Having practiced criminal defense law for the past 30 years, I have some thoughts about the root causes of Baltimore City's current state of affairs ("Baltimore's tipping point," April 30).
First, politicians who thump their chests and boast of being "tough on crime" while passing laws that do nothing except over-incarcerate and stigmatize impoverished people.
Former Mayor Martin O'Malley's infamous "zero tolerance" crime-fighting strategy is a prime example of a politician always eyeing the next election while instituting failed strategies that incited anger, resentment and distrust of the police. But it permitted him to brag about his crime-fighting when he ran for governor.
Second, city state's attorneys who refuse to charge police officers clearly involved in serious offenses against citizens. In his short, four-year stint as Baltimore City state's attorney Gregg Bernstein refused to bring charges in two separate police-custody deaths, those of Anthony Anderson and Tyrone West.
He even refused to bring charges against the officer who slit a restrained dog's throat — even though a police spokesman, Eric Kowalczy said "it was a complete violation of protocol. It's not often police speak out against one of their own, but we are all truly appalled." Apparently, Mr. Bernstein wasn't.
Third, police "disciplinary" panels that refuse to punish their own. Case in point: The officer who assaulted a young skateboarder at the Inner Harbor and was caught doing so on video. After the video went viral, the disciplinary panel cleared the officer of the most serious charge, that of using excessive force, but found he had failed to file a proper report.
Given the community uproar over the officer's actions and the slap on the wrist suggested by the panel, former Police Commissioner Frederick Bealefeld IV fired that officer. But one is left to wonder what, if anything, would have happened had there been no video.
Fourth, two of the most destructive U.S. Supreme Court opinions ever empowered police to misuse their authority.
Illinois v. Wardlow permits police officers to detain any individual in a high-crime area who runs away on seeing the police. This, no doubt, is what Baltimore officers believed gave them the right to chase Freddie Gray.
And then there is Whren v. U.S., which held that police may stop cars based on a pretext.
In other words, even if an officer wants to stop a car solely because it's being driven by an African-American, as long as the officer can articulate some legitimate reason for a traffic stop, e.g., the windshield was obstructed by air fresheners, the stop does not violate the law.
Fifth, judges who know or strongly suspect that a police officer is lying when testifying about the facts that he relied upon to detain, arrest or search an individual, but who refuse to question the officer's credibility.
Face it, when it comes down to a defendant saying he did not do what the officer claims, judges always believe the officer. It happens so frequently that it provides an incentive for police to lie, plant evidence and falsify reports. Yet ironically, any citizen who says she would always believe a police officer's testimony would be disqualified from serving as a juror.
Judges are also to blame for refusing to hold prosecutors accountable for withholding evidence from the defense. The judge's idea of accountability when the evidence that was withheld comes to light is not to sanction the prosecutor but to give the defense a short recess to investigate the new evidence.
This only gives prosecutors another incentive to break the rules.
Finally, appellate judges will do whatever is necessary to affirm a conviction. even if it requires being intellectually dishonest.
Given these systemic problems, it's no wonder people in Baltimore City, particularly African-American men, feel the deck is stacked against them and that the "justice system" is rigged. In many ways, it is.
Nancy S. Forster, Towson