Plea deals should be for the guilty

UPDATE ON SUPER-FLOG

Work is continuing on the flog... The reason the flog was initially damaged was due to my haste in finishing it.  As a result of cutting a few corners I managed to damage the document.  So I will cautiously proceed to complete it as soon as possible.  I am hoping to have it posted no later than next Sunday, January 13th.

Word count:  1,824

 There’s an exclusive front page news article in the December 27, 2012 issue of The Carolinian titled “Pardon sought for Johnson.”  In it, editor Cash Michaels begins with this paragraph:  “An ‘appropriate pardon’ is being sought for James A. Johnson, a young Wilson County African American man who, in 2004, told police about the kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 16 year-old girl by a friend of his, but was then arrested, charged and jailed over three years for the crime.”

According to the newspaper, NCCU law professor Irving Joyner presented the petition seeking an “appropriate pardon” before outgoing Governor Bev Perdue on December 14, 2012 – with less than a month left in office and with her simultaneously considering a pardon of innocence for the Wilmington Ten.

To recap the Johnson tragedy:  In 2004, 16 year-old Wilson County African American Kenneth Meeks kidnapped Caucasian 17 year-old Brittany Willis from a shopping mall, took her to an isolated spot where he raped her, and then shot her to death.  Meeks then confided what he had done with James Arthur Johnson, an 18 year-old African American who he had met only months earlier.  Johnson was a good student who shared the love of soccer with Brittany Willis, and had even received a soccer scholarship offer to attend college.  Johnson accompanied Meeks in the victim’s stolen vehicle to the killing field where he witnessed firsthand Meeks’ gruesome handiwork. 

During the next couple of days Johnson silently complied with the “no-snitch” laws of the street about the tragedy which by this time had grown to a major statewide news story.  The family and friends of Brittany Willis even offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator.  Johnson then informed his father about his encounter with Meeks days earlier, at which time he was escorted be him to the police station sans attorney for the purpose of assisting with the criminal investigation.  Johnson named Meeks as the culprit at which time Wilson police knew the identity of their man.  Meeks was arrested and brought in for questioning.  Justifiable anger over the senseless murder of a young Wilson teen by the African American resulted in a transference of that anger towards African Americans in general… and the appetite by police to incarcerate as many black men as possible.  Somewhere during the interview with investigators Johnson admitted that he had wiped his fingerprints off the victim’s car… and the police knew they could charge him at least with “accessory after the fact.”  But they wanted more, so the interrogators went to Meeks and told him, “Your friend snitched on you.”  This evoked the anticipated response from the young Meeks, who feeling angered by betrayal, implicated Johnson as an active participant in the crime.  Police, without forensic evidence and relying on the words of Meeks alone, arrested Johnson and charged him with murder.  The official police story was that both Johnson and Meeks committed the crimes against Willis, and then Johnson turned over to police his partner in crime in order to collect the $20,000 reward. 

More than a year later, Meeks recanted… after which time prosecutors came up with two eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson Police Department – one being a retired police officer).  These eyewitnesses were quickly jettisoned once the NAACP and Rev. Dr. William Barber, with the accompanying media scrutiny, became involved.  Trial was delayed for more than two years, and as it approached, the prosecutor Bill Wolfe began offering plea deals.  Johnson called Wolfe’s bluff, which led to the Wilson prosecutor backing down and referring the case to a special prosecutor.  Forsythe County assistant D.A. Belinda Foster was forced by District Attorney Tom Keith to take the assignment as special prosecutor, and she relented only on the condition that she not be forced to prosecute.  In a preordained charade, Foster dismissed the murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery charges against Johnson and then charged him with “accessory after the fact”… this despite the fact that it was Johnson who was responsible for the case being solved.

Johnson instead of being heralded as a hero for solving the crimes against Brittany and being embraced by the Willis family, was vilified in the mainstream media and the State which led to a racial divide in the Wilson County.  After a lengthy search, a special prosecutor (W. David McFadyen) was found who was willing to waste taxpayer dollars in pursuing the baseless accessory charge against Johnson.  Professor Joyner was one of the attorneys representing Johnson against the special prosecutor’s rinky-dink charge. Although Johnson had been free on bond for several months to await trial, he was once again inundated by prosecutors to accept a plea deal.  This time, possibly on advice from his counsel, Johnson accepted the plea deal which resulted in his pleading guilty to misprision of felony in exchange for time served.  (Misprision of felony is a rarely used charge for someone who has knowledge of a crime and withholds it from authorities.  However, the crime for which Johnson pled guilty was exactly what he did not do, as he did go to authorities with his knowledge of the crimes by Meeks.)

An appropriate pardon?  According to Joyner, Johnson’s unjust 39 month stint in jail for solving the Willis murder has dogged him like a shadow on cloudless autumn afternoon.  He has been unable to obtain or hold down a job once his past comes to light before his employers.  Even though Johnson has left the state in hopes of leaving behind his personal nightmare, it follows him… and it continues to destroy his life.  It appears that Professor Joyner’s answer to the injustice against Johnson rested with some sort of pardon from Governor Bev Perdue.  Because of his plea deal, a pardon of innocence seems to be off the table… and Joyner never fully described what an “appropriate pardon” would be.

In my opinion, Johnson would not be in his current predicament and would not be requiring a pardon if he would have stood trial for the trumped up accessory charge.  My feeling is that Johnson was advised by his legal counsel to give serious consideration to the plea offer.  The special prosecutor was desperate to obtain a plea deal as he did not want to prosecute the frivolous case against Johnson despite having the backing of a supportive media.  Had I been an advisor in Johnson’s circle, I definitely would have advised against accepting any plea deal… I would have recommended that he accept nothing less than complete exoneration with dismissal of all charges related to that horrific incident.

The plea deal might be a good deal for the guilty, but it should not be a consideration for the innocent.  All too often in the state of North Carolina, prosecutors charge and arrest innocent individuals (usually disenfranchised, indigent, and people of color), and after they serve a significant time of incarceration, hold out a plea deal as the only realistic means of gaining their freedom.  Once an innocent person accepts a plea deal, then they automatically release the State from civil liability for malicious prosecution, and they give up any rights they may have for compensation and other forms of restorative justice.

Plea deal for Mangum?  Durham prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks, aware that the grand conspiracy against Crystal Mangum has been exposed, is now desperately desirous of a plea deal with Mangum in order to extricate itself from the position in which it now finds itself.  Despite the mainstream media’s cooperation in keeping the fraudulence of Medical Examiner Clay Nichols’ autopsy report quiet, concealing the esophageal intubation of Daye as being the direct cause of his brain death, and hiding the malevolent and malicious vendetta prosecution by the State, the Durham District Attorney’s Office and its staff know that they are not going to be able to carry out their initial goal of convicting Mangum with a life sentence.  The Durham D.A. team could not even convict Mangum of arson when she was represented with a featherweight defense in the 2010 trumped up case… so it knows that it stands no chance to prevail now that the extent of their conspiracy has been exposed.  Even with the defense expert witness refusing to put a report in writing, the defense attorneys withholding exculpatory evidence from her, and Mangum representing herself, prosecutors have come to the realization that they cannot prevail at trial, and that their only hope is to strike a plea deal with Mangum… and then leave it up to the media to spin the story to Mangum’s detriment (something with which it is very experienced).

If a plea deal is offered to Mangum, I would advise her not to accept it, because like James Arthur Johnson, the ill-effects will follow her for the rest of her life… only with a tenfold greater intensity.  It will be something, as in Johnson’s case, that no pardon could possibly remedy. 

Fact is that Crystal Mangum was a domestic violence victim of an intoxicated Reginald Daye (who had physically beaten her approximately one week prior to the self-defense stabbing).  On that fateful April 2011 morning, Daye repeatedly punched her in the face and head, pulled out her hair, spit on her, and broke down the door when she sought refuge from him there.  Then, after bringing in steak knives from the kitchen he proceeded to throw them at her, and in his final action against her, Daye placed his hands on her throat and began strangling her.  It was at this point that Mangum grabbed a knife within reach and stabbed Daye once… causing him to relent in his attack and allow her to make an escape.

I submit that after undergoing such a terrorizing ordeal Crystal Mangum should not have been charged and arrested for acting in self-defense and that she should not have to accept a plea deal in order to be released from an incarceration with no foreseeable end.  As of the date of this blog posting, Ms. Mangum has served 646 days in jail, and a court date has yet to be assigned.  Part of this lengthy incarceration is to force her to accept a plea deal and that is why her case has moved through the courts at a glacial pace… with inactivity on the prosecution and defense side.  Even Mangum’s attempts to file motions in representing herself have been delayed without cause.

Bottom line is that Crystal Mangum will prevail, as long as she stays strong and doesn’t give in to the slick deals by the prosecution.  I am sure that if James Arthur Johnson had it to do over again, he would not have accepted a plea deal and would have fought for his innocence.  A plea deal might be a good thing for the guilty, but it is a raw deal for the innocent.          nn

Why Tracey Cline should be reinstated as Durham D.A.

Readers of my blog and viewers of my flog know that I am no fan of suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. As the county’s head prosecutor, I believe that she should have stepped in and dismissed her Assistant D. A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca’s 2010 vendetta prosecution of Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Likewise, I feel she should have moved to force prosecutor Kelly Gauger to drop the murder and larceny charges against Ms. Mangum related to the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye. Despite the fact that D.A. Cline is a friend of former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong and has treated him with civility and respect, I am nonetheless not an ardent backer of her.

You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.

Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.

I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.

Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.

In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.

The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.

It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.

Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.

Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.

I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person. 

Restatement of purpose

Every now and again it seems as though the readers and commenters of this blog site get derailed about the purpose of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and its members. Once again, let me put the train back on track to avoid the discourse of distractions and the obstacles of obfuscation… so we can locomotion along the rails to enlightenment.

As we near our four anniversary this coming June, our mission statement and resolve has been steady, uncompromising, and one which follows the light of truth. The fundamental beliefs upon which this organization was founded have been and remain based upon the following principles: (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case; (2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor; (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), just to name a few. Our group’s focus remains committed to encouraging the NC State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. Although Mr. Nifong has expressed that he never intends to practice law again, it is the contention that his license to practice law was unjustly taken by the Bar, and that it needs to man up and do the right thing by reinstating it.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, I believe, are some of the most courageous people in the state, because they lend their names and their faces to a righteous cause that is widely unpopular with the public because of contamination of the news that is broadcast and published by biased media-types… the big wigs in the upper echelons who determine what stories to follow, which stories to ignore, and what spin to give. Instead of remaining silent in the face of blatant anti-Nifong injustice, like most politicians, media outlets, and many civil rights organizations, members of the Committee speak loudly by their demonstration of courage. There are many ways to put it, but I like the saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln who stated: “To sin by silence makes cowards of men.” One thing is certain… the members of our group, currently one shy of two dozen, are not cowards.

The Committee is, and always has been an inclusive organization, welcoming brave individuals who coalesce around the principles recited above with respect to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. No one has been turned down for membership, and dues and/or investment of time or money is not required. All that is required is the heart to seek justice for Mike Nifong, which at its most primal form would be the reinstatement of his law license. Potential members are not vetted or required to provide personal information about themselves, their political leanings, or their ideologies on other topics. Likewise, our group is extremely tolerant of others and we do not discriminate with respect to granting membership.

It is not expected, or even desired that everyone who joins the group hold the same beliefs or opinions on issues other than Mike Nifong’s mistreatment by the state and the media. Gay and lesbians, people of all races and colors, worshippers of all religions as well as atheists, Democrats and even Republicans are all invited to join.

Some commenters are quick to cast some Committee members as homophobes or racists, but I find that these labels are often made without substance. There are people who might not agree with same-sex relationships or who might have a problem with gay and lesbians getting married, but that, at least to my way of thinking, does not categorize them as being homophobes. Personally, I have no problem whatever with gay and lesbian relationships. I have no problem with civil union between couples of the same sex and I do not object to the term “marriage” being used to define such relationships. To my mind marriage is an institution in which two individuals are fully and lovingly committed to one another regardless of their sexes. Not only that, but I believe that the liberal tolerance towards gays and lesbians is growing and gaining greater acceptance.

Hopefully this blog will put issues about homophobia and racism to rest, and the future blogs can be devoted to issues of criminal justice… such as the vendetta prosecutions of Crystal Mangum, the racist pardon policy that the governor’s office has used to deny pardons to Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, the anti-Nifong discrimination by Duke University against me, and other important issues facing Tar Heelians who believe in the principle of “equal justice for all” instead of those who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” 

“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.

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.

DAs on board regarding SBI lab shakeup… Hogwash!

According to The News & Observer editorial of August 31, 2010, the state’s district attorneys understand that clouds over the SBI hurt their ability to make cases. What the district attorneys should be concerned about is that the clouds interfere with the administration of justice. As so-called “Ministers of Justice,” prosecutors should have their priority as the goal of justice before that of winning a case. For many, if not most North Carolina prosecutors, that has definitely not been the case. The recent case exposed in an article by N &O investigative reporter J. Andrew Curliss about Derrick Allen is a prime example of a prosecutor, Freda Black, placing a conviction ahead of seeking justice. Ms. Black is also the prosecutor responsible for winning an armed robbery conviction against a 14 year-old Erick Daniels. There was no credible evidence or forensic findings tying the young Daniels boy to the crime… only the robbery witness’s linking the shape of Daniels’s eyebrows in a school yearbook to those of the assailant. He served more than half of a 14 to 20 year sentence before he was finally released on appeal. Tom Ford, Wake prosecutor responsible for unapologetically stealing seventeen years of a man’s life (Greg Taylor) because Taylor did not implicate an innocent man in a murder, is unfortunately representative of many of the prosecutors who have no qualms about unjustly incarcerating innocents who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.

Although The News & Observer would have you believe otherwise, it is the prosecutors and not the people in the SBI lab who are driving the show. The lab people are merely backseat passengers in the prosecutor’s vehicle. It is the prosecutors who benefit from winning a conviction, not the lab technicians. Even the SBI agents don’t get the glory of convicting the defendant in a heinous crime. Therefore, when a prosecutor’s case is weak, he/she has the built-in incentive to lean on people in the lab in order to force them to skew, omit, fudge, tweak, or otherwise manipulate lab results in hopes of improving their odds at trial. Not all prosecutors take this devious avenue; just the unscrupulous ones such as Tom Ford, Freda Black, Bill Wolfe, and Michael Parker.

The fact that justice is a secondary or tertiary concern of prosecutors is best illustrated in the Alan Gell case. Prosecutor David Hoke was in possession of 17 eyewitness statements that proved beyond doubt that defendant Alan Gell could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was charged. Hoke withheld this information from the defense counsel, and won a capital conviction against Gell. Now, The News & Observer wants to blame this wrongful conviction on the lead investigator in the case, Dwight Ransome. However, a decade after Gell’s conviction when the existence of these witness statements came to light, and the Attorney General’s Office was aware that there were 17 witness statements that proved Gell could not have committed the murder for which he had languished in jail (half on death row), the Attorney General’s Office went ahead and prosecuted the case in a second trial. Roy Cooper didn’t issue an “innocent promulgation” on Gell’s behalf. He tried to keep an innocent man in jail. However, once the jury got the case, they immediately found Gell not guilty. How does The News & Observer explain that? The Attorney General’s Office used SBI agent Ransome’s work to support their case against Gell at re-trial. Somehow, it is not the prosecutors at fault… it’s Ransome.

Currently, Alan Gell is incarcerated on a convoluted vendetta charge concocted by a Johnston County prosecutor. His unreasonable and lengthy sentence is nothing more than payback for having the audacity to file a complaint for the malicious and blatant injustice he suffered with his death penalty conviction. Although he wrongfully served ten years, he was convicted on technical trifle and is serving a five year sentence. According to my math, even with the ridiculous five year sentence, he had five years credit. He should never have served one day of this most recent vindictive sentence.

What is truly tragic is that the prosecutors with integrity who prosecute in good faith and act as “Ministers of Justice” are the ones that are targeted, mainly by the Powers-That-Be, and the unregulated North Carolina State Bar. Gregory Butler was a prosecutor in Johnston County, who when he became aware that the defense attorney lacked some of the prosecutor’s discovery, immediately notified the defense. This act, publicized in The News & Observer, resulted in a delay in the court proceedings while the defense was granted time to review the information presented. It also prompted the North Carolina State Bar to initiate a complaint against Mr. Butler, which forced him to remove himself from the case, causing a further delay. Fortunately, there was no bounty on Mr. Butler’s head, and F. Lane Williamson and his band on the Bar’s grievance panel, did nothing more than give Mr. Butler a slobbery tongue lashing.

But what happened to Mr. Butler pales in comparison to the persecution administered to the prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse case, Mike Nifong. This prosecutor, with 27 years experience as a prosecutor, and who was appointed to the Durham district attorney position by Governor Mike Easley, had a stellar reputation as a fair and hard-working prosecutor. Since he first practiced as a prosecutor, Mike Nifong had always maintained an open file discovery policy… that is, he provided the defense attorneys with all of the evidentiary information he had in his file. (This was decades before such policy became mandated in the state.) Most of the ardent defense attorneys who sparred with Nifong in courtroom, gave him high marks when it came to opening his files for them and prosecuting fairly. As it is with individuals who possess both high ethical standards and courage, Mr. Nifong was not swayed by pressure applied by peers and higher-ups. He followed his conscience… which made him too independent… which made him too dangerous. Therefore, he was brought down by the big power machine, with assistance from the biased media. The state, along with the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys set out to make an example of him, and make him pay, every day, for the rest of his life.

