City of Baltimore Issues Independent Legal Response to State's Attorney Jan 20th Opinion

New Analysis Showcases How SAO Concerns Regarding Brady Violations and the Engagement of Prosecutorial Cases "Lack Doctrinal Merit"

BALTIMORE, MD (Monday, February 2, 2026) - Today, the City of Baltimore released a response to the expert opinion produced on behalf of the Baltimore City State's Attorney Office (SAO) on January 20, 2026. The City's response, ordered by Mayor Brandon M. Scott and the Baltimore City Law Department, was conducted by Tara A. Barnes, Managing Partner at Rollins, Smalkin, Richards & Mackie, LLC in Baltimore. Prior to joining her firm, Barnes served as an Assistant State's Attorney in Baltimore City for seven years.

In the City's own expert opinion, Barnes examines the claims made by the State's Attorney Office and its independent counsel that the relationship between the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Safety & Engagement (MONSE) and the SAO, through both GVRS and MONSE's Victim Services work, endanger prosecutions because of concerns about possible Brady violations.

The official expert response concludes:

"In my legal opinion, the concern about the risk of systemic constitutional violations-based on Brady-is rhetorically compelling but legally misplaced. By assuming imputation and building outward from that assumption, the SAO Expert Letter constructs a disclosure dilemma that the law does not recognize and then proposes dissolving a public-safety partnership as the remedy. However, the analysis rests on a chain of legal missteps: conflation of doctrines, misreading of precedent, substitution of concern for standard, and an unsupported elevation of "partnership" into a trigger for Brady obligations. In doing so, it gives credence to the SAO's concerns where none should be given."

The response is organized around two main sections: (1) establishment of factual background, including critically important components of the GVRS and Victim Services workflows that the SAO independent analysis leaves out; and (2) an opinion that outlines why the SAO's independent analysis regarding potential Brady violations relies on distorted readings of both Brady requirements and Maryland discovery requirements to reach its conclusion.

The City's expert opinion establishes:

• The SAO expert letter expands the class of persons subject to Brady
• The SAO expert letter widens the scope of what qualifies as "Brady Materials"
• MONSE, through its Victim Services program and affiliation with the execution of GVRS, cannot reasonably be considered to have evidence or materials that amount to impeachment evidence under Brady
• The GVRS Letter, as referenced in the SAO letter, cannot reasonably be considered impeachment evidence
• GVRS identification does not qualify as "exculpatory evidence"

As a result, the City's independent response says: "Therefore, any conclusion that the SAO must terminate its partnership with MONSE is neither legally required nor factually justified."

The City's full response to the January 20, 2026 SAO Expert Opinion Letter can be found here.

###

###