Closing arguments were expected to begin Wednesday morning after a day of expert testimony in a Baltimore County Police corporal’s trial on misconduct and assault charges in the city.
Baltimore Circuit Judge Paul E. Alpert rejected a final bid by Cpl. Zachary Small’s defense team Tuesday afternoon to drop two charges from his consideration in the bench trial.
Defense attorneys Brian Thompson and Patrick Seidel argued that no evidence during the trial had shown Small’s conduct during a Sept. 27, 2023, arrest had the potential to violate a state law regarding excessive use of force, or be considered reckless endangerment.
Small is accused of assault and misconduct in office for his treatment of an armed robbery suspect who had escaped while being treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital in East Baltimore. In body camera footage, Small is seen spraying several bursts of pepper spray at the man, who was restrained in a police SUV by a seatbelt, handcuffs and shackles on his feet. He later grabs the man out of the vehicle and pulls the man’s hair as the suspect drops to the ground, continuing to yank the man’s hair while he is lying on the pavement.
Small argued Thursday that both of those tactics were legitimate methods of controlling the shackled man.
Defense attorneys rested their case at midday Tuesday, the fifth day of the trial, after wrapping up testimony from their expert witness, who testified that the pepper spray was properly used and that pulling a suspect’s hair was a legitimate “pain compliance” tactic used by law enforcement.
Assistant State’s Attorney Kimberly Rothwell called an additional witness, a retired detective from the Metropolitan Police Department of D.C., Trevor Hewick, to rebut that testimony.
Hewick, now a private investigator who has advocated for and against police in use-of-force cases, testified that Small’s pulling of the man’s hair was an “unreasonable” use of “excessive” force, noting that the suspect “was not an immediate threat.”
The testimony Tuesday moved slowly, as legal arguments further delayed the trial — which was set to conclude last Thursday — into a sixth day. Loud sirens outside of the fourth-story courtroom prompted several brief pauses in testimony, and disagreements about which evidence was admissible dragged on for a good part of the day.
“I want to try the case. There’s more argument than trial,” Alpert said at one point on Tuesday.
Scheduling the trial to continue into Wednesday, Alpert noted that he would need to recess following closing arguments to review evidence. It was not clear how long that would take.
Originally Published:
