JoAnn C. Woodson-Branche said she came to the Baltimore Police Department to work on internal disciplinary cases and hold officers accountable. But the former official and career prosecutor said it quickly became apparent that the system was broken.
Backroom deals were struck, recommendations for punishment were not followed and some who were set for termination escaped punishment, Woodson-Branche said. She said she had little autonomy, with many decisions dictated by one of the department's deputy commissioners.
"When I joined [the agency], my assumption was that it would be an open view to the operations of the department. That meant the disciplinary process would be followed as ordered, there would be accountability across the board, that punishment ... would be followed and adhered to," said Woodson-Branche, who was fired in April. "What I observed during my tenure, however, was completely different in some cases."
Mayor Sheila Dixon questioned the timing of Woodson-Branche's comments. She said the ex-official "has some right [to complain], but she also headed the department."
Dixon said Woodson-Branche should have alerted officials, including the mayor, to her concerns as they happened.
Though the Police Department has not commented on why she was let go, the police union and defense attorneys accused Woodson-Branche of manipulating internal charging documents, a violation of state law. The agency subsequently initiated an audit that resulted in the dismissal of 50 cases of police misconduct, including several high-profile cases.
At a news conference Thursday at attorney Warren A. Brown's office, Woodson-Branche hit back at accusations that she botched those cases and demanded that the department clear her name. She said many of the cases were indeed flawed and that she raised concerns that fell on deaf ears. Other cases deserved to go forward, she said, adding that the department is using her as a scapegoat to wipe the slate clean.
She said Deputy Commissioner Deborah Owens, a polarizing figure within the department, exercised "complete control" over the trial board office and closely monitored any actions she took. Woodson-Branche claimed that she was ultimately fired, not because of her job performance, but because she complained about a politically connected contractor brought in to help handle a backlog of cases.
