Sunday, June 13, 2010

Million dollar bail… a case comparison – Part 9

On or about April 7, 2010, in Elizabeth City, NC, six men were arrested for the brutal beating of Travis Howard. Heavily outnumbered in what he stated was an unprovoked attack at a nightclub, Mr. Howard sustained four skull fractures in the incident. In addition, he stated that he suffered a broken nose, concussion, and sprained neck. Five of his attackers were Special Forces soldiers who were in the area for training exercises in Camden County. The sixth man is listed as a resident from Jacksonville, FL, although the media reports are conflicting and uncertain as to his military status. All six were charged with felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury, but none were charged with attempted first degree murder. All six men were released without bond after promising in writing that they would be in attendance for their scheduled July 12, 2010 court event.

More recently, Gregory Boykin, a 29 year-old Wake County resident was arrested and charged with raping a 6 year-old girl. He faces charges of first degree rape of a child and three counts of felony sex offense with a child for offenses which allegedly took place in May 2009. Initially bail was set for Mr. Boykin in the amount of $500,000 with a condition that if he made bond he would be placed on electronic house arrest. However, on June 11, 2010, Wake District Court Judge Jennifer Knox reduced his bail to $300,000 and ruled that he would not be confined to house arrest if he bonded out of jail while awaiting trial. Currently, he remains in jail.

Parents of a five month-old boy were arrested in May 2010 and charged with child abuse. The infant sustained fractures of the skull, rib, and arm from an incident that, according to court documents, occurred several months earlier. Neither of the parents was charged with attempted first degree murder, and they were placed in custody under $100,000 bail.

Three cases cited above are for comparison with Crystal Mangum’s case. They illustrate the disparity and severity of the treatment to which Ms. Mangum has been subjected since her arrest on February 17, 2010.

Crystal Mangum did not inflict serious injury in her dispute with her ex-boyfriend on the night of February 17, 2010. According to police reports, she allegedly scratched him and threw punches at him. Yet, she was accused of attempted first degree murder (when no weapon was involved), and held under a $1 million bail. However five of the six member mob who attacked Travis Howard were highly skilled fighters from the Special Forces of the Army. Although they savagely beat Mr. Howard, they were released without bail.

Bail is a legal tool used to assure that a suspect who is released from custody prior to trial is in attendance at trial. Large sums of money or secured property are used as incentives to assure the suspect complies with the court calendar and mandates. In most cases, the higher the bond, the greater the flight risk of the suspect/defendant. In the case of Gregory Boykin, the judge or magistrate who set the initial bail of $500,000 made a condition similar to that imposed by Judge Claude Allen in Crystal Mangum’s case. The condition being that if bonded out, he/she would be released from jail, but be placed under monitored house arrest. In other words, after paying bond, they would still be in custody. Judge Jennifer Knox, when she reduced Mr. Boykin’s bail to $300,000, removed the condition that if he bonded out he would be under house arrest. In other words, she overruled the condition previously imposed. Judge Paul Ridgeway, when he reduced Ms. Mangum’s bail, had the opportunity to rescind the house arrest condition regarding bond, but he chose not to use it. So after Ms. Mangum’s $100,000 bond was satisfied, she was still in custody… under electronic monitored house arrest.

Undoubtedly, Judge Knox ruled properly when she removed the house arrest condition for pre-trial release of the defendant from custody. In this same respect, Judge Paul Ridgeway erred. The bail was placed to assure that Ms. Mangum would attend court dates if released from custody. She unexpectedly satisfied the bond requirements (thanks to the benevolent and generous actions of Mr. and Mrs. Hammond) and she should be free, instead of still being held in custody… albeit in a residential setting instead of the Durham County Detention Center. Judge Allen’s condition for bond for Ms. Mangum flies in the face of the true meaning of for having bail. His actions constitute a tiered level of confinement which is unevenly, unjustly, and often inappropriately applied. Ms. Mangum, for example, does not represent a flight risk. She’s a Durham resident, does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the state, country… much less, city of Durham. Her dedication as a mother is unquestioned, and therefore it is unlikely that she would take flight and leave her children behind. In addition, the crime for which she is alleged to have committed is bogus, and would not withstand a courtroom trial. The prosecution doesn’t even plan to go to trial because it knows it has no case against Ms. Mangum… their strategy is to strong-arm her into a plea deal on a so-called lesser charge in exchange for time served (strategy effectively used in the James Arthur Johnson case).

Although house arrest is not as oppressive as incarceration behind bars, it still represents a significant impediment to living a normal life. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Mangum was enrolled in graduate school pursuing a Masters degree, while being gainfully employed, and raising three children. Since being placed under house arrest, these activities have been put on hold, at taxpayer expense. Electronic monitoring, supervised leave to run errands, and associated paperwork come with a price tag that is being paid by the state.

It was an outrage for Magistrate B. Wakil to initially attach a $1 million bail with the arrest of Ms. Mangum, and it is a further outrage for her to be subjected to house arrest after she bonded out of the $100,000 bail. A comparison of cases will clearly show the discrepancies in the way punishment is selectively meted out by the North Carolina courts… and this is the biggest outrage of all.

23 comments:

Michael said...

Sidney:

You need to spend even more of your time recruiting trolls and even less time researching your facts. You couldn't be more nonsensical if you tried!

Are you now actually saying that CGM threatened to stab her victim without access to a knife? In a house?

Of course, I forgot! This is a knife-less house with magic towels! Durham-in-Wonderland, indeed.

Sidney, her public defender agreed to the house arrest. If you want to be her lawyer, go to law school!

DNA! DNA! DNA

Michael said...

BTW, Sid. If you do go to law school, there will be a course titled "Evidence." You may want to start studying RIGHT NOW! If you wait until you're actually accepted some place, it may be too late, because you have a lot to unlearn.

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous said... In the previous thread
Did the lacrosse assholes
ever come forward and tell
anybody in the Duke and Durham
communities, it was THEY
who had ROBBED Crystal Mangum
of her money from the the purse
in the bathroom?

No, the lacrosse assholes
lawyered up and screamed,

"WE are Innocent ! ! !"

NOTHING Happened
in that bathroom ! !"

"We ordered white girls,
not Niggers ! !"

June 12, 2010 2:43 PM
I find Anonymous's charaterization of the Duke LAX Players more credible then many posters here, who seen to think they are naive college boys away from Mommy and Daddy who were preyed on by a coniving and street smart rip-off artist. That's a view that stretches all credibility. DNA not withstanding we all know a team of high power attorneys can get the guilty off. Reasonable doubt is all too often unreasonable. To Nifong Supporter: Thank you for the invitation to join the Justice for Nifong Committee. I'll take your invitation under advisement

Michael said...

In November of last year Sidney stated:

"But the most egregious and disingenuous part of the statement is the use of the adjective 'exculpatory' when describing DNA evidence. There is absolutely no way in which the referenced DNA evidence could be exculpatory (that is, clear the players of sexual assault), and to suggest so is a monumental disservice to the public. WRAL, along with almost all other media sources, has consistently erred on this specific issue of great importance."

Actually, the "referenced DNA evidence" showed a baseline of the prior males who had contact with CGM's sexual orifices over the days prior to the SANE exam at DUMC. Meehan and his team (unlike the SBI) did not find the absence of evidence, they found evidence PRESENT. The evidence of male contact found in CGM's mouth was consistent with prior contacts with multiple males, but not with a recent ejaculation of semen in her mouth by a LAX player, which she was so careful to mention had occurred that she added it as an amendment to her April statement.

Since January, Sidney has promised to address this issue. He now has one more chance. I challenge him to make good on his promise from January.

If he does not do so, the only rational assumption that can be drawn from his failure is that he cannot face the fact that he has no argument. Any remaining rational basis for his position is gone. He admits to his irrationality and will simply go on complaining that the rest of the world fails to share his biases in the face of facts that disprove them (at least in the case of the LAX players and Nifong).

Lance the Intern said...

Kenhyderal -- I find your poor spelling to be indicative of your lack of intelligence. In typical J4N fashion, it's now up to you to prove ME wrong.

You a good fit with the J4N gang -- at least as good as Steven "White Man's DNA" Matherly.

You state that the anonymous "charaterization" [sic] is credible. How many Duke LAX players have you actually met?

kenhyderal said...

Judging my intelligence based on a couple of typos is completely irrational but I'm not going to fall back on that old schoolboy protestation that Albert Einstein was also a poor speller. Now I'm not sure if my poor spelling or your illogical extrapolation is the best indication of our respective intelligence. No, I've never met anyone involved in this case. Having played college sports though,(in my case hockey) I have attended a few of these bacchanalian "bashes", much to my discredit and know, in situations like this who has the power and who is being exploited.

Lance the Intern said...

Judging your intelligence based on typos is just as rational as judging a handful of college students you admit you've never met based solely on the information you've gathered from this website.

Besides, everyone knows hockey players are mullet-headed, toothless thugs, so your college experience is not surprising.

kenhyderal said...

No, not from this web-site but from personal experience. This "Hasty Generalization" on my part is, no doubt, what colors my speculation about how this incident "went down". That, however, is just as valid as your "Argumentum ad Populum;(A is true because everyone knows it's true) but then maybe you've met a lot of hockey players.

Nifong Supporter said...


Michael said...
"Sidney:

You need to spend even more of your time recruiting trolls and even less time researching your facts. You couldn't be more nonsensical if you tried!

Are you now actually saying that CGM threatened to stab her victim without access to a knife? In a house?"



I do not know for a fact that Ms. Mangum threatened to stab anyone. Unfortunately, the biased media is not very reliable, especially when it comes to hot-button issues related to the Duke Lacrosse case.

The blog I intend to post on Wednesday, June 16th should be an eye opener and answer a lot of questions you may have about Ms. Mangum and events that took place the night of February 17, 2010.

Anonymous said...

An eye opener? Nifong Supporter is a legend in his own mind.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you shulg give up blogging and become a writer of fiction!

.... oh wait, you're already a writer of fiction

Bart said...

Kenhyderal -- OK, so the characterization of the Duke LAX accused portrayed by an anonymous poster is credible because you knew some hockey players in college.

Obviously, Sid has taught you well.

Michael said...

"I do not know for a fact that Ms. Mangum threatened to stab anyone. Unfortunately, the biased media is not very reliable, especially when it comes to hot-button issues related to the Duke Lacrosse case."

It was in the police report, Sidney. Biased or not, whoever wrote the story would quote the police report. They don't have any choice on that.

....Oh, I forgot, Rae Evans runs the police department now. Never mind.

Brod Dickhead said...

@ Michael:

I admire your patience and fortitude in trying to reason with Sidney and his sock puppets. However I fear you are achieving little more than casting pearls before swine.

kenhyderal said...

Bart said...

Kenhyderal -- OK, so the characterization of the Duke LAX accused portrayed by an anonymous poster is credible because you knew some hockey players in college.

Obviously, Sid has taught you well. Bart, I know University Jocks and I was a University Jock. My opinion comes from my own experience and not from anything Nifong Supporter has "taught" me. Animal House is not a fantasy concept. It's based on real life and real life experiences. Now really, does not the belief that LaX players, at a house party where exotic dancers were hired to perform, would be the model of decorum defy all credibility. Common sense tells you that would not be the case.

Michael said...

See for yourself.

http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2007/08/duke-lacrosse-saga-in-pictures.html

kenhyderal said...

Thanks. What I see there confirms my speculation.

Bart said...

Kenhyderal -- It's simple, really. If you think that the Duke LAX players are representative of any type of "Animal House" behavior, cite 1 University or Team rule broken by the team at the time of the events at 610 N. Buchanan.

In the absence of any such citation, we can only believe that, yes, they were the model of decorum

Anonymous said...

I am fairly confident that underage drinking is against University as well as team rules. And against the law as well.

More anonymouser said...

Yes, I am sure underage drinking is against University and team rules. Please show that this occurred at 610 N. Buchanan on the night in question.

kenhyderal said...

What you can prove and what common sense tells you happened are often at odds.

Michael said...

Our "host" has spent the last several weeks bloviating about his perception that the DPD and local prosecutors inflated the charges against CGM. It appears that the same posters who share his sense that CGM's conduct (which was witnessed by police) was "really not all that bad" are at the same time ready to assume that the LAX players were drunken marauders on nothing more than extrapolation from personal experience of other college age athletes.

Honestly, can you say to yourselves that you are applying an evenhanded standard of judgement here? Hasn't the phrase "well we all know what those types of people are like" routinely come out of the mouth of the very racists whose behavior you supposedly abhor?

I just don't get it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Michael said...
"Our 'host' has spent the last several weeks bloviating about his perception that the DPD and local prosecutors inflated the charges against CGM."



Check out the blog posted on June 16th titled "Crystal Mangum did NOT set clothes in bathtub on fire!" and then let's hear your comments.