Professor Ronald Sullivan's rambling and incoherent diatribe against reasoned criticism of Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby and company is filled with presumptive and unfounded conclusions and red herring arguments. First and foremost, he ignores the principal allegation that Ms. Mosby was driven by political activism, not prosecutorial discretion, probable cause and certainly not by pursuit of justice ("Harvard law professor: criticism of Mosby over Gray trials is 'wholly unfounded,'" July 25).
The good professor offers not a shred of evidence that Ms. Mosby has been judged by any prejudicial double standard. Mr. Sullivan doesn't seem to understand the distinction between argument and evidence. The criticism of prosecutorial misconduct stems from her public statements at the time of the Baltimore riots, statements which had the ostensible tones of lynch-mob and vigilante rhetoric and incitement to lawless mob behavior.
Legal experts such as Andrew Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and now Fox News legal analyst, argued that the evidence for prosecution was inadequate and suggested that a "Kangaroo Court" mentality was the motivator for proceeding with prosecution. These latter views are supported by Ms. Mosby's failure to gain any conviction on any count on the first four attempts at prosecution.
The state's attorney's stubborn resistance to dropping remaining prosecutions, followed by her recent decision to do so, reinforce allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
Angelo Mirabella, Silver Spring