BALTIMORE _ A judge will rule in Baltimore police Lt. Brian Rice's trial in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray on Monday, after hearing closing arguments from prosecutors and Rice's attorneys Thursday.
Rice, 42, is charged with involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. He is the highest ranking officer of six charged in the case. He chose a bench trial, rather than a jury trial, making Circuit Judge Barry G. Williams the sole decider of his legal fate.
Gray, 25, died April 19, 2015, a week after he suffered severe spinal cord injuries in the back of a police transport van. Rice was involved in Gray's arrest and placement in the van in handcuffs and shackles but not secured in a seat belt.
On Thursday, Deputy State's Attorney Janice Bledsoe reiterated the prosecution's claim that Rice was negligent and uncaring when he failed to secure Gray in a seat belt, and that his decision cost Gray his life.
Bledsoe said Rice's actions _ including radioing for other officers to chase Gray, ordering that he be shackled and placing him in the police van without a seat belt _ were intentional and "put together formed a chain" of events that led to Gray's death.
"If (Rice) had broken that chain, taken one small measure of compassion or humanity, Freddie Gray would be alive," Bledsoe said.
In his own closing, Michael Belsky, one of Rice's attorneys, reiterated the defense argument that Rice's quick decision not to secure Gray in a seat belt was "100 percent reasonable" given Gray's combativeness, inherent dangers associated with securing detainees in seat belts in the close quarters of the van's rear compartment, and the threat posed at the time by a growing number of angry bystanders who outnumbered officers at the scene.
Belsky dismissed an argument from Bledsoe that there were very few people at the scene, and that those on the scene _ including Gray's friend, Brandon Ross _ did not pose a threat to the officers. Belsky said there were people acting aggressively at the scene, and that what Rice heard on the scene was "important" and "relevant" to the reasonableness of his actions.
Belsky then quoted, twice in a row, from a video Ross had taken at the scene, in which he said someone can be heard yelling, "Pop this dumb--- mother (expletive). I'll bust them."
Belsky also said that the state had failed to present any evidence to suggest Rice knew of the risks associated with placing Gray on the floor of the van without securing him in a seat belt.
Chief Deputy State's Attorney Michael Schatzow, rebutting Belsky's closing, returned to an argument the prosecution had raised before: that it is common sense that failing to secure someone in a seat belt poses a danger.
Rice was aware of the dangers because of the department's general orders, the fact that there were seat belts in the van, and simply from his experience "as a human being" in the year 2016, Schatzow said.
Williams repeatedly questioned Schatzow on whether the prosecution was asserting that the mere failure of Rice to secure Gray in a seat belt constituted a crime. Schatzow said it did, given the surrounding circumstances _ including that Gray was in custody, handcuffed and shackled.
Williams also pushed both sides on their descriptions of the scene, saying both wanted him to look at the evidence "in a vacuum," without considering certain factors.
The defense said "it was the most horrible situation going on," Williams told Schatzow. "You're saying it was a walk in the park."
During Rice's trial, the prosecution called 12 witnesses, while the defense called four. Other witness testimony and evidence was stipulated, or agreed to by both sides without being heard in court. Those stipulations helped move the trial along quickly.
Rice, who did not testify, is the fourth officer to go to trial in the case. Officer William Porter had a mistrial in December after a 12-member jury failed to reach a consensus on any of the charges against him. Officers Edward Nero and Caesar Goodson Jr. were acquitted by Williams at bench trials in May and June, respectively.
At the conclusion of testimony in the case Tuesday, some legal observers questioned whether prosecutors had presented additional evidence _ not seen in the previous officers' trials _ to warrant the prosecution, given the recent acquittals.
In his rulings in Nero and Goodson's trials, Williams addressed the charges against the officers one by one, outlining the individual elements of each before providing his findings for why the prosecution had not proved them.
Williams said he would deliver his ruling in the case Monday morning.
