Sign up for our newsletters    

Sign up for our newsletters   

Baltimore City Paper home page.

The News Hole

Simon: Why Won’t the State’s Attorney Admit What He’s Done?

September 18, 2012
By

Baltimore States Attorney Gregg Bernstein has yet to explain why his agency promulgated new rules more than a year ago that have resulted in far fewer homicide cases being prosecuted by his office than under his predecessor. When we left him in August,  Bernstein and his capable spokespeople were satisfied to mislead a reporter about the relevant statistics, deny the new policy existed and then deny the relevant statistics were, in fact, relevant.

This is really David Simon’s story, so he’s written a follow-up.

The new post includes more of the back story about the policy change that effectively forbids police officers to charge murder cases, including the text of an email Acting Homicide Commander Lt. Leonard Willis sent to his squad sarcastically congratulating them for getting a couple of cases charged under the new policy.

Two good cops who bucked the new system were basically forced out, Simon writes.

Then he expands on some of the (probably) unforeseen results of the new system:

Mr. Bernstein’s new policy has created a dynamic that actually ties the hands of skilled homicide detectives. First, by denying detectives the ability to charge defendants immediately during interrogations, he has denied them the ability to leverage additional statements from defendants – a practical interrogative tactic that is basic to the way cases are built.

By putting the cuffs on a suspect as soon as he implicates himself in a murder, telling him he’s going straight to jail if he doesn’t tell the truth about more culpable people, a detective can sometimes get a killer to build the case against himself by telling lies—or to implicate someone else.

Second, Simon writes:

Once a suspect is in pre-trial detention, a detective seeking additional witnesses to a murder can return to the neighborhood with instant credibility, and those city residents asked to risk open testimony against such an offender can know that the man will not be up on the corner at the end of the day, free and clear and capable of retribution.  Mr. Bernstein’s new methodology slams that window shut as well.

Simon excoriates Bernstein for not explaining himself. He has, instead, denied and obfuscated. What could be keeping him from laying the facts out forthrightly?

UPDATE: City Paper emailed Bernstein’s spokesman, Mark Cheshire, a link to Simon’s latest and asked, “Why not just admit what you’re doing and defend it as good policy, with facts?”  Cheshire replies: “There is nothing new here, Ed. There is nothing to add to what we have already shared with you. There is no new policy.”

  • http://twitter.com/MichaelAWoodJr Michael A. Wood Jr.

    Being accoustomed to the “journalism” of the Baltimore Sun, I applaude your work here, Mr. Simon. Things like this are nothing new in Baltimore and other major cities. Policing has become entirely political. Only civil service ranks in the the BPD are officer, sergeant, and lieutenant. The lieutenant is the shift commander. Everyone else above that Deputy Major (XO) Major (CO), Lt.Col, Col, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, are all polictical appointment. In theory, and pretty much in practice, understand that no one, NO ONE, above the supervisor on the street has your interest in mind, everyone else is in the political game of advancing and preserving their own political career. When the few do something that resembles honorable police work, they are generally shown the door, busted down to supervisor on the street (since obviously that is how they are behaving) or hidden away in some reclusive position.
    On top of it, a significant portion of the street supervisors are merely jockeying for their own political appointment to one of the poltically appointed ranks. Really, only the sergeant and officer can be trusted to be generally acting in the best interest of the citizens of Baltimore. The whole system is a mess and was changed to be this way on purpose. There used to be civil service captains who led districts but that was changed to political ranks.
    The promotions are based on a variety of whatever reasons that the Commissioner chooses. There is a simple way to show that they are not based on merit. No one wants to hear, but sorry I bring truth, approximately 50% of the officers/detectives in the BPD (the people they chose to hire) are white and about 50% are black. Then comes civil service promotion. Between 70%-80% of the sergeants and lieutenants are white (where they cannot control the promotions) and 20%-30% are black. Then when we get back to where it can be controlled in the politically appointed command staff ranks, we are magically back to 50-50. Isn’t that amazing?

  • Lex Apostata

    I’m unclear about something. The original article from August counted murder indictments. Nobody gets indicted without the State’s Attorney’s office being on board, because the SAO handles grand juries, not the police. If someone is picked up and charged with murder, they are not returned to the streets until the grand jury issues an indictment a week later; they go to jail and are handed documents advising them of the nature of the charges against them, etc. They get their indictment later.
    Is Mr. Simon saying that now, a cop who arrests someone red-handed at midnight at the scene of a murder lets the person go until a grand jury indictment is returned a week later? Or that people who are brought in for questioning and confess are released and then picked up a week later after an indictment is returned?
    The August story definitely shows that the police are charging fewer murders, which is probably a bad thing, although the sample size (one year) is a little small. (Unless the number of convictions is unchanged, in which case the uncharged murders are ones that weren’t going to result in convictions anyhow). But is does the policy state that the cops can’t print out a charging document and stick the guy at Central Booking overnight unless an ASA expressly authorizes filing an indictment?
    I mean, if, a day or two later, the SAO looks over the application for charges, talks to the cops, and says “forget it, let the guy go,” and no indictment is ever filed, it might be a bad thing — letting a murderer go — but that policy would not in any way deny the police the ability to “leverage additional statements from the defendant,” as Mr. Simon puts it, because from the defendant’s perspective at that moment, any policy change has not helped him at all — he’s still being handcuffed and sent to Central Booking with a murder beef.
    Nor would it necessarily limit the cops’ ability to canvas for witnesses while the defendant was locked up, because the defendant can sit in Central Booking on no-bail status based on an application for statement of charges and a criminal information (theoretically pending a Preliminary Hearing in district court, which could be weeks away), the cops can canvas for witnesses before the SAO decides whether or not to exercise veto power and/or seek a formal indictment.
    So without defending the policy, I’m not sure I understand how it would lead to the two problems Mr. Simon identifies.