Saturday, September 27, 2008

RE: The Erick Daniels Case

I appreciate the dialogue about the Erick Daniels case, and I apologize for not keeping the blog updated. Currently I am working hard to get a website up and running for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. The web address is: There are still a few bugs in it, but I'm hopeful that they can be worked out soon... no later than after the first week in October. Keep checking, as it will feature many articles and a comic strip titled "The MisAdventures of Super Duper Cooper."

First, I would like to re-assert that it is not the purpose of the Committee to go after attorneys, be they prosecutors or defense attorneys. We strenuously object to the selective prosecution and persecution of Mr. Mike Nifong, when other prosecutors are passed over and protected by the State Bar and state officials for misconduct that is far more grievous than anything Mr. Nifong is alleged to have done.

I agree with the blogger who stated that prosecutors should not be disciplined because they make a mistake and prosecute the wrong individual(s). True, we are all human. However, Prosecutor Freda Black pursued the prosecution of a teenager without any physical evidence and in spite of the fact that he did not match the description given by the victim. Also, because the defense attorney did not object, Ms. Black was able to introduce evidence that was considered to be inadmissible in winning her verdict. She was definitely not acting as a minister of justice in this instance.

I also am in agreement with the blogger who stated that the defense attorney did not present an adequate defense for his client. But, just as the State Bar has no will to discipline prosecutors, it lacks the will to go after incompetent defense attorneys (because they make it easier to win convictions). I do not believe that Erick Daniels's attorney acted with malice, and he even admitted to not doing an acceptable job in representing Erick Daniels.

Now, I did file a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against Defense Attorney Johnny Gaskins, who represented James Arthur Johnson. Besides being ineffective as a defense attorney, and allowing his client to be confined to jail for 39 months, Mr. Gaskins made prejudicial statements against his client (on a television news program) about an accessory after the fact charge which is still being investigated. recommended in its website that readers file the complaint if they were outraged by Mr. Gaskins's statements. I was, so I did.

I think that we can all agree, despite our difference of opinion on this case, that Erick Daniels should at the least be proclaimed "innocent" by Governor Easley, and awarded the paltry sum of $20,000.00 per year for each year of wrongful incarceration.


JSwift said...

Daniels deserves a settlement from Durham and an honest investigation to determine how the DPD focused on Daniels alone and ignored other evidence.

If the City does not agree to an honest investigation (not another Wichhard whitewash), I hope he sues for damages.

You have not mentioned the Frankie Washington case. It took Tracey Cline almost five years to bring the case to trial. She ignored the negative DNA tests that cleared Washington. Washington also deserves a settlement and investigation.

The DPD and the Durham DA's office do not appear to be concerned with justice.

unbekannte said...

There are similarities between the Erick Daniels case and the Lacrosse case. Justice4Nifong says, that Nifong sought indictments against the Lacrosse players after CGM had identified them with 80-100% certainty. Freda Black had a witness who DID identify Erick Daniels as the individual who had robbed her. The ID of Erick Daniels was flawed. The ID of the Duke Lacrosse players was seriously flawed, the result of a tainted, improperly conducted lineup. Maybe Justice4nifong could discuss why a tainted ID did not justify prosecution in the Daniels case but did justify prosecution in the Lacrosse case. There was a crime committed in the Erick Daniels case. There was NO CRIME committed in the Duke Lacrosse case, a fact of which "decent, honorable" Nifong was aware when he sought indictments against the Lacrosse players.

I say again, before there was any evidence in the Lacrosse case one way or the other about any crime, "decent, honorable" Nifong was in the media proclaiming that a horrible, racially motivated crime had occurred and that members of the Duke Lacrosse team were the perpetrators. This was followed by the Gang of 88 statement, the pot banger protests, the demonstrations by the New Black Panther party, a horrendously loud public proclamation by the DA, by certain Duke Faculty, by the administration of Duke University, by the North Carolina NAACP, that the accused Lacrosse players were guilty, based on nothing but their race and class. Perhaps that is the reason NCAG Roy Cooper felt it necessary to publicly proclaim that the Lacrosse players were innocent. I ask the Justice4Nifong gang of 2, when in either the Erick Daniels case or the James Arthur Johnson case did the prosecutor ever try to whip up such hostility or animosity towards the defendants? I remind you, as in the Erick Daniels case, there was a real crime in the James Arthur Johnson, the rape and murder of an 18 year old girl. And you claim that Nifong's violations were less egregious?

