 'liberal bias' issue.

Furthermore, if "for the sake of argument" I had simply agreed with everything Kabbalah said in the OP that wouldn't lead to much of a discussion now, would it?

"SHOULD the report be protected? IS IT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE?"

What happened in Baltimore was hardly NORMAL (or so I hope). Special circumstances call for special measures. So long as everything is legally proper, of course. [/quote]


It is either special or it is normal procedure. Pick one. Those in charge decide what is legal. normal or special and what is not. Right now it is Mosby who is in charge. She may have a change latter like many of those when it is more in her favor, but now this secret fits her agenda. Till then she does not care what is right or wrong. It is Mosby law. Can you imagine if she was white? Lets riot, I mean protest.

If she was white, she is trying to cover something up. If black it is special circumstances. I think I see it clearer now. [/quote]

I'm amazed you can see anything, all things considered.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 4, 2015 03:10PM)
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On Jun 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
I did not realise this was a 'liberal bias' issue.

Furthermore, if "for the sake of argument" I had simply agreed with everything Kabbalah said in the OP that wouldn't lead to much of a discussion now, would it?

"SHOULD the report be protected? IS IT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE?"

What happened in Baltimore was hardly NORMAL (or so I hope). Special circumstances call for special measures. So long as everything is legally proper, of course. [/quote]


It is either special or it is normal procedure. Pick one. Those in charge decide what is legal. normal or special and what is not. Right now it is Mosby who is in charge. She may have a change latter like many of those when it is more in her favor, but now this secret fits her agenda. Till then she does not care what is right or wrong. It is Mosby law. Can you imagine if she was white? Lets riot, I mean protest.

If she was white, she is trying to cover something up. If black it is special circumstances. I think I see it clearer now. [/quote]

I'm amazed you can see anything, all things considered. [/quote]
:rotf:
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Jun 4, 2015 03:33PM)
I think that, on this one, I am going t reserve judgment. There are any number of good reasons NOT to release the autopsy to the Baltimore police (not the least of which is that the entire Baltimore police force is a very interested party). The defendants and their counsel ARE getting copies; that enables them to prepare the defense (if they weren't getting copies, I would have difficulty with that). And I think that there is a legitimate concern that pre-trial publicity may taint the impartiality of the jury pool. The defendants have a constitutional right for their trial to be in a courtroom, not in the public press. So I am not necessarily thinking "cover up," or "smoking gun" or exoneration. I am thinking, "Maybe just trying to keep things fair."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 4, 2015 04:55PM)
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society.
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Jun 5, 2015 08:33AM)
Doesn't the UK restrict press coverage of cases [i]sub judice[/i]?

Sometimes I think that that is a very good idea.

Sometimes not.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 5, 2015 08:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, 0pus wrote:
Doesn't the UK restrict press coverage of cases [i]sub judice[/i]?

Sometimes I think that that is a very good idea.

Sometimes not. [/quote]

I don't know. However this is not the UK. So the answer is not relevant.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 5, 2015 09:11AM)
Opus- Yes, they do, as far as I know. And I believe it is indeed relevant because it highlights the fact that not everyone believes that trying cases in the press before they go to trial is a good thing. It is a case where the right to a fair trial and the public's "right to know" need to be balanced.

That is why it is not at all unusual at all for the prosecution OR the defense to request gag orders prior to and during a trial.

And keep in mind that,very often, the side with a losing case, will try to leak enough misleading or incomplete information in order to taint or influence a future jury pool.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 5, 2015 09:50AM)
To lighten the mood ...

http://bizarrocomics.com/

[img]http://bizarro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bz-panel-05-29-15.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 5, 2015 11:29AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Opus- Yes, they do, as far as I know. And I believe it is indeed relevant because it highlights the fact that not everyone believes that trying cases in the press before they go to trial is a good thing. It is a case where the right to a fair trial and the public's "right to know" need to be balanced.

That is why it is not at all unusual at all for the prosecution OR the defense to request gag orders prior to and during a trial.

And keep in mind that,very often, the side with a losing case, will try to leak enough misleading or incomplete information in order to taint or influence a future jury pool. [/quote]

While it is not unusual, what is usual is what side people ALWAYS take. When it is their cause it means one thing, when not then it means another. (NOT YOU BOB.)
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Jun 5, 2015 11:39AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

While it is not unusual, what is usual is what side people ALWAYS take. When it is their cause it means one thing, when not then it means another. (NOT YOU BOB.) [/quote]

I am not able to figure out which side the failure to release the autopsy favors - the cop haters or the cop defenders. Or the left of the right.

Have you figured that out, Danny? Could you explain?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 5, 2015 11:43AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

While it is not unusual, what is usual is what side people ALWAYS take.[/quote]
So that would be you always attacking my posts?