When Mike Nifong was taken down, Durham lost the best district attorney it will most likely ever see. He was a prosecutor who prosecuted cases in good faith based on sound evidence and good science. He did not lobby lab technicians for reports or results favorable to his case, and as a result, the lab technicians and agents did not feel the need to help effect the outcome of his cases. Mike Nifong’s priority was to see justice fairly administered, and to see equal justice for all. He did not subscribe to the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” If he did abide by that principle, he certainly would not have prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse defendants… especially when doing so severely compromised his chances of winning the election for Durham district attorney.

The News & Observer editorial did get it right. The state’s district attorneys understand that clouds over the SBI hurt their ability to make cases… and that’s what they’re interested in; making their cases. Unfortunately, unlike Mike Nifong, they are less interested in seeing that equal justice prevails for all.

Before going to police, consider the consequences

Recently investigators in Henry County, VA, announced an increase of a reward to $100,000 for information leading to the resolution of a heinous crime that was committed there eight years ago… the murder of the Short family. Parents Michael and Mary Short were found fatally shot in the head in their home, while their nine year-old daughter Jennifer’s remains were found six weeks later in Rockingham, NC; cause of her death was also due to a single gunshot to the head.

Before approaching police with information about a crime, whether or not a reward is offered, one should consider the case of James Arthur Johnson, of Wilson, NC. Around June 2004, Wilson teenager Brittany Willis was senselessly and brutally kidnapped, raped, and killed by 16 year-old Kenneth Meeks. He confided with his new friend of several months, James Arthur Johnson, about his dastardly deeds, and even drove Johnson to the crime scene to see the body. After the discovery of the victim’s body, the family and friends of Brittany Willis offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to an arrest of the culprit responsible. Johnson finally went to his father with his knowledge of the crime, whereupon his father immediately took James to the police station, without an attorney in tow and without first contacting an attorney. James Arthur Johnson gave police the identity of the killer, thus solving the crimes against Brittany Willis.

Kenneth Meeks, who later confessed to the crimes, is an African American, as is James Arthur Johnson. The police investigator, during an interrogation of Meeks, told him that his friend (James Arthur Johnson) had “snitched” on him. This resulted in a predictably enraged response by the young Meeks of implicating Johnson as payback. James Arthur Johnson was then arrested on charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery, although there was no credible evidence to connect him to any crime… only the word of the confessed killer. After a couple of years, Meeks, who was serving a life sentence, recanted his accusations against Johnson, stating that he made the initial false statements in anger. Despite that, Johnson remained in jail for more than three years awaiting trial. Prosecutor Bill Wolfe, who manufactured two eyewitnesses linking Johnson to victim Willis (both with connections to the Wilson Police Department), jettisoned them when the NAACP’s Rev. William Barber got involved. Wolfe knew that his false witnesses would not be able to stand up to the intense media scrutiny which the trial would undoubtedly bring. To the very end, Wolfe tried his best to get Johnson to accept a plea deal in exchange for time served, but none was forthcoming as the time for the trial arrived. Prosecutors Bill Wolfe and Wilson District Attorney Howard Boney Jr., who had no case against Johnson, folded like accordions, and on day trial was set to begin, announced that they would turn the case over to a special prosecutor.

After spending 39 months in jail, Johnson was able to bond out, to await the decision of the special prosecutor. The events which transpired subsequently were all foreordained, with Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster dropping the murder, rape, kidnapping, and robbery charges, but instituting an “accessory after the fact” charge instead. This was based solely on statements that Johnson made when he was first interviewed by police when he told them that he wiped fingerprints off of the victim’s vehicle at Meeks’s command… actions which had no bearing on the case against the killer.

Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen, after pretending to conduct a thorough investigation, announced that he would proceed to prosecute James Arthur Johnson. As his predecessors before him, McFadyen tried to obtain a plea deal, and James, who had tasted freedom and abhorred the prospect, regardless of how remote, of returning to jail, finally gave in. He pleaded guilty to “misprision of felony,” in exchange for time served.

Misprision of felony is most often described as a common law in which the misdemeanor of observing a felony and failing to prevent it, or of knowing about a felony and failing to disclose the fact of its occurrence. A case that is cited in the legal annals is one occurring in South Carolina in which a witness to a crime refused to testify out of fear of retribution from the criminals. The judge found him guilty of “misprision of felony” and he was sentenced to three years.

As opposed to the aforementioned case, Johnson did disclose his knowledge of the crime to police, but prosecutors argued that he waited three whole days to do it! (Without Johnson’s assistance, I doubt that the Willis case would be solved today.) Not only that, but Johnson served three months more than the man sentenced in South Carolina. Yet Prosecutor McFadyen went forward with his prosecution of Johnson.

James Arthur Johnson was a hero who had the courage to go against the “no-snitch”laws of the street and tell authorities everything he knew about the Willis case. Yet, he was vilified by the police, prosecution, and Wilson media, which effectively resulted in the town being divided along racial lines. Not only that, but he did not receive the $20,000 reward which he had earned. There is no explanation as to why it was not awarded.

Because North Carolina has a system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” anyone with knowledge about a crime needs to seriously consider whether or not to approach authorities with it. With the James Arthur Johnson case as a precedent, police and prosecutors may decide to charge one with “misprision of felony” for not coming forward in a timely manner. As is commonly the case, charges are likely to be arbitrary depending on one’s financial status, class, and skin color.

Unlike the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, the African American destitute prostitute whose body was discovered on a deserted cul-de-sac in 1991, in which Prosecutor Tom Ford didn’t care about the victim and was more interested in closing the case than solving the crime, the same cannot be said in the Short murders… the authorities are committed to finding the true perpetrators of those crimes. In this instance, the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color are more likely able to provide information about a crime without fear of being tied to it.

The media’s publication of the sources of the reward gives it some credibility, but then again, the family and friends of Brittany Willis offered a reward, which they then refused to honor. So it is important to keep in mind that in the state of North Carolina, whether or not one receives a reward after solving said requirements is basically a crapshoot.

James Arthur Johnson did the right thing by going to police with his knowledge of the crimes against Willis. It is the police, prosecutors, and media who did the wrong thing by unjustly depriving the young man of 39 months of the best years of his life and putting in its place confinement in hell. The city of Wilson should have been grateful to Johnson for solving a senseless and despicable crime and putting a dangerous young man off the streets. However, the media has taught the good people of Wilson to despise him.

