Wednesday, October 6, 2010

NC Justice System’s reputation as nation’s laughing stock is well deserved

That former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in1933, is enough, in itself, to raise eyebrows… especially when prosecutors such as Tom Ford and Bill Wolfe’s deliberate miscues, misdeeds and malfeasance have landed innocent men behind bars for many months and years (Gregory Taylor and James Arthur Johnson respectively). The state’s widely embraced tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” has generated an atmosphere wherein it is acceptable for those in position of power to discriminate and persecute supporters of Mike Nifong or those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, I nearly was arrested on the Duke University campus for no reason other than the fact that I am supportive of Mike Nifong, which was obvious from the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt that I was wearing. (The official Duke response for my near-arrest was that campus police acted because I was handing out business cards and asking people to visit my [pro-Nifong] website.]) Really… how many people are nearly arrested for handing out business cards?

What makes our justice system the nation’s butt of jokes is the great disparity in which so-called justice is meted out and the lack of any logic or reason behind it. There are many examples for reference available, but let put forth recent examples in which the punishment definitely does not meet the crime.

To assure the reader that I am not making this stuff up, I direct your attention to the October 5, 2010 edition of The News & Observer, page 2B’s article titled “Man charged in brutal beating.” Early in the morning of September 30, 2010, while outside of a bar on Hillsborough Street in Raleigh, Evan Lawrence, a 23 year-old skateboarder flicked a cigarette which accidentally struck the leg of Charles Poll, 25. This unintentional outcome so incensed Mr. Poll that he assaulted Mr. Lawrence, using Lawrence’s head as a jackhammer. Although Mr. Lawrence walked away from this horrific attack, his condition progressively deteriorated as an enlarging blood clot built up inside his brain. Later that night, when concerned friends brought him to the emergency room, he was immediately taken to the O.R. where he underwent surgery on his brain to remove the clot. He most certainly would have died had he not had surgery, but that has not been ruled out as a possibility as he remains in critical condition nearly a week after the beating. Survival is only one aspect for consideration in this incident. There is a strong likelihood that if he survives that he might wind up severely disabled with any number of neurological, cognitive, personality impairments… some of which might require long term or life time attention.

The aggressor, Mr. Poll, dispensing a most brutal beating in response to the most trivial provocation was arrested and charged with “assault inflicting serious injury.” There was no mention of “intent to kill” according the newspaper, although slamming someone’s head against a hard immoveable object like a concrete sidewalk is a sure-fire way to induce a fatal outcome. Now the bail that was set for Mr. Poll in this incident was a paltry $7,500. Yes, you read right… I didn’t leave off any zeroes… only seven thousand five hundred dollars… for a senseless attack that has resulted in a man’s life hanging in the balance.

Compare this to the $5 million dollar bail set for Heather Holley, a middle-aged first time offender who used identity theft to go on a $1,800 shopping spree at Best Buy. She also tried to steal the identity of a two year-old in order to obtain health insurance, and tried unsuccessfully to cash a $34,000 check. Although she was jailed on nearly 30 criminal charges, none of her actions resulted in any bodily harm… no one was maimed… no one was disabled… and no one died. No one required brain surgery.

When Ms. Holley, in open court, challenged the immense bail under which she was being held, the judge hearing the case unsympathetically and maliciously tacked on an addition $1 million, which made her bail amount a staggering $6 million. Now keep in mind that this is for identity theft. There are people charged with murder in North Carolina who have bail set at less than two million dollars.

This is not to suggest that Ms. Holley is an angel or model citizen, as very few of us are. However the $6 million bail under which she is being held, and the $7,500 bail for Mr. Poll, who savagely beat a young man to the brink of death (where he now totters), is what causes an independent outside observer to shutter in disbelief at the state of North Carolina justice. Our state’s legacy when it comes to justice is so tragic and painful that there is often nothing left to do in order to maintain sanity than to just laugh.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Exactly how does one "shutter" in disbelief?

Anonymous said...

I would imagine by closing the shutters to keep out the burning, cancerous rays of the North Carolina injustice system, then shuddering in the cooling dark while a laugh rolls up from deep within your soul and bursts out of your mouth wild and crazy in an attempt to keep your sanity.

That's how I imagine one would shutter in disbelief at North Carolina's injustice system.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't get past the two paragraphs.... Mike Nifong alone did more damage to the world's view on NC's injustice system than any other person or event.... Ask someone what comes to mind when you ask about NC's inJustice System ... betcha more than 50% mention Nifong (or the Duke Lacrosse case).

Anonymous said...

You have no idea what you are talking about. Close those shutters buddy. As tragic as this story is, I am sure there is more to it than what has been stated by the press.

Anonymous said...

Normally I vigorously disagree with Sidney Harr.

There might be more to the story than what was in the press. I can assure everyone that a head injury such as the one incurred by Evan Lawrence is a potentially lethal event. I survived a head injury but not without consequences. Putting bail at only $7500 is ridiculous. I hope Evan Lawrence's father has retained an attorney.

I add, while the NC justice system has shown a lot of corruption, exempting a corrupt prosecutor like Mike Nifong from answering for his totally illegal, unethical, unconstitutional behavior is no way to get rid of the corruption

Anonymous said...

I add to my previous comment, the police in the town in which I suffered the head injury told the girl who inflicted the injury it was not her fault, that she could not help inflicting the head injury.

Anonymous said...

One more detail for the potentially curious

The girl inflicted the injury by ramming the rear of my vehicle at high speed while she was talking on her cell phone.

There was litigation afterward. At her deposition, this girl testified the police told her she was not at fault in the accident. However, her insurance company paid off big rather than defend the case in court.

Anonymous said...

Heather Holley stealing the identity of a two year old is a horrible crime. Even if she inflicted no bodily harm on the child, she did exploit a helpless child for her own personal advantage.

Anonymous said...

A difference between Mr. Nifong and other prosecutors is that he was not successful in putting innocent men in prison. How should that have excluded him from punishment?

Mr. Nifong prosecuted these men when he had facts at his disposal which told him he had no probable cause to prosecute them. That was illegal, unethical and unconstitutional.

To say Mr. Nifong should not have been prosecuted is like saying Charles Poll should not be prosecuted because he did not kill his victim.

Anonymous said...

Sidney says, "Our state’s legacy when it comes to justice is so tragic and painful that there is often nothing left to do in order to maintain sanity than to just laugh."

There is no more tragic example than Mr. Nifong's attempt to prosecute three innocent men without probable cause.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

How can you attach so much significance to the alleged history of bad behavior on the part of the Lacrosse team and dismiss the prolonged period of bad behavior on the part of Heather Holley.

To steal someone's identity is to try to enrich oneself and leave some innocent bystander with the consequences and the bills.

To steal the identity of a two year old is to leave a helpless child with the consequences and the bills. That is horrible.

I say it is more horrible even than a DA prosecutor indicting and charging three innocent men without probable cause just to curry favor with a particular bloc of voters.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

It is a matter of public record that Ms. Mangum stole a cab, lead police on a high speed chase, then tried to run one of them down.

Why have you never asked why she was not charged with multiple felonies, auto theft, reckless endangerment, attempted murder, resisting arrest. Ms. Mangum was allowed to plead to misdemeanor charges.

You seem awfully selective as to who should be severely punished and who should be given a pass.

Is this an example of Draconian punishment meted out to a person of color because of her race?

Anonymous said...

"There are people charged with murder in North Carolina who have bail set at less than two million dollars."

Most suspects charged with rape when Mr. Nifong was Durham DA had bail set at considerably less than $400,000, the bail set for the three men Mr. Nifong had indicted with no probable cause. Is that an indication of leniency for Caucasian male athletes from well off families.

Under Mr. Nifong's leadership, the Durham DAs office disposed of rape cases via dismissal or plea bargains? How many of them were men from poor families? How many were people of color?

African Amrican Michael Jermaine Burch raped a white woman, was released on a bail considerably less than $400,000, raped a second woman and then was allowed to plead to lesser charges. How is that example of draconian punishment handed out to those of the wrong color or social class?

Anonymous said...

"Exactly how does one "shutter" in disbelief?"

I believe Sidney disbelieved that Mr. Nifong was a rogue prosecutor and he shuttered out all evidence that he was.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

I again present facts to you.

Mr. Nifong had three Duke Lacrosse players indicted for first degree rape.

The rape as alleged was a crime in which the perpetrators would have left evidence on the rape kit. The perpetrators would have left their DNA.

SBI testing of the rape kit materials revealed no evidence of rape. DNA Security testing found DNA from more than three males on Ms. Mangum's person. None of the DNA matched any of the people Mr. Nifong had named as suspects, none of the three men Mr. Nifong had indicted.

Mr. Nifong was aware of the test results before he indicted anyone.

Stop dodging, stop trying to divert attention away from these facts. How can you argue Mr. Nifong had any justification to press charges against any member of the Duke Lacrosse team?

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, in an earlier blog, about Heather Holley, "I refer to Holley as a small time thief because the financial amounts of her alleged crimes (from what was reported in the media) was less than a couple of thousand dollars. Compare this with the embezzlement of $5,000 by a 21 year-old employee from a Taco Bell franchise... his bail was $20,000.

Kim Pittman/Roberts, the second dancer, had been convicted of embezzling $25,0000 before the Alleged Duke Rape. She got a break from Mr. Nifong on her bail for changing her story, that the rape was a "crock" for Mr. Nifong.

I guess that was a case of selected draconian justice against a woman of color.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Couldn't get past the two paragraphs.... Mike Nifong alone did more damage to the world's view on NC's injustice system than any other person or event.... Ask someone what comes to mind when you ask about NC's inJustice System ... betcha more than 50% mention Nifong (or the Duke Lacrosse case)."

I agree. That's because the biased media did such a great job carrying out the Carpetbagger Jihadist Agenda by pulling a Jedi Mind-trick on the gullible public.

Anonymous said...

"I agree. That's because the biased media did such a great job carrying out the Carpetbagger Jihadist Agenda by pulling a Jedi Mind-trick on the gullible public."

Sidney, provide hard evidence to back up your allegation. If you can not or do not it is nothing more than an unsupported allegation.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

There are no such things as Jedi mind tricks, except in the movies.

There was no carpet bagger jihad against Michael Nifong.

People did turn against Mr. Nifong and tried to stop his prosecution of the Duke Defendants because it was glaringly obvious he was wrongfully prosecuting them.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

I'll say this again.

Mr. Nifong had three men indicted for committing first degree rape, a rape allegedly inflicted on Ms. Mangum. It was not sexual assault but rape.

As described, the alleged crime was one in which the perpetrators would have left evidence on the rape kit and would have left their DNA on the rape kit.

SBI testing of the rape kit showed no material consistent with rape.

The DNA recovered from the rape kit came from more than three men. It did not match any of the three men Mr. Nifong had indicted. According to Brian Meehan, the failure to match excluded with 100% certainty the three indictees as the sources of the DNA.

Two of the three men id'd by Ms. Mangum at the April 4 lineup could establish they were not at the scene of the alleged crime at the time of the alleged crime.

Ms. Mangum identified her third assailant as a man with a mustache. No Lacrosse player had a mustache. Look at the wanted poster published by David Addison. David Evans never had a mustache. Mr. Nifong had David Evans indicted.

At previous photo sessions, Ms. Mangum could not identify David Evans. All she could say about Reade Seligman was she was 70% sure he had been at the party.

Before the photo arrays, Ms. Mangum could not describe Colin Finnerty as her assailant.

Ms. Mangum consistently identified Brad Ross as having been at the party. He had been 20 miles away in Raleigh the night of the party.

Why don't you ask Mr. Nifong to tell the world what he had in the face of all that to give him probable cause.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

To my last comment I add, Mr.Nifong had the results from the SBI crime lab and from DNA Security before he indicted anyone. In the face of facts which unequivocally excluded those men, why was Mr. Nifong justified in seeking indictments?

Anonymous said...

Sidney

That the facts of the case might not have proven the suspects innocent is irrelevant. Mr. Nifong had the burden of proof here. He had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

One of your posters said that a prosecutor who indicted someone he believed was innocent was unethical.

If Mr. Nifong could not prove guilt of those he had accused beyond a reasonable doubt, in a situation in which he knew he could not exclude reasonable doubt, was he ethical in having them indicted and having them tried.

Remember, as a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong was obligated to treat anyone he suspected as innocent until proven guilty

Anonymous said...

To sum up, Sidney

Tell us why you believe the prosecution of the Duke Defendants was according to acceptable standards for a prosecutor.

Tell us how this prosecution showed us Mr. Nifong was an ethical minister of justice trying to arrive at the truth.

Tell us why this prosecution should have been allowed to go forward to trial.

If you can not answer meaningfully, you do admit the prosecution of the Duke Defendants was wrongful.

Anonymous said...

Furthermore Sidney

You would admit your crusade for justice is really a crusade to help a rogue prosecutor beat the rap.

Anonymous said...

"What makes our justice system the nation’s butt of jokes is the great disparity in which so-called justice is meted out and the lack of any logic or reason behind it."

Sidney, we know the injustice as well as the logic behind Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He needed an issue which would win him the votes of Durham's black voters.

Anonymous said...

Sidney has talked about "North Carolina's] widely embraced tenet of 'selective justice based on Class and Color'..."

Of all the men prosecuted while Mike Nifong was Durham DA, how many were men of color? How many were treated the same way as the Duke Lacrosse defendants?

I say again, under Mr. Nifong's leadership, the Durham DA's office disposed of most rape cases by either dismissal of charges or the defendant pleading to lesser charges.

Black defendant Michael Jermaine Burch was accused, with probable cause of raping a white woman. He was released on bail much less than $400,000. While out on bail, he was accused, with probable cause, of raping another woman. He was allowed to plead to charges less than rape

How does that indicate lenient treatment of the Duke Lacrosse Defendants based on race and class. It is res ipsa loquitur they were treated much more harshly because of their perceived race and class.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney

To my last comment I add, Mr.Nifong had the results from the SBI crime lab and from DNA Security before he indicted anyone. In the face of facts which unequivocally excluded those men, why was Mr. Nifong justified in seeking indictments?"


First of all, lack of DNA did not exclude the Duke Lacrosse defendants from being perpetrators of a sexual assault. Furthermore, the prosecution was based upon witness identification by the victim which approached 100% certainty.

Ronald Cotton was convicted of rape based on eyewitness identification alone and spent many years wrongly incarcerated. Dwayne Dail was convicted of a sexual assault on eyewitness identification alone and spent nearly two decades in jail. The Duke Lacrosse defendants did not spend one day in jail. Yet, your outrage and contempt is focused on Mr. Nifong and not prosecutors in other cases where there is no physical or forensic evidence tying defendants to crimes.

Mr. Nifong's actions in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case were well within standards practiced by prosecutors in the state.


Next, the blog will discuss the new facelift that our website is undergoing, and other subjects of interest, including the upcoming educational comic strip "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper - Episode V: Super Heroes Smackdown - Initial Encounter."

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "First of all, lack of DNA did not exclude the Duke Lacrosse defendants from being perpetrators of a sexual assault."

SOS from Sidney regarding the lack of evidence of a rape. Also an admission by Sidney that there was no evidence of a rape.

I say again, what was alleged was rape, not sexual assault. Mr. Nifong sought indictments for first degree rape. The rape, as alleged, was a rape in which the perpetrators would have left evidence and would have left DNA. The SBI Crime lab testing no evidence of rape, no evidence of DNA from anyone Mr. Nifong identified as a suspect. Therefore it did exonerate each and every member of the Duke Lacrosse team. That evidence was exculpatory by Mr. Nifong's definition.

That the evidence would not exclude them as perpetrators of a sexual assault has, using Sidney's own phrasing, no legal weight. The prosecutor's obligation is to incriminate. The defense has no obligation to exonerate. Failing to find any incriminating evidence means failing to establish probable cause.

No matter how you try to spin it, Sidney, Mr. Nifong conducted a wrongful prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "Ronald Cotton was convicted of rape based on eyewitness identification alone and spent many years wrongly incarcerated. Dwayne Dail was convicted of a sexual assault on eyewitness identification alone and spent nearly two decades in jail."

I say:

Timothy Cole was convicted on the because he was identified by the complaining witness as her assailant. After Mr. Cole died in prison, DNA evidence showed someone else had committed the rape. Sidney, you never talk about Timothy Cole.

Darryl Hunt was convicted based on a woman's eye witness identification of him as her rapist. Mr. Hunt was exonerated because DNA evidence showed he was not the rapist. You very rarely talk about Darryl Hunt.

African American DA Tracey Cline prosecuted African American Leon Brown for a rape. He spent a year in jail awaiting trial even though the victim identified her assailant as Caucasian. Mr. Brown was exonerated by DNA evidence. The jury foreman, after the jury delivered its not guilty verdict, rebuked Ms. Cline for wasting the jury's time with such a non meritorious case. Sidney, you never blog about Leon Brown.

In 2000, Mr. Nifong was prosecuting a suspect for a series of rapes in the Trinity Park section. DNA recovered from the victim matched someone other than the suspect. Mr. Nifong dropped the charges saying the DNA exonerated him. Sidney, have you ever mentioned this case your blog?

To paraphrase something I read, and injecting my own opinion, to convict someone with out DNA evidence at a time when DNA testing was not available. Trying to convict someone when there is DNA evidence which excludes that individual by excluding that evidence is something else. It is wrongful prosecution. It is criminal.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "Mr. Nifong's actions in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case were well within standards practiced by prosecutors in the state."

Sidney, drop the SOS. Your SOS that Mr. Nifong's handling of the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke Rape case was "well within standards practiced by prosecutors in the state." has no legal weight. It was not in compliance with North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct.

Go back to the case Mr. Nifong first prosecuted and then dismissed in 2000. By Mr. Nifong's own definition, a lack of incriminating DNA in a rape case exonerates a defendant.

Mr. Nifong said, at that time, “Results of DNA testing exclude the defendant as the perpetrator of this crime.” in the July 12, 2000 News and Observer.

How do you justify Mr. Nifong's attempt to prosecute the Alleged but never Corroborated Duke Rape while excluding the results of DNA testing?