Even when I make impartial objective observations? As I did in this very thread, and you went all pitbull on me?

(Note I made the same impartial points Bob and others raised here, but you give them a pass for raising them.)

Maybe do some self-inspection Danny.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 5, 2015 11:46AM)
Danny may like hockey, but he seems to have issues with Canadians. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 5, 2015 11:48AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, 0pus wrote:

I am not able to figure out which side the failure to release the autopsy favors - the cop haters or the cop defenders. Or the left of the right.
[/quote]
IMO we really won't know until later.

But if the office HAD released the autopsy report with no restrictions on it (no matter what was in it unless it totally exonerated the officers), we all know the defense would have accused Mosby of further trying the case in the media. Does anyone truly doubt that?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 5, 2015 12:02PM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

While it is not unusual, what is usual is what side people ALWAYS take.[/quote]
So that would be you always attacking my posts?

Even when I make impartial objective observations? As I did in this very thread, and you went all pitbull on me?

(Note I made the same impartial points Bob and others raised here, but you give them a pass for raising them.)

Maybe do some self-inspection Danny. [/quote]

Show me the last observation you made that was "impartial". LOL.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 5, 2015 01:01PM)
Yes!

http://www.out-law.com/page-9742

The UK is not the USA is it?
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Jun 5, 2015 02:10PM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, tommy wrote:
Yes!

http://www.out-law.com/page-9742

The UK is not the USA is it? [/quote]

No, it is not.

But when you said, "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society," I thought I was pointing out a "free and open" society (the UK) that sanctioned [i]sub judice[/i] restrictions. Is the UK not a "free and open society?"
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Jun 5, 2015 04:22PM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Danny may like hockey, but he seems to have issues with Canadians. :) [/quote]

It may be that you're missing that VIP under your name.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 5, 2015 11:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Opus- Yes, they do, as far as I know. And I believe it is indeed relevant because it highlights the fact that not everyone believes that trying cases in the press before they go to trial is a good thing. It is a case where the right to a fair trial and the public's "right to know" need to be balanced.

That is why it is not at all unusual at all for the prosecution OR the defense to request gag orders prior to and during a trial.

And keep in mind that,very often, the side with a losing case, will try to leak enough misleading or incomplete information in order to taint or influence a future jury pool. [/quote]

I believe we are talking about two entirely different set of circumstances here. First you talk about information. Then you talk about misleading information or incomplete information. Lawyers try and suppress information that will hurt their case. That is a fact. Being truthful has nothing to do with it ( I am speaking of the information being suppressed) just suppress it if it is detrimental to their side.

In this instance what would be your reaction if a white State's attorney issued a protective order of an autopsy of a black victim who was shot by police? Might they be different? As I stated before: If she was white, she is trying to cover something up. If black it is special circumstances.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 6, 2015 12:19AM)
Why is the race of the prosecutor so relevant to you? It has nothing to do with what is going on in this instance.

What we're talking about here is simple legal strategy. It goes like this- Assume I'm defending the police in this case. Even though I've seen the autopsy report before the trial as part of standard pre-trial discovery, I know that when it is introduced at trial it will follow testimony by the coroner who performed the autopsy. That coroner is not permitted to discuss his testimony with the press prior to the trial.

In his testimony, the coroner will explain the findings of the autopsy in a manner that will presumably be favorable to the prosecution. If I feel that the autopsy report could be problematic for my client, I may well want it to be publicly released prior to trial so that I can preempt the coroner's interpretation by giving my own interpretation to the public before he testifies, thus potentially influencing the jury pool.

As a general rule, the side that wants conduct a trial in the press, probably has the weaker case.

And the side that has the weaker case generally shouts the loudest. There's an old adage in the law- When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither the law or the facts are on your side, talk louder and pound on the table.

Now take a look at which side is doing the table pounding.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 6, 2015 12:29AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Why is the race of the prosecutor so relevant to you? It has nothing to do with what is going on in this instance.

What we're talking about here is simple legal strategy. It goes like this- Assume I'm defending the police in this case. Even though I've seen the autopsy report before the trial as part of standard pre-trial discovery, I know that when it is introduced at trial it will follow testimony by the coroner who performed the autopsy. That coroner is not permitted to discuss his testimony with the press prior to the trial.

In his testimony, the coroner will explain the findings of the autopsy in a manner that will presumably be favorable to the prosecution. If I feel that the autopsy report could be problematic for my client, I may well want it to be publicly released prior to trial so that I can preempt the coroner's interpretation by giving my own interpretation to the public before he testifies, thus potentially influencing the jury pool.