The treatment of James Arthur Johnson by Wilson police, prosecutors, and media does not bode well for a system of justice in North Carolina which relies on citizens coming forward to assist in solving crimes using reward money as an incentive. Instead of being celebrated for doing the right thing, one might be crucified.

Million dollar bail… a case comparison – Part 11

On June 4, 2010, sixteen year old Ashley Moore of Dunn, NC, died when the SUV in which she was a passenger crashed into the side of a Wal-Mart building. Police believe the driver, Dillon Tart, 18, purposely rammed the vehicle into the structure following an argument between the two teenagers. Tart, who sustained non-life threatening injuries, was charged by police with second degree murder. However, while awaiting trial on the murder charge, he has been placed under house arrest. No bond. Just house arrest.

Now, compare that to what happened on the night of February 17, 2010, to Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim, who was punched in the face by her ex-boyfriend. She was charged with attempted first degree murder by Durham Police officers, although the basis for this charge was never explained, and it was not sought during a grand jury indictment. The attempted murder charge was used by Magistrate B. Wakil to help justify the outrageous $1 million bail set against Ms. Mangum. Durham Police then staged a fire in the bathtub of Ms. Mangum’s apartment and accused her of arson. They also alleged Ms. Mangum caused damage to the car of her ex-boyfriend, without, of course, any credible evidence to substantiate the claim. Ms. Mangum was arrested and spent the next three months in jail. District Court Judge Claude Allen, without explanation, instated the condition that if Ms. Mangum bonded out of the bail which he reduced to $250,000, then she would need to be placed under electronic house arrest. Subsequent judges who sat on the bench regarding hearings on this matter (Judges Paul Ridgeway, Michael Morgan, and Kenneth Titus) left the condition of house arrest in place. Although Ms. Mangum has been given release on weekdays from 8 am until 5 pm, the house arrest is still in effect.

Ms. Mangum is not a flight risk, and there is a $100,000 bond in place to assure that she shows up to court to face charges against her. She is not a threat to society. Her ability to try and get a job and move on with her life during the pre-trial period has been hampered greatly by the house arrest order put in place by Judge Allen. Why is this house arrest order in place?

Is it fair that a young man charged with second degree murder should be placed under house arrest, while an African American woman who has been battered by her ex-boyfriend and charges trumped up against her by Durham police should be sent to jail and placed under a $1 million bail? Does this make sense? Ms. Mangum did not kill anyone. She had no murder weapon. The attempted first degree murder charge was nothing more than a trumped up charge, like all of the others against her.

Let me make this clear. The man who killed a woman does not have to satisfy bail while awaiting trial. He can just go straight to house arrest. Now James Arthur Johnson waited 39 months for his trial, again in which he did not kill anyone, but in fact solved a crime. And, just like Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca, Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe had no intention of going to trial and folded like an accordion when time for stalling ran out. Then there’s Floyd Brown, who was held fourteen years (14) without a trial, by Anson County Prosecutor Michael D. Parker. Brown did not kill anyone, and the prosecution knew it as the confession they put together for him was far too demanding and sophisticated for Brown to make due to his significant mental retardation.

There is no doubt that North Carolina has a selective justice system that is based on Class and Color, and the media does its best to conceal this fact. Class and color definitely figure into the selective treatment that Crystal Mangum is being subjected to by the state.

Now, if anyone can give a reasonable explanation as to why Mr. Tart (who killed a 16 year old girl and is charged with second degree murder) is released to house arrest without any bail being set, and Ms. Mangum (who is a victim of domestic violence) is charged with attempted first degree murder, arson, injury to personal property and other trumped up charges) and is placed under a $1 million bail, which is ultimately lowered to $100,000 with the condition that if she bonds out she will be placed under house arrest, then he/she will be entitled to receive a $1,000 reward. The explanation must be reasonable and logical to me, in order to collect, and, of course, the award will be made available only after James Arthur Johnson receives the $20,000 reward he earned by solving the Brittany Willis murder.

This is the third logic challenge for $1,000 that I have issued. Because no one has come close to winning on the two previous contests, I have considered offering a guaranteed consolation prize for the best answer. The prize would probably be some type of autographed artwork, possibly connected with the “Super-Duper Cooper” comic strip. More details about the challenge will be forthcoming. (However to receive an award, a name and address must accompany the answer. Be sure to make it clear that it is in reference to Challenge #3. Also send to e-mail: justice4nifong@gmail.com.) This challenge begins today, and I’m not yet sure when it will end… maybe in a month or two.

Finally, the media’s best kept secret from the public. Find out the real link between the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media. Visit the following link. I welcome your response. (Click the button Posted August 15, 2010... mistaken date... should read August 5. Will make correction later.)
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/btnnews/btnnews.htm

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.

Angela Garcia-Lamarca wastes taxpayer dollars by monitoring Crystal Mangum

Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca is plundering the cash-strapped coffers of Durham County, wasting taxpayer money by electronically monitoring Crystal Mangum, the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca is clinging onto the house arrest of Ms. Mangum as it represents her last pitiful bargaining chip in an effort to eek out a plea deal. However, with members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s support, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Mangum will plead guilty to trumped up charges when she is, in fact, not guilty. The travesty that befell James Arthur Johnson is not likely to be repeated in this case.

As has been pointed out previously, the trumped up charges against Ms. Mangum (attempted first degree murder, first degree arson, injury to personal property, identity theft, communicating threats, assault and battery, etc.) were the first part of the Carpetbagger Jihad’s agenda to have Ms. Mangum serve a sentence without being convicted of a crime. This bogus case brought by Garcia-Lamarca against Ms. Mangum was intended to be a plea-bargain case from the get-go, and was never intended to see the light of a courtroom with a seated jury.

The angelic bail bondsmen responsible for her release from the Durham County Detention Center, enabled members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong to have access to Ms. Mangum, which allowed the truth to be known… specifically, that she had no prior knowledge or involvement in the clothes set afire in the bathtub. Another truth revealed publicly at her press conference on June 30, 2010, is that Ms. Mangum had no prior knowledge or involvement in the vandalism to a car owned by her ex-boyfriend. In other words, someone other than Ms. Mangum and her children put clothes in the bathtub and set them on fire. The only other possible suspects would be either Ms. Mangum’s ex-boyfriend or member(s) of the Durham Police Department.

It is quite curious that the police reports state an officer allegedly saw Ms. Mangum putting clothes in the bathtub, but that no officer actually witnessed Ms. Mangum setting fire to the clothing items. The case regarding the alleged vandalism to the car is just as murky, if not more so. These are bogus, trumped up charges without credible evidence to support them. And is the assistant district attorney going to force Durham’s finest to commit perjury in order to exact some vendetta on behalf of Carpetbaggers who are presently pursuing a $30 million lawsuit against the cash-strapped Bull city? All rationale and logic cry out for this charade of charges against Ms. Mangum to be dropped immediately and for the city to proceed to work towards restorative justice in an attempt to make Ms. Mangum restored to her position prior to her February 17th arrest.

Since the mid-May release of Ms. Mangum from the detention center, Ms. Mangum has been under house arrest and electronically monitored. This is not a free service, but costs the county twelve dollars ($12.00) per day to maintain. That amounts to $360.00 per month of taxpayer money going down the drain… and for what? Ms. Mangum is not a flight risk and is not a threat to society. In addition, the diversion of attention towards Ms. Mangum deprives those who are really in need of the service.

Now Angela Garcia-Lamarca is willing to stretch out the period of the electronic monitoring of Ms. Mangum over years, if necessary. James Arthur Johnson, for example, was incarcerated 39 months before his trial could no longer be delayed by Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe (at which time he called in a special prosecutor, because, like Garcia-Lamarca, he had no case). What makes this such an outrage is that individuals convicted of DWI are limited by law to 60 days of electronic monitoring. I would like to know who is more deserving of long-term electronic monitoring, Ms. Mangum (a victim of domestic violence), or a person convicted of multiple DWIs?

If there was a reason for monitoring Ms. Mangum, I would not object to the anklet. But Ms. Mangum is definitely no flight risk. She was born in Durham and lived most of her life in Durham, the exception being the years she served in the U.S. Navy. She has no transportation, she does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the area or establish herself elsewhere. And, she is a mother with three children which would make flight impossible.

Now, this is just my opinion, and it is possible that someone might have a reasonable explanation in support of Ms. Mangum being electronically monitored 24/7. If someone is able to provide me with what I consider to be a logical reason for Durham County monitoring Crystal Mangum, then I will award that person with one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in cold hard cash. This offer is opened to anyone, including Angela Garcia-Lamarca and Judge Claude Allen. However, in the unlikely event I determine that someone is deserving of the monetary award, its payment will be made only after James Arthur Johnson receives his $20,000.00 reward for solving the murder of Brittany Willis.

I believe that electronic monitoring has its place in society, but like most everything, it can be subjected to abuse. Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca’s use of it against Ms. Mangum is an example of that abuse at its worst… using it when it is not warranted and for punitive and malicious purposes. And not only that, but it is a prime example of wasting taxpayer money.

Lessons learned from James Arthur Johnson

James Arthur Johnson served a sentence of 39 months in jail. Because Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen, Judge Milton Fitch and others applied sufficient pressure, Johnson accepted an Alford plea to a “misprision of felony” charge. Despite pleading guilty to the charge, Johnson was not technically or legally guilty of the charge. The misprision charge is rarely employed by the prosecution for a person who withholds his/her knowledge of a crime. James Arthur Johnson did not withhold knowledge of a crime because he was the one who told police the true identity of the person he believed to be responsible. The prosecutors were quick to point out that Mr. Johnson waited three days before going to the police with the evidence, but the charge of misprision of felony does not specify a time limit. Johnson didn’t wait three years, three months, or even three weeks before going to the police with his knowledge of the crime, yet he spent more than three years in jail because he did not go to the police within three hours or so of learning about the crime.

The plea deal in Johnson’s case is very chilling, because the misprision of felony can be leveled against anyone who does not report knowledge of a crime immediately. Most people want to at least think about the consequences to themselves and their families if they go to the police with information of a crime. As things stand with the James Arthur Johnson plea deal, as the clock ticks, people will be less inclined to come forward to help solve a crime out of fear of being incarcerated for misprision of felony… especially people of color and in the lower socio-economic strata.

Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe had full knowledge that James Arthur Johnson was not involved in the crimes against Brittany Willis, but because the confessed killer was an African American male, Wolfe transferred his hostility of the killer to all African American men. Wolfe wanted to punish Johnson because he was an African American, not because he felt he had any involvement in the crime. And, Wolfe, along with Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney Jr. were able to obtain an unreachable bail and drag out pre-trial proceedings for 39 months before a trial could no longer be delayed. Wolfe never had a case against Johnson, as the only witness, the confessed killer, later admitted he implicated Johnson out of anger because he had “snitched” on him. That didn’t deter Wolfe, as he lined up two other “eyewitnesses,” both with connections with the Wilson Police Department. However, when Reverend William Barber of the NAACP took interest in the case, the increased scrutiny forced Wolfe to silently jettison his witnesses.

Up until the day of the trial, Wolfe tried to wrangle a plea deal out of Johnson, who had languished in jail more than three years. Johnson refused, and in calling the prosecution’s bluff, the Wolfe and Boney folded like an accordion and announced they were turning the case over to a special prosecutor so there would be no doubt about the fairness of the proceedings.

The truth is that Wolfe, after releasing his two phony witnesses, had no plan of taking his case to trial because he had no case. All his marbles were on Johnson agreeing to a plea deal, which, fortunately, did not happen. However, because Johnson had stated during his initial interview with police investigators that he had helped wipe fingerprints off the victim's car (an event that had no bearing on the confession of the admitted killer), Forsyth Prosecutor Belinda Foster was forced to charge Johnson with “accessory after the fact” while dropping charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against him. It was the threat of being convicted on the “accessory” charge (though remote) and the possibility of being sentenced to more jail time, along with unbearable pressure from others that made Johnson accept the Alford plea. The Alford plea allows the defendant to maintain his/her innocence while forcing him/her to admit that the prosecution has enough evidence to prevail in obtaining a conviction.

Like James Arthur Johnson unjustly served a sentence of 39 months without being convicted of a crime, it was the intent of the Durham prosecution, under Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca, to have Crystal Gail Mangum serve a two year sentence… minimum. That was the first plea deal the prosecution made after Ms. Mangum’s arrest on charges which included felony attempted first degree murder, and felony first degree arson. The prosecution never had any intention of taking the case against Ms. Mangum to trial. Their intent was to follow the pattern of Bill Wolfe, which is: 1) levy a serious charge (felony attempted first degree murder); 2) use the charge to bolster a high bail ($ 1 million); 3) have the prosecution (which controls the pace of court proceedings) move at a snail’s pace; and 4) after sufficient time has been deemed to have been served, offer a plea deal in exchange for “time served.” This was the way things were supposed to go.

Unexpectedly, after Mangum had served 90 days behind bars, angelic bail bondsmen with courage, kindness, and generosity, satisfied the bond needed to release her from the Durham Detention Center, although a condition of her release was that she be placed under house arrest. The house arrest is the last vestige of leverage the prosecutors have on forcing Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal, and so they offered it to Ms. Mangum in order to extricate themselves from the sticky mess that they had gotten into. The prosecution is not now, and has never been preparing to take this case to trial. It was a plea deal from the beginning, and the District Attorney’s office was counting on the other state employees from the Public Defender’s office, to encourage Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal.

Again, unexpectedly, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong enveloped Ms. Mangum in their protective arms, and encouraged her not to plead guilty for a crime that she did not commit. Ms. Mangum needs to be restored, as best as possible, to the same condition that she was on the day of her arrest: living independently and supporting her three children in an apartment, employed full-time, and taking a full load in a graduate program at NCCU where she is pursuing a Master’s Degree in psychology. The Durham Police Department and Durham District Attorney’s office have a duty to restore in Crystal and her children faith in law enforcement, so that when the need arises they can feel comfort in calling 9-1-1 instead of consternation.

James Arthur Johnson pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit. We, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, do not want history to repeat in Crystal Mangum’s case.

Link follows to News & Observer article about Ms. Mangum and her attorney:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/08/570257/crystal-mangums-attorney-quits.html

Why Prosecutor Tom Ford is among the worst of the worse

On the morning of September 26, 1991, Raleigh police officers come upon the body of Jacquetta Thomas, a 26 year old African American, in a cul de sac at the end of Blount Street. The murder victim, who worked as a prostitute, had been severely beaten and her body partially exposed. Near by, but out of sight, is an SUV belonging to Gregory Flint Taylor, which had been abandoned earlier that morning after it became bogged down off-road in marshy land.

When Greg Taylor returns to the scene to see about extricating his vehicle, he identifies himself to the police at the crime scene as the owner of the vehicle and cooperates with their questioning in the homicide investigation. He does so freely and without legal consultation, and even goes to the police station to submit to further interrogation.

During his interviews, Greg Taylor gives consistent statements to the investigators. He he tells that he did not know the victim Jacquetta Thomas, never met her, and that she never was inside of his SUV. He states that his only passenger that night was Johnny Beck (an African American man), that they were riding around seeking and using drugs, and that while driving off road, his car got stuck in the moist terrain during the wee hours of the morning. He tells detectives that unable to remove it from its quagmire, the two decided to leave the vehicle to walk and try to hitch a ride home. On exiting the cul de sac, they noticed for the first time what appeared to be a body, but did not get close or examine it; planning instead to call authorities later in the morning if it had not been discovered by then.

Within twelve hours of the police’s discovery of Jacquetta Thomas’s body, Greg Taylor is charged with the murder. He is charged without forensic evidence linking him to the victim or vice versa, and without evidence confirming the victim’s presence in his vehicle. The unsubstantiated motive for the murder, according to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is that Jacquetta Thomas, a prostitute, refused to engage in sex with Taylor, which resulted in Taylor becoming so enraged that he severely beat her to death. As was pointed out during the February 2010 hearing before the three judge panel, Gregory Taylor has never had a history or reputation of violence, either before the murder or afterwards during his 17 years of incarceration (during time spent in prison, he was not charged with any violations or misconduct… a rare accomplishment).

Prosecutor Tom Ford, I strongly believe, does not care whether or not the killer of Ms. Thomas is apprehended and faces judgment because he has absolutely no compassion for the victim… an African American and a prostitute. His only priority is closing the case, and not solving the crime. So, he rushes to judgment in charging Greg Taylor with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas without reasonable cause or due diligence. Tom Ford heeds the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” when he charges Taylor, who is white but admitted to drug use and did not come from a family of material wealth and privilege, with the murder of Ms. Thomas.

Now, this is where Tom Ford’s actions become really sinister and despicable. His plan is to entice Greg Taylor, the white owner of the SUV, to falsely implicate his black passenger and fellow drug user Johnny Beck for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. If Taylor refuses, Ford threatens to convict Taylor and have him spend the rest of his life in jail. By doing so, Ford could accomplish two objectives… close the case on a murder, and take a black man off the Raleigh streets (innocent or not). Ford initially believes that wrapping up this case would be relatively easy, thinking that Taylor would jump at the chance to avoid a conviction for murder and a lifetime in prison by simply implicating a black man for the commission of the crime, even though Taylor knew Beck to be innocent. However, Tom Ford does not count on Greg Taylor being a man of such integrity that it far exceeds what little that Ford, himself, possesses. Gregory Flint Taylor, at the repeated urgings and threats by Prosecutor Ford, refuses to give false testimony implicating Johnny Beck, a man he knew to be innocent.

