Is there really no evidence that the police officers did not intend to injure the deceased? Or simply no evidence of that sort has been presented at the trials because it’s not pertinent to the charges being tried? Or there is evidence, but it’s not strong enough to base charges on it?
Does there need to be a change in the law? It feels wrong to me that if fault is diffused among enough people that everyone avoids conviction. Is it simply an inherent implication of our “beyond a reasonable doubt” judicial system that makes it impossible to do better?
The only evidence that they intended to injure Gray was that they did not put him in a seatbelt. However, since literally billions of people have driven in cars unbelted and not been killed it is impossible to charge based on that alone.
The best shot the State had was proving reckless endangerment: that the officer engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to Gray, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in that conduct, and that the officer acted recklessly.
The problem with this theory was that while there was a general order requiring seatbelts be used for prisoners, it was new, and the State failed to present any evidence that it had been communicated to the officer.
The problem was not “diffusing” fault. The problem is that there was no proof of any criminal act.
Yes, I see that there were no criminal acts under the current law, but you’re not addressing my question. I’m asking if it’s possible to constitutionally write a law that would’ve criminalized the actions of the officers in this situation.
Edited to add:
For example, would “police officers are strictly liable for injuries to those in their custody” pass constitutional muster. I’m not asking if it’s good public policy, but if it’s constitutional.
As a general rule, the courts are loathe to accept strict liability criminal offenses, and often judicially create scienter elements to crimes when none are specified. But in this case, my best guess is that such a law would be constitutionally permissible, as long as it did not destroy the extant privilege that officers have to inflict reasonable injury while using reasonable force.
I don’t think strict liability for injuries in custody is a constitutional criminal prohibition.
Due process requires that you have the ability to ensure that your conduct is not criminal. Since some detainees will be injured even if officers are perfect angels, such a criminal prohibition would not pass muster.
However, I do not think there’s any constitutional obstacle to stripping officers of their privilege to use reasonable force. Statutes can abrogate common law privileges.
Parents can face criminal neglect charges for failing to buckle up children in their charge. Here the police have a citizen in their charge, whom they have rendered especially vulnerable.
It is pathetic and shameful that the police hide behind a purported need for a policy on this point. A reasonable person knows that there is risk in transporting anyone in a motor vehicle unbelted.
The standard for police officers’ judgement ought to be higher than that for ordinary citizens’.
The bar for criminal recklessness is not simply “there is risk.” Sure, a reasonable person knows there is risk. But conduct that is criminally reckless requires that the actor know there is a “high degree” of risk to human life and a reckless disregard for human life. The act of transporting a person unbelted does not meet that standard.
As I read Md Code § 22-412.2 the penalty is a $50 fine, not any kind of criminal neglect charge. Can you explain what you’re thinking of when you say they can face criminal neglect charges?
During the time period that “the other person” was in the vehicle. “The other person” can not tell us ANYTHING about the time period between Gray being placed in the vehicle and driven toward the central booking station and the time “the other person” was placed in the vehicle, can he?
There is a time period where the only people in the van were Gray and Goodson, correct?
I’m not Peremensoe, but if a child is not buckled in and dies as a result, the worst that happens (legally) to the adults in charge of the child is a $50 fine?
I don’t think strict liability for police officers is the best solution, but it’s good to know that it’s within the gamut of constitutional possibilities.
Well, if the accident that caused the death was the fault of those same adults, then of course there is the possibility of criminal charges arising from that accident. In other words, if the parent drove drunk and the child were killed, there might well be criminal liability.
It’s also entirely possible that no one person is responsible, at least not in a criminal justice sense. IMO, there’s a very high likelihood that in this case, it was some sort of bizarre conjunction of sub-criminal negligence or incompetence on the part of a whole bunch of people, potentially causing Gray’s death. None of which are enough to convict anyone on, and none of which would have been an issue absent ALL the others.
Just because something’s unfortunate and people want someone to hang, doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea.
Several states have much more severe penalties for failure to properly secure child passengers, or else explicitly consider that such an act qualifies under their broader child-neglect statutes. See this case in Florida, for example (in which there was no accident and no injuries); there were other indicia of neglect, but the failure to secure child passengers is cited as the basis for prosecution.
Well, sometimes. Other times they were hit by somebody else driving badly, and their only failure of duty was in not-securing the kid. As in this case in Tennessee, where the kid died and the mother was convicted of criminally negligent homicide.
It seems to have been cited as the basis for arrest, to be sure.
But I can’t find a case that was ever prosecuted on that basis.
Florida’s child neglect law is not the same as Maryland’s. But even in Florida, the child neglect law in play, Fl. Stat. 827.03(2)(d) provides:
I cannot find a single instance of a criminal trial, let alone a conviction, for a seat belt violation for a child. The Florida model jury instructions provide:
There is no way that the mere fact of failing to belt a child in, without more, would sustain a conviction under this section, and I can find not one instance where it has.
Your citation is to a case in Florida, not Maryland, that involved an arrest, not a conviction.
The case discussed in this thread also involves an arrest of the Baltimore officers, but not a conviction.