I say this whole Justice for Nifong thing is just more race and class meta narrative. The Lacrosse case fell apart because there was no crime. Nifong got prosecuted and disbarred because he tried to perpetrate one of the most vicious cases of prosecutorial misconduct in the country. There are those out there who will believe nothing other than that the Lacrosse players got off because they were white and well off, that Nifong was prosecuted because he went after defendants who were white and well off. That premise is not supported up by the truth.

But then, when did anyone who supported "decent, honorable" Nifong ever care about the truth? I say, Nifong never did.

unbekannte said...

I agree with jswift that Erick Daniels should go after the City of Durham. Such a lawsuit will do more to discourage prosecutorial misconduct in Durham and in North Carolina than will reinstating Nifong.

I hope Frankie Washington goes after the City of Durham and after DA Tracy Cline. I point out again, Tracy Cline is African American. The Justice4Nifong gang of 2 does not cite her action in the Frankie Washington case as a case of prosecutorial misconduct or ask why she was not prosecuted or disbarred.

I also point out again that the Justice4Nifong gang do not ask why Erick Daniels' original defense attorney, even after he admitted his failure to represent Mr. Daniels effectively, was not prosecuted or disbarred. Innefective representation by a defense attorney, just like prosecutorial misconduct, can lead to a wrongful conviction. Mr. Daniels' original attorney is African American. The excuse given by the Justice4Nifong gang of 2 seems rather lame and contrived to me.

The web site wants James Arthur Johnson's former attorney disciplined by the NC State Bar for breaking attorney/client privilege, for speaking to the media about the case while the case was still pending. I can not argue with that. I read the story on NC Wanted and thought, What the H--- was the guy doing. But then, compared to Nifong, was that the more serious offense? Johnny Gaskins did have information about the case. Nifong had no information about the alleged rape when he went to the media. I say again, Nifong proclaimed he was sure a vicious, racially motivated crime had taken place and that Lacrosse players were the perpetrators.

So, it is simply not true that Nifong's misconduct is less serious when compared to other attorneys. The Justice for Nifong movement is a sick attempt to again turn the Duke Lacrosse case into a false narrative of class and race prejudice.

unbekannte said...

More about "decent, Honorable" Mike Nifong and his decision to prosecute the Lacrosse players based on CGM's 80-100% certain Identification of them. The quote comes from the Liestoppers Meeting forum, specifically LIESTOPPERS MEETING → News & Discussion → DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers → black is white, right is wrong.

"No one was arrested in March because the accuser had not identified the three players as suspects until the April 4th line up, despite the fact that she was given two earlier opportunities to identify her alleged attackers—on March 16th and on March 21st.

After the April 4th identification, Nifong didn’t delay arrests because the accused were white. He likely delayed arrests until the first meeting of the grand jury following the April 4th identification, because doing so allowed him to avoid a probable cause hearing, and the consequent requirement to address the weight of the evidence before the primary and general elections."

I say again, CGM's ID of the Lacrosse players was tainted and Nifong knew it was tainted. He knew that NO CRIME had been committed against CGM and that he had no probable cause to proceed. He did so anyway, for reasons of race and class. Prosecuting defendants viewed as privileged rich white boys would win him points with the black Durham voters.

I also say again, in the Erick Daniels case, in the Frankie Washington case, in the James Arthur Johnson case, the prosecutors had actual crimes to prosecute. I ask Justice4Nifong, did the prosecutors in those cases try to avoid probable cause hearings before proceeding, as did "decent, honorable" Nifong in the Lacrosse case? Can you demonstrate that any of those prosecutors had a political agenda, as did "decent, honorable" Nifong?

Your contention that other prosecutors were guilty of more serious misconduct is not tenable.

unbekannte said...

Here is more from the Liestoppers Meeting Forum. This addresses Justice4Nifong's contention that Nifong's failure to disclose DNA evidence was a revelation of little significance. The quotes come from LIESTOPPERS MEETING → News & Discussion → DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers → How does DNA exonerate you?

First, liestoppers discovered "discovered 187 clues in the form of case details on men and woman who combined spent a total of nearly 3,000 years in jail for crimes they did not commit before being exonerated by DNA." For lack of space, I will not list all the names. They include 5 men in North Carolina, including Mr. Darryl Hunt, exonerated when testing of DNA found on the murder victim matched DNA of another man who ultimately confessed to the crime. I say again, in the Lacrosse case, DNA found on CGM matched a number of other males but did not match any Duke Lacrosse player. I also again point out, Justice4Nifong does not cite Darryl Hunt as wrongfully convicted, even though he is African American.

