For all the grief State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby has gotten and dished out after her failure to secure any criminal convictions in the death of Freddie Gray, the guilty verdict today against Officer Wesley Cagle should not go unnoticed. Though he was acquitted on the most serious charges he faced — attempted first- and second-degree murder — his conviction on assault and handgun charges in the on-duty shooting of an unarmed burglary suspect should give the public some confidence that both the state's attorney's office and the police department can hold bad cops accountable.
Early one morning in December of 2014, Michael Johansen broke into a corner store in East Baltimore. Three police officers arrived on the scene and, when Mr. Johansen refused to follow their commands and reached toward his waistband, two of the officers fired their weapons, hitting him in several places. With Mr. Johansen on the ground, badly wounded and covered by the first two officers, Mr. Cagle approached and fired, hitting Mr. Joahnsen in the groin.
Although Ms. Mosby complained bitterly about what she saw as a lack of cooperation (if not outright sabotage) by the police department in the Gray cases, this conviction would not have been possible if not for the department's efforts. Prosecutors cleared the first two officers, Keven Leary and Isiah Smith, but not Mr. Cagle. There was no video of the incident — no body cameras, no in-store surveillance — and no outside witnesses. It could have been a matter of Mr. Cagle's word versus that of a heroin addict with an extensive criminal record.
But in fact, Messrs. Leary and Smith were the star witnesses for the prosecution. They described Mr. Johansen as posing no threat when Mr. Cagle approached him. Mr. Leary said Mr. Cagle told him afterward that he had shot the suspect in the groin, and Mr. Leary recalled telling Mr. Smith at the time that their fellow officer had done wrong. Mr. Leary also worked with internal affairs investigators in the case.
Even so, this was no slam-dunk for the prosecutors. Mr. Cagle claimed that he had seen a shiny object on Mr. Johansen's person and viewed him as a threat. He said he had to fire to protect himself and his fellow officers, and the defense presented an expert witness to went so far as to recreate the scene of the shooting in the courtroom to argue that the prosecution's narrative didn't match the physical evidence. The defense contended that prosecutors could not prove a bullet fired by Mr. Cagle actually hit Mr. Johansen, and Messrs. Leary and Smith could only offer a limited perspective on what happened. This case could easily have resulted in a complete acquittal, as many, many other criminal cases involving police in Baltimore have.
Now think about the cases against the officers involved in Freddie Gray's arrest. The charges there were not the result of an officer shooting someone or beating him up. The most serious ones related not to what the officers did but what they failed to do, namely place Gray in a seat belt. Not only was there no video of the most crucial moments in Gray's case — those when he was in the back of a police van — but there were no witnesses other than the defendants.
What the Cagle trial underscores is that Baltimore's justice system isn't incapable of holding officers accountable for criminal acts, as so many lamented after Ms. Mosby dropped all remaining charges against the officers in the Gray case last week. It can be done, but it requires a good case, good evidence and a measure of courage — Mr. Leary testified that he was taken off the streets after he cooperated with investigators because of backlash from his fellow officers. With the advent of body cameras, cameras in police vans and a soon-to-be completed Justice Department investigation that's likely to force further reforms, we'll likely see more good cases in the future — or, better yet, less bad behavior. When it comes to police accountability in Baltimore, the Gray trials weren't the turning point many hoped for, but perhaps this one will be.