Officers Involved In The Death of Freddie Gray Charged In Administrative Action

Freddie Gray

On April 12, 2015, Freddie Gray was taken into custody by Baltimore police officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller.  Freddie sustained a spinal injury in a police van ride and died on April 19, 2015.  Officer Ceasar Goodson was driving the van.

WBALTV reports that Lt. Brian Rice, Sgt. Alicia White and Officer Caesar Goodson have been suspended, pending termination.  They were found to have failed to follow policies for seat-belting Freddie Gray.

 

Officers Garrett Miller and Edward Nero who took Freddie into custody, face five days suspension without pay.

Officer William Porter, whose trial resulted in a hung jury, faces no punishment.

 

On July 29, 2016, charges were dropped by prosecutors after a jury deadlocked on charges against Porter, and a judge acquitted Rice, Goodson and Nero.

The internal discipline review, conducted by the Montgomery and Howard county police departments, determined the officers broke department rules.

The officers can accept the recommended punishment or choose to dispute the charges.

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby released the following statement;

“Justice is always worth the price paid for its pursuit. This case has always been about providing justice for an innocent 25-year-old man who was unreasonably taken into police custody, severely injured while in police custody, and died due to a lack of care. If today’s news is accurate, I am relieved to know that a majority of those involved will be held administratively accountable for their actions. And, while nothing can bring back Freddie Carlos Gray, Jr., I pray that today’s announcement brings some closure to his loved ones, the City of Baltimore, and the dedicated members of the Baltimore Police Department.”

Baltimore’s police union denounced administrative charges being brought against the five officers, saying the cases will “do nothing more than perpetuate a police force hesitant to exercise judgment when interacting with the public.”

 

Posted on 05/23/2017, in Cases and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 11 Comments.

  1. yahtzeebutterfly

    “The officers can accept the recommended punishment or choose to dispute the charges.”

    It will be interesting to find out what each will decide to do.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Who of these guys being of sound mind would fight these charges when they are skating with not being charged for murder which this was?

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Accepting their fate would to a long way towards building community trust.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. *would go a long way – even

    More coffee please!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. LawStud3nt25

    I personally hope the officers challenge this and I think they will prevail.

    My contention is based on the fact that during the trials that did occur, the state prosecution could not prove the officers had adequate notice and knowledge of the seat belt policy. Unless some additional evidence has become available this problem still stands.

    You simply cannot intentionally violate a policy you did not have knowledge of.

    Like

    • I don’t want to fill-in the blanks with assumptions. To the best of my knowledge, the Administrative hearings were not made public. We can only go by what is reported. The same is true for the trials because they were not public either. Let’s keep in mind that the first trial went to a jury that hung. If any of the officers challenge the Administrative decisions, those challenges are suppose to be public. Freddie Gray, nor any other human being, deserved a “rough ride” severing the spine. Accountability helps build public trust.

      Like

      • LawStud3nt25

        Something analogous I have seen successfully deployed before on double jeopardy grounds is college student beats criminal sexual assault charge and school tries to expel on administrative grounds for code of conduct violation.

        Courts have called that double jeopardy because

        1) same transaction or occurrence

        2) common nucleus of operative facts

        Like

        • It might be the Union contract that allows for Administrative actions in spite of judicial decisions. This is a matter where I suppose we have to wait and see how it turns out.

          Like

Your comments are welcomed.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: