Many Rewire readers have been following
the case of Ms. T, a 28-year-old HIV-positive pregnant woman from Cameroon
who was recently sentenced to 238 days in prison by a judge trying to
protect her unborn child from being born with HIV. Ms. T has spent
nearly six months in the Cumberland County Jail in Maine. It is
with much relief that I tell you that Ms. T has now been released on bail,
perhaps ironically, for the same reason that the judge originally imprisoned
In January 2009, Ms. T was arrested
for allegedly having false immigration documents. Only shortly
after her arrest, she learned that she was both HIV-positive and pregnant.
Under current federal sentencing guidelines, Ms. T’s charge should
have carried a sentence of zero to six months. So it would have
been reasonable for her to expect that she would be given "time served"
when she appeared before her sentencing judge on May 14
and released to continue her care with the team at Maine’s Frannie
Peabody Center, with whom she had already started working while she was in
But United States District Court Judge
John Woodcock did not give Ms. T "time served." He instead
calculated her sentence to ensure that she would remain in prison through
her August 29 due date, stating that Ms. T was more likely
to receive medical treatment and follow an HIV treatment regimen in
federal prison than out on her own or in the custody of immigration
officials. Judge Woodcock also acknowledged that his sentence was based entirely
on her decision to continue her pregnancy while being HIV-positive: if
Ms. T were pregnant but not living with HIV, he would have sentenced
her to “time served.”
The precedent set by Judge Woodcock’s
decision is disturbing. His sentence falls not only at a time
of increased criminalization of HIV transmission, but also within a
long history of government regulation of women’s reproductive health,
most blatantly in the coerced sterilization of women of color, which
was at its peak in the 1970s. By mandating Ms. T to prison based solely
on his concern for her unborn child, Judge Woodcock implicitly questions
Ms. T’s ability, if not desire, to protect her baby and to promote
her own health throughout and beyond her pregnancy.
Since the first public news of Ms.
T’s sentence, there has been a tremendous outpouring of support, uniting
advocates in HIV/AIDS, detention and imprisonment, reproductive health,
and racial justice movements. With the support of this broad-based
coalition of individuals and organizations, National Advocates for
Pregnant Women, the Center for HIV Law and Policy and attorneys Elizabeth
Frankel and Valerie Wright of the Maine firm Verrill Dana, LLP,
filed an emergency amicus (friend-of-the-court)
brief challenging the imprisonment of an HIV positive pregnant woman
in order to protect her "innocent" "unborn child." The
brief was timed to reach Judge Woodcock before Ms. T’s bail hearing
yesterday, providing him with a picture of the hurdles to meeting necessary
care for HIV-positive women in even the best of prison health care systems.
For many people with HIV, the pervasiveness
of HIV stigma in prison, which carries with it an additional onslaught
of emotional harassment within an already traumatizing system, can be
reason enough to not seek needed medical care
or treatment. And for those who do seek treatment, the variability
of HIV care in U.S. prisons and jails can mean poor health outcomes
in the short and long term. Because of issues like cumbersome
intake procedures and unpredictable lockdowns for security concerns,
irregularities in HIV medication schedules can be common occurrences
in prison settings nationwide, putting people at risk for developing
drug resistance and HIV-related illnesses. Additional barriers for ensuring
standard of care treatment arise in small or remote prisons, where specialty
care is handled predominantly through outside referrals, not medical
staff on-site. The
expansion of for-profit prison health care systems has brought further
challenges to routine and emergency medical care, as was extensively
documented in a 2005 New York Times feature, "As
Health Care in Jails Goes Private, 10 Days Can Be a Death Sentence."
It was because of these concerns around
the continuity and quality of health care, particularly while Ms. T
would have been in transit from the county jail to a federal prison,
that Judge Woodcock released her on bail Monday afternoon. Ms. T is now working closely with the team
at the Frannie Peabody Center, her attorney, Zachary Heiden of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, and the legal team at the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project.
work to protect Ms.T’s access to in-community care and support is
not over. And the disturbing logic undergirding Judge Woodcock’s
238-day sentence remains unchanged.
As efforts to appeal Ms. T’s sentence
at the First District Court level proceed, we will continue to reach
out to Rewire readers. And as the immediate crisis of Ms. T’s
case eases, we hope that this growing coalition of organizations will
be a consistent advocacy presence. Ms. T’s case has shone a
light on the issues that so many in our communities are moving through
daily; her story cuts deep through the intersections of HIV/AIDS, reproductive
health, immigration and racial justice that are at the heart our work
together. A dear friend of mine once said, "Half of your rights
haven’t been written yet because you haven’t been here to demand
them." If we can, in concert, find some lasting transformation
to the structures that allowed Ms. T to be imprisoned in the first place,
then, perhaps, we can say that justice will be done.
