Mosby’s ex-attorney apologizes again for missteps on his part
Hoping to avoid ‘stain’ of criminal contempt
Staring down the possibility of criminal punishment, Marilyn Mosby’s former lawyer apologized again to U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby in court papers filed Friday, at least the third time he’s done so.
Washington D.C.-based attorney A. Scott Bolden submitted a personal statement to the court as part of his attorney’s lengthy filing that argued against punishing Bolden further for his various missteps during his representation of the former Baltimore state’s attorney.
“I have already received widespread criticism for the contentiousness that accompanied my defense of Ms. Mosby and for the antagonisms that were engendered by that defense,” Bolden wrote. “That criticism will not only have a profound effect upon my career going forward, but it will also cause other lawyers to exercise restraint in their own conduct under similar circumstances.”
Worried about “the dark stain” on his reputation that comes with being held in criminal contempt of court, Bolden used his personal statement to explain why he acted the way he did during his yearlong tenure as Mosby’s defense attorney in her fight against federal perjury and mortgage fraud charges.
Griggsby threatened Jan. 17 to hold Bolden in criminal contempt of court for violating court rules, including divulging confidential juror information in public legal papers and filing a motion without the signature of a Maryland attorney, as Bolden is not licensed to practice in the state. Griggsby also took exception to Bolden’s use of profanity to criticize the second postponement of the case, calling it “bulls—-” on the courthouse steps.
On Sept. 14, the eve of trial, Griggsby postponed the case because Mosby’s lawyers, including Bolden, did not turn over expert witness information in a timely fashion, leading prosecutors to request a delay. In addition to his profane remark, Bolden suggested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Maryland was targeting African American government employees for prosecution. He apologized for the first time in court on Sept. 15.
On Jan. 17, Griggsby called those comments “hurtful,” both personally for her and for the court as an institution. Bolden apologized a second time then, saying the moment was not his finest hour.
Since then, Bolden and the five other private attorneys on Mosby’s case have quit, with Bolden’s looming potential punishment as the impetus. In court filings, Bolden said he and three other members of his firm couldn’t stay on the case because his contempt battle created a conflict of interest. Two other attorneys had scheduling conflicts and said they never planned to be present for the March 27 trial, which has since been delayed again.
Griggsby appointed Federal Public Defender James “Jim” Wyda to represent Mosby after ruling that she was indigent and could no longer afford private counsel. Wyda, at a status conference
Friday, told the court he had yet to receive Mosby’s defense file from Bolden, hampering his ability to prepare for her case.
If Bolden is found in criminal contempt, the severity of penalties varies: He could be removed from the case, prohibited from practicing in Maryland, referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution or even made to spend time in jail.
The son of a former judge, Bolden wrote in his personal statement that he was raised to respect the law and its institutions. He also admitted that the Mosby case brought him great stress, but wrote that stress alone did not justify for his actions.
“I have only the greatest respect for this Court and the entire judicial system, and I am profoundly distressed by the thought that I would ever willfully or contumaciously engage in conduct that would be an affront to this or any other court,” he wrote.
The rest of Bolden’s filing, authored by attorney Arnold Weiner, stresses that the case was highly contentious on both sides, with prosecutors and defense attorneys trading barbs throughout the process. Weiner asked Griggsby to accept Bolden’s apology as sufficient reprimand, and to not take the contempt proceedings any further.
A hearing date in Bolden’s case has not been set.