Printer Friendly

Freddie Gray officers oppose dismissal of civil case against Mosby co-defendant.

Byline: Heather Cobun

The dismissal of a civil suit brought by Baltimore police officers charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray against Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby has no bearing on remaining claims against her co-defendant from the Sheriff's Department, according to a new court filing by the plaintiffs.<br />Maj. Samuel Cogen, who filled out the application for charges against the officers in 2015, asked earlier this month for the remaining claims against him to be dismissed after the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Mosby was entitled to immunity for her role in bringing the charges.<br />Cogen argued in his motion to dismiss the logic used in Mosby's case applies to his, even though he did not appeal the trial court's ruling. Claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, invasion of privacy and Fourth Amendment violations remain pending against him in U.S. District Court in Baltimore.<br />But the plaintiffs argue in their opposition to dismissal, filed Wednesday, that Mosby's immunity is different from Cogen's and the 4th Circuit never undertook a review of his actions because he did not appeal.<br />"It should be noted that Defendant Cogen did not appeal this Court's initial ruling, and thus, the Fourth Circuit's opinion relating to Defendant Mosby can only be taken in the context of the specific allegations as they apply to her," the motion states. "This Court's previous granting in part and denying in part of Defendant Cogen's Motion to Dismiss at this juncture of the case and prior to discovery was correct."<br />Mosby had absolute immunity for assisting with the drafting of the application for charges as a prosecutor, the 4th Circuit held, and probable cause existed to charge the officers. But the plaintiffs argue there are factual questions about whether Cogen knew or should have known probable cause existed.<br />Mosby also received statutory immunity as a state employee but the 4th Circuit focused on the comments she made at her press conference announcing the charges, according to the plaintiffs. Whether Cogen acted with malice was not discussed and must be reviewed separately.<br />The 4th Circuit ruled May 7 and issued its mandate Tuesday. At least one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs has said they will appeal to the Supreme Court, which must be done within 90 days of the entry of judgment.<br />The trial-court case is Edward Michael Nero et al. v. Marilyn Mosby et al., 1:16-cv-01304.

Copyright &copy; 2018 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.

COPYRIGHT 2018 BridgeTower Media Holding Company, LLC
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Daily Record (Baltimore, MD)
Date:May 31, 2018
Words:421
Previous Article:ACLU of Md. asks state to end new prison book policy.
Next Article:Md. can company bemoans U.S. move on steel tariffs.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters