Another day, another officer acquitted in the death of an unarmed black man
James Baldwin was right: "To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time."
On days in which yet another police officer or vigilante is acquitted for killing another black man, woman or child, I am reminded of the sage words of the late James Baldwin:
To be a Negro in this country and to be relatively conscious is to be in a rage almost all the time.
As a black lawyer who doubles as a social activist, I often find myself at the pinnacle of rage in these situations because my thirst for justice is often balanced by my understanding of the law and how very easy it is for law enforcement officers to walk free from charges of official wrongdoing.
As such, count me among those not surprised that Baltimore Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams acquitted Officer Edward M. Nero. Last year, when Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced charges against six officers for offenses ranging from second degree murder to official misconduct, famed Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of the OJ Simpson “Dream Team” back in the 90s, called the charging decision “a very sad day for justice.”
Dershowitz added that “(prosecutors) overplayed their hand, it’s unlikely they’ll get any convictions in this case…and will just postpone the riots for months ahead.”
Was Prof. Dershowitz clairvoyant in his predictions, what with a hung jury in Officer William Porter’s case last December and now Nero’s acquittal? Perhaps, but the heart of the matter is that police officers receive a greater benefit of the doubt in their actions from juries and judges than regular citizens ever will.
This fact remains extremely frustrating for black Americans who recognize that the public relations goodwill of “Officer Friendly” among many of our white fellow citizens is diametrically opposed to the “Officer Kick-Butt” that black folks across social-economic lines experience on a daily basis in encounters with law enforcement.
In the Nero case, the defendant and his lawyers took the highly unusual step of having a felony charge considered in a bench trial. In a jury trial, the jury serves as fact finders to determine whether the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based upon witness testimony and exhibits in accordance to the law as provided by the court in jury instructions. In a bench trial, the judge performs both duties, serving as both the fact finder and law giver.
As many judges on the trial court level, like Judge Williams, are subject to popular election, few are willing to render verdicts that could be construed as being soft on crime in a contested judicial race. Because of that, when I see social media friends calling Judge Williams, who is black, a “sellout” and worse on social media, the activist in me feels the frustration that comes with the realization that even having a “Brother” on the bench does not guarantee that justice will be served for the family of Freddie Gray.
But even more frustrating for the lawyer in me is Judge Williams’s seemingly illogical ruling, one in which by declaring that Nero was not guilty, he opines that “The state’s theory has been one of recklessness and negligence…there has been no evidence that the defendant intended for a crime to occur.”
My major beef with the judge’s decision is that in court’s across America, a defendant’s intent in a case where “reckless” behavior is contemplated includes variations of the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of reckless which is: “careless or indifferent to the welfare of others.”
Similarly, the Black’s Law definition of “negligence” is: the “omission to do something that a reasonable and prudent person would do.” From those very definitions alone, that Nero did not intend for Gray to die is far less relevant than what careless, indifferent, or imprudent acts that he committed or omitted that led to Gray’s death. Surely the judge knows this, too, but I find his unwillingness to stick to the letter of the law in this highly politicized case disturbing and utterly disappointing.
Most Americans, but especially trial lawyers, know full well that police officers are rarely held to account for acts and omissions that the majority of us would be convicted for if we committed them.
Let John or Jane Q. Citizen chase an unarmed man down for no legitimate reason, as officers did Gray; let the victim hurt his back or have an asthma attack in the process; let John or Jane throw the victim in the car or truck and ride him around bouncing for an hour or more — offering no medical assistance; let him die in their custody or control. I am convinced that John and Jane Q Citizen would be convicted during a jury or bench trial and sentenced to prison by a judge. Thus my frustration at what appears to be yet another miscarriage of justice in America. Thus our continuing cries of “No Justice, No peace!”
Chuck Hobbs is a lawyer, social activist and freelance writer who won the Florida Bar Media Award in 2010 and was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in commentary by the Tallahassee Democrat in 2011. Follow him on Twitter @RealChuckHobbs
More About:News
You Might Like
