ON MY PART.
I DON'T HAVE ANY INSIDE
INFORMATION ON ALL OF THIS.
WE WATCHED ALL THE PARTIES
INVOLVED GO INTO THE COURTHOUSE
TODAY AND NONE OF THEM WERE
PREPARED FOR ANYTHING.
THEY DID NOT HAVE BOXES AND
VOLUMES OF MATERIAL TO PRESENT.
THEY WALKED IN WITH LEGAL PADS
AND THAT WAS IT.
THE FIRST CLUE THAT SOMETHING
UNUSUAL WAS ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
>> I THINK THE INTERVIEW GOING
ON NEAR YOU IS WARREN BROWN.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE ARE ABLE TO
HOP OVER.
DAVID:
HE IS AND I AM WITH DAVID
JAROS, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE
PROFESSOR.
>> ONE SECOND, WE WILL COME
RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
>>
WHEN YOU DO NOT USE THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION
OR THE SHERIFFS, YOU GET THIS
TYPE OF RESULT.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE YOU
RAISE THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE
COMMUNITY THAT JUSTICE IS GOING
TO BE DONE.
YOU PUT THE OFFICERS AND THEIR
FAMILIES THROUGH ALL OF THIS.
DRIVE A FURTHER WEDGE BETWEEN
THE STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WHY?
DO IN INTELLECTUALLY IT
HONEST
INVESTIGATION AND LET THE PIECES
FALL WHERE THEY MAY.
I HAVE SAID IT ALL ALONG, THE
STATE DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO
CHARGE PEOPLE IN THIS CASE.
AN INTERESTING THING WOULD BE
WITH THE CIVIL CASES THAT REMAIN
, ABLE TO PULL BACK THE CURTAIN
ON THE THINKING, THE WORK AND
THAT TYPE OF THING AT THE STATES
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT
,
HOW DID YOU GET TO THE DECISION,
THE CHARGE SO QUICKLY.
I THINK THOSE REVELATIONS WOULD
BE DAMNING.
>> THEY HAVE A STRONG CIVIL CASE
NOW.
>>
THE CIVIL CASES, THEY HAVE
THE ABILITY TO GO THROUGH A
DISCOVERY PROCESS THAT INCLUDES
DEPOSITIONS, PEOPLE, NOT ONLY
THE NAMED DEFENDANTS IN THE
CIVIL CASE, BUT TANGENTIAL
INDIVIDUALS AS WELL.
UNDER OATH IN A ROOM BY
THEMSELVES THE LAWYERS ARE ABLE
TO INQUIRE AS TO THE
DECISION-MAKING IN THIS CASE
BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION IS THIS
WAS A PROSECUTION THAT WAS
MALICIOUS IN NATURE.
THAT THERE WAS NOT ANY FACTUAL
FOUNDATION FOR IT.
WE HAVE FOUND THROUGH THESE
TRIALS THAT THERE HAS BEEN
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT
AND I THINK IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN A
GREAT JUST TO GO FURTHER AGAINST
THESE INDIVIDUALS AND I THINK IT
WAS A REGIS TO GO FURTHER BEYOND
NERO -- EGREGIOUS TO GO FURTHER
BEYOND NERO BECAUSE YOU HAVE
JUDGES DECISION AND THE CHARGES
WERE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME AS THE
OTHER DEFENDANTS.
FINALLY THEY REACHED THE POINT
WHERE THEY REALIZED THIS WOULD
BE NO MORE THAN A FRUSTRATING
PURSUIT.
I THINK THEY REALIZE IT WOULD
GIVE FODDER TO THE PLAINTIFFS IN
THE CIVIL CASES ALLEGATIONS THAT
IT WAS A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
>> YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO
WARREN BROWN.
WE WILL HEAD BACK TO DAVID
COLLINS.
MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS FOR US IN
THE DEVELOPING STORY.
DAVID: I'M STANDING WITH DAVID
CHARLES, PROFESSOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE LAW
SCHOOL.
I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO
ALL THIS.
>> I THINK THIS WAS NOT A HUGE
SURPRISE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY THE PRIOR
CASES SUGGESTED THIS WAS A
REALLY HARD CASE TO PROVE.
IT WAS ALL ALONG.
GIVEN WHAT EVIDENCE THE STATE
HAS AT SOME POINT THEY HAVE
ASKED THEMSELVES DO WE HAVE
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE
CASE GOT A REASONABLE DOUBT.
