Latest court filings in Marilyn Mosby case ‘anything but impartial’ as feds speak to attorneys – Baltimore Sun

Federal prosecutors and attorneys for State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby continue to clash in the latest round of court filings in the criminal case against Baltimore’s top prosecutor.

Charged with two counts of perjury and two counts of mortgage fraud related to early withdrawals from his city retirement account and the purchase of two homes in Florida, Mosby’s attorneys ask U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby to prevent the government from using certain evidence and conditions against her at trial.

The two-term Democrat lost the July 19 primary and is expected to leave office in January. His trial is scheduled for September 19.

Everything Mosby asks the judge to declare off limits is in public court records, and much of it is in the indictment against her. For example, Mosby’s attorneys said Friday they want Griggsby to bar prosecutors from telling jurors that she used the $90,000 she withdrew to buy the Florida homes.

Under the CARES Act, the first pandemic relief bill, Congress allowed government employees to withdraw money from their retirement accounts if they claimed – under penalty of perjury – that they had suffered negative financial consequences as a result of the pandemic or if a business they owned lost money.

Her defense team, led by A. Scott Bolden, also wants the government banned from using the term ‘financial hardship’, saying it and details of how she spent the money are ‘harmful’ and would bias the jurors against Mosby and that “she was free to spend the money as she saw fit.”

In a filing by prosecutors, they included an attachment showing money coming in and going out of Mosby’s personal bank accounts, as well as his credit card purchases and debts. The attachment shows that Mosby actually earned income in 2020 compared to 2019, and she will likely be introduced at trial to support prosecutors’ claim that she did not suffer the negative financial consequences she claimed. during a COVID-19 withdrawal from his retirement funds. The state attorney’s annual salary is $248,000.

“Put simply, the inclusion of such personal information – without redaction – served no discernible purpose and can only be attributed to a vicious desire to embarrass, humiliate and publicly shame the prosecutor. ‘Mosby state that the Court should not accept,’ Bolden wrote. “It is important for the Court to fully appreciate, as the government is anything but impartial in its rampant pursuit of State’s Attorney Mosby, and the true basis of his prosecution.”

The government, in papers filed by prosecutors Leo Wise and Aaron Zelinsky, said all of Mosby’s charges against him were false and sought to prevent his attorneys from charging him with vindictive or racially motivated prosecutions.

Last minute alerts

Last minute alerts

As it happens

Get the latest news as it happens and find out about other must-see content with our free news alerts.

In a previous attempt to have the charges against her dismissed, Mosby and her lawyers argued that prosecutors targeted her because she was black, because of her politics and because Wise didn’t like her. Griggsby, in an April ruling, found that Mosby provided no “objective evidence” for these claims and that many of his claims were unsubstantiated.

Despite the ruling, Mosby’s legal team continues to push this narrative, possibly on the grounds that a jury would enter a “cancellation,” leaving Mosby off the hook, Wise wrote. In such a scenario, jurors can dismiss a lawsuit they deem unfair.

“The truth is and always has been that the defendant was not investigated or charged because of her race, politics or personal decisions.” Wise wrote in his most recent filing. “She was investigated and charged because she committed multiple federal crimes. Any argument to the contrary is a distraction – a distraction now, and a distraction for the jury later.

There is also an ongoing dispute over expert testimony, primarily whether the government is calling experts and whether Mosby will release planned testimony from its own experts, which it was supposed to do by July 1, but did not. One of the reasons Mosby’s trial was postponed from May to September was that she had not disclosed her experts’ scheduled testimony earlier in the proceedings.

Mosby and his attorneys also challenged two witnesses, an FBI accountant and an IRS revenue officer, whom the government plans to call to testify on the facts of the case. The defense says they qualify as expert witnesses, another category of witnesses who can offer opinions, and should not be allowed to testify because prosecutors have not disclosed them as such. The government disagrees, noting past cases where similar witnesses were not required to be sworn as experts.

Because Mosby failed to properly disclose his expert testimony, the September trial date may now be in jeopardy, prosecutors wrote.

Griggsby is expected to rule on all pending motions, including a second motion to dismiss Mosby’s perjury charges, at a September 14 preliminary hearing.

About Jessica J. Bass

Check Also

Unanimous decision-making is essential to preserve the legitimacy of the Supreme Court

After the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion rejecting abortion rights, public confidence in …