Patricia Jessamy keeps referring to the fact that crime rates are down in Baltimore and implies that this is at least in part her doing.

However, crime in general has been going down. Is the decrease in Baltimore's crime rate different from the rest of the nation? Better? Worse? Only if the Baltimore city's crime rate has gone down more than in the rest of the nation would there be something to crow about, never mind the issue of who is responsible for it.

Even if the rate of reported crime in Baltimore city has decreased substantially compared to the rest of the nation, or the rest of Maryland, or cities of similar size, this may not necessarily be a good thing.  It's possible that actual crime rates haven't changed, but the amount of reporting has. If it's the reporting of crime that's on the decrease, we need to look at why.  One reason might be Baltimore's "Stop Snitchin" culture, the death threats and intimidation of witnesses, the unsolved crimes leading to the deaths of those who report crimes, and their families.

Another reason might be the very rational reaction of witnesses who know Patricia Jessamy's stated rules for when she will take a case to trial. In particular, Jessamy's office has said that she won't take a case to trial if there's only 1 witness. So, who is going to stick their neck out, report a crime, and take the risk that the criminal won't be taken off the streets?

Added Sept 10, 2010

Then there's Jessamy's "Do Not Call List" where any police officer with anything questionable in his record doesn't get called to testify. Some people think police also get on the list for political reasons/revenge, etc.  Even if this isn't the case, what it means is that once again, Jessamy won't do anything that might make prosecuting "difficult" or "challenging."

Well, since it's Saturday, that only leaves us 7 days until the primary.  The good news is that in this year you don't have to wait until the primary election day to vote. Early voting is now available and absentee voting is always an option.

Here's a place to see the debate between Patricia Jessamy and Gregg Bernstein and another to listen to the debate on the Marc Steiner show. (Here's an analysis of some of what was said.)

Jessamy keeps citing the figures available from the state's Division of Corrections to support the job her office has done. Baltimore Courts send 60% of the convicts who make up the prison population.  This she says is evidence that she's doing a good job.  There are a couple of problems with this.

First, that figure is meaningless unless you know the rate of crime in Baltimore and other parts of the state. If Baltimore has 80% of the crime in the state, then getting only 60% into jails is a bad thing. It would represent a failure on the part of the prosecution's office.  Second, we don't know what percentage of the cases that the Baltimore City State's attorneys office tries to prosecute and how often they succeed and we don't know what percentage of arrests her office actually pursues. We don't know, because she doesn't keep track.

The figures Gregg Bernstein cites are the result of publicly funded study done by a former Baltimore city prosecutor. That study indicates that her office is successful in only 45% of the unit handling the most violent crimes by repeat offenders that they take to court. It's a random or representative sample. How accurate is it? We don't know because Jessamy's office doesn't keep track of what they do.

The third problem is that we have no idea how many cases should be going to trial. As I noted in my earlier post, Jessamy's office has flat out said they don't even try to prosecute cases where there's (a) only one witness and no corroborating evidence, and (b) there's evidence but the witness(es) is/are reluctant to testify, even though prosecutors have the ability to compel a witness' attendance at court.

Another problem with relying on Jessamy's statistics is that we have don't know what the actual crime rate in Baltimore city is because of the "stop snitchin" culture and the very obvious fear of prospective witnesses. As a result, it's highly likely that many crimes go unreported.

Yet another problem with looking only at the number of criminals that Baltimore city courts send to the state prison is that it appears to be quite common for individuals with a crime history in Baltimore to go out to nearby counties and commit crimes. The fact that these Baltimore defendants are being convicted by other courts may make it look as if crime is more widely distributed in the state, but it ignores the fact that if the Baltimore prosecutor and Baltimore courts had done their jobs, the criminals wouldn't be out and about in the suburbs. So, in essence, suburban courts and prosecutors end up doing the job that should have been done earlier in Baltimore.

As many point out, the Baltimore city prosecutor's office isn't solely responsible for the failure to put and keep behind bars individuals who deserve to be there. The judges and parole boards also contribute to this problem, but replacing Jessamy is a good start. She seems complacent about what the judges do and tolerates it without trying to do anything about it.

Please vote for Gregg Bernstein within the next couple of days.

All or almost all web pages would have the date it was created and the date of the last update automatically added.  This should definitely be the case for media articles and government pages -- basically, any page that has information on it that can become dated, information whose relevance depends on the date, or which may become invalid.

On Saturday, July 24th, three days shy of his 24th birthday, a young man was dropped off at Penn Station by the bus that had brought him from visiting his sister in N.Y.C   He was walking home and was on his cell phone talking with his mother. About a mile from Penn Station, and just four blocks from his apartment near the Johns Hopkins main campus, he was robbed and stabbed in the chest, as his mother listened from her home. "Five minutes into the walk, I heard him be approached. He offered his wallet, (they) still attacked and killed him," said his mother. Her son died holding the hand of the witness who had called 911. (Although he wasn’t pronounced dead until the ambulance reached the hospital). His wasn't the only murder in Baltimore that night, although it is perhaps the most poignant.

The young man was from Jupiter, FL; had gone to college in Kalamazoo, Michigan; and had become fluent in Japanese while working in Japan on stem cells. Returning to the U.S. he got a job in Baltimore working as a research assistant on breast cancer and wound research at the Johns Hopkins Medical School, where he was highly regarded. Although he had majored in economics in college, he was planning on attending medical school. One of his professors at Michigan had encouraged him to go into medicine.

His apartment is in an area of Baltimore that’s considered “very safe” by Baltimore police, in part because Hopkins has beefed up security on and off campus in recent years.

The two people arrested for his murder had no business being out of jail, but they were out of jail because of the multiple failures of Baltimore City’s “justice” system. The purpose of this post is to alert you to the opportunity to do something about this broken system.


The  Suspects

There’s little doubt that police have arrested the culprits; although they must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the state should have no problem proving its case.

In charging documents, police said they were told by witnesses that [the two suspects] were overheard saying that they had "robbed and 'hurt' a 'white boy.'" Detectives recovered a brown wallet [Pitcairn‘s], Pitcairn's iPhone, several folding and fixed blade knives — and shoes containing what appeared to be blood.

Finally, Baltimore city is keeping these suspects in jail, without bond – for now.

The two suspects are married and have a long history with the police. They were arrested together at least once before. Both have struggled with addiction; both were on probation. He (JAW) is 34 and she is 24.

The man has armed robbery convictions starting in 1991. In the early 1990’s he received a 15 year sentence. In 2008 he pled guilty to 1st degree assault for the “vicious assault on his then-girlfriend” in a Baltimore City court. He received an eight year suspended sentence and supervised probation for 3 years. When a defendant receives a suspended sentence, he serves no jail time, provided he abides by his probation. This man failed to abide by the terms of his probation: he was supposed to stay out of trouble, check in with his probation supervisor, and take anger management classes, but did not.  Despite this, he was let out to walk the streets.


Baltimore County had a chance to keep this couple in Jail

In 2009 the couple was picked up by Baltimore County police in a stolen car. JAW was In the driver’s seat and she was in the passenger’s seat. “In the passenger's side door was a bag containing suspected crack cocaine and needles, and a knife was in the center console.”

At the time, the woman was also under supervised probation from a 2008 drug conviction.  One would think this would be considered a violation of her probation, but there’s no mention of any action being taken against her. JAW was sentenced in Baltimore County to two years for theft, but this sentence was also suspended. His County conviction should have been considered a violation of his probation in the City. [More about this below.]

When JAW failed to pay $300 restitution to the victim in the car theft, a warrant was issued for his arrest on July 22nd and sent to a Baltimore County police station. It’s not clear whether the police tried to serve the warrant, but regionally, “there is a backlog of more than 40,000 outstanding warrants.” At least Baltimore County was trying to put him back in jail when he failed to abide by the terms of his sentencing. In any event, it was only two days before the fatal robbery, there’s no guarantee any jurisdiction could have had him in jail within that time frame.

Still, Baltimore County missed an opportunity to keep this couple off the streets.