UNIT THEY BELIEVE A CRIME HAS
OCCURRED, EVEN IF THEY BELIEVE
THERE ARE BENEFITS TO BRINGING
PROSECUTION BECAUSE OF THE
DETERRENT EFFECT IT HAS ON OTHER
OFFICERS OR BECAUSE IT REAFFIRMS
THE VALUE OF EVERY CITIZEN'S
LIFE, THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE THEY
CAN PROVE THEIR CASE BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
IF THEY DECIDE THEY CANNOT THE
RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO DISMISS.
DAVID: MOST OF US CAME PREPARED
TO HEAR A KASTIGAR HEARING.
HOWEVER IS THAT IN THE STATE OF
MARYLAND AND IN GENERAL?
WHEN IT DID HAPPEN -- WHEN IT IS
NOT -- WHEN IT DID NOT HAPPEN --
>> THE KASTIGAR HEARING IS AN
EXTREMELY RARE THING.
THE STATE HAD COMPELLED THESE
OFFICERS WHO ARE DEFENDANTS TO
TESTIFY IN OTHER CASES.
I PRESUME THEY WERE FORCED TO DO
SO BECAUSE THEY NEEDED THAT
EVIDENCE TO COME IN THOSE CASES.
IT PUT THEM IN A DIFFICULT
POSITION BECAUSE THEY THEN HAD
TO SHOW THAT NO STRATEGY THEY
HAD IN THIS CASE AND NO EVIDENCE
THEY HAD WAS DERIVED FROM THAT
COMPELLED TESTIMONY.
IT WAS A DIFFICULT THING TO DO.
MY REACTION WAS REALLY ONE OF
THE GEEKY LAW PROFESSORS WHO IS
FASCINATED BY THE FACT THAT WE
WOULD HAVE A KASTIGAR HEARING
AND CURIOUS TO HOW THEY WOULD
SATISFY THAT DIFFICULT HURDLE
.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I THINK IT
WAS THE RIGHT DECISION.
I THINK IT PROBABLY WAS.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE JUDGE'S
REASONING IN THE OTHER CASE
THERE WAS NO QUESTION HE WAS
OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT
THEY WOULD HAVE MORE EVIDENCE.
ABSENT MORE EVIDENCE THAT DID
NOT APPEAR TO BE ARRAY FORWARD
TO A CONVICTION.
IF YOU CANNOT GET A CONVICTION
AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO FOLD
DAVID:.
LET ME GO BACK TO THE KASTIGAR
HEARING.
WE SAW THE PROSECUTION PUT
TOGETHER A CLEAN TEAM.
IF FILTER TEAM TO MAKE SURE THE
CLEAN TEAM WAS NOT TAINTED.
IT SEEMS THAT THEY TOOK THE
RIGHT STEPS.
BEYOND THAT, HOW DIFFICULT WOULD
IT HAVE BEEN TO PROVE?
>>
ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN SIMPLE.
ONE THING THEY HAD SHOW WAS THAT
ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ARE GOING TO
OFFER WAS NOT DERIVED IN ANY WAY
FROM COMPELLED TESTIMONY.
BECAUSE THEY PUT ON A GREAT DEAL
OF EVIDENCE AND
HAVE A
WELL-PUBLICIZED INVESTIGATION
WHERE THEY CAN POINT TO THEIR
EVIDENCE WAS THEY COULD'VE
GOTTEN OVER THAT HURDLE
RELATIVELY EASILY.
THE OTHER THING THEY WERE AT THE
SHOW IS THAT THEIR STRATEGY WAS
NOT SHAPED BY COMMUNICATIONS
WITH ANYONE ELSE IN THEIR OFFICE
.
THERE IS EVEN THE QUESTION POSED
TO ME OF, COULD THEY READ THE
DECISION OF THE JUDGE IN OFFICER
NERO'S CASE WHICH WAS SHAPED BY
COMPELLED TESTIMONY.
IT SHOWS WHAT A CAMERA WARMS YOU
OPEN UP -- CAN OF WORMS YOU OPEN
UP.
IT IS NOT A HURDLE THAT I THINK
WOULD HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET
OVER AND IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME
THAT THEY MADE ANY MISTAKES IN
THE STEPS THAT THEY WERE TAKING.
THERE WAS A MOTION THAT WAS
FILED THAT ALLEGED THAT THERE
HAD BEEN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN
ATTORNEYS WHO WITNESSED THE
COMPELLED TESTIMONY AND THE
CLEAN TEAM OF THOSE ARE