When I learned that community activists had filed a motion before an Ohio court to indict the police officers, who murdered Tamir Rice, I expected to wait weeks, if not months, for a decision. To my great surprise, it came in just a couple days. It was not everything I had hoped, but almost.
A judge in Cleveland ruled Thursday that probable cause existed to charge two Cleveland police officers in the death of a 12-year-old boy, Tamir Rice, but the judge also said he did not have the power to order arrests without a complaint being filed by a prosecutor.
In his ruling, Judge Ronald B. Adrine, presiding judge of the Municipal Court, found probable cause to charge Officer Timothy Loehmann, who fired the fatal shot, with murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide and dereliction of duty. He also found probable cause to charge Officer Loehmann’s partner, Officer Frank Garmback, with negligent homicide and dereliction of duty.
“This court determines that complaints should be filed by the prosecutor of the City of Cleveland and/or the Cuyahoga County prosecutor,” Judge Adrine wrote…
Inserted from <NY Times>
The problem is that the judge did not order the prosecutor to indict, and the decision will be left to a Grand Jury.
Chris Hayes provided excellent coverage, with three different guests.
Now what? Will the Grand Jury even be allowed to know about Judge Adrine’s decision? When officers Loehmann and Garmback testiLIE, recounting a deceitful account of the shooting, will the prosecutor challenge their perjury, or let it stand as fact?
Despite a major victory for the truth, justice remains far from assured.
13 Responses to “Probable Cause: Now What?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I'm glad you caught this update TC–it will be harder not to provide the Grand Jury with evidence differing from the Officers' statements at least.
Wow. It will be most interesting. It's hard to imagine there being a fair trial in that city and that county. The defendants certainly won't request a change of venue, nor do I see the prosecutor doing so. It's the survivors who really deserve any benefit therefrom, and I don't think they have standing to request one. If Officer Loehman can be convicted, I promise I will get off the Democratic Central Committee's back about scheduling the 2016 convention in a corrupt state. But I'll bet that promise has about as much effect as one raindrop. In the Mississippi River.
Just have to wait and see what happens, I guess. But I don’t hold much faith in the judicial system at this point.
It would be wonderful if the prosecutor got some gumption and charge, indict those two officers, Officer Loehmann and Frank Garmback, with murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless homicide, negligent homicide and dereliction of duty. Skip and by-pass the Grand Jury as they usually do not do their jobs. Charge both officers, have them arrested and go directly to a trial. No more waiting nor pussyfooting around like the prosecutor has done or the past 7 months. Get this done.
To be fair to the Judge, his role, by law, was SOLELY "advisory". He has no power to lay charges – that'll be up to the prosecutor.
Grand Jury testimony rules are pretty wide-ranging – and with NO defense counsel. I'd be utterly amazed if the "advisory" recommendations weren't made known to the jury.
I thought that might be the cse wih the judge, Nameless.
My concern is that the prosecutor could opt not to present the judges findings.
I cannot understand how anyone who watches this video could consider this anything but murder. I am happy that Judge Adrine ruled the way he did and hope the prosecutor will do his job honestly. One thing that really struck me, there have been 400 police killings and only 3 indictments. From all I have seen lately, our police are out of control. They have been so militarized that they view citizens as Isis, especially if they happen to be black.
A prosecutor might not allow a Grand Jury to see video.
Justice demands that the 2 officers be charged and convicted. If the prosecutor fails to lay charges, he should also be charged . . . how's obstruction of justice? This isn't all that difficult to work through in a fair manner.
This sounds hopeful – but as others have said who know more about local politics there than I do, it doesn't seem that justice is likely. (How on earth could a jury not convict them after watching that video?!).
The English language probably has a saying too about justice (as in "law) having been spoken, doesn't mean is has been just. Given the constraints of the little used law the community activists found to further their cause, Judge Ronald Adrine probably dit the best he could under the circumstances and with the powers allowed him. The speed with which he drew his conclusions that there was probable cause to charge both police officers further underlined that he thought it was a clear cut case, in which, however, he had no power to convict, nor order prosecution. This must make it very hard for the prosecutor and a grand jury to ignore it.
If nothing comes of it because it is either ignored by the prosecutor or the grand jury thinks there's no probable cause after watching the video, then Cleveland beter get ready for protests and riots by a black community which has had more than enough of bigoted "law and order" in their town.
There's a saying in English "Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done." Not the same thing, but i think there is a connection.
Thanks all. Lona, please see my replies to Nameless and Edie.