Baltimore City’s Final Chance to Avert This Tragedy

Now this is where it gets really interesting. In April of this year, a witness called Baltimore City police about a possible robbery in progress. The whole thing was captured on surveillance cameras and the police used the footage to track down the victim, and the perpetrator, who was … yup, JAW. The victim identified JAW, and told police that JAW had approached him, asked him if he was in a particular gang, then hit him in the face and put him in a headlock while another man rifled through his pockets. All of this can be seen on the surveillance footage. So, JAW is arrested.

It’s not clear if he was kept in jail or let out pending the trial. As prosecutors get ready for a hearing, the victim says that he doesn’t want to go to court that they have the footage, the 911 call, and the fact that JAW was found with his belongings; that should be enough. Informed that his “cooperation was necessary,” the victim “says he's not coming to any court … did not want to speak further."

At court, the prosecutors ask for an extension, but the judge refuses to grant it.  The prosecutors dismiss the case against JAW. "’No victim, no case,’ said … a spokeswoman for Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia C. Jessamy. ‘Without the victim's presence, the evidence is hearsay. Even if they recant their original statements, we need them present in court so we can play the statements back and let the jury decide.’” So the case against JAW is dropped. If he wasn’t on the street before, he is now.

Reluctant Witnesses

The victim in the April beating and robbery, actually works with the city’s “wayward youth and ex-offenders.” What would make him so reluctant to testify when the chances were good that JAW would be found guilty? Perhaps the witness has watched one of Baltimore’s notorious “Stop Snitchin” videos.

Or, perhaps he’s familiar with frequent incidents like the following:

Another young man, 21 yo, was killed Thursday. He had apparently been inside an apartment where another man was stabbed and killed Saturday night, the same night as the research assistant. The 21 yo had been questioned by police, although it’s not known whether he was cooperating. Still, in the wee hours Thursday, an officer on patrol in the area heard shots, and found the 21 yo “slumped over in a green lawn chair in front of the [same] house with an apparent gunshot wound to the head.”  “Hours later, a chair with blood drops on it was visible out front, and a group of people on the front steps of the house said they didn't know what had happened.” Apparently, the mere possibility of cooperating with the police may be enough to get you killed as a “snitch.”

I love the actual juxtaposition of these two comments to a Leonard Pitts article made by supporters of the new Arizona law:

Knowing that Ohio protesters against health care reform would heckle and mock him, Democrats set them up by having a man confront them by sitting down carrying a sign saying he has Parkinson's and supports health care, thus making a martyr out of him. This nefarious liberal plan was captured on video by  the Columbus Dispatch.

I didn't make this up; some comments suggest he was set up as a martyr, albeit without the sarcasm.  Also, shades of Rush Limbaugh calling Michael J Fox a liar, some comments also dispute his claim to having Parkinson's.

Comments accompanying a video of an interview of the man with the Parkinson's sign, Robert Letcher, posted by ProgressOhio say he was a nuclear engineer and professor at U. Michigan who has two masters and a PhD from Cornell and who went on disability 5 years ago.  Rather than asking for health care reform to benefit himself as the hecklers assumed, Bob , felt lucky to have had the insurance coverage that paid for his $150K surgery and treatments; he wants insurance coverage extended to others.

At least one of the of the anti health-reform rally hecklers has been identified and says he's sorry for what he did, and scared about some of the comments. 

[This is something I wrote ages ago and meant to got back to but never did.  I'm going ahead and posting it in its "as is" form.]

A description of the movie, "The Box," states:

I've been hearing this word used a lot recently, but I don't think the people using it know what it means, unless the meaning has changed and nobody told the dictionaries.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

sub·orn

tr.v. sub·orned, sub·orn·ing, sub·orns

1. To induce (a person) to commit an unlawful or evil act.
2. Law
   1. To induce (a person) to commit perjury.
   2. To procure (perjured testimony).

From the online OED:

sub•orn /sbn; NAmE sbrn/ verb [vn] (law) to pay or persuade sb [somebody?] to do sth [something?] illegal, especially to tell lies in court: to suborn a witness.

Here's a quote from the Telegraph.co.uk blog showing what I mean:

Perhaps you've seen this before: