“Ineffective counsel” enabled prosecution to win capital conviction in Goode case

Today’s edition of The News & Observer contains an article by Anne Blythe titled, “New trial sought in murder case that used SBI blood tests.” It briefly covers a motion that was filed in federal court yesterday that is seeking a new trial for George Goode. Initially sentenced to death for the double murder of a Johnston County couple nearly two decades ago, a judge recently threw out the death sentence because of “ineffective counsel.” Now Goode is under a sentence of two life sentences. His defense is that he was present and witnessed the murder of the couple, but was paralyzed with fear at the homicidal actions of two others.

N & O staff writer Anne Blythe, in her article, is in full compliance with the media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, as she never mentions the name of the prosecutor who sought the most extreme penalty for a man who was linked to the murder solely on a little prosecutorial hocus-pocus provided by SBI agent Duane Deaver. Mr. Deaver has since been admonished for misleading the jury that convicted Mr. Goode, but as has been recently divulged, he was only following the standard protocol of the slanted playing field used by the prosecution. In allowing the jurors to believe that Goode was linked to the crime by blood, Mr. Deaver used the same tactic (expressing the presumptive test for blood and withholding the negative confirmatory test) that he employed in helping to falsely convict Gregory Taylor for the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas.

Ms. Blythe would have readers believe that SBI agent Deaver acted alone in this obvious conspiracy with prosecution… she expects us to believe that Goode’s prosecutor was oblivious to the misleading statements of its star witness, Deaver. In order to win the conviction against Goode, Goode’s prosecutor needed every trick in his bag of magic, including the misleading hocus-pocus lab analysis in which the jurors had reason to believe Deaver’s testimony to be truthful, objective, and unbiased.

The fact that the case against George Goode was also tainted by “ineffective counsel” is not surprising, and was probably an essential building block in reaching the capital conviction. Was the defense counsel for Mr. Goode back in the day merely inept, or was it purposely hanging its client out to dry for the prosecution’s benefit? I have not followed that case enough to know for sure, but I would not be surprised if the defense was in cahoots with the prosecution.

Speaking from personal experience with both civil and criminal trials, attorneys were not at all shy about taking large sums of money to represent me and then selling me down the drain. More often than not, that would be the case. There are many cases in the North Carolina criminal arena in which I believe that defense attorneys, especially from the Public Defenders office which represent the poorest of the poor and those most greatly disenfranchised, throttle back in the defense of their clients in order to enable the prosecution to come away with a win.

When it comes to public defenders, they really have a conflict of interest, especially when it comes to misconduct on the prosecutor’s side of the table. By definition, public defenders are agents of the state who are tasked to represent the indigent or those without legal representation who are faced with criminal charges. The prosecutors, who are also agents of the state, are pressing for convictions of the defendants represented by the state’s public defenders. In highly publicize cases, it is definitely not to the public defender’s best interests to win an acquittal for a defendant who is unpopular with the press and the people.

The cases against some defendants are so weak that prosecutors are unable to prevail without the ineffective contributions by the defendants’ counsel. In one particular incident, a defendant who was charged with “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury” for stabbing a woman, waived his right to assigned legal counsel. Subsequently, with the defendant left to represent himself, the prosecution filed to dismiss the case. Reasons for the dismissal were that the victim refused to cooperate with prosecution, and that there was lack of evidence to corroborate the victim’s story that she was stabbed. Had this man been represented by assigned counsel, it is possible that the prosecution would have moved forward. This, however, is merely speculation.

Ineffective counsel can on occasion be due to the ineptitude of the defense attorney, such as in the case in which Erick Daniels, a 15 year-old, who was convicted of an armed robbery conviction based largely on the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school year book. With no credible case against him, Erick’s lawyer nevertheless put him on the stand to testify. He was pummeled by Prosecutor Freda Black cross-exam which contained highly prejudicial and inflammatory questions. Daniels served seven years unjustly behind bars. And despite being dragged out of a middle school classroom by police without the existence of a shred of credible evidence to implicate him, the media did not raise a ruckus because the teenage defendant was poor, disenfranchised, and an African American.

In a legal environment in which most prosecutors seek unfair advantage on a skewed playing field, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong long ago sought to level the field and give defendants fair advantage and justice. More than two decades before it became mandated by law, Mike Nifong was sharing his evidentiary files with defense attorneys. He has maintained an open file policy throughout his 27 year career as a prosecutor. (This is something that the media and the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson never mention and don't want the public to know.) When defense in the Duke Lacrosse case filed a motion seeking discovery, three sets (one for each defendant) of thousands of pages of documents, and copies of CDs and DVDs were provided within 24 hours. When Mr. Nifong sought copies of evidence held by defense attorneys, they gave him nothing (even though some so-called defense evidence was shared with the extremely friendly media). To accuse Mr. Nifong of withholding evidence is ludicrous, especially in light of past history. Such accusations should be reserved for prosecutors such as David Hoke (Alan Gell case), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael Parker (Floyd Brown case), and Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor case).

Prosecutorial hocus-pocus and ineffective defense counsel may have put George Goode on death row, but hopefully now that the unfair practice of the SBI lab have been exposed, he will at least get another trial… and this time on a more level playing field.

Defense uses Duke LAX analogy to win acquittal

News & Observer staff writer Anne Blythe continues to mislead the public with an article in the April 23, 2010 paper titled “Man acquitted in 2008 killing.” In it she writes, “Roy Cooper, the state attorney general, exonerated the three lacrosse players…” This statement is blatantly false and has no factual or legal weight. The attorney general is not capable of exonerating defendants, period. Only a judge or jury can pronounce a defendant “innocent” or “not guilty.” Such adjudication can not be made by the attorney general, a member of the executive branch of government. For the media to make such statements, compromises the essence of those who are legitimately exonerated, such as Gregory Flint Taylor (a three judge panel recently found Greg Taylor innocent of a 1991 murder). Anthony Baker, a law professor at Campbell University’s Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, has made this point clear. The role of the attorney general is that of a “trier of facts” and not an adjudicator. To date, I have not heard an attorney or legal scholar say otherwise.

Ms. Blythe went on to say that the state’s investigation found “no evidence that any assault had occurred at a March 2006 spring break lacrosse party.” Well that is hardly surprising, seeing as how the state investigators found no evidence of an assault against inmate Timothy Helms, who while in solitary confinement sustained two skull fractures with resulting brain damage that left him a quadriplegic… in addition to baton-like welts all over his body. The only thing that A.G. Cooper was authorized to say before the media on April 11, 2007 was whether or not the prosecution was going to proceed or whether it was going to dismiss the case. It did the latter.

In perpetually bringing up Roy Cooper’s “Innocence Promulgation” as fact, the media demonstrates its bias (heavily in favor of the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys) and grossly misleads the audience it serves. Whenever the opportunity presents… and even when it doesn’t, you can count on The News & Observer and other media outlets to talk about how the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were “exonerated,” “cleared,” or “declared innocent.” Readers should not believe it.

In this particular news article about a man being acquitted of murder, the nexus to the “Innocence Promulgation” and the Duke Lacrosse case originated from the defense attorney Clifton Gray III. According to the newspaper article, Gray likened the case of defendant Khaleel A. Oyeneyin to that “of the Duke lacrosse case in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper, falsely accused three lacrosse team members of a gang-rape.” Now it was important for Ms. Blythe to get Ms. Mangum’s name out in the article in as negative way as possible in order to sustain hostile public opinion against her as she faces flimsy charges in a domestic dispute case in Durham. The fact of the matter is that the Oyeneyin case has very little in common with the Duke Lacrosse case. Oyeneyin was charged with killing his girlfriend, whereas the Duke Lacrosse case was a sexual assault one. That the prosecutors of Oyeneyin relied so much on the testimony of a stripper who said she overheard the defendant admit to the murder, is much closer to the Greg Taylor case in which Prosecutor Tom Ford relied heavily on the testimony of a jail house snitch who stated the defendant made statements that implicated himself.

Because of the intense public animosity generated by the media against Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum, astute defense attorneys are quick to mention the case in court whenever possible… it’s sure to spur sympathy for the defense lawyer’s client as the public reflects on how those so-called innocent Duke lacrosse boy defendants (who never served one day in jail and walked away from Duke University with a seven million dollar settlement each) were put through so much because of what a dancer said about them at their Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party. The media, totally in cahoots with Carpetbaggers and on board with their jihadist agenda, takes advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to keep a negative image before the minds of the public. It wants to counter any sympathetic feelings the people may have for a young lady who is being victimized by vendetta justice… payback, plain and simple.

Objective media coverage of Khaleel Oyeneyin’s court case, would not have even mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case, and especially not the name of the accuser Crystal Mangum… but that’s what happens when the media plays favorites. Ultimately, it is up to the media consumer to recognize the prejudicial and flawed statements. Any mention of Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation” as having legal merit should be a red flag that the media is attempting to play a Jedi mind-trick on you. Don’t let them succeed.

For defense lawyers, invoking the Duke Lacrosse case whenever possible is a clever strategy that will lend itself well to unquestioning jury members (and the public from whom the jury is selected) whose minds have been manipulated to be averse towards Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum. Gray’s closing statement remarks in reference to the Duke Lacrosse case may have helped win a “not guilty” verdict for his client… it certainly didn’t hurt.

Whereas I do not begrudge the defense for using the lacrosse case to its advantage when possible, I do fault the media for using it in an exploitive manner in order to support the vindictive agenda of the few, well-heeled, privileged, and powerful.

NC media able to dish it out, but can’t take it

An interesting article by Anne Blythe appeared in the March 2, 2010 edition of the News & Observer titled, “Media protest call for reports on Carson case.” It states how media companies across the state of North Carolina are fighting attempts by federal defense attorneys to have media outlets in North Carolina hand over copies of everything published about the Eve Carson homicide case. The defense contends that media in the state have saturated the public with such adverse publicity against Carson’s accused killer, Demario Atwater, that it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial within the state. They are seeking to have the federal capital murder trial held in the neighboring state of Virginia.

Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.

What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.

For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.

Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).

Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.

One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.

MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.

At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.