Because Greg Taylor refuses to perjure himself by giving false testimony at the behest of Prosecutor Ford for the purpose of implicating another innocent man, Tom Ford makes good on his threat to convict Taylor of the murder. Ford achieves this goal by making deals with two other incarcerated individuals (a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch), who are facing long stretches behind bars, and like him, are lacking morals and integrity. They provide false testimony against Taylor in exchange for the promise of a reduction in their sentences. What is particularly egregious about this action is that Taylor’s defense team is not made aware by the prosecution of this backroom deal between Ford and the perjurers. In addition to the false testimony, false forensic blood test results, as well as the falsely misinterpreted actions of a scent hound, are used by Prosecutor Ford to win a conviction against Taylor in 1993 for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Greg Taylor is sentenced to life in prison.

Facing a life sentence for a murder he did not commit, Prosecutor Ford continues to offer Greg Taylor incentives for a reduced sentence and a chance at freedom in exchange for the false testimony needed to convict Johnny Beck, the black man against whom Ford was forced to drop charges because Taylor would not provide the false and necessary testimony to needed to convict. Despite the prospect of spending the rest of his life and dying within the dreary confines of a small prison cell, Greg’s ethics and integrity remain strong. Ford is unable to break him.

After sixteen years in prison, the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission takes up Greg Taylor’s case and presents it to the Innocence Inquiry Commission. After a thorough review of the case, the eight member board unanimously recommends that Greg Taylor’s case be brought before the three judge panel to determine whether or not he should be proclaimed innocent and freed, or remain in jail… the burden of this hearing being placed on the defense.
Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford, with full knowledge of the sleazy backroom deals made with the jailhouse snitch and the prostitute, and full knowledge that the SBI lab test results were not confirmatory for the presence of blood on Greg Taylor’s SUV, nonetheless decides to work with Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby to fight and try to keep an innocent man in jail for the remainder of his life. Tom Ford is definitely no “minister of justice.”

In February 2010, the truth, as cogently and orderly presented by Attorneys representing Greg Taylor (Mumma, Klinkosum, and Cheshire), combined with the pathetically convoluted, disjointed, and irrelevant presentation by the state assures a pronouncement of “innocent” by the judicial body at the hearing. Gregory Taylor, at long last, is unfettered by shackles and bars, and tastes freedom for the first time in nearly two decades. Seventeen years of his life are lost because of the actions of a prosecutor who, is angered by Taylor’s refusal to work with him to wrongfully convict an innocent black man in the Thomas murder. This anger is what led Ford to punish Taylor by convicting him of the Thomas murder.

Clearly, actions by Ford in the Greg Taylor case, warrant Tom Ford the dubious distinction of being hailed as among the “worst of the worse prosecutors in the Tar Heel state. Other deserving North Carolina prosecutors include David Hoke, who withheld from the defense attorney of Alan Gell exculpatory testimony of seventeen independent eyewitnesses which absolutely refuted Gell’s guilt in a murder for which he was sentenced to death and served a decade wrongfully behind bars. Wilson County Prosecutor Bill Wolfe deserves mention as one of North Carolina’s worst prosecutors for charging James Arthur Johnson for the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis, a crime that Wolfe knew Johnson did not commit… a charge based on the statement of Kenneth Meeks, a black teenager and the true killer of the victim. Meeks made the statement implicating Johnson (who is also African American) in the murder of the Wilson teen after police informed the killer that Johnson snitched on him. When Meeks, more than a year later, recanted his statement and admitted that he made it out of anger, Prosecutor Wolfe had no case against Johnson because there was no forensic evidence tying Johnson to the crime. Therefore, Wolfe shortly thereafter manufactured two eyewitnesses, both related to the Wilson Police Department (one being a retired police officer) to implicate Johnson in the crime. The use of these two false witnesses was quickly jettisoned by the prosecution after Dr. Reverend William Barber, President of the NC NAACP became involved; because with his involvement came closer media scrutiny… scrutiny that the false testimony of Wolfe’s two eyewitnesses could not withstand.

As horrendous as these overt acts of prosecutorial misconduct are, and the terrible injustice for which they are responsible, only one of the prosecutors, David Hoke, was taken before the unregulated North Carolina State Bar’s Disciplinary panel. He was merely given a mild reprimand by the group. However, professionally Hoke did not suffer as he was promoted to the position of Assistant Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. Rev. Barber filed a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct with the North Carolina State Bar against Bill Wolfe, which the Bar proceeded to ignore. Likewise, the North Carolina State Bar refused to act on my complaint against Tom Ford (for his actions in the Gregory Taylor case) which was filed in August 2009. As things now stand, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong remains the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933.

And why was Mike Nifong disbarred? He was disbarred because, as Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) so insightfully put it during an interview on “60 Minutes,” he “picked on the wrong families.” In other words, Mr. Nifong did not automatically stop the investigation and he did not refrain from pressing charges in the alleged sexual assault against the Duke University student-athlete partygoers who came from families of wealth, status, and privilege, as was expected from a Durham district attorney. Instead Mr. Nifong pursued the investigation and prosecution as he would in any other case, without Class or Color entering the equation. To express the displeasure by the state, Mike Nifong was singularly persecuted to an extent never before seen… and it was done in order to set an example for other North Carolina prosecutors who might consider not complying with the unwritten state tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color. In addition to disbarment, Mr. Nifong was convicted on a trumped up contempt of court charge and sentenced to jail; the U.S. Department of Justice was asked to launch a criminal investigation into Mr. Nifong for depriving the Duke Lacrosse defendants of their civil rights; Mr. Nifong was denied immunity to which he was entitled as a state employee carrying out his duties; the Attorney General’s Office refused to represent him at his hearing before the North Carolina State Bar; the North Carolina State Board of Elections chose to harass Mr. Nifong by singularly auditing his campaign without cause; and he was blatantly bashed by the biased mainstream media.

The unregulated and self-serving North Carolina State Bar was so hard pressed to come up with a complaint carrying enough substance against Mr. Nifong to appear legit that it was forced to amend the complaint initially filed… a rare action indeed and not supported by law. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong withheld evidence… which he did not. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong lied to the court… which he did not. The Bar alleged that Mr. Nifong made prejudicial and inflammatory statements against the defