Now Mosby has been the recipient of a complaint to the Bar Association regarding her false allegations and persecution of the officers. The official complaint is HERE. According to the complaint, Mosby violated a number of the Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct.
Not the least of her failures was to prosecute without adequate evidence of a crime. Two of the officers, including the driver of the van, have had their cases dismissed. The complaint against Mosby includes this:
The case against Officer Goodson is also especially important because it seemed to many quoted observers - and also upon an independent examination - to be the strongest case the prosecutors have against any of the officers. For example, it involves the most serious of all the charges (“depraved indifference”), and apparently the most charges: (1) second-degree depraved-heart murder; (2)involuntary manslaughter; (3) grossly negligent act; (4) assault; (5) manslaughter by motor vehicle;(6) grossly negligent driving; (7) criminally negligent manslaughter; (8) misconduct in office, by corruptly failing to do an act that is required by the duties of his office; and (9) reckless endangerment.Mosby is a terrorist using her power against the police.
Thus their failure to present sufficient evidence to sustain even one of these many charges - and, in the opinion of Judge Williams, to even come close to doing so - shows that the prosecutors should have known that they lacked probable cause for many if not all of the charges, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on many if not all charges. And, if this is in fact their strongest case, it would follow that they likewise lack probable cause and sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction regarding the other still-to-be-tried (or retried) cases against other officers.
A third reason why the findings regarding Officer Goodson are especially important is that Goodson,as the driver of the van, was the central figure in this matter; the single person around which all of
the other defendants interacted. Thus, in a very real sense, any criminal liability of the other defendants would appear to be derivative from, and/or interconnected with, that of Goodson. In other words, if with regard to Goodson there is no probable cause for most if not all of the charges against him, and if there is insufficient evidence to sustain these charges against him, it would appear even more strongly that the same would apply with greater strength to the other remaining officers.
A final reason why the Goodson decision is so important is that it clearly established - in what would appear to now constitute the “law of the case” with regard to all officers - that several legal theories upon which the prosecutors were heavily relying for their cases against other officers were not valid. For example, the court firmly rejected the suggestion that the mere failure to use seat belts - even if it might constitute a violation of a new rule - would rise to the level of a crime and/or support convictions of crimes such as “misconduct in office.”