The Next Stage in the Baltimore Legislative Immunity Case
The next round of memoranda have been filed by the parties to the Dixon
case, where the Baltimore mayor (though the case relates to her
activities as council president) is raising a defense of legislative
immunity in a criminal proceeding for perjury (relating to failure to
disclose) to keep out evidence that she knew that a developer who gave
her many gifts was involved in a development with the city.<br>
<br>
Her first defense of legislative immunity led to the indictment being
dismissed, and a new indictment was made by a different grand jury.
Dixon moved again to dismiss (click <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/attempt-extend-legislative-immunity-e…;
to read her original memorandum in support of her motion to dismiss).<br>
<br>
Once again, the state prosecutor failed to raise the issue of waiver.
And once again, the state prosecutor gave evidence to the grand jury
that, as careful as he was to limit the content, could be considered,
in a stretch, to be related to legislative activity. However, I think the
prosecutor is right that the evidence of certain meetings (one was a
public meeting that clearly had nothing to do with legislative
activity) was so limited as to not undermine the entire case and merit
dismissal.<br>
<br>
The real problem here, and yet another reason why ethics proceedings
should not be criminal, is that a criminal defendant can take the fifth amendment and
refuse to admit that she knew the developer did business with the city.
A criminal defendant can also make any cockamamy argument she wants to make,
and it might very well be accepted. That is how our legal system works.<br>
<br>
Our government ethics system is different. She wouldn't be tried for
perjury, but brought up for a fine for failure to disclose information.
She could argue that she didn't know, but since evidence could be shown that
she did, she wouldn't waste the time. She could raise a defense of legislative immunity, but it
could be argued that she waived any immunity that might apply, since the law relates solely to
public officials (unlike perjury) and, in this case, since she helped draft the ethics
law.<br>
<br>
And it could be argued that legislative immunity and government
ethics have exactly the same goal, and that her attempt to prevent
evidence of her knowledge was an attempt not to protect her ability to
legislate independently on behalf of her constituents, but to protect
a representative willing to take gifts from those
doing business with the city and not report it to her constituents.<br>
<br>
For those interested, the parties' memoranda are attached. See below.<br>
<br>
Here are links to earlier blog posts on this matter:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/463" target="”_blank”">Favoring
Friends and
Family Catches Up to Baltimore Mayor</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/606" target="”_blank”">Baltimore
Mayor Indicted</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/707" target="”_blank”">Legislative
Immunity Goes
Local</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/712" target="”_blank”">Maryland
Prosecutor
Concedes</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/problematic-baltimore-legislative-imm…; target="”_blank”">Legislative Immunity Decision</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/attempt-extend-legislative-immunity-e…
Memorandum in Support of Her Second Motion to Dismiss</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>