To receive updates about this case
and other HIV and imprisonment related issues,
please feel free to contact me at email@example.com.
Freddie Gray, 25, died from spinal cord injuries in April 2015, a week after police arrested and took him into custody. Last year, Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby brought criminal charges against six of the officers involved with his arrest. Since then, three officers' trials have been completed without convictions.
The bench trial of Lt. Brian Rice, the highest-ranking Baltimore Police Department officer involved in the 2015 death of Freddie Gray, began on Thursday, July 7. Rice faces involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, and reckless endangerment; the state dropped a misconduct charge after acknowledging Rice was not directly involved in Gray’s arrest. The closing arguments in his trial are scheduled for this Thursday; the judge is expected to share his verdict Monday.
The Rice trial started just as the public began grappling with the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling—and the subsequent murder of five police officers at a Dallas protest.
Castile and Sterling, both Black men, died during encounters with police in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, triggering nationwide protests against police brutality and implicit racial bias that have continued into this week.
And just like the days following Gray’s death, social media sites like Twitter and Facebook were flooded with images, videos, and hashtags demanding justice.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Gray, 25, died from spinal cord injuries in April 2015, a week after police arrested and took him into custody. Activists and some Maryland legislators accused police of giving Gray an intentional “rough ride,” when inmates or persons in custody are transported in police vans without a seat belt and subjected to frantic driving, ultimately causing them injury. Last year, Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby brought criminal charges against six of the officers involved with his arrest. Since then, three officers’ trials have been completed without convictions—and as activists on the ground in Baltimore wait for more verdicts, they are pushing for reforms and justice beyond the courtroom.
The first police trial, which involved charges against Officer William Porter of involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and misconduct in office, ended in a mistrial in December 2015 after jurors failed to reach a verdict.
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Barry Glenn Williams acquitted Officer Edward M. Nero of all charges in May. Mosby had charged Nero with misconduct, second-degree assault, and reckless endangerment for putting Gray into the police van without a seat belt.
But many viewed the trial of Caesar R. Goodson Jr., who drove the van, as the most critical of the six. Last month, Judge Williams announced that Goodson, too, had been acquitted of all charges—including second-degree depraved-heart murder, the most serious of those brought against the officers.
Kwame Rose, a Baltimore activist, told Rewire he was not surprised.
“The judicial system of America shows that police are never held accountable when it comes to the death of Black people,” said Rose, who was arrested in September and December during peaceful protests related to Gray’s death.
During Goodson’s trial, Williams said there were several “equally plausible scenarios,” that could have transpired during Gray’s arrest. He also rejected the state’s argument that police intentionally gave Gray a “rough ride,”according to a New York Times account.
Ray Kelly, community relations director for the No Boundaries Coalition of West Baltimore grassroots group and a community interviewer for the West Baltimore Community Commission on Police Misconduct, said he was disappointed by the Goodson verdict. However, he noted that he was heartened by Mosby’s decision to bring criminal charges against the officers in the first place. “It’s a small change, but it is a change nonetheless,” Kelly said in a recent interview with Rewire.
In addition to the charges, Gray’s death eventually sparked a major “pattern or practice” investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Local activists, including the No Boundaries Coalition, which issued in March a 32-page report that detailed police misconduct in Baltimore and helped to trigger the DOJ, expected the findings of the DOJ investigation in late June.
However, the document has yet to be released, said Kelly, who is a native of the same West Baltimore neighborhood where Gray was detained.
Kelly is expecting a consent decree—similar to the ones in Ferguson, Missouri, and Cleveland, Ohio—and a continued partnership with federal officials in the near future.
For Kelly, the trials—and the lack of convictions—have proved what leaders in groups like the No Boundaries Coalition have been saying in their advocacy. One of those messages, Kelly said, is that the community should continue to focus less on the judicial process for theoretically punishing officers who have committed wrongdoing and more on initiating policy changes that combat over-policing.
Baltimore Bloc, a grassroots group, seemed to echo Kelly’s sentiment in a statement last month. Two days after the Goodson verdict, Baltimore Bloc activists said it was a reminder that the judicial system was not broken and was simply doing exactly what it is designed to do.
“To understand our lack of faith in the justice system, you must first recognize certain truths: the justice system works for police who both live in and out of the city; it works against Black people who come from disinvested, redlined Black communities; and it systematically ruins the lives of people like Keith Davis Jr., Tyrone West and Freddie Gray,” Baltimore Bloc leadership said, referencing two other Baltimore residents shot by police.
The American Civil Liberties Union, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Wardlow, said in a May blog post that police had legal case for stopping and arresting Gray, but also said the action constituted racially biased policing and diminished rights for Black and Latino citizens.
“The result is standards of police conduct that are different in some places than other places. It is a powerful example of institutionalized and structural racism in which ostensibly race-neutral policies and practices create different outcomes for different racial groups,” ACLU leaders said.
Right before issuing its statement in May, ACLU released a briefing paper that said at least 21 individuals had been killed in police encounters across Maryland in 2015. Of those fatal encounters, which included Gray, 81 percent were Black and about half were unarmed.
The ACLU said it was impossible for the agency to determine whether any officers were disciplined for misconduct in most cases because the police refused to release crucial information to the public.
The ACLU began compiling information about police custody deaths after learning that Maryland officials were not tracking those cases. In 2015, state politicians passed a law mandating law enforcement agencies to report such data. The first set of statistics on police custody deaths is expected in October, according to the ACLU. It is unclear whether those will include reports of officer discipline.
In line with those efforts, activists across Maryland are working to bring forth more systemic changes that will eliminate over-policing and the lack of accountability that exist among police agencies.
Elizabeth Alex, the regional director for CASA Baltimore, a grassroots group that advocates on behalf of local, low-income immigrant communities, told Rewire many activists are spending less energy on reforming the judicial process to achieve police accountability.
“I think people are looking at alternative ways to hold officers and others accountable other than the court system,” Alex said.
Like the No Boundaries Coalition, CASA Baltimore is part of the Campaign for Justice, Safety & Jobs (CJSJ), a collective of more than 30 local community, policy, labor, faith, and civil rights groups that convened after Gray’s death. CJSJ members include groups like the local ACLU affiliate, Baltimore United for Change, and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle.
CJSJ leaders said the Goodson verdict underlined the critical need for “deep behavioral change” in the Baltimore Police Department’s culture. For the past year, the group has pushed heavily for citizen representation on police trial boards that review police brutality cases. Those boards make decisions about disciplining officers. For example, the city’s police commissioner might decide to discipline or fire an officer; that officer could go to the trial board to appeal the decision.
This spring, recent Baltimore City mayoral candidate and Maryland Sen. Catherine Pugh (D-Baltimore), helped pass an omnibus police accountability law, HB 1016. Part of that bill includes a change to Maryland’s Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights (LEOBR) giving local jurisdictions permission to allow voting citizens on police trial boards. Republican Gov. Larry Hogan signed the changes into law in May.
That change can only happen in Baltimore, however, if the Baltimore Fraternal Order of the Police union agrees to revise its contract with the city, according to WBAL TV. The agreement, which expired on June 30, currently does not allow citizen inclusion.
In light of the current stalled negotiations, Baltimore Bloc on July 5 demanded Baltimore City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young instead introduce an amendment to the city charter to allow civilian participation on trial boards. If Young introduced the amendment before an August deadline, the question would make it onto the November ballot.
Kelly, in an interview with Rewire, cited some CJSJ members’ recent meeting with Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis as a win for Baltimore citizens. During that meeting, held on June 29, Davis outlined some of his plans for implementing change on the police force and said he supported local citizens participating on police trial boards, Kelly said.
This year, the Baltimore Police Department has also implemented a new use-of-force policy. The policy emphasizes de-escalation and accountability and is the first rewrite of the policy since 2003, according to the Sun.
The ACLU has welcomed the policy as a step in the right direction, but said the new rules need significant improvements, according to the Sun.
For example, the policy requires reporting to the department when an officer flashes or points a weapon at a suspect without shooting; the data will be reviewed by the police commissioner and other city officials. However, it doesn’t require the same from officers who use deadly force.
Notably, the policy requires officers to call a medic if a person in custody requests medical assistance or shows signs that they need professional help. Gray had requested a medic, but officers were skeptical and didn’t call for help until he became unresponsive, according to various news reports.
Rose, who recently received legal assistance from the ACLU to fight criminal charges related to his arrests last year, said citizens should continue to demand accountability and “true transparency” from law enforcement.
In the meantime, with four trials—including Rice’s case—remaining and no convictions, many are looking to see if Mosby will change her prosecution strategy in the upcoming weeks. Roya Hanna, a former Baltimore prosecutor, has suggested Mosby showed poor judgment for charging the six officers without “adequate evidence,” according to the Sun.
