FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

The Law Officer's Pocket Manual - Bloomberg BNA
This handy 4" x 6" spiral-bound manual offers examples showing how rules are...

Top News

Maryland Appeals Court Halts Officer Trials in Freddie Gray Case Pending Review

February 19, 2016  | 

In a rare move, Maryland's highest court agreed Thursday to halt trial proceedings against the Baltimore police officers charged in the Freddie Gray case, taking up competing appeals on whether Officer William G. Porter can be compelled to testify against his five fellow defendants.

The Court of Appeals' decision to consider the issue of Porter's testimony against his fellow officers postpones their trials, including one that had been scheduled to start Monday. The high court will hear expedited oral arguments in the appeals March 3, but it is unclear when it might rule, the Baltimore Sun reports.

Porter is contesting an order by Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams forcing him to testify against two fellow officers even as he faces a retrial in his case. Meanwhile, prosecutors appealed a decision by Williams that they contend wrongly blocked them from calling Porter to testify against three other officers.

Comments (4)

Displaying 1 - 4 of 4

[email protected] LEO @ 2/20/2016 8:15 AM

Very dangerous precedent being placed forward here, in that the State is demanding that Officer Porter (defendant) be compelled to testify under oath against the other officers, while offering him immunity in State court. There is a minor thing called the 5th Amendment that states he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. And while the State will give him immunity in State court for his testimony, anything he testifies under oath can and will be used against him in his Federal civil rights trial and in civil court. Very dangerous indeed.

[email protected] LEO @ 2/20/2016 8:24 AM

Where is the ACLU on this matter and why are they not defending Officer Porter's right to the 5th Amendment ? Or is it because they pick and choose which article to defend in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and now to whom it applies. If they do not like a particular Right such as the 2nd Amendment, they choose not to respond in it's defense. Or if they do not like a particular person or who they represent (Police) they choose not to represent. They are not the protectors of the Constitution, as protection to all. They are protectors when it suits them and their cause.

W. Gill @ 2/20/2016 9:28 AM

And...What happened the constitutional right of the other officers, for a fast and speedy trial.

Leonard @ 2/22/2016 9:30 AM

I agree with most of @j.johnson's assessment. The right against self incrimination should be protected. However, I believe that the longer this goes, it will benefit the officers toward acquittal unfortunately.

Join the Discussion

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.
Police Magazine