A Baltimore man could plead guilty next month to being a notorious city graffiti artist who covered walls up and down West Pratt Street with the tag Oricl.
But the crux of the state?s case against Kenneth Ellis ? a video allegedly depicting him and others spray-painting downtown ? is of such poor quality, it likely couldn?t implicate him.
“The case is extremely sketchy. Believe me, we know that. They don?t have much,” said Ellis? defense attorney Lawrence Rosenberg.
Ellis faces 15 counts of property destruction, and an assault charge stemming from a separate incident.
Ellis?s case was brought up from District to Circuit Court on Wednesday, then rescheduled for June 20 because Ellis, who?s being held in Howard County on a violation of probation charge, wasn?t brought to court. He?s likely to plead guilty next month in exchange for 18 months probation and 500 hours of community service, defense attorneys said.
But it was the October surveillance video that initially led police to Ellis, according to charging documents. And a review of those clips Wednesday showed they?re far from definitively implicating Ellis.
In one video, a person stands elevated in an apparent construction site and seems to be scrawling something on a wall while another person is seen briefly moving below. The portion of video is less than 10 seconds long, and no faces are clearly visible.
In another clip, three people are briefly captured on Howard Street standing beneath a red awning, with their backs to the street, facing the wall of a business. The segment is about five seconds long. The only distinctive characteristic visible on any of the people is a shirt or jacket with horizontal stripes worn in several of the clips.
Rosenberg said he believes the assault case is stronger, among other things. Ellis might be better off pleading guilty to property charges, Rosenberg said, than risking conviction on the assault charge, which carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence. But he said the case still might go to trial. The victim in the assault case didn?t show up at court Wednesday.
A State?s Attorney?s office spokeswoman said the city?s surveillance cameras have been of dubious value in court. Of 394 arrests related to the cameras in about the past six months, at least 112 didn?t result in prosecution, according to the State?s Attorney?s office.
“The pole cameras have not yet proven to be a significant tool for prosecutors,” Margaret Burns, a spokeswoman for the State?s Attorney?s office, wrote in an e-mail.
But Matt Jablow, a police department spokesman, defended the cameras, saying prosecutors from the State?s Attorney?s office have told police they are “extraordinarily effective.”
