As a former prosecutor, I am frustrated by the city of Baltimore’s decision to settle a lawsuit brought by Freddie Gray’s family before the criminal trials take place.
It is a prime example of the right hand appearing as if it doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. The settlement taints the jury pool and increases the likelihood that the trial will not stay in Baltimore, or alternatively, that any conviction will be reversed on appeal on that basis.
If people really want justice for Freddie Gray and his family, they should not encourage the mayor to do things that undermine the ability of the prosecutor to fairly try the defendants in Baltimore.
It’s not a matter of whether Freddie Gray’s family should receive a settlement. They should. When a 25-year-old man allegedly suffers a spinal injury while in police custody, civil liability is inevitable. It’s a matter of when it should have happened. As Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake conceded, it is highly unusual for a settlement like this to predate the criminal trials.
The untimely decision by the Baltimore City of Board of Estimates, which includes Mayor Rawlings-Blake, gives unnecessary ammunition to the defense’s argument that the six officers charged cannot possibly get a fair trial in Baltimore.
Before the settlement, the defense’s main contention was that Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s acknowledgement in her initial press conference of a slogan used by demonstrators — “No justice, no peace” — was wholly inflammatory and poisoned the well, and that the extensive rioting left no potential juror unaffected. The judge dispensed with the first argument when he denied any request for Mosby to recuse herself.
Now, the defense can claim that the jury pool is completely tainted because the city has acknowledged a civil liability. What’s more, the jury pool is now comprised of the very taxpayers paying for that liability.
While the city argues the settlement has no bearing on the criminal case, nothing could be further from the truth. The settlement gravely impacts the ability to secure an impartial jury. While it is indeed the mayor’s responsibility to make fiscally sound decisions and avoid protracted litigation and potentially exorbitant damages, her fiscal endeavor undermined the prosecution’s ability to try this case.
The timing is all the more irritating to the prosecution given how critical the motion to change venue is to securing a favorable verdict. Plainly, Baltimore is one of the few counties within Maryland with a high enough African-American population to increase the likelihood of a racially diverse jury.
If the judge decides that the well is irrevocably poisoned, he will order a change of venue, and that venue will most likely be a county where African-Americans comprise the clear minority.
It is an elementary notion that this particular case would benefit from the objective deliberation of a racially diverse jury pool. The confluence of race, crime, and allegations of excessive force is uniquely appreciated by such a jury pool.
The people of Baltimore have a right to judge the officers who serve and protect them on their dime. Settling this case prior to either a ruling on the change of venue motion or before the resolution of even one of the six criminal trials, undermines the chances of the trial remaining in Baltimore, or any potential conviction surviving on appeal.
Left hand meet right hand; it has its thumb on your scale of justice.
Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.
