Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca is desperate for plea deal with Crystal Mangum

Like many cases in which a prosecutor has absolutely no case against the defendant (the James Arthur Johnson case comes to mind), the prosecutor, instead of doing the right thing and dismissing all charges against the defendant, will more likely than not try to entice, cajole, force, or use any means necessary to make the defendant accept a plea deal. This strategy is most effective when the wrongfully accused defendant is tucked away safely behind bars, and a plea deal in exchange for imminent freedom looks mighty appetizing to the defendant, especially after spending many months or years behind bars. The prosecution finds the plea deal appealing because it means that he/she will not have to go to trial and risk facing embarrassment and ridicule for bringing a garbage case before the courts. More likely than not, in the majority of these cases, the prosecution is relying on a plea deal to close the case and doesn’t even bother to prepare to go to trial. This is what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case, and this is what the prosecution under Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca is attempting to do to Crystal Mangum, the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case.

In the fiasco that was the James Arthur Johnson case, Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe charged James Arthur Johnson, the young African American teen who turned over to police the name of the true killer of Wilson teen Brittany Willis, Kenneth Meeks (also an African American male). Clever Wilson investigators managed to get young Meeks to falsely implicate James Arthur Johnson in the crime by telling Meeks that his friend “snitched” on him. Prosecutors charged Johnson with crimes against Brittany Willis, which included murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery, based solely on the statements of the confessed killer who had earlier confided in Johnson about the murder only to later learn from police that it was Johnson who fingered him. There was no forensic evidence and no witness to link Johnson to the victim or the crime scene. The Wilson police theory was that Johnson robbed, kidnapped, raped, and killed Brittany Willis with Meeks as his accomplice, and then when he heard the offer of a $20,000.00 reward for information leading to an arrest in the crime, he went to police to turn in his partner in crime in order to collect the reward. Johnson was held in jail for a couple of years before Meeks, the killer, retracted his statement about Johnson’s involvement, explaining that he made the false accusation out of anger. With its sole witness recanting, did Prosecutor Wolfe dismiss charges against Johnson…? No! Instead, he conjured up two eyewitnesses, who both happened to have connections to the Wilson Police Department (one of whom was a retired Wilson police officer). Before Wolfe could use these false witnesses to convict Johnson, Dr. Rev. William Barber, president of the NAACP made his appearance, and with the media scrutiny he brought, Wolfe and Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney, Jr. decided to quickly and silently jettison their two latest eyewitnesses. It was then, without evidence, without witnesses, and without a case that the Wilson prosecution launched its efforts to obtain a plea deal with Johnson. As is typical in this situation, the prosecution proceeded at a snail’s pace and tried to reach a plea deal right up to the time the court date could no longer be delayed. Wolfe and Boney’s bluff failed, and when it came time for the trial to begin, the prosecution folded like an accordion. On the day of court, they announced that they would turn the case over to a special prosecutor.

Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster, an assistant district attorney from Forsyth County, was forced to take over prosecution of the Johnson case by her superior, District Attorney Tom Keith. She agreed to do so only on the condition that she not be required to try the case in court. D.A. Keith agreed, and it was made clear early on that her involvement would be limited. After a couple of months passed, to give people the impression that an investigation was being conducted by the special prosecutor and her diligent crew, Ms. Foster dropped the charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against Johnson, and, as foreordained, she charged Johnson with “accessory after the fact” for wiping some fingerprints off the victim’s car long after the crime had taken place. Despite having served 39 months in jail on serious charges that were dismissed and now facing only an “accessory” charge, a high, but attainable, bail of $60,000.00 for Johnson was set by the judge. Shortly thereafter, he bonded out.

State prosecutors refused to touch the Johnson case with a twenty foot pole, so the Administrative Office of the Courts ultimately found a special prosecutor from the ranks of the lawyers in private practice. At additional cost to taxpayers, the new Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen, who used to work as a prosecutor, pretended to conduct a lengthy and complete investigation into the Willis/Johnson case. Special Prosecutor McFadyen threatened Johnson with additional hard time in jail if he was to be convicted for wiping fingerprints off the car (an act which had absolutely no bearing or relevance on what justice transpired with respect to confessed murderer Meeks). With the judge refusing (without explanation) a defense motion for a change of venue from the town of Wilson (which had been racially divided by the prosecution and press), Johnson finally succumbed (not wanting to risk the possibility, however remote, of returning to jail) and pled guilty to “misprision of felony.” Misprision of felony is a rarely invoked charge used against someone who has knowledge of a crime but does not share it with authorities. Although Johnson pleaded guilty to the charge, he was actually not guilty of it because he did, in fact, voluntarily and without legal counsel in tow, tell police everything he knew about the crime. In getting this plea deal in exchange for time served, the prosecution proudly puffed out its chest because it had prevailed in legally justifying locking up James Arthur Johnson for 39 months for the crime he committed of waiting three days before coming to the police to tell them of his knowledge of the crimes against Brittany Willis. For solving the homicidal case, Johnson never received the $20,000 reward that was offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis… the only thing he received was 39 months.

The way in which Prosecutors Wolfe and Boney kept an innocent James Arthur Johnson in jail for 39 months without a shred of credible evidence, is a text-book way of making a person serve a long sentence without being convicted of a crime. This is what Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca had planned to do with Crystal Mangum, and she got off to a successful start. First serious charges were trumped up against Ms. Mangum, such as attempted first degree murder and arson. These were used to justify the hefty $1 million bail set by Magistrate B. Wakil. When Judge Claude Allen lowered the bail to $250,000.00, he set up a safety net by establishing the condition that if Ms. Mangum did bond out, she would be placed under electronic house arrest. This was a safeguard which the judge and prosecution team felt would not be needed. But when bail was unexpectedly made for Ms. Mangum by a benevolent and generous bail bondsman, her jail sentence was prematurely terminated after serving only several months behind bars. From initial plea offers made shortly after Ms. Mangum’s arrest, it is apparent that the prosecution would have settled for Ms. Mangum spending at least two years behind bars. It was undoubtedly a great disappointment when Mangum bonded out after only three months in the Durham County Detention Center. Once Ms. Mangum was released from strict custody and placed under electronic house arrest, prosecutors lost their main bargaining tool for acquiring a plea deal… incarceration behind bars. The prosecution’s focus turned immediately to trying to arrange a plea deal with Ms. Mangum, so shortly after her release from the detention center to house arrest, Garcia-Lamarca offered through the Public Defender the following plea deal: Admission of guilt to the following charges 1) first degree arson, 2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 3) injury to personal property, and 4) resisting a public official, in exchange for a sentence of time served. Wisely, Ms. Mangum refused.

Now, I would not be surprised if the prosecution made the following offer on August 4, 2010, at Ms. Mangum’s hearing: Prosecution will dismiss the first degree arson charge with Ms. Mangum pleading guilty to the following charges 1) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 2) injury to personal property, and 3) resisting a public official, in exchange for time served. (Note, the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor is based upon the arson count, so prosecutors may offer to dismiss that charge as well.)

Bottom line is that the prosecution is desperately fishing around for a plea deal. It is not preparing to take the case to trial, because like Prosecutor Bill Wolfe and Wilson D.A. Howard S. Boney, Assistant D.A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca has no case against Crystal Mangum. Furthermore, to proceed to trial would involve many members of the Durham Police Department committing perjury. And, if the police are willing to lie in their reports about Ms. Mangum putting clothes in a bathtub, it is not much of a stretch that they would, in fact, have the wherewithal to set the clothes on fire themselves… which is most likely what happened. How else would one explain the police closing the bathroom door on a bathtub with some clothes on fire and calling the fire department? No effort was made by police to even turn on the water in the bathtub. Police allowed smoke damage to accumulate in the apartment to which they most likely set on fire. By placing the midnight call, Durham police brought 25 members of the Durham Fire Department to Ms. Mangum’s apartment in order to put out a few clothes on fire in a bathtub. This just does not make sense. The sparse and vague timelines in the police and fire reports are contradictory, do not make sense and throw a lot of water on the prosecution’s purported story of what took place the night of February 17th.

What Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca needs to do is stop the madness masquerading as a criminal case against Ms. Mangum… she can accomplish this by dismissing all charges against Ms. Mangum immediately. The prosecutor needs to stop wasting taxpayer money for unwarranted electronic monitoring, and monies being paid to a defense attorney on a case against Mangum that is totally trumped up.

You can bet that if Ms. Garcia-Lamarca had a valid and just case against Ms. Mangum, she would proceed posthaste to trial, and seek the maximum penalties possible. Instead, with only trumped up garbage against Ms. Mangum, Garcia-Lamarca dillydallies desperately trying to eek out a plea deal to any charge with Ms. Mangum. This is a pathetic demonstration of jurisprudence practiced in North Carolina, and is what makes the Tar Heel State the laughing stock of the country.

If the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has anything to say about it, the unjust tragedy that befell James Arthur Johnson will not be revisited upon Crystal Mangum. Assistant D.A. Garcia-Lamarca needs to forget about trying to reach a plea deal with Ms. Mangum (any plea deal requires Ms. Mangum to admit to a crime that she did not commit), and either prepare her garbage case to go to trial (wasting taxpayer money in the process) or dismiss all charges against Ms. Mangum immediately. A plea deal in this case is not in the cards... it's not even on the table.


Anonymous said...

Sidney - she (ADA Garcia) would proceed posthaste to trial

Why would she 'proceed posthaste', Sidney? There is no speedy trial law in NC, therefore no reason to move up Crystal's case on the calendar.

Like many cases in which a prosecutor has absolutely no case against the defendant (the James Arthur Johnson case comes to mind), the prosecutor, instead of doing the right thing and dismissing all charges against the defendant, will more likely than not try to entice, cajole, force, or use any means necessary to make the defendant accept a plea deal.

The Duke lacrosse hoax / frame comes to mind as well.

Anonymous said...


The behavior of the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse Case was just the opposite of this prosecutor's behavior as depicted here in Crystal Mangum's case. Michael Nifong never pushed for a plea deal. In fact, he refused to meet with several defense attorneys who wanted him to drop the case, instead directing them to the police. All indications were that the prosecutor had every intention to take the Duke Lacrosse case to trial. Again, that's the opposite of this Crystal Mangum case.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - Michael Nifong never pushed for a plea deal.

Nifong would have taken a plea at any time. He was desperate for one; it was his only chance since he knew the case wasn't going to trial.

Anonymous said...

There's no evidence that the Duke prosecutor ever considered a plea. There's no evidence that a plea was ever even discussed with any defense attorney. There was every evidence that the prosecution was headed for trial despite many people's disbelief. That's why the defense, especially Joe Cheshire, fought so hard. The defense's stance was that those young men were innocent. A plea was out of the question. The Duke prosecutor took the complete opposite tac that this prosecutor is taking with Crystal Mangum

Anonymous said...

Actually, the only thing left to do is pursue The Truth. Sydney, tell Crystal and Mike and Linwood and Brodhead and Bell - all of them - to tell it all. All the deals, who knew what and when they knew it.

Everyone's soul will be unburdened and cleansed.

That's the only course of action left open...

Anonymous said...

DA Michael Nifong testified in the State Bar Hearings and the contempt trial about his action in the Duke Lacrosse case. He was disbarred and sentenced to one day in jail. This prosecutor has addressed in public what he feels is the truth from his perspective. Nothing in his testimony was found to be inaccurate.

Why are you not including in "all of them" the defense attorneys or the families? Or the State's Attorney? Why reflect your prejudice in that way? Brad Bannon fed inaccurate information to Joe Neff in the local media which had to be retracted. Brad Bannon continues to protect his role of collusion with various news organizations. If you are truly objective and genuinely want the truth, the lack of transparency does not lie only with the prosecution and the University.

Nifong Supporter said...

In the Duke Lacrosse case the defense strategy was to get rid of the prosecutor who did not do what was expected of him... which was to drop the case. Because the Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong, did proceeded with the prosecution, the North Carolina State Bar was enlisted to bring ethics charges against Mr. Nifong, thereby forcing him off the case. When he turned the case over to the Attorney General's Office, the defense's desired result was assured.

Sidney Harr is an Ignoranus said...


The defence attorneys merely did what they were supposed to do - collected the evidence that Nifong was a liar who was framing the Lacrosse players, colluding with Mehan and DNASI to hide the exculpatory DNA, allowed The Ho to "identify" the players thru bogus photo ID's comprising only lacrosse players..., tried the case in the media..... tried to intimidate the witnesses for the defence... need I go on?

The Bar Association took it from there and disbarred Nifong.

Nifong brought all his woes upon himself - all to gain an additional $20 000 extra pension. He is extremely lucky that the 24 hour jail sentence and the disbarment and bankruptcy were his only punishments. In any other jurisdiction, he would be in jail - not however in a corrupt city like Durham.

Sid, all you are doing is lying, slandering the lacrosse players; who are the real victims in the Frame, and fabricating by innuendo that something happened.

Do you suffer from a psychosis? An inferiority complex? Are you perhaps a pathological liar? Or are you just so perverted, and have wallowed in your victimhood for so long that you are incapable of facing the facts?

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the tenor of most discussions about the Duke lacrosse case has always been on this very high, impatient, advocating level. Either on one side or the other.

What a defense attorney is "supposed to do" in a rape case usually involves tearing down the accuser's credibility. In this case, that fell specifically to Joe Cheshire as decided by the alignment of all defense attorneys who agreed to band together and share information and strategy. What is rare for any defense attorney to do in a rape case is to put the prosecutor on trial. That's usually not what they're "supposed to do". That was a singular defense of their clients.

At the time of disbarment, the families and Joe Cheshire threatened to prosecute the district attorney in criminal court. Michael Nifong did have a contempt trial and was found guilty. But this verdict, by law, does not take into consideration that Michael Nifong knowingly lied in court. The verdict is based solely upon the fact that the prosecutor made an inaccurate statement in court. Michael Nifong admitted to this inaccuracy as early as December 15th when presented with evidence in judge's chambers that a reference to raw DNA material was not included in the initial DNA summary report. The contempt verdict does not prove that he lied. That ruling simply does not deal with that issue.

Even though the families were dedicated to prosecuting the district attorney in criminal court, after further investigation, their Washington lawyers concluded that there was no convincing evidence that Michael Nifong committed any criminal acts. And therefore never pursued the district attorney in criminal court.

Anonymous said...

Are there any PRACTICING lawyers on the J4N committee? I sincerely hope Crystal Mangum isn't making decisions based upon input from the committee if there are not.

JSwift said...

On another thread, kenhyderal raises an interesting topic: whether a “botched” investigation by the DPD (and a “botched” SANE exam) compromised the original criminal case. ken raises this point in an attempt to explain why the defendants could have been guilty even though, as Mr. Nifong admitted, there was “no credible evidence” to support the prosecution.

This excuse provides no support for Mr. Nifong’s decision to prosecute. I can imagine the closing argument: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defense has shown that there is no credible evidence to support the charges I have brought before this court. There is a simple explanation for this lack of evidence. The police botched the investigation. As a result, I ask that you consider the evidence that I would have introduced had there been a competent investigation. I assure you there would have been compelling evidence of guilt. I would have shown…”

Fortunately, our justice system does not permit this tactic.

ken is correct. It is theoretically possible that a “botched” investigation discovered a real crime and identified the actual perpetrators. It is far more probable that a “botched” investigation either identified the wrong defendants (Sidney has provided numerous examples of other cases where the prosecution had incorrectly locked onto specific defendants) or proceeded with a prosecution of a crime that never occurred (e.g., the numerous daycare child molestation cases thrown out on appeal).

An examination of the available evidence supports the special prosecutors’ conclusion: there is “no credible evidence” that the crimes for which the defendants had been charged had even occurred and “additional affirmative proof” that these crimes did not occur.

Moreover, an examination of the DPD “investigation” shows that the DPD failed to conduct a bona fide investigation. Virtually every step of the "investigation" was deeply flawed. In one of the most highly publicized cases in City history, the police repeatedly failed to interview relevant witnesses, examine evidence in their possession or known to exist and reconcile conflicting evidence. They allegedly attempted to create evidence by filing inaccurate affidavits and reports and intimidating and influencing witnesses. The DPD violated policy with their inflammatory public statements, the method in which they conducted lineups, and their failure to maintain a contemporaneous record of their activities. Supervisors failed to monitor the activities of their subordinates even after media reports raised serious doubts about those activities. Despite a case that relied on the changing allegations and fatally flawed identifications from a tainted witness, the DPD made no real attempt to discover additional evidence. It appears that the DPD designed its “investigation” merely to select defendants and avoid uncovering exculpatory evidence.

One can explain this failure in only two ways: (1) the investigators responsible for the case (Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Inv. Ben Himan) were utterly incompetent and their supervisors (Capt. Jeff Lamb, Lt. Michael Ripberger and others) failed completely in their supervisory responsibilities or (2) the case was a deliberate frame. Because of the considerable publicity this case attracted and the coverage of the significant flaws in the case, I find it difficult to believe that gross incompetence was responsible. That leaves a deliberate frame as the most likely explanation.

I raised with Mayor Bell a number of questions about the “investigation” in May 2007 when the City was considering a commission to investigate the DPD’s role. Pehaps Sidney or ken could answer those questions.

Sidney, you should be outraged if the DPD failed to investigate properly. First, had Ms. Mangum been assaulted, this failure virtually assured that the actual perpetrators went free. Second, this failure suggests that the DPD may routinely seek to convict suspects rather than to solve crimes. If so, most of the DPD's victims will be the poor defendants you seek to protect.

Anonymous said...


Common Law Robbery:

Peter Lamade

Ryan McFadyen

Now maybe JSwift can tell us
a little something
about the Police photos?


Anonymous said...

Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca is desperate for plea deal with Crystal Mangum

No she isn't

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ August 4, 2010 5:31 PM

Maybe you can tell us what you know about the police photosalliti

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ August 4, 2010 12:46 PM

No defense attorney had to tear down Crystal Mangum's credibility. What tore down her credibility were her multiple inconsistent accounts of what happened, her failure to identify anyone at the party as an attacker, the lack of forensic evidence of any crime.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr

"Like many cases in which a prosecutor has absolutely no case against the defendant...the prosecutor, instead of doing the right thing and dismissing all charges against the defendant, will more likely than not try to entice, cajole, force, or use any means necessary to make the defendant accept a plea deal."

When you mention cases in which the prosecutor has no case, you mean the case in which three Duke Lacrosse players were falsely accused of rape.

As you have often pointed out, Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charge but continued to prosecute on a charge of sexual assault.

That was a cynical attempt on the part of Mr. Nifong to keep pressure on the defendants, hoping they would take a plea rather than go to trial.

If Mr. Nifong had every intention of taking the case to trial, why were there so many delays?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ August 3, 2010 1:54 PM

Nifong did not want to meet with the defense attorneys because he did not want to be aware of the overwhelming exculpatory evidence.

A prosecutor who is aware of valid, exculpatory evidence is ethically bound not to prosecute.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 5:31pm - Peter Lamade Ryan McFadyen

Nifong never sought charges for the alleged theft. Ever wonder why?

Did Crystal ever accuse anyone other than Kim & a DPD officer of the theft of her $2,000?

Anonymous said...



Yes, how did Joe Neff miss that headline?


Anonymous said...


Is JSwift having trouble
fitting together
the pieces of his puzzle?


Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 9:26pm - Yes, how did Joe Neff miss that headline?

Well, for starters, there was no rape victim.

What made sscratches' puppetmaster decide to come out of the closet?

Anonymous said...

There is simply no evidence that the prosecution aimed for a plea deal. Nor is there evidence that the prosecution delayed anything. In fact, the prosecution was criticized for rushing the case.

Wade Smith was preparing for trial. But Joe Cheshire's strategy was to stop the trial. Part of the effort to stop the trial was to delay the process. Cheshire convinced the rest of the defense to follow this strategy and became the leader of the defense. Filing briefs was part of this strategy. Cooney was given the job to delay and hopefully get the trial dismissed by filing briefs. Brad Bannon was given the job to concentrate on the DNA and hopefully get the trial thrown out that way.

But the most important threat, the thing that made the defense, and especially Cheshire's client Dave Evans so vulnerable, was the event of not only a black woman accusing Dave Evans of rape in court in front of a jury, but also multiple rape counselors, nurses and doctors who all gave statements that they believe she was raped. Cheshire knew that these would be highly emotional testimonies that could have a powerful impact on a jury.

This is what struck fear into Joe Cheshire and why he felt they could not risk going to trial. The prosecution would parade numerous hospital staff and rape experts including Tara Levicy in front of a jury. And then have Crystal Mangum herself take the stand and point at Dave Evans, crying and saying how he raped her in detail.

Joe Cheshire was adamant they not go to trial and succeeded in wresting control away from other defense lawyers to protect Dave Evans.

Cheshire personally took upon himself the most important task of revealing the inconsistencies of the accuser's story. He dedicated himself to daily conversations with the press and worked with 60 Minutes and other news organizations to sway public opinion.

To not recognize that Joe Cheshire did a brilliant job of tearing down the credibility of Crystal Mangum, or to believe that the accuser herself did it, or that it was obvious or the case unravelled by itself, does not recognize the brilliance of Cheshire and the defense team and the tremendous challenge they had to overcome.

The prosecutor was so set on going to trial without delay (and not wanting a plea) that one way to stop the trial was to stop the prosecutor. They had to try everything. Even if it meant accusing the prosecutor of wrongdoing and putting him on trial.

And they succeeded.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
"Are there any PRACTICING lawyers on the J4N committee? I sincerely hope Crystal Mangum isn't making decisions based upon input from the committee if there are not."

There are no attorneys on the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. Keep in mind, however, that James Arthur Johnson was represented by practicing attorneys and look what happened to him. He was railroaded by the system. The Committee does not intend to allow the same tragic fate that befell Mr. Johnson to happen to Ms. Mangum.

Anonymous said...


Regarding your allegation that the police investigation was botched:

Mike Nifong took charge of the police investigation. Early in the case he vouched for his case, that he was certain what crime had been committed and who had committed it.

How do you explain that he botched the procedure which would have provided the evidence which would have made his case.

Anonymous said...

Mr Nifong sought and got indictments less than a month after the alleged crime had happened. By December, more than 9 months after the alleged crime, no trial had been scheduled and Mr. Nifong had not directly interviewed the complaining witness. That does not say he was pushing for a speedy trial.

That he would be unwilling to listen to exculpatory evidence only shows he was a corrupt prosecutor.

Under Mr, Nifon's leadership the way the Durham DA office handled rape cases was to either dismiss the charges or allow the defendant to plead to a lesser charge.

When his complaining witness revealed she could not recall being raped, Mr.Nifong should have dropped all charges. He could not have proven a sexual assault. Ibelieve the reason he did not drop charges was he did not want to antagonize his black supporters. I believe he thought the defendants could be pressured into pleading to a lesser charge.

They did not. Too bad for Mr Nifong

Anonymous said...

Michael Nifong was not pushing for a speedy trial. Nor was he delaying. The defense however was using tactical strategy to delay the trial. Which was in their interest and worked out for them in the end. Also, the defense wanted as much material collected for review as possible; it wasn't all delay tactics.

The case never got out of the discovery stage.

Michael Nifong made mistakes. But there is no evidence that he delayed procedure or pushed for a plea. Evidence points to him wanting to go to a jury trial.

Anonymous said...

There is no convincing evidence that the district attorney "took charge of the investigation". Like many stories accepted in the complicated Duke lacrosse case, this detail is repeated without documentary evidence.

The district attorney worked with the police like all prosecutors do. He directed them to get what he needed for indictments and support for trial, etc.

When the supervising lieutenant told Gottlieb to run things through Michael Nifong, that was making a distinction to run things through the district attorney himself who had never tried a case personally since he was made district attorney, opposed to saying running things through Tracy Cline who was running the violent crime department at the time.

The police acted separately in many matters throughout without the direction of Michael Nifong.

Perhaps there is no better illustration of the police investigation being separate from the prosecution than exploring the behavior of the defense.

Almost all the defense attorneys wanted to meet with Michael Nifong. Nifong met with some defense attorneys and not with others. Notoriously, he never met with Joe Cheshire. He directed all defense attorneys to meet with the police and give the police any evidence. Evidence that they were promising the district attorney.

Every defense attorney refused to meet with the police. Lead Investigator Himan could not get defense attorneys to take his calls. He called Reade Seligmann's attorney repeatedly because Himan felt the prosecution did not have enough to indict Seligmann. The vast majority of defense attorneys never returned Himan's calls. Those that did, refused to give Himan any evidence, the same evidence that they were more than willing to give the prosecutor.

The defense saw the very clear distinction between the police and the district attorney. They wanted to meet Michael Nifong to convince him to drop the case. But the defense refused to meet with the police or give them any evidence for fear the police could use it in court if the case went to trial.

This is common and advisable practice in defending any client. And this distinction and common practice was held to in the Duke case as well.

Nifong Supporter said...

Anonymous said...
"Michael Nifong was not pushing for a speedy trial. Nor was he delaying. The defense however was using tactical strategy to delay the trial. Which was in their interest and worked out for them in the end. Also, the defense wanted as much material collected for review as possible; it wasn't all delay tactics.

The case never got out of the discovery stage.

Michael Nifong made mistakes. But there is no evidence that he delayed procedure or pushed for a plea. Evidence points to him wanting to go to a jury trial."

August 5, 2010 9:34 AM

This is a very objective entry, and I agree that Mike Nifong intended to go to trial. It was the defense attorneys who did not want to go to trial, so they accomplished that by getting Mr. Nifong off the case... NC State Bar lodging its ethics complaint.

My next blog contains another installment of "Million Dollar Bail." At the end is a link to a story which delves into the Carpetbaggers' big link to the media. (Allow a few minutes to post.)

Anonymous said...

Great! We have Joe Cheshire's PR agent on board.

Did any of you geniuses find Dave Evans' party
mustache yet?

Anonymous said...

What's so brilliant about
lying to the press and public?

Any whore defense lawyer can do that.