The Liestoppers post also says this:

"Let go back to April 11 and the forum. What if Nifong had told the truth? What if he had said at the NCCU Forum well the DNA evidence shows none of the LAX players had any sexual contact but we have a whole lot of non Lax DNA?

What would have happened?

1) Nifong would have looked foolish for all those remarks in the MSM that he knew a Rape happened.
2) The DPD Officers Gottlieb, Himan, and others would have looked foolish for Addison remarks and showed just how corrupt them were
3) Brodhead would have looked like an idiot for cancelling the Lacrosse Season, forcing Pressler to resign, and suspending McFadyen.
4) Mayor Bell & City Manager Baker would have looked like Idiots
5) The Durham City Council would have had egg on their faces.
6) Those Group of 88 hypocrites sure would have looked foolish!
7) Judge Stephens would have looked like a dumb sh*t.
8) Those tens of thousands of dollars spent on that NTO would have seen a waste of taxpayer's money.
9) DUMC would have looked liked like a bigoted home to a SANE nurse and her superiors.
10) Duke would have looked bad in the eyes of a Nation.
11) NCCU would have been embarrassed and shame by Crystal
12) The Pot-bangers and those at the John Hope Franklin Center would have been revealed at bigots.
13) The MSM including the Durham Herald & the N & O would have been showed to be Bigots who rushed to judgement
14) Crystal and her family would have been exposed as a hooker and a group of family members out to make a quick buck.

So one may ask why didn't Nifong do the right thing? Because all of the above had done wrong.

Nifong wasn't just covering his Ass, he was covering for many in Durham. He also knew if he had told the truth he would have received few votes and exposed the corrupt Durham justice system."
(acknowledgement to Liestopper Baldo)

Justice4Nifong is just a pathetic attempt to camouflage just how extensive and egregious was "decent, honorable" Nifong's misconduct. It is the rather pitiful use of smoke and mirrors to portray the Duke Rape Frame Up as a case of racism.

The only Racism in the case was that directed at the Innocent Lacrosse players and the rest of the Duke Lacrosse team.

unbekannte said...

This from LIESTOPPERS MEETING → News & Discussion → DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers → This case and the Interent. This is from Liestopper Quasimodo.

"CBS learned with the Bush papers case that it couldn't offer up faked documents in the age of the NET.

The NYT learned with this case that it couldn't offer up faked documents in the age of the NET.

The overhead light's been turned on now, and the cockroaches don't have the kitchen all to themselves any more . . ."

Offering up Smoke and Mirrors, minimizing "decent, honorable" Nifong's misdeeds will not exonerate him. Maybe you should take this Liestoppers post as a warning.

unbekannte said...


I say again, Racism was the principal reason why "decent, honorable" Nifong prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse players. By prosecuting males who were perceived as privileged and wealthy, by prosecuting them for a sex crime committed against a black woman, Nifong hoped Durham's black voters would get him elected Durham County DA.

In the other cases cited by the Justice4Nifong gang of 2, and in cases not cited by Justice4Nifong, can the Justice4Nifong gang show the prosecutors had some political agenda. Can Justice4Nifong demonstrate that the defendants in those cases were prosecuted solely because of race and class, in the absence of a crime, in the absence of probable cause?

In the Duke Lacrosse Frame Up, "decent, honorable" Nifong did attempt prosecutorial misconduct on a scale beyond that attempted by other NC prosecutors.

unbekannte said...

The Justice4Nifong position is that Mike Nifong was prosecuted and disbarred for reasons of race and class, that he had the temerity to prosecute 3 well off caucasian males who had been accused of perpetrating a sex crime against a poor black female. De facto, Justice4Nifong is claiming that any irregularities in the case were insignificant.

If the prosecutor in the Erick Daniels case had a witness against him with a background of drug use, mental instability and criminal behavior, that prosecutor would be obligated to reveal the background to the defense. Such information about the witness would impeach the credibility of the witness. The prosecutor probably wouldn't even call a itness with such a background.

Well, Justice4Nifong, you have said in your blog that CGM's 80-100% certain ID of the Duke Lacrosse players justified his prosecution of them. After Nifong's case exploded, it WAS learned that CGM had a background of drug use, mental instability, and criminal behavior. She was initially presented to the public as a single mother, student at NCCU, resorting to "exotic dancing" to support herself and her children. Nifong, if anything, encouraged this perception of her.

So maybe the accuser was a black female and the accusers were caucasian males. It doesn't change one a couple facts, the poor black woman was Nifong's ONLY witness and she was a witness of questionable credibility. Nifong tried to keep that information under wraps and prosecute anyway.

How was that insignificant?