Court: Judge Charles Bernstein Acted as “Co-Prosecutor” and Denied Defendants Fair Trial

gavel2Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Charles G. Bernstein has been found to have acted so improperly in two criminal cases that he became a “co-prosecutor” and denied the defendants a fair trial. Steven Diggs (found guilty of drug possession) and Damon Lamar Ramsey (convicted of possession and intent to distribute) will receive new trials.

Bernstein was found by the appellate court to have openly scoffed at the defense theories and used his questions to directly contradict the defense.

His response to the ruling: “Whatever I did is a matter of record. If I was in error, then the Court of Appeals is doing its job and correcting that error.”

Judge Joseph F. Murphy Jr. dissented and supported Bernstein.

Notably, Bernstein served as a federal public defender from 1974-80 as well as working as a prosecutor.

For the full story, click here.

7 thoughts on “Court: Judge Charles Bernstein Acted as “Co-Prosecutor” and Denied Defendants Fair Trial”

  1. Isn’t this the way the law works in France and Italy? Not a good system in my opinion, when the role of prosecutor and judge are rolled into one.

    I love ya, but after your post on being held in contempt, I’d hesitate to hire you on a criminal defense. I admire the sentiment and the courage, but I would not want to be the defendant, who was being F***** already.

  2. foo 1, June 15, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    How did you do in the Professors class? If you chose to ignore this, this is fine.

  3. I kinda got held in contempt for telling the Judge in front of the Jury, That he just Fuc*ed” My Client and did not furnish Vaseline. I was asked to repeat my self and told him to F**K Off.

    The contempt was recalled after I paid 2,500.

  4. AY,

    That’s one thing they don’t teach in you law school. Imagine the chaos this info would cause in Civ Pro.

    “Federal Rules? We don’t need no stinking Rules…”

  5. You know, I had a civil trial where the Judge got pissed off at the Defendant and declared in the Middle of the Trial that “As a Matter of Law” I have determined that the Defendant did so and so and all’s you the Jury have to do is decide damages. Court of Appeals affirmed the Bast***.

Comments are closed.