A judge has dismissed charges against Michael Maurice Johnson (right) in the 2010 death of Phylicia Barnes (left). (Photos courtesy of the Baltimore City Police Department )
A Baltimore judge has dismissed charges against Michael Maurice Johnson in the 2010 death of Phylicia Barnes. Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby has vowed to appeal the decision, arguing that the trial judge, John Addison Howard, lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the charges.
Phylicia Barnes disappeared in late 2010 and was later discovered floating in the Susquehanna River. Michael Maurice Johnson was charged with second degree murder in Barnes’s death and convicted in 2013, but that conviction was overturned because the prosecution failed to disclose discrediting evidence against one of its key witnesses, according to Russel Neverdon, Johnson’s defense attorney in his first trial.
According to Neverdon, the State’s Attorney’s case against Johnson was “riddled with problems.”
“There was no physical evidence that put him there. They searched his car, a DNA swab—they just did so much but there was nothing that they could find that actually put Michael Johnson as being the person responsible for the disappearance and the untimely death of this young woman,” said Neverdon of the state’s evidence.
A second trial was ruled a mistrial last month by Howard, who now has dismissed the charges against Johnson on a motion by the defense for judgment of acquittal (MJOA) based on insufficient evidence, a motion which, according to Neverdon, asks whether, if all the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there is sufficient evidence by which a reasonable juror could find criminal liability.
Mosby subsequently released a statement which read, in part, “We respectfully disagree with the Court’s decision today based on the fact that the defense waived their right to a ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal. According to State v. Sirbaugh . . . the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the acquittal and we will be seeking an appeal on those grounds.”
According to Neverdon, the state could have legitimate grounds to appeal Howard’s decision because an MJOA cannot generally be filed until after the prosecution has completed presenting its case to the jury. Because the judge initially ruled a mistrial because of the prosecutorial failure to redact a recording of a wire-tapped conversation involving Johnson before the recording was presented to the jury, the state may not have been able to present its full case, meaning a ruling on an MJOA would be inappropriate.
“The problem becomes did obviate the role of a jury when he starts talking about the sufficiency of the evidence. . . . From what I’ve read, from some early quotes, said there was no direct evidence, this was circumstantial. But we know that under the jury instructions they would get at some point in time, suggests that there is no distinction between circumstantial or direct evidence. And that’s a question that, if the state’s going to make an argument, would fall within the purview of a jury. So I think if they’re going to attack, that would be where the attack would be,” explained Neverdon.
ralejandro@afro.com