(July 21, 2016) Former Pocomoke City Police Chief Kelvin Sewell and former Lt. Lynell Green have been indicted by a Maryland Grand Jury on charges of misconduct in office and conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, the Maryland State Prosecutor’s office announced on Tuesday.
Both Sewell and Green face charges stemming from the same incident in November 2014. According to the indictment, both are alleged to have “knowingly, willfully, and intentionally, under the color of his office, interfering with the legitimate investigation of a motor vehicle accident by subordinate police officers for the personal benefit of an acquaintance, Correctional Officer Captain Douglas E. Matthews…”
The pair is also accused of conspiring with each other in order to perpetrate the alleged misconduct.
There is no record of the accident within the Maryland Judiciary Case Search database, which provides public access to court records online. However, there are exceptions to what information is made publicly available.
The statue of limitations on these charges is two years from the date of the alleged incident.
These charges were not brought by local State’s Attorney Beau Oglesby, but by the State Prosecutor Emmet Davitt. The office of the state prosecutor was established 40 years ago specifically to investigate election law violations, public ethics violations, bribery law violations, official misconduct as well as related perjury, extortion or obstruction of justice claims.
The prosecutor investigates these issues under his own initiative, or via request from the governor, attorney general, General Assembly, the state ethics commission, or a state’s attorney.
Oglesby is a named defendant in the ongoing lawsuit between Sewell, Green and former officer Franklin Savage and several individuals and governmental entities alleging racial discrimination within several agencies of Worcester County.
On Tuesday, the plaintiffs in that suit filed documents asking the court to reconsider a decision it made in late June with regards to official-capacity immunity, which protects certain public employees from prosecution during the execution of their duties.
The court had granted a motion to dismiss some charges against a few of the defendants, but the plaintiffs argue a different case, decided in the interim, has a direct affect on this one, and bears reconsideration in light of the new facts.
Both Sewell and Green face charges stemming from the same incident in November 2014. According to the indictment, both are alleged to have “knowingly, willfully, and intentionally, under the color of his office, interfering with the legitimate investigation of a motor vehicle accident by subordinate police officers for the personal benefit of an acquaintance, Correctional Officer Captain Douglas E. Matthews…”
The pair is also accused of conspiring with each other in order to perpetrate the alleged misconduct.
There is no record of the accident within the Maryland Judiciary Case Search database, which provides public access to court records online. However, there are exceptions to what information is made publicly available.
The statue of limitations on these charges is two years from the date of the alleged incident.
These charges were not brought by local State’s Attorney Beau Oglesby, but by the State Prosecutor Emmet Davitt. The office of the state prosecutor was established 40 years ago specifically to investigate election law violations, public ethics violations, bribery law violations, official misconduct as well as related perjury, extortion or obstruction of justice claims.
The prosecutor investigates these issues under his own initiative, or via request from the governor, attorney general, General Assembly, the state ethics commission, or a state’s attorney.
Oglesby is a named defendant in the ongoing lawsuit between Sewell, Green and former officer Franklin Savage and several individuals and governmental entities alleging racial discrimination within several agencies of Worcester County.
On Tuesday, the plaintiffs in that suit filed documents asking the court to reconsider a decision it made in late June with regards to official-capacity immunity, which protects certain public employees from prosecution during the execution of their duties.
The court had granted a motion to dismiss some charges against a few of the defendants, but the plaintiffs argue a different case, decided in the interim, has a direct affect on this one, and bears reconsideration in light of the new facts.