With biting humor and sometimes withering disdain, Circuit Court Judge Barry Glenn Williams swatted aside defense motions asking him to dismiss the charges in the Freddie Gray case and to recuse State’s Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby and other prosecutors.

At the end of nearly two hours of morning arguments before a packed courtroom yesterday, Williams said he didn’t have the authority to dismiss charges based on alleged violations of the rules of professional conduct and that he saw little evidence that he should.

“After 44 pages of documents and 15 minutes of argument, there is a paucity of law that would lead the court to grant the request,” Williams said, addressing the lawyers for the six officers charged in the death of the 25-year-old unarmed black man who died while in police custody last April.

Williams was at times just as acidic toward the prosecutors, lecturing Michael Schatzow, Mosby’s chief deputy who quarterbacked the case for the state.

“Saying something isn’t true doesn’t make it so. Neither does repeating it over and over again emphatically,” Williams said, noting that both sides had made this rhetorical mistake.

In his substantive rulings as well, Williams took both sides to task.

After serving up a win for the prosecution in the morning, Williams dealt them a surprising setback in the afternoon, denying their motion to combine some of the cases.

While consolidation would make things easier, Williams observed, it “would not be in the interests of justice.” Instead, the charges against the officers will be heard individually in six separate trials, he ruled.

Mosby’s Words Parsed

The day of pretrial hearings offered a glimpse into how the courtroom phase of the explosive Freddie Gray matter will be conducted under the 53-year-old jurist.

“He suffers no fools,” said University of Maryland law professor Douglas Colbert, who watched the day’s proceedings in the dark-wood-paneled courtroom. “He’s not going to countenance delay or dilatory tactics.”

In the audience along with Colbert were representatives of the Fraternal Order of Police, activists like Adam Jackson of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, local NAACP president Tessa Hill Aston and members of the clergy, including the Rev. Todd Yeary of Douglas Memorial Community Church.

About 40 members of the media watched as well, several of them grumbling about the prohibition against tweeting from the courtroom.

The case is in the international spotlight during a year in which excessive use of force by police in cities across the country resulted in deaths, sparked protests and ignited an urgent conversation about race, bias and police conduct.

By invoking that conversation in her May 1 announcement of charges against the six officers, defense lawyers argued, Mosby “misperceived” her role and “tainted the jury pool.”

“To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America, I heard your call for ‘no justice no peace,’ ” Mosby had said on the steps of the War Memorial Building that day.

“Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man.”

Williams read aloud that passage from Mosby’s remarks, including the “message” the 35-year-old prosecutor said she had for the youth of Baltimore: “This is a moment, this is your moment.”

Mosby’s use of the chant (the same one protesters shouted yesterday morning in front of the courthouse) was improper and an indication of bias, lawyers for the officers argued.

“‘No justice, no peace’ is tantamount to ‘No conviction, no peace.’ What they meant was conviction of the officers – and she endorsed it,” said Andrew Graham, a lawyer for Officer Caesar R. Goodson Jr.

He likened Mosby’s announcement to “some sort of pep rally.”

Prosecutor Schatzow said Mosby was only reading from a statement of charges and that her remarks were merely meant to encourage the crowd to be peaceful.

Condescending and Troubling

Williams appeared at times visibly impatient with the defense attorneys, heaping particular scorn on their argument that Mosby’s husband’s role as a city councilman constituted a conflict-of-interest.

“I asked, ‘Why? Is the implication that she can’t think for herself?’ ” Williams said, calling the argument “condescending.”

Other defense arguments he labeled “mind-boggling,” saying they “didn’t come close” to making the case for recusal.

Williams said he did find some of Mosby’s behavior “troubling,” in particular her answer to a reporter’s question in the May press conference in which she acknowledged that the officers had cooperated during the investigation.

“That’s inappropriate and you know that,” he said to Schatzow.

At another point he interjected, “Is it the prosecutor’s job to calm the city?” Lest Schatzow fail to recognize this as a rhetorical question, Williams quipped, “That’s a statement, by the way. Continue.”

In the end, though, Williams said he did not find her remarks rose to the level necessary to justify dismissal. The Attorney Grievance Commission, he said, is the appropriate body to determine any misconduct on Mosby’s part.

Before lunch, he also publicly chastised the passel of prosecutors and private attorneys involved in the case for “unnecessary name-calling” and “over-the-top rhetoric” in court filings and conferences. (At one point, called to discuss a matter at the bench, they numbered 15.)

He said he would appreciate them “not requiring the Court to spin its wheels on mere conjecture. . . and not [try] to get the best media soundbite.”

“Spillover Effect”

For the prosecution, making the case for consolidating the charges into groups was a tougher sell.

“I know that eye-roll,” Deputy State’s Attorney Janice Bledsoe said to Williams, watching the judge’s evident impatience with her arguments.

Bledsoe noted the “extraordinary resources” that go into the trials and said they were proposing to join them together “to make this economically feasible for everybody.”

But defense attorneys argued that the charges against the officers were different and that evidence against some would improperly hurt others. “A transference of guilt and spillover effect,” as one of them described it.

Bledsoe said the differences were not significant.

“It’s degrees of the same breach of duty – it’s just one is more serious than the other,” she said.

In the end, Williams agreed with the defense, ruling that evidence in the case was not “mutually admissible.”

Another pre-trial motion is scheduled to be heard next week: the defense team’s argument for moving the case out of Baltimore.

The cases are currently scheduled to go to trial in October.