A federal judge denied former Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s request to have her perjury trial moved out of Baltimore, while threatening to find her lead defense attorney in criminal contempt for violating multiple rules related to other proceedings in the case.
U.S. District Judge Lydia K. Griggsby gave attorney A. Scott Bolden two weeks to argue why she shouldn’t impose on him criminal sanctions, which bring the potential of a fine or imprisonment and could lead to the revocation of his admission to appear as counsel in the case.
Griggsby said Bolden had violated rules of the court when he included confidential juror questionnaire information in a September court filing that was not signed by local attorneys on the case, which is required by the court’s rules. Bolden, a Washington-based attorney, is not admitted to practice in the federal court in Maryland.
She also admonished him for a September press conference on courthouse steps in which he cursed, calling the delay of Mosby’s trial “bullshit,” and reiterated his belief that the government had a political and racial bias against her. The court had previously found those statements to be unfounded.
In addition to warning Bolden that he faces contempt, Griggsby also issued a limited gag order instructing the attorneys not to make any statements that the prosecution is politically or racially motivated. Griggsby, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden in 2021, is the first Black female federal district judge in Maryland.
William Purpura, a veteran defense attorney who is not involved in the case, said he couldn’t remember the last time a federal judge in Maryland had issued such a warning to an attorney.
“It sounds like the court wants to get control of these proceedings,” Purpura said.
Even though criminal contempt brings a fine up to $1,000 and a jail sentence up to six months, Purpura thought Bolden would likely be able to stay on as counsel. “I would think he can continue, and be very careful to follow the mandates of the court,” Purpura said.
It’s unclear whether parallel proceedings against her lead attorney could cause further delay in Mosby’s trial, which has been twice pushed back and is currently set for March 27.
Mosby is charged with two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. Prosecutors say she lied about a financial hardship in order to access retirement funds under a federal coronavirus relief plan, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, and then lied on paperwork related to the purchase of two Florida properties. The defense has complained of selective prosecution, saying they can’t find an example of anyone else being prosecuted for such a violation, and that Mosby was being targeted because of her race and politics.
The court appearance was the first for Mosby since the two-term top prosecutor left office at the end of the year. She was accompanied by her husband, City Council President Nick Mosby.
The hearing began with Griggsby granting a prosecution request for a limited gag order after Bolden spoke to reporters outside the courthouse and maligned the prosecution in fall 2022. Assistant U.S. Attorney Aaron Zelinsky said Bolden had used the court as a backdrop while “propagating things that are untrue and unbecoming an officer of the court.” The defense said they understood the court’s concerns, and that a gag order was unnecessary.
Foreshadowing her later threat of contempt, Griggsby granted a “narrowly tailored” order, saying she needed to prevent potential bias of the jury pool. She directed the defense not to make comments to the press about the prosecution being motivated by political or racial animosity, saying she had already ruled that there was “no evidence to support those statements.”
Griggsby next rejected the motion for a change of venue, in which Mosby’s attorneys had asked that the trial be moved out of Baltimore and instead be held in Greenbelt. Mosby’s attorneys had argued that critical media coverage would make it “very difficult, if not impossible, to seat an unbiased jury in Baltimore” — despite the fact that the federal jury pool spans from Western Maryland to the Eastern Shore.
“State’s Attorney Mosby is a polarizing political figure, who the media frequently and unfairly maligns, thus swaying the public sentiment against her and thus making it very difficult, if not impossible, to seat an unbiased jury in Baltimore,” the defense team wrote in its initial motion that was originally filed Oct. 20.
Attorney Gary Proctor, another member of the defense team, said Tuesday that it would simply be easier to remove potential problems by shifting to a jury from the D.C. suburbs and Southern Maryland, where jurors are less likely to be aware of the case or have an opinion about Mosby.
“What’s the downside?” Proctor asked.
Prosecutors said the jury pool for a trial in Baltimore’s district easily provides enough people from which to cull an unbiased panel and that the initial jury questionnaires showed that 70% of potential jurors polled had not formed an opinion about the case.
“The prosecution was brought in Baltimore. The court sits in Baltimore. The defendant lives in Baltimore, works in Baltimore, and committed a crime in Baltimore,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Delaney said Tuesday. “It makes perfect sense that the case be brought here, and not moved.”
Griggsby said there was no question Mosby is well-known, but that “notoriety alone” was not enough to justify transferring the venue. She left the door open that the venue could be changed if problems arise during jury selection in Baltimore.
“We’ll see what we have,” Griggsby ruled.
The last issue taken up at the hearing was whether Bolden had violated the court’s rules when he included jury questionnaire information in a filing.
Bolden said he had “never been in this position before” in 36 years of practicing law, but understood that he had to adhere to the rules and that a message had been sent through the earlier imposition of a gag order.
“I think it’s important for the court to deeply appreciate that I ‘get it,’ and my team gets it,” Bolden said. “I have no intention of violating any of the local rules.”
Griggsby then brought up Bolden’s remarks outside of the courthouse in the fall. “It came from my heart and not my head,” Bolden said. He said looked forward to trying the case: “I think she’s got a great defense, and I do not want to run afoul of this court in any shape going forward.”
Griggsby said she found Bolden had violated the rules, and that such a violation “would involve the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions.”
“Because criminal contempt is a crime, penalties for criminal contempt may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires for such criminal proceedings, including being informed of the right to counsel,” Griggsby said in a written order. “And so, the Court provides Defense Counsel Bolden with notice of the aforementioned violations of its Local Rules, and the Court will afford Defense Counsel Bolden an opportunity to be heard before the Court imposes any criminal contempt sanctions in this matter.”
Bolden declined to comment as he left the courthouse.
Prosecutors and the defense have continued to spar in court filings. Just last week, the defense sought sanctions against prosecutors over what they said was the delayed disclosure of evidence, while both sides sought to bar testimony by the others’ expert witnesses. Those issues will be taken up at later motions hearings in March.
