One can certainly understand Tyree Threatt, 21, being confused. He was charged after a victim picked out his photo as the man who robbed her. However, the robbery occurred while Threatt was in jail on another robbery charge. Now here is the bizarre twist. Nicholas Cooksley, his public defender, showed the court the record proving that it was impossible for Threatt to have committed the crime. Indeed, what could be a better alibi than being in jail? Well, it was not good enough for the prosecutor who refused to drop the charge and insisted on a trial. Even more bizarre was the judge who agreed that a trial would be needed. The charges were only dropped after the media pressed the police, which eventually dropped the charges.
The case demonstrates, yet again, that witnesses are often mistaken despite the heavy reliance on such testimony by many jurors. A detective spotted Threatt in the area of the crime as someone who matched the victim’s description. He was arrested on armed robbery and using a firearm in a violent crime. Both charges carry a maximum 20-year prison sentence.
However, the real story is the initial position of the prosecutors and the ruling of the court. Exactly what is the trial supposed to show. Could a jury decide that Threatt could have been both in custody and miles away at the same time?
On June 27th (the day of the robbery), Threatt was being held on charges of second-degree assault and false imprisonment. While charges were dropped that day, Threatt was not released until June 28th.
There is no discussion of how the detective could have missed this obvious problem or any discussion of the position of prosecutor who was informed of the problem. Indeed, there is no mention of any investigation, let alone discipline, for the detective or the prosecutor for such negligence. There is also no mention of the name of the judge who agreed that a trial is warranted when the accused was locked away at the time of the crime.
Source: Baltimore Sun
George, there’s a school of thought in the prosecutocracy that this kind of thing is okay. Stunning irrationality is tolerated from prosecutors by the bench.
Terrible story, hope the kid recovers.
Prosecutors.
A while ago this appeared here: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/25/family-sues-wisconsin-prosecutor-after-she-charges-6-year-old-boy-with-first-degree-sexual-assault-after-playing-doctor/
This case was appealed to the SC and failed cert.
The prosecutor in this case had information from a child psychologist that same prosecutor had use as an expert witness that (a) the 6-year old was not psychologically capable of committing first degree sexual assault, and that (b) due to his fragile mental state it would be seriously psychologically damaging to the child. (She was right, he now suffers from PTSD and fears police. I know. I talked with him last week.) She hauled him to a preliminary hearing in adult court anyway.
Oh, yes, she got reelected.
He ‘JMRJ’ – nice to see you here – in the realm of banter cool/extraordinary!
Most judges do – what prosecutors ask – and find out the “real” reason at golf (or some other secluded forum).
As for JMRJ’s references to US v Costello (1956) was (I steadfastly believe) laid waste/made moot by Brady v. Maryland”,(373 U.S. 83 (1963)), and “Giglio v. United States”, (405 U.S. 150 (1972)),
FRCP 60(b) and fraud on the court by “officers of the court” expunges any Statute of Limitations – as per the ubiquitously adopted standard per Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944).
At the same time, I do concur with counselor JMRJ – that US v Costello reasoning – is inane – all the same.
Prosecutor and judge should be canned.
Wouldn’t you love to have been on that jury? After acquittal, the public defender could have run for Prosecutor and won!
There’s no such thing as summary judgment in criminal cases. Maybe there should be. I suppose the rationale is that a public prosecutor has no interest in pursuing obviously false charges problems like this should take care of themselves. But of course they don’t.
There is something terribly wrong. Law schools and bar exams should weed out people without minimal levels of intelligence and rationality. Or maybe it’s sanity. But it’s not the first time charges that are obviously and completely bogus have been pursued by prosecutors. At least in this case there was no conviction. Convictions can and do happen, too.
http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/introduction/
Take a matter in federal court where there has been an indictment by a grand jury. After the indictment an alibi like this comes to light, or some other unarguable proof that the charges are improperly laid, but the prosecutor thinks the Defendant is a really bad guy and doesn’t want to drop the charges.
You would think the judge could lawfully do his job for him and dismiss the indictment, but US v. Costello, 350 US 359 (1956) says no. Or at least it arguably says no.
Read the section of the Department of Justice Grand Jury Manual dealing with misconduct in the form of the deliberate use of perjury by the government. It says that the “weight of authority” is that this is no basis for a court to dismiss an indictment. I’m not kidding.
The prosecutor in Baltimore and the judge are not isolated incidents in our system.
“Close enough” is now good in horseshoes, hand grenades, and Ct. arrests.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140731/13243828075/connecticut-supreme-court-says-state-cops-can-detain-you-simply-being-vicinity-someone-theyre-arresting.shtml
Coffee deprived. The man was charged w/ homicide which occurred when he was clearly @ the Dodger game.
Well, just in case no one else notices, excellent Firesign Theater reference Al O’Heem!
Some truly high-quality detective work there.
Really, how can these people keep their jobs?!
There’s a famous case involving Larry David and his great show, Curb Your Enthusiasm. There was a show where Larry takes a hooker to a Dodger’s Game. It’s probably the funniest episode. In a crowd scene a man was clearly seen. This man was charged w/ a homicide which occurred when the homicide was committed. That prosecutor dropped the charges.
Increasingly, this is the way that things work in the U.S., and yet it continues. Why? Because we allow it.
This is surreal. This is what passes for sanity in people in positions of responsibility? They need emergency psychiatric appointments by the sound of it. What other decisions have they made?
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
Why the JT Media blackout of the Ferguson MO incidents?
I’m thinking there’s a prosecutor who needs to be referred to the disciplinary committee. Maybe a judge too.
More proof that getting a conviction is becoming more important than getting justice or solving the crime for far too many in law enforcement.
This case reminds one of Mike Nifong, who persisted in prosecuting one of the Duke lacrosse players despite exculpatory evidence.
The willingness of prosecutors to prosecute people they must know are not guilty destroys their credibility. To fly in the face of common sense and reasonableness is to send a message that truth and justice mean nothing to the government.
This is why we have the Bill of Rights.
OMG! This is sooo quantummy it needs an Irish poem!
Schrodinger ‘s Prisoner???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a guy in a cell.
Simultaneously elsewhere as well.
Did his wave front abort?
Was the question the Court
Was entangled in, so I hear tell.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
How can you be two places at once when you’re not anywhere at all…