Meanwhile, Baltimore City’s police union has urged Mosby to drop the remaining charges against officers.
The trial of Officer Garrett E. Miller is slated to begin July 27; Officer WilliamPorter, Sept. 6, and Sgt. Alicia D. White, Oct. 13. All officers charged pleaded not guilty.
Baltimore Bloc, citing its dissatisfaction with her performance thus far, demanded Mosby’s removal from office last month.
Kelly, who counts Baltimore Bloc among his allies, has a different outlook. Calling’s Mosby’s swift decision to charge the six officers last year “groundbreaking,” the Baltimore activist said the ongoing police trials are justified and help give attention to police misconduct.
“She should follow through on the charges ….We need that exposure,” Kelly said. “It keeps the debate open and sparks the conversation.”
Maria Teresa Rivera was convicted of aggravated homicide in 2012 following an obstetrical complication during an unattended birth the previous year, which had resulted in the death of her fetus. On May 20, Judge Martín Rogel Zepeda overturned her conviction. Now, however, a legal threat could return her to prison.
Two months ago, Maria Teresa Rivera was released from a 40-year prison sentence after spending more than four years behind bars. Rivera was convicted of aggravated homicide in 2012 following an obstetrical complication during an unattended birth the previous year, which had resulted in the death of her fetus. On May 20, Judge Martín Rogel Zepeda overturned her conviction. Now, however, a legal threat could return her to prison.
Rivera is part of the group known as “Las 17,” Salvadoran women who have been unjustly convicted and imprisoned based on El Salvador’s highly restrictive anti-abortion laws.
The government-employed prosecutor in Rivera’s case, María del Carmen Elias Campos, has appealed Rogel Zepeda’s decision overturning the original 2012 conviction and allowing Rivera to return to her now-11-year-old son. If the appeal is granted, Rogel Zepeda’s decision will be reviewed by a panel of justices. An unfavorable decision at that point could lead to a new trial.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
“I just don’t understand the prosecutor’s motivation for this appeal,” Rivera told Rewire in an interview. “We are very poor, and there is no one else but me to provide income for our family.”
According to Rivera’s attorney, Victor Hugo Mata, the government tends to require “preventive imprisonment” of the accused during the trial process, which could last months or years. This “preventive imprisonment” could begin as soon as the panel approves an appeal.
Although “the law clearly allows the prosecution to appeal,” Morena Herrera, president of the Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto, told Rewire in an interview, “This appeal that questions the decision of the court that granted [Rivera] her freedom is not looking for the truth.”
Herrera pointed out that the witness for the prosecution, a government forensic specialist who performed the fetal autopsy, determined that the cause of fetal death was perinatal asphyxia. “At the trial the prosecutor’s own witness told the prosecutor that he could not accuse a person of a crime in this case of perinatal asphyxia,” Herrera recounted.
“So, if her own witness spoke against [the prosecutor] and said she was not correct, it seems to me that this appeal … is proof that the prosecutor is not seeking either justice or the truth.”
Hugo Mata explained to Rewire that the prosecutor’s appeal asserts that Judge Rogel Zepeda “did not employ the legal standard of ‘sana crítica,’ or ‘solid legal judgment’ in evaluating the evidence presented.”
Hugo Mata vigorously contests the prosecutor’s allegation, noting that the judge’s written decision went into significant legal detail on all the issues raised at the hearing. He believes that a responsible court should see that “there was nothing capricious or contradictory in his highly detailed and legally well-founded decision.”
The three-judge panel has ten working days, or until approximately July 12, to render a decision as to whether to grant the initial appeal, although such deadlines are not always rigidly observed. If the panel does not grant the appeal, the decision to overturn the conviction will stand.
The Agrupación, including Hugo Mata, believes that the appeals panel will be swayed by knowing that the case is receiving widespread attention. As part of a campaign to bring attention to the appeal process, the Agrupación has set up an email address to which supporters can send messages letting the court know that justice for Rivera is of national and international importance.
“What most worries me is leaving my son alone again,” Rivera told Rewire. “I was forced to abandon him for four and a half years, and he suffered greatly during that time. He is just beginning to recover now, but he never wants to be apart from me. He tells me every day, ‘Mommy, you’re never going to leave me again, are you?’ I had to tell him about this appeal, but I promised him everything would be all right.”
“I was abandoned by my mother at the age of five and grew up in orphanages,” Rivera concluded. “I don’t want the same life for my son.”