Look, I'm not a lawyer—nor do I play one on TV--but from everything I've read, this case is shot through with holes. We need to prepare for these guys walking out of the court free men.
It's always extremely difficult to convict a cop. I saw a lot of them exonerated when I covered the courts in Brooklyn. But in this case you have an inexperienced prosecutor--Marilyn Mosby, a mere 35-- who apparently didn't consult with the head of her office's homicide unit, "[perhaps the most experienced homicide prosecutor in the state of Maryland](http://pagecroyder.blogspot.com/)."
He's shrill on Israel and [may or may not have had sex with an underage prostitute](http://gawker.com/...), but Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz [sums up what](http://www.newsmax.com/...) a lot of attorneys are saying:
There's no plausible, hypothetical, conceivable case for murder under the facts that we now know them. You might say that conceivably there's a case for manslaughter. Nobody wanted this guy to die, nobody set out to kill him, and nobody intentionally murdered him.
Let's get into the nitty-gritty of it. The case rests on two pillars:
1. The officers arrested Freddie Gray without charge.
But everyone agrees that Gray ran from the cops, which the Supreme Court has ruled in and of itself is grounds for short-term detention. skymutt, who I assume has legal training, [wrote on Daily Kos](http://www.dailykos.com/...) that the standard is even lower than fleeing:
Worse, police may have been legally authorized to stop Gray even if he had not run. The court in Wardlow suggested that mere "nervous, evasive behavior," coupled with being in a "high crime area", may justify a Terry Stop and frisk. In other words, mere manifestations of being scared of the cops in a high crime area is enough.
In addition, there's the issue of the knife found on Gray. Mosby, the prosecutor, said it was legal, another reason why he shouldn't have been arrested. Baltimore law [prohibits the possession of a "switchblade" knife](http://blogs.villagevoice.com/...). But Gray's weapon, according to the police report, was a "spring assisted, one hand opening knife."
Prosecutors can't simply prove that Gray's knife was legal. They must prove that the cops either knew or should have known that Gray's knife was legal. They will have to convince a jury that in the middle of making an arrest, one already involving a fleeing suspect, police could have discerned or known the difference between a "spring assisted, one hand opening knife" and a switchblade.
And remember, the officers only have to have reasonable cause for arrest, which is not the same thing as being certain he committed a crime.
2. Five of the officers are charged with involuntary manslaughter.
To win a conviction of involuntary manslaughter, prosecutors need to show that these cops [should or would have known that their behavior was going to cause Gray's death](http://www.theatlantic.com/...). Yes, it does appear that Gray is severely injured before he is put into the police van, but how do you prove the injuries were severe enough that the cops should have known Gray was on the verge of dying?
They are not doctors. They can argue it was entirely reasonable that they had no idea of how badly Gray's spinal cord was injured. And yes, Gray cried for help and said he was in pain, but so do many suspects while being transported. Some are telling the truth, ohers not.
If the cops failed to strap Gray in securely, it is almost certainly a violation of police procedure, but that doesn't mean it's a criminal offense. These cops will likely lose their jobs or be demoted, but jail time may not be in their futures.
Again, I am not a lawyer and I hope someone who is will weigh in here and tell me I am very wrong.
But if not, [as one Baltimore attorney told the Boston Herald](http://www.bostonherald.com/...), it may "make the rioting you have seen thus far look like campfires that you roast marshmallows over.”