Legal Expert Talks About Porter Prosecution Challenges
BALTIMORE (WJZ-FM) --As Baltimore braces for the first verdict in the Freddie Gray case, a former prosecutor and defense attorney Warren Alperstein -- who has been following the case closely -- spoke with Ed Norris and Steve Davis Tuesday morning on 105.7 The Fan to give his take on the case.
Alperstein has been in the courtroom every day as the prosecution and defense argued about Officer William Porter's involvement in the death of Gray, a 25-year-old man whose death sparked outrage in the city.
QUESTION: How do you think a jury based on the evidence that was presented will go?
Alperstein: Having sat there for most of this trial -- I can't see how the evidence at this point has allowed the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. At this point,. You never know what a jury's going to think. You never know what a jury's going to do. You could have significant infighting amongst the jurors. They may dispose of the more serious charge, involuntary manslaughter . They may compromise on a misconduct in office, which is a less serious charge.
You never know. Having sat there and listening to the evidence, the state put on a very compelling case, the defense -- which has no obligation to put on any defense, actually put on a defense -- and it too was very compelling and persuasive. So when it's a wash, the idea is the law says, that it's not guilty because it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
QUESTION: Would the judge vacate the verdict (if the jury convicts without the evidence)?
Alperstein: I don't think so. That's very rare. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't see that happening. You just don't know. The defense put on these medical experts to say it wouldn't have mattered if medical treatment was provided when Freddie Gray supposedly asked for it, because the neck injuries were so catastrophic, they were so significant that paralysis occurred in milliseconds. So all this argument [of denied aid] it wouldn't have mattered occurred to the defense experts. Why wouldn't you believe the defense experts over the prosecution experts.
QUESTION: Normally when we see police misconduct it's because of what police did. Essentially what their case is based on is that the police officer didn't act -- that he didn't care.
Alperstein: There are two points the prosecution makes in this case -- the first that Officer Porter has an absolute obligation to put a seat belt on Freddie Gray -- and because Freddie Gray was not restrained with that seat belt -- it caused the injuries. The second point that the prosecution argues, is that once Freddie Gray asked for a medic, asked to go to a hospital that Officer Porter failed -- and that it was gross negligence for him to not seek that medical assistance right away.
Even the prosecution's experts say the injuries didn't happen during Freddie Gray's arrest but moments later in the back of the van, Alperstain said. But he said that many watching the coverage of the trial believe that the officer beat up to Gray -- and that's not even what they are
Alperstein also spoke about the police department's seat belt policy change three days before Gray's arrest.
QUESTION: What about the defense's motion for a mistrial based on the prosecution withholding evidence in discovery of Gray's previous back injury.
Alperstein: It's a big deal. The defense comes to find out in the middle of the trial that there was a report made to an officer from back in March -- a month before his arrest -- that Freddie Gray had a back injury. The prosecution team didn't know about it, but there were other people in the state attorney's office that did know about it -- so that is a big deal. It's a back. What part of the back? We don't know. Could be the upper back, now we're getting closer to the neck -- you know it's not the foot, it's not the hand, it's the back. It's connected to the neck. So yeah, the defense made a motion for a mistrial and it was denied. But that could be the basis for an appeal.
QUESTION: Would you have taken on this case a prosecutor?
Alperstein: I think it's a reach and I frankly think it's a case grounded more in the civil liability contest. At the end of the day what the prosecution needs is to use Officer Porter's statements that he previously made to detectives that implicate [Officer Caeser] Goodson, the driver, as well as his trial testimony to be used in other trials.
Officer Porter said previously in these interviews that he told Goodson that Freddie Gray wanted a medic and the idea being that officer Goodson is technically responsible for the care and custody of the prisoner, Alperstein said.
Listen to the full interview here: