Medical examiner audit reclassifies dozens of police-restraint deaths as homicides
Dozens of police-custody deaths that were ruled accidental or of unknown causes have been reclassified as homicides after a four-year review of more than 1,300 cases handled by former Maryland State Medical Examiner Dr. David Fowler.
The results of that review, announced Thursday, also highlighted potential racial and pro-police biases in the medical examiner's office at the time that may have contributed to the mischaracterizations.
The audit, led by Towson University psychology professor Jeff Kukucka, looked at roughly 1,300 in-custody deaths between 2003 and 2019 — a period corresponding with Fowler's time leading the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). Attorney General Anthony Brown (D), who announced the findings with Kukucka and Gov. Wes Moore (D), said the report raises 'profound concerns, and they are well founded in the audit.'
'The audit report's findings reveal significant discrepancies that demand our attention and response,' Brown said.
'Our research has determined that OCME was especially unlikely to classify death as a homicide if the decedent was Black or if they died after being restrained by police,' Brown said. 'These findings have profound implications across our justice system. They speak to systemic issues rather than individual conduct.'
The audit, released Thursday afternoon, will be presented Friday to the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
'The findings of this audit are deeply concerning.,' Moore said. 'It's going to take time to digest a report prepared over the course of four years and two different administrations.
'But if there's one takeaway that we've already drawn at this very early stage is this: We have to make sure we are continuing to make Maryland a model for public safety and transparency and equal justice under the law, and one is not more important than the other,' he said.
Moore said the audit is the first of its kind in the nation, and should set 'the standard for what this type of investigation can, and what this type of investigation should, look like' in other states.
'Blazing new trails is never easy,' Kukucka said, 'but someone has to lead the way, and we believe that Maryland can and will be that leader in terms of strengthening death investigations across the country.
'We hope that our rigorous audit procedure will provide a blueprint for other states to conduct similar audits, and that implementing our recommendations will establish Maryland's OCME as a gold standard to which other agencies can aspire,' he said.
The audit released by the Office of the Attorney General included the names of 41 people who died soon after being restrained by police. The majority included an 'undetermined' cause of death ruling. As a result of the audit, all 41 are reclassified as homicides.
Shawn Floyd, 2018, Anne Arundel County
Gregory Williams, 2003, Baltimore City
Shawn Bryant, 2004, Baltimore City
Rodney Wilson, 2005, Baltimore City
Dondi Johnson, 2005, Baltimore City
William Washington, 2006, Baltimore City
Carlos Branch, 2007, Baltimore City
Thomas Campbell, 2007, Baltimore City
Eric Dorsey, 2001, Baltimore City
Jontae Daughtry, 2011, Baltimore City
Tyrone West, 2013, Baltimore City
Ricky Artis, 2014, Baltimore City
George King, 2014, Baltimore City
Antonio Moreno, 2014, Baltimore City
Thomas Rawls, 2006, Baltimore County
Ryan Meyers, 2007, Baltimore County
Carl Johnson, 2010, Baltimore County
Mary Croker, 2010, Baltimore County
Tawon Boyd, 2016, Baltimore County
Dominic Edwards, 2018, Carroll
Jarrel Gray, 2007, Frederick
Anthony Casarella, 2007, Frederick
Terrance Watts, 2018, Frederick
David Matarazzo, 2007, Harford
George Barnes, 2007, Montgomery
Kareem Ali, 2010, Montgomery
Delric East, 2011, Montgomery
Anthony Howard, 2013, Montgomery
Ricardo Manning, 2019, Montgomery
Cedric Gilmore, 2004, Prince George's
James Jackson, 2003, Prince George's
Marcus Skinner, 2007, Prince George's
Alexis Caston, 2007, Prince George's
Deontre Dorsey, 2015, Prince George's
Anton Black. 2018, Talbot
Theodore Rosenberry, 2006, Washington
James Adell, 2013, Washington
Darrell Brown, 2015, Washington
Ronald Byler, 2005, Wicomico
Yekuna McDonald, 2012, Wicomico
The review began in 2021, sparked by an outcry over Fowler's testimony in the trial of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin, who was convicted of murder in the 2020 death of George Floyd during an arrest. As part of that arrest, Chauvin knelt for up to nine minutes on the neck of Floyd, who said repeatedly that he could not breathe.
Fowler, who resigned as the chief medical examiner in 2019, was called as an expert witness for Chauvin. He testified that Floyd's death was caused by 'excited delirium,' rather than police actions.
Excited delirium was a catchall term used to describe aggressive behaviors related to mental health or substance abuse issues. It has been disavowed by the American Medical Association and the National Association of Medical Examiners.
Fowler came under fire for his testimony in the highly publicized case. The audit was triggered by a 2021 letter from 450 medical experts, who called on Maryland officials to investigate deaths in police custody and practices in the medical examiner's office under Fowler.
'These members of the medical community were concerned that our state's death determination has been tainted by racial or pro law enforcement bias, or were otherwise inconsistent with the standard practices for investigating and certifying in custody deaths,' Brown said.
Among the report's findings: Excited delirium or the synonymous agitated delirium was cited in the death statements made by Fowler's office in 42 of the more than 80 in-custody deaths that came shortly after an episode of police restraint.
Researchers reviewing the initial 1,300 in-custody deaths focused on 84 cases of individuals who died soon after being restrained by police. Those cases were reviewed by 12 forensic pathologists, randomly divided into three-member panels. Sensitive and identifying information about the dead, including race, was redacted from reports reviewed by the teams.
In all, the teams disagreed with 41 cause-of-death determinations issued by Fowler's office. In 36 of those cases, all three panel members determined the cause of death to be homicide; in the remaining five, two of the three experts called the death a homicide.
In 34 of those cases, the medical examiner's office reported that the cause and manner of death was undetermined. Five were ruled accidental and another two were ruled death by natural causes.
'Those discrepancies suggest that OCME practices during the audits time frame were out of step with national standards for death certification, namely the 'but for' standard, which states that any death resulting from the actions of another person, regardless of that person's intent, should be classified as a homicide,' Kukucka said.
'As a result, it appears that OCME undercounted restraint-related homicides during the audit time frame,' he said. 'We also found that they undercounted homicides even more in cases where the decedent was Black or was restrained by police, which raises the possibility of racial and pro-police bias.'
Those deaths have now been reclassified as homicides. Of the 41 cases, 14 occurred in Baltimore City and five each were in Baltimore, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.
Officials cautioned that the reclassifications do not equal a finding of criminal activity or culpability. Instead, it means that the deaths occurred as the result of the action of another person.
'There's no suggestion that anyone is currently culpable, but it's our responsibility to go through these files, beyond the OCME report, beyond the medical and the original forensic examination, look at the entire file, which means engaging law enforcement as well to make determination,' Brown said.
Kukucka stressed the report comes with two caveats.
First, the review is retrospective, looking at a specific period of time. The most recent case reviewed is six years old. Kukucka said that 'makes it impossible to know whether racial or pro-police biases truly affected OCME determinations. Those disparities could instead reflect factors other than bias.'
And he repeated Brown's caution that the findings do not imply criminal wrongdoing or liability.
In addition to the release of the report and broader review of the deaths at the county level, officials announced a series of reforms meant to improve death investigations within the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner.
Moore, prior to the release of the report, signed an executive order directing Brown's office to work with state's attorneys to review each case. Those reviews could potentially lead to reopening investigations.
Moore also ordered the Maryland Department of Health to work with the medical examiner's office to implement best-practice investigation policies. The department is ordered to report on its progress by Dec. 31, 2026.
Finally, Moore's order creates a new task force to work on policies to reduce in-custody police restraint deaths. That panel will include health and legal experts, law enforcement and community members
'Maryland was the first state in the nation to launch a comprehensive audit on the office of chief medical examiner, and today, we are proud that we'll also become the first state in the nation to respond to such an audit with swift and targeted action,' Moore said.
'I hope that our work will inspire others around the country to take similar steps as we work together to strengthen our system of justice,' he said.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Precinct DTLA, well-known gay bar, warns it could close after former employee claims discrimination
A downtown Los Angeles bar known as a haven for the gay community is warning it could soon shutter as it faces a costly legal fight with a former employee. 'We're a couple of slow weekends away from having to close our doors,' owners of Precinct DTLA wrote Friday on Instagram. 'Like many small businesses, we've taken hit after hit — from COVID shutdowns and ICE raids to citywide curfews and the ongoing decline of nightlife. But what we're facing now is even more devastating.' In May, Jessica Gonzales sued the bar, its owner, manager and an employee, alleging she faced discrimination and harassment as a cisgender, heterosexual woman and was subjected to an unsafe work environment. Gonzales, who worked at the bar on Broadway for eight years, claimed that when she reported employees and patrons were having sex in the bar, its owner told her to 'stop complaining.' According to a complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Gonzales was required to work the coat check for Precinct DTLA's weekly 'jockstrap / underwear party' without receiving pay. She said the bar's manager eliminated the coat check fee, believing it would 'incentivize more patrons to drop their pants.' Gonzales claimed the environment grew so hostile she needed to bring stress balls to work. One day, her complaint said, another employee grabbed her stress ball and refused to give it back to her. In a struggle over the stress ball, Gonzales claims the employee broke two of her fingers. According to her lawsuit, Gonzales was effectively fired after the incident, in part because Precinct DTLA's owner and manager wanted to replace her with a gay male employee. 'These claims are completely false,' the bar's representatives wrote on Instagram. In the post, they added that the lawyer representing Gonzales 'appears to have a clear anti-LGBTQ agenda.' 'There are multiple reports — including from individuals who previously worked with him — that he used anti-LGBTQ slurs in written emails while at his former firm,' they wrote on Instagram. Gonzales is represented by John Barber, court records show. The Times reported in 2023 that Barber and his colleague, Jeff Ranen, regularly denigrated Black, Jewish, Middle Eastern, Asian and gay people in emails they exchanged while partners at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith. After Barber and Ranen left to start their own firm, Lewis Brisbois released scores of the lawyer's emails, which showed the men regularly used anti-gay slurs to refer to people, The Times reported. In a joint statement at the time, Barber and Ranen said they were 'ashamed' and 'deeply sorry.' Barber didn't immediately return a request for comment Saturday. In the Instagram post, Precinct DTLA's representatives said defending themselves from Gonzales' allegations was 'draining us emotionally and financially.' 'Come to the bar,' they wrote. 'Buy a drink. Order some food. Tip the staff. Show up.'

USA Today
7 hours ago
- USA Today
Trump addresses pardon decision for Sean 'Diddy' Combs, but questions remain
President Donald Trump is breaking his silence on pardoning Sean "Diddy" Combs for the first time since he was acquitted of the most serious charges in a federal sex-crimes trial last month. In an interview that aired Friday, Aug. 1 on Newsmax with host Rob Finnerty, Trump discussed the possibility of presidential pardons for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, Combs and former Rep. George Santos. After Finnerty asked, "Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Would you consider pardoning him?" Trump responded: "Well he was essentially, I guess sort of, half-innocent. I don't know what they do, he's still in jail or something. He was celebrating a victory but I guess it wasn't as good of a victory." Trump 'should not pardon' Sean 'Diddy' 'Diddy' Combs, Megyn Kelly says On July 2, jurors found Combs not guilty of racketeering and sex trafficking ex-girlfriends Casandra "Cassie" Ventura Fine and a woman known as "Jane" in his sweeping trial that nearly lasted two months. He was convicted July 2 on two of the five counts against him for transporting those same women for prostitution, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years per count. During the interview, Trump said "probably..." before pausing and revealing to Finnerty, "You know, I was very friendly with him, I got along with him great, seemed like a nice guy. I didn't know him well, but when I ran for office he was very hostile." The Newsmax host noted then that "he said some not so nice things about you, sir." "Yeah, and it's hard. You know, like you, we're human beings and we don't like to have things cloud our judgement, right?" the president continued. "But when you knew someone and you were fine and then you run for office and he made some terrible statements… so I don't know... it makes it more difficult to do." Then, Trump replied, "I'd say so," when Finnerty clarified by asking if it was "more likely a no for (pardoning) Combs?" In the interview, Trump was seemingly referencing Combs' expletive-filled 2017 comments in The Daily Beast, essentially saying that "(Black people) don't really" care about Trump. "The tomfoolery that's going on in D.C., that's just regular everyday business to Black folks," Combs told the left-leaning outlet in-part, adding later in the interview that he had to "keep it focused on that self-love that we need to give our race." Trump first weighed in on the possibility of pardoning Combs on May 30 in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." Despite last month's verdict, Combs' legal saga continues. On Wednesday, July 31, lawyers for Combs requested his acquittal, or a new trial altogether, in court documents reviewed by USA TODAY. A day earlier, conservative host Megyn Kelly urged Trump against potentially pardoning Combs. Kelly said in an X post on July 30 that "Trump should not pardon Diddy" because "he doesn't deserve it." "He's a Trump hater. He's a woman abuser. MAGA is already upset over elites seeming to cover for each other. This would not help. GOP struggling w/young female voters, most of whom will HATE a Diddy pardon," Kelly wrote. Contributing: Taijuan Moorman

NBC Sports
7 hours ago
- NBC Sports
Tony Buzbee responds to Shannon Sharpe's claim that he targets Black men
Anyone who has been following the NFL since 2021 knows the name Tony Buzbee. He arrived on the scene as the lawyer representing the first plaintiff who sued then-Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson for misconduct during massage-therapy sessions. Eventually, Buzbee represented more than 20 plaintiffs against Watson. Most recently, Buzbee settled a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who claimed that Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe committed sexual assault. After the lawsuit was filed in April, Sharpe attacked Buzbee personally, claiming among other things that he 'targets Black men.' In a new Esquire profile, Buzbee responded to that claim. 'I didn't wake up one morning and say, 'I want to sue Shannon Sharpe.' He has no relevance in my life,' Buzbee said, via Sean Keeley of 'I actually think he's very entertaining when he yells and screams and talks about sports that he's not involved in. But if I think it's a legitimate case, then I pursue it. And I think this is worth my time.' Buzbee's business model, if he's doing it properly (and the results would suggest he is), doesn't discriminate. He told Esquire that he receives as a fee roughly 40 percent of any recovery his clients get. That's how the American civil justice system works. Individuals who have grievances and who can't afford to pay lawyers by the hour hire them based on a contingency fee. This creates a strong business incentive for those lawyers to take good cases, not weak ones. The question of whether a case is worth pursuing has three prongs: clarity of liability, amount of damages, and the ability to collect on a settlement or verdict. Beyond that, nothing else should matter. And given that Sharpe's lawyer immediately admitted that at least $10 million was offered to settle the case before it was filed and that the case was eventually settled without Sharpe ever responding to the civil complaint, chances are that Buzbee walked away from the Sharpe case with at least $4 million in fees. That's how it works. Find strong cases, pursue strong cases, settle or try strong cases. Buzbee did that after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, generating more than $500 million for more than 10 thousand clients who pursued claims against BP. 'I guess a bunch of old white men could say I'm targeting them, and a bunch of multinational corporations could say I'm targeting them as well,' Buzbee said. 'I guess you could say I was targeting BP. . . . Well, I probably was targeting BP.' That's how it works. For anyone who represents individuals on a contingency fee. For Buzbee, the Watson case made him a go-to choice for anyone with valid claims against current or former NFL players. Without the Watson cases, there's a good chance the plaintiff in the Sharpe case wouldn't have known Buzbee's name. That also explains Buzbee's publicity-driven style. At a time when plenty of lawyers advertise their services with gigantic billboards and goofy TV commercials, the best advertisement remains free advertisement from news coverage. Buzbee knows that. His business thrives on that. And there's no reason to pursue a weak case simply to harass someone. That said, a case that seemed strong can turn out to be weak, if the lawyer mistakenly believed a client whose story didn't hold up under scrutiny. That's what may have happened in Buzbee's misadventures with Jay-Z, which resulted in the plaintiff acknowledging inconsistencies in the story she was telling about allegations of rape when she was 13 and the case eventually being dismissed without a settlement. The Esquire profile contains this curious statement: 'Buzbee later withdrew from the case because he has not been admitted to practice law in the Southern District of New York.' The presence of that assertion in the final product, frankly, shows that whoever wrote and/or edited the story has no idea how the legal system works. Lawyers licensed in one jurisdiction routinely seek and receive what's known as pro hac vice (Latin, 'for this occasion') admission in other jurisdictions in a specific case. As long as a local lawyer who is licensed to practice in that court is personally involved in the case, pro hac vice admission is routinely granted. Actually, that's how Buzbee pursued Sharpe. The primary lawyer on the complaint filed in Las Vegas was Nevada lawyer Micah D. Nash. Buzbee's name appears on the document below Nash's, with this designation: 'Pro Hac [Vice] Forthcoming.' This doesn't mean Buzbee was targeting Jay-Z because of his race. The more plausible explanation is that Buzbee took on a case that ended up being far weaker than he thought it was, so he found a way to retreat. Of course, he's now facing a lawsuit from Jay-Z claiming that the lawsuit sparked $190 million in business losses. Unfortunately for Buzbee, he's got the money that would make him a target for a lawyer who represents plaintiffs on a contingency fee. That's the primary motivation in this specific form of legal practice. It's good business to take strong cases with significant damages against defendants who have money. The personal characteristics of the defendants do not matter. All that matters is: (1) did they do something they shouldn't have done?; (2) did those actions cause tangible and significant harm?; and (3) can they easily write a check to make things right?