As a general rule, the side that wants conduct a trial in the press, probably has the weaker case. [/quote]

Isn't this what I said? Being truthful has nothing to do with it ( I am speaking of the information being suppressed) just suppress it if it is detrimental to their side. However I did not say but should have exploit it if it favors your case.

I believe the point you made is that it depends on how one would procede with their defense or prosecution. So maybe no right or wrong. It would just depend on the lawyer's strategy .

Bob, race is not just important to me as you well know and I know you do. It is and has been important in just about all of these sort of cases. To think otherwise is to have blinders on.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 6, 2015 12:43AM)
Nonetheless, the prosecutor's race has nothing to do with not wanting the autopsy reports released to the public prior to trial.

And NOTHING is being "supressed" here. Suppression would take place if the court ruled the autopsy report inadmissible. The defense has full access to ALL of the State's evidence, including the autopsy report. They will be free to call their own expert at trial to rebut the coroner's testimony.

Do you remember the Casey Anthony murder trial? The defense expertly played the "try it in the media" card prior to, and during the trial. How did you like the result?

If you believe that the prosecutor's race has anything to do with wanting the case tried in court rather than in the media, I suggest that it is you who has the blinders on.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 6, 2015 12:59AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Nonetheless, the prosecutor's race has nothing to do with not wanting the autopsy reports released to the public prior to trial.

And NOTHING is being "supressed" here. Suppression would take place if the court ruled the autopsy report inadmissible. The defense has full access to ALL of the State's evidence, including the autopsy report. They will be free to call their own expert at trial to rebut the coroner's testimony.

Do you remember the Casey Anthony murder trial? The defense expertly played the "try it in the media" card prior to, and during the trial. How did you like the result?

If you believe that the prosecutor's race has anything to do with wanting the case tried in court rather than in the media, I suggest that it is you who has the blinders on. [/quote]

The race question has nothing to do with wanting the trial tried in court or in the media. it is what it is. that is a racial issue because the so called victim and the so called perps are of different races and in this instance they are black and white...gasoline and fire, they do not mix well in circumstances such as this. That is what I mean when I mention race.

Agreed, the Casey Anthony outcome was a debacle. I certainly would not want something like that again.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 6, 2015 01:11AM)
I agree that the fact that the some of the defendants are white and the victim is black obviously is a factor in the minds of many. But you originally were referring to the race of the prosecutor, which, I submit once again, has nothing to do with the strategic moves being played out regarding the public release of the autopsy report.

If I were the prosecutor, and I'm about as white as you can get, I'd vehemently oppose any attempt by the defense to try the case in the media. And I believe that any conscientious prosecutor would do the same.

I believe that whenever a case is fought in public and turned into a media circus, the first casualties are often justice, and impartial jury, and a fair trial.

As I said much earlier, the public's right to know MUST be balanced against the right of the defendant AND the state to a fair trial.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 6, 2015 04:34AM)
Does the public right to know state that they must know it real time?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 6, 2015 07:54AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I agree that the fact that the some of the defendants are white and the victim is black obviously is a factor in the minds of many. But you originally were referring to the race of the prosecutor, which, I submit once again, has nothing to do with the strategic moves being played out regarding the public release of the autopsy report.

If I were the prosecutor, and I'm about as white as you can get, I'd vehemently oppose any attempt by the defense to try the case in the media. And I believe that any conscientious prosecutor would do the same.

I believe that whenever a case is fought in public and turned into a media circus, the first casualties are often justice, and impartial jury, and a fair trial.

As I said much earlier, the public's right to know MUST be balanced against the right of the defendant AND the state to a fair trial. [/quote]

This is difficult. :) But when explained it makes sense. I agree with you. Ahhh...I said it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jun 6, 2015 08:05PM)
Thanks, aces.

Sometimes the strategies used in court are pretty predictable. Many defense lawyers, when presented with cases that carry a high probability of conviction, will do all in their power to turn the proceedings into a chaotic media circus. Not only does that put the whole thing up for grabs, but virtually guarantees enough errors during the trial to insure a viable appeal in the event of a conviction.

It's the job of the judge to try to insure that sort of thing doesn't happen. Unfortunately, many of them just aren't up to the task. Recall what happened when Judge Ito pretty much let the defense do whatever they wanted to in the OJ Simpson murder case. And the prosecutors weren't much better because it seemed that they really enjoyed basking in the media spotlight with what they thought was going to be a slam dunk victory.

But when they met the "Dream Team" (F. Lee Bailey, Johnny Cochran, Robert Kardashian and Alan Derschowitz), who had far more experience in both working the media and exploiting it, they never knew what hit them and never saw it coming. They made the state's attorneys look like amateurs and, quite literally, employed tactics that allowed their client to get away with murder.

I think it's important that we don't let the same thing happen in Baltimore. Keep the trial in the courtroom.