Baltimore man sues police for wrongful conviction

Alleges witnesses were coerced to identify him in 1986 murder

By Heather Cobun
HCobun@TheDailyRecord.com

A Baltimore man exonerated of murder in January is suing the Baltimore Police Department for his 1987 wrongful conviction.

Gary Washington, 58, was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Faheem Rafig Ali and served 31 years before his conviction was vacated, according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. Washington alleges his conviction was the result of an “unjust and underhanded process” by police that involved “pointed and repeated threats” to witnesses.

Washington always maintained his innocence and filed multiple appeals, according to the complaint. Eventually a witness who was a child at the time of the murder came forward and said he had been coerced into fabricating testimony implicating Washington.

“After spending more than 31 years locked in a cage for a crime he did not commit, Plaintiff was finally cleared of the charges against him and released from custody,” the complaint said. “This lawsuit seeks redress for his injuries.”

Washington, who claims the police department’s policy of conducting flawed investigations led to his conviction, cited past cases that eventually resulted in exonerations due to withheld exculpatory evidence, such as inconsistent witness statements.

Ali was killed on Dec. 27, 1986, during an argument with two men on the street, according to the complaint. Homicide detectives found two child witnesses days later who said that they had seen two men speaking to Ali just before he was shot but claimed that they did not know the men’s identities.

Police threatened the mother of one child when they learned he was a witness and said they would take him away from her if she did not bring him to the police station, according to the complaint. At the station, the 12-year-old boy was questioned alone and shown pictures, including Washington’s; he maintained that he did not know who shot Ali, the complaint said.

The officers told the child they would take him from his mother and charge him with a crime if he did not cooperate and identify the shooter, according to the complaint, which said the boy signed a statement falsely identifying Washington.

The second child witness was isolated and questioned near the crime scene and also denied knowing who shot Ali, according to the complaint. Officers later questioned the girl at the police station, demanding that she cooperate and threatening to take her from her mother or arrest her mother, the complaint said.

The police never disclosed to the prosecution or defense the initial statements by both children that they did not know the shooter’s identity.
Washington was arrested and indicted less than two weeks after the murder. He was convicted in June 1987.

One of the child witnesses recanted nearly 10 years later and said his statements had been coerced, according to the complaint. A judge granted Washington’s petition for writ of actual innocence in August 2018, and in January 2019 the state dismissed the charges against him.

“The BPD’s failure to train, supervise, and discipline its employees effectively condoned, ratified, and sanctioned the kind of misconduct that the Officer Defendants committed against Plaintiff in this case,” the complaint alleges. “Constitutional violations such as those that occurred in this case were encouraged and facilitated as a result of the BPD’s practices and de facto policies.”

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of Washington’s state and federal due process rights, malicious prosecution, detention without probable cause, failure to intervene and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Washington also argues that the city is responsible for the police department, despite its status as a state agency, for having a policy or practice of violating constitutional rights.
Baltimore City Solicitor Andre M. Davis declined to comment on the case Wednesday.

Washington is represented by Gayle Horn, Jon Loevy, Roshna Bala Keen and Renee Spence of Loevy & Loevy in Chicago. Attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The case is Gary Washington v. Baltimore Police Department et al., 1:19-cv-02473. 

Frosh seeks to revive suit over Trump’s D.C. hotel

By Steve Lash
SLash@TheDailyRecord.com

Maryland’s attorney general is seeking to revive the state’s lawsuit alleging corruption by President Donald Trump in the handling of his hotel property in Washington.

Brian E. Frosh, with the District of Columbia’s attorney general, is urging the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review a three-judge panel’s unanimous decision that Maryland – and the District of Columbia – have at most a “generalized grievance” that the Trump International Hotel is attracting business away from a nearby Maryland convention center and other hotels in Washington.

Lacking a more specific grievance, Maryland and the District of Columbia do not have standing to bring their claim that Trump violated the constitutional prohibition on the president’s accepting “emoluments,” or profits, derived from state or foreign governments or diplomats who visited or stayed in Trump’s hotel, the three judges held last month.

In papers filed Monday with the full 4th Circuit, Frosh and Karl A. Racine said their grievance against Trump is not “generalized” but in keeping with the Supreme Court-recognized interest of a state being permitted to seek judicial relief “in securing observance of the terms under which it participates in the federal system” as an equal sovereign.

“The District and Maryland assert precisely this interest under the Emoluments Clauses,” the attorneys general wrote in their request for full 4th Circuit review.

“The Domestic Emoluments Clause protects the equal sovereignty of the states by ensuring the president cannot be ‘tempt(ed) … by largesses, to surrender … his judgment to their inclinations,’” the attorneys general wrote, quoting Alexander Hamilton from The Federalist Papers. “The Foreign Emoluments Clause likewise protects states in their sovereign capacity from having the federal balance of power tilted unlawfully in favor of foreign over domestic interests.”

U.S. Justice Department attorneys and Trump’s personal counsel have asserted that Maryland and the District of Columbia lack standing to sue him.

Within hours of the three-judge panel’s decision last month, Trump sent out a tweet.
“Word just out that I won a big part of the Deep State and Democrat induced Witch Hunt,” Trump tweeted. “Unanimous decision in my favor from the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on the ridiculous Emoluments Case. I don’t make money, but lose a fortune for the honor of serving and doing a great job as your President (including accepting Zero salary!).”

Frosh and Racine, in their Monday filing, said Trump derives unconstitutional benefits from the Washington hotel, which the attorneys general have standing to challenge.

“Through his continued ownership of the hotel, the president cultivates a channel for domestic and foreign officials to bestow emoluments on him,” Frosh and Racine wrote.

“This upsets the careful balance that is the hallmark of our federal system and the level playing field undergirding the federal process generally,” they added. “The District and Maryland each have a constitutionally protected interest in avoiding entirely the pressure to compete with others for the president’s favor by giving him money or other valuable dispensations. That pressure is particularly acute for the District and Maryland because they receive substantial federal funding, have disproportionate economic stakes in federal budgetary allocations, and are home to federal executive agencies.”

The attorneys general’s claim is independent of allegations of self-dealing leveled at Trump this week for his suggestion that next year’s meeting of the world’s seven leading economic powers, the G-7, be held at his Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami.

Frosh and Racine urged the full 4th Circuit to allow them to pursue their claim that Trump’s Washington property unconstitutionally thwarts competition in Maryland and the District.

“It is not only plausible but near certain that some officials are inclined to patronize the hotel to enrich the president and, necessarily less inclined to patronize competitors,” the attorneys general wrote.

“The complaint amply supports that the District and Maryland are suffering the competitive injury” that provides standing, they added. 

The Justice Department and Trump’s personal counsel will have an opportunity to respond to the attorneys general’s request for full 4th Circuit review.

The appellate court has not set a date for ruling on the request.

The side that loses in the 4th Circuit – either Trump or the attorneys general – is expected to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel’s decision was written by Judge Paul V. Niemeyer. He was joined by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. and Senior Judge Dennis W. Shedd.

The panel’s decision overturned a ruling last year by U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt that the president can be sued for alleged corruption under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses and that the attorneys general are entitled to pretrial discovery of documents and testimony related to their allegation.

The cases are docketed at the 4th Circuit as In Re Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in his official capacity and District of Columbia and State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump, in his individual capacity, Nos. 18-2486 and 18-2488.

DOJ: Baltimore County’s old police exam was discriminatory

By Heather Cobun
HCobun@TheDailyRecord.com

The U.S. Department of Justice filed an employment discrimination suit against Baltimore County on Tuesday, alleging the county police department uses a screening tool that disproportionately excluded African American applicants.

County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr. said Tuesday that the county had stopped using the test in question, though it continues to deny liability for the actions of prior administrations. He took office in December.

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, claims the department’s practices violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and seeks a court order requiring the department to use procedures that comply with the law and provide remedies to previously rejected applicants.

County Executive Johnny Olszewski Jr. said Tuesday that the county had stopped using the test in question, though it continues to deny liability for the actions of prior administrations. He took office in December.

“A law enforcement agency should look like the community it serves,” Olszewski said in a statement. “As I have said repeatedly since taking office, I am committed to increasing diversity in the county’s police department.”

The exam cited in the complaint was required for entry-level and police cadet positions with the Baltimore County Police Department. It was multiple choice and a minimum score was required to advance in the hiring process. Since Jan. 1, 2013, the county has used at least three different versions of the test, and African American applicants passed at a lower rate than white applicants at a “statistically significant” rate on each version.

Though the test was used as a “pass/fail screening device,” the complaint alleges it was not job-related for the positions or necessary. The exams tested for skills like reading comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, logical ordering and interpretation of data.

“As a result of its use of these written examinations, Baltimore County has hired fewer African American applicants as BCPD entry-level police officers and police cadets since January 1, 2013 than it would have had it used a nondiscriminatory screening device,” the lawsuit alleges.

The Justice Department investigated the county’s practices and concluded the exam constitutes a pattern or practice of discrimination.

“Employers must be mindful that an employment selection device, like a test, must be shown to be job-related if it disproportionately excludes members of one of Title VII’s protected groups,” Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney general with the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement.

Olszewski said the county is willing to negotiate with the Judice Department to resolve the matter.
The lawsuit seeks an order prohibiting the county from using written examinations that result in a disparate impact on African American applicants and are not job related as well as provide remedial relief to impacted individuals.

The case is United States of America v. Baltimore County, Maryland, 1:19-cv-02465.

In lawsuits, 2 Maryland families allege weed killer caused cancer

By Heather Cobun
HCobun@TheDailyRecord.com


Two Maryland families are joining the growing wave of litigation alleging the weed killer Roundup causes cancer, filing separate lawsuits in federal court this month for products liability and negligence.

More than 1,500 cases were pending in federal court as part of multidistrict products liability litigation as of Aug. 15, according to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The lawsuits allege Monsanto, which makes Roundup, knew about the risk of cancer from the active ingredient, glyphosate, but failed to warn people.

A jury in San Francisco made headlines last year when it returned a $289 million verdict in favor of a groundskeeper diagnosed with lymphoma. The award was later reduced to $78 million by the judge.

Two lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore this month make similar allegations about the dangers of Roundup and Monsanto’s marketing campaign claiming its safety.

Monkton resident Susan McAllister filed suit Aug. 1 on behalf of the estate of her husband, Robert F. McAllister. Robert McAllister died in 2016 from leukemia but had been diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 1996, which the lawsuit attributes to use of Roundup.

Robert McAllister, a retired Baltimore police detective, was 64 when he died, according to an obituary. Attorney Jay Miller, of the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos P.C. in Baltimore, said he was treated for lymphoma, went into remission and then became sick again.

“It’s difficult and it will always be difficult because he didn’t die from what (his wife) felt would have been a normal death,” Miller said Tuesday. “I think that’s the problem with this. If you got non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from life in general, it’s hard enough to accept, but to know and believe that you got it from using a product you believed was safe, it makes it more difficult.”

Miller said the goal of the lawsuits across the country, in addition to compensating victims, was to get Roundup off the market.

“Monsanto still claims that it’s safe, they won’t put a warning on it,” Miller said. “You can go into Home Depot today and buy Roundup and there’s no label on it that says glyphosate (is dangerous).”

The second lawsuit, filed last week by Claire Sigwart and her husband, Francis Sigwart, of Perry Hall, alleges her regular use of Roundup beginning in 2012 lead to her 2017 diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After a short period of remission, Claire Sigwart’s lymphoma returned earlier this year and she underwent further treatment.

“Mrs. Sigwart would not have used Roundup if she knew it could cause cancer,” the lawsuit states.

Both lawsuits reference the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an organization within the World Health Organization, that has examined the toxicity of glyphosate and classified it as a “probable human carcinogen.” IARC concluded there was a link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Monsanto has repeatedly stated that Roundup is safe for humans and the environment, but litigants argue the company knew of glyphosate’s risks long before the plaintiffs used the product, according to the complaints.

The Sigwarts allege Monsanto “championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies exposing glyphosate’s dangers.” McAllister argues the company’s failure to modify labeling or otherwise warn consumers “has resulted in inadequate warnings in safety information presented directly to users and consumers.”

The McAllister lawsuit, which was filed less than three years after Robert McAllister’s death, argues that any statute of limitations on the claims was tolled by Monsanto’s “affirmative misrepresentations and omissions” that “actively concealed” the dangers of the product.

“Because of the fraudulent acts of concealment of wrongdoing by Defendant, Decedent and Plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the wrongdoing at any time prior,” the lawsuit alleges.

The complaint alleges negligence, strict products liability, violations of Maryland consumer protection laws, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, and wrongful death and survival action.

The Sigwarts similarly allege equitable tolling because Claire Sigwart did not learn her lymphoma could be linked to Roundup until recently, in part due to claims by Monsanto that the product is safe.

The lawsuit alleges strict liability, negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, and loss of consortium.

Both plaintiffs expect their cases to be transferred to the multidistrict litigation in California.

Justin A. Browne, of Ketterer, Browne & Anderson LLC in Bel Air, represents the Sigwarts. He did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The cases are Susan McAllister v. Monsanto Company, 1:19-cv-02229, and Claire Sigwart et al. v. Monsanto Company, 1:19-cv-02440.