Posted on 05/03/2015 10:40:00 AM PDT by Beave Meister
The Fraternal Order of Police lodge in Baltimore City is asking for Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby to remove herself from the Freddie Gray investigation and appoint a special prosecutor. On Friday, Mosby announced she was filing charges against six officers in the death of Freddie Gray.
According to Capital Gazette, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police lodge argues she has a personal conflict due to connections with both Freddie Gray’s attorney Bill Murphy and her husband, City Councilman Nick Mosby.
Attorney and former judge William (Bill) H. Murphy, Jr. represents the Gray family.
Murphy was also a supporter and donated to Mosby’s campaign when she ran for office. According to state filing records, Murphy donated $5,000 dollars to Marilyn Mosby’s campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
She obviously should recuse herself.....but she is a Dem, if she were a Republican, she would have already done so.
How far do you go in claiming that free speech is a "bad idea"?
It looks like those six cops are political prisoners... Even though most made bail, the principle of show trial and political prisoner applies here.
It looks like those six cops are political prisoners... Even though most made bail, the principle of show trial and political prisoner applies here.
Sufficient cause for the prosecutor to recuse herself. No doubt the defense lawyers will take that and use it to remover her from the case.
She will be ordered to. She will initially refuse.
He was also on her transition team after she was elected
She’s a hottie. What about that?
Let’s see how Marilyn Mosby-Nifong fairs...
Judges are supposed to be impartial. How does donating to their campaigns enhance free speech?
“One could question if a trial lawyer should even be allowed to donate for a city’s attorney candidate”
That is a damned good question. The same could (and should) be said about judicial elections. In practice, the majority of donations to prosecutorial and judicial candidates comes from trial attorneys, and it is a huge problem.
Frankly, I think that judicial and prosecutorial elections are the one area where public campaign financing makes sense. Unlike other elected positions, those positions are supposed to be impartial, and are highly sensitive to the appearance of impropriety.
Yes. Judges are intended to be impartial arbiters of the law.
How does donating to their campaigns enhance free speech?
Bans on Free Speech should restrict no more speech than necessary to achieve a compelling government objective. I'm not sure what objective you seek to achieve with your proposal to restrict Free Speech, but Justice Scalia discussed this principle just last week in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar:
before one can tell whether that interest is compelling and whether the speech restriction narrowly targets it. In White, for example, the Court did not allow a State to invoke hazy concerns about judicial impartiality in justification of an ethics rule against judicial candidates’ announcing their positions on legal issues.
And, for the sake of argument, lets say you can provide some sort of workable vague justification to restrict speech and can even conjure up some evidence that your speech prohibition would actually cause the positive effect you seek, your objection to Free Speech is so broad that it would still be unconstitutional. You'd catch someone who wants to donate to a law school classmate or someone who likes the judge's broad judicial philosophy in your blanket ban on speech.
I encourage you to read Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. Even the majority did not find that campaign donations to judicial candidates should be prohibited. But Justice Scalia's spirited dissent in Williams-Yulee provides a forceful case that campaign contributions to judicial candidates is protected Free Speech.
He was also on her transition team and she refers to him as her mentor.
I see a problem.
Nothing will happen. She enjoys protective pigmentation.
If you are personal friends with that politician, it very well could. This prosecutor has a responsibility to recuse herself based on her relationship to the Gray family and to their attorney. She has already showed herself to be politically motivated to overcharge those officers. Not just my opinion, but the opinion of every judge, attorney, and law professor I’ve heard comment on this situation. No way is she impartial, period.
I would have thought so, but according to Judge Alex (who I believe is a real straight-shooter), this is common practice. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but his comment was also that nobody else but lawyers would donate to lawyers.
I can see that point .. because lawyers don’t always have a good reputation, unless they work as a prosecutor and have a good conviction record.
But .. the lawyers can donate to prosecutors .. and you’re okay with that .. the current prosecutor is not a JUDGE ..!!! If she is, then I’ve read the whole donation thing wrong.
Dear bigbob,
(I hear that ol’ Jimmy Dean tune a-comin’ .... “big bob”, er, “big john’)
re: “Inexperienced, big talker, in over her head...sound familiar?”
Uhhhh, Hillary???? Fauxcohantas? That dumb blonde Harf girl?
That stinks to high heaven if true. It probably will aid the cases of the police officers she charged if she’s taking pay offs from interested parties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.