Pitfalls & Troubles Of Prosecuting In Baltimore

[Wizard777]

Shooting case shows pitfalls, troubles of prosecuting in Baltimore

The victim was escorted into the Baltimore courtroom by guards. The four-time convicted drug dealer, wearing a blue prison jumpsuit as well as wrist and ankle shackles, said he didn't see who shot him in the back, but he told jurors that "word on the street" pinned it on "Dre" and "K-Rock."

Prosecutors had no other eyewitnesses, no gun, no bullet casings. One other issue complicated the case: The police detective originally assigned as the lead investigator also arrived at the courthouse in handcuffs — charged last summer with trafficking heroin — though he was never called to testify.

The trial that ended Thursday was fraught with many of the pitfalls common in the city's courthouse for years — a victim with a criminal past who didn't want to identify his assailants, a dearth of forensic evidence and questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.

[MooGoo]

The article could have been just as easily titled, "Shooting case show pitfalls, troubles of living in Baltimore".

[Wizard777]

In his campaign, Bernstein called incumbent Patricia C. Jessamy too quick to plea-bargain cases away, saying it contributed to revolving-door justice that put repeat offenders back on the streets time after time. He said a prosecutor must "have the courage" to take on challenging cases in order to send a message to violent offenders.

Bates said he doubts Jessamy would have taken the suspects to trial for attempted murder given the meager evidence — one defendant's fingerprint from a plastic cup and a victim who picked the suspects from a photo lineup but was reluctant to name them in court.

I'll second that opinion. Ms. Jessamy was wise enough to know that was a no win case and there was no reason to waste resources on it. I think Jessamy would have jumped on the plea bargain offered by the defense with both feet. Why not? She would be facing a no win case in court. But if she took the plea bargain he would have a gun charge on his record for the next she saw him in court. But Bernstein wanted all or nothing and got nothing. Nothing he could use in the future. Not even a slap on the wrist right now.

Bernstein chided Ms. Jessamy for her plea bargain revolving door justice. But at least people walked in that revolving door to face justice and walked out that revolving door with convictions. It's starting to look like Bernstien is willing to replace that with his own walk scott free revolving door. People walking through his revolving door to face justice and walk out it scott free. No conviction.

After reading this I have to wonder what the real purpose of that trial was. Was it to prove in court that the defendants shot the victim or that the victim snitched them out to the police? That can be a very thin, delicate and fragile line. Of course we all know how that goes.......

Neverdon said, "'Word on the street' gets you shot. 'Word on the street' gets you killed. But 'word on the street' is not good enough to have two innocent men put in prison."

It seems to me that possibly losing the case wasn't the only risk the prosecutor was taking in court that day.

[MooGoo]

Stop Snitchin'

[Wizard777]

Stop Snitchin'

When this guy end up dead. Maybe they will do better on the murder case?

[songfourone]

Thanks Mr. Bernstein for keeping your promise to Baltimore.

[bmore_ken]

Thanks Mr. Bernstein for keeping your promise to Baltimore.

What promise?

[songfourone]

For trying the hard to win cases.

[Wizard777]

What promise?

The promise to take cases to trial with nothing more to present to a jury than the testimony of one witness. I guess some people in Baltimore need to learn the futility of that the hard way.

The main problem with this is that in the American System of Jurisprudence that places a high value on freedom and liberty. Sending someone to jail on the testimony or say so of one person isn't very prudent. In fact it's considered to be a travesty of Justice. Because it severely lowers the burden of proof.

If Bernstein would have been able to get a conviction in this case it would have been a very sad day for Baltimore. Because when you gain a conviction based on the testimony of one witness. You are essentially gaining a conviction that is entirely based on nothing more than an accusation. This is the really scarey part of that. That is a burden of proof that is lower than what was needed to convict someone of being a Witch in Salem. To convict someone of being a Witch in Salem you needed an accusation and a test. Like fresh cream curdling. It was commonly believed that fresh cream would curdle in the presence of a witch. So if the prosecution brought fresh cream into your presence and it curdled. You were a Witch. Ironically enough, even in a Witch Trial the jury wanted to see the physical evidence.

Obviously Bernstein feels that what very little protections were offered to protect the innocent in a Witch Trial is either too good or too much for the people of Baltimore. He's quite content to go to trail with nothing more than an accusation.......and people wonder why I severely question his ethical integrity.

[cprenegade]

I'll second that opinion. Ms. Jessamy was wise enough to know that was a no win case and there was no reason to waste resources on it. I think Jessamy would have jumped on the plea bargain offered by the defense with both feet. Why not? She would be facing a no win case in court. But if she took the plea bargain he would have a gun charge on his record for the next she saw him in court. But Bernstein wanted all or nothing and got nothing. Nothing he could use in the future. Not even a slap on the wrist right now.

Bernstein chided Ms. Jessamy for her plea bargain revolving door justice. But at least people walked in that revolving door to face justice and walked out that revolving door with convictions. It's starting to look like Bernstien is willing to replace that with his own walk scott free revolving door. People walking through his revolving door to face justice and walk out it scott free. No conviction.

After reading this I have to wonder what the real purpose of that trial was. Was it to prove in court that the defendants shot the victim or that the victim snitched them out to the police? That can be a very thin, delicate and fragile line. Of course we all know how that goes.......



It seems to me that possibly losing the case wasn't the only risk the prosecutor was taking in court that day.

The problem was there were nothing but constant "next times". People got tired of reading about murders committed in the city by criminals who had a several page rap sheet of "next times". The case that cooked her goose was the murder of the student on the phone with his mother. That perp had a novel of charges that were getting progressively worse. It was only a matter of time before he murdered someone. Even people who voted for Jessamy in the past saw that he should have been behind bars. She let far too many people go and so the people let her go.

[cprenegade]

When this guy end up dead. Maybe they will do better on the murder case?

This guy was a four time conviceted drug dealer. In this case it will be no great loss if he ends up dead.

[ichy]

I don't blame them for taking this particular long shot case to trial. A plea bargain that results in no jail time isn't much better than no conviction at all. If they'd been able to hammer out a plea deal that included at least a bit of incarceration I'd feel differently about them rejecting the plea.

I'm just glad that the victim in this case was as loathsome as the perps.

[Wizard777]

The problem was there were nothing but constant "next times". People got tired of reading about murders committed in the city by criminals who had a several page rap sheet of "next times". The case that cooked her goose was the murder of the student on the phone with his mother. That perp had a novel of charges that were getting progressively worse. It was only a matter of time before he murdered someone. Even people who voted for Jessamy in the past saw that he should have been behind bars. She let far too many people go and so the people let her go.

As I have demonstrated before. Patricia Jessamy put more people in jail per capita than any other Prosecutor in the world. That's just it. When I said, "The main problem with this is that in the American System of Jurisprudence that places a high value on freedom and liberty. Sending someone to jail on the testimony or say so of one person isn't very prudent." That also includes the say so of the States Attorney.


As for the Zach Sowers case. There will be a next time. Not for the man involved. But there will be a next time for his female accomplice. Bernstein even bent over backwards to ensure charges from other cases didn't interfere with the next time that he was arranging for her.

Did Bernstein really learn anything from the Sowers case? Obviously not. I found this lil tid bid from one of Bernstein's biggest supporters. It's a letter to the SAO concerning Zach's injuries.

Irrefutable Letter Confirming Anna Sowers And Possible Lawsuit Against Jessamy And Company

Zach Sowers was admitted to the NCCU with a severe head injury following a random and brutal assault that evening. His condition was highly critical and near death from severe head lacerations and intracranial trauma.

Now, there was another case in which the racial roles were reversed. This wasn't two black people beating a white college student. This was two white people beating a black highschool student. The Victim received lacerations to the head from the blunt force trauma of being beaten in the head by a radio. He also suffered a broken wrist. Was Bernstein thinking about Zach Sowers when he went to court to REDUCE the charges against the two adults that attacked a school age child from first degree assault (felony) to second degree assault (Misdemeanor)? I sincerly hope not. That would convert a perversion of justice to an atrocity. The speculation is that Bernstein reduced the charges from Felony to Misdemeanor so one of the men could continue to legally possess guns and continue in his career as a, ahem, Bodyguard or for the next time he decides to attack school children. Why would a prosecutor want to try to prevent a person that attacks a school age child from owning weapons? Baltimore can only hope and pray there will be no next time. Because Bernstein is entirely comfortable with someone that attacks a school age child being able to own weapons. In fact he would be more than happy to facilitate that......and people wonder why I severely question his competence.

[Gopher]

My goodness. No eyewitnesses, no gun or shell casings, a victim refusing to implicate the perpetrators and the original investigator in federal prison for trafficking heroin and guns. Seemed like an open-and-shut case. What happened?

[Wizard777]

My goodness. No eyewitnesses, no gun or shell casings, a victim refusing to implicate the perpetrators and the original investigator in federal prison for trafficking heroin and guns. Seemed like an open-and-shut case. What happened?

Politics.

[Gopher]

Politics.

They would have been better off throwing a keg party with a couple of strippers down at the prosecutor's office. It would have cost less and been more productive.

[Wizard777]

They would have been better off throwing a keg party with a couple of strippers down at the prosecutor's office. It would have cost less and been more productive.

Amen! One of us ain't right.

[cprenegade]

As I have demonstrated before. Patricia Jessamy put more people in jail per capita than any other Prosecutor in the world. That's just it. When I said, "The main problem with this is that in the American System of Jurisprudence that places a high value on freedom and liberty. Sending someone to jail on the testimony or say so of one person isn't very prudent." That also includes the say so of the States Attorney.


As for the Zach Sowers case. There will be a next time. Not for the man involved. But there will be a next time for his female accomplice. Bernstein even bent over backwards to ensure charges from other cases didn't interfere with the next time that he was arranging for her.

Did Bernstein really learn anything from the Sowers case? Obviously not. I found this lil tid bid from one of Bernstein's biggest supporters. It's a letter to the SAO concerning Zach's injuries.

Now, there was another case in which the racial roles were reversed. This wasn't two black people beating a white college student. This was two white people beating a black highschool student. The Victim received lacerations to the head from the blunt force trauma of being beaten in the head by a radio. He also suffered a broken wrist. Was Bernstein thinking about Zach Sowers when he went to court to REDUCE the charges against the two adults that attacked a school age child from first degree assault (felony) to second degree assault (Misdemeanor)? I sincerly hope not. That would convert a perversion of justice to an atrocity. The speculation is that Bernstein reduced the charges from Felony to Misdemeanor so one of the men could continue to legally possess guns and continue in his career as a, ahem, Bodyguard or for the next time he decides to attack school children. Why would a prosecutor want to try to prevent a person that attacks a school age child from owning weapons? Baltimore can only hope and pray there will be no next time. Because Bernstein is entirely comfortable with someone that attacks a school age child being able to own weapons. In fact he would be more than happy to facilitate that......and people wonder why I severely question his competence.

I would like to see some credible statistics to back that statement up. If you can provide them, I will apologize. If you can provide them, I wonder how bad her campaign managers must have been to not make these facts well known to all of the citizens of Baltimore City who obviously had an opinion of her that was of a prosecutor who failed to put very many people in jail who deserved to be there. If that is the case, you should have volunteered to work on her campaign, because she seriously needed someone who could provide proof that she was doing a good job.

[TommyT]

I'm just glad that the victim in this case was as loathsome as the perps.

I dont see how you get the victim as being loathsome. Only info on him that I read was that he'd been a vender of recreational pharmaceuticals to a willing customer base before.
No reason to be shot... unless he was dishonest and ripped people off w/ a poor product

[Wizard777]

I would like to see some credible statistics to back that statement up. If you can provide them, I will apologize. If you can provide them, I wonder how bad her campaign managers must have been to not make these facts well known to all of the citizens of Baltimore City who obviously had an opinion of her that was of a prosecutor who failed to put very many people in jail who deserved to be there. If that is the case, you should have volunteered to work on her campaign, because she seriously needed someone who could provide proof that she was doing a good job.

I posted them before. I even posted them during the election. So at this point you can do your own homework. But the line of logic is fairly simple. The United States has more people in jail than any other nation on earth. While Patricia Jessamy was the States Attorney. Baltimore City had put more people in jail per capita than any other place in America. So therefore Patricia Jessamy had put more people in jail per capita than any other prosecutor on earth. It's really that simple.

The main difference between Bernstein and Ms. Jessamy is that she wasn't willing to even consider the concept of Human Trash. That some people just needed to be thrown away like trash. She was indeed a tough prosecutor. But that toughness was balanced by compassion. Oh yes you were going to jail. But she also tried to make sure there were programs in that jail and her office to help you become a better person so you could avoid or break the cycle of recidivism. People are all for that concept of human trash until it's being applied to them, their child or their grandchild. Then they're in court screaming and crying, BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT! Then equal protection of law says, NO IT'S NOT! Off to the trash heap with them.

Sometimes you have to try something new to be able to appreciate what you had. I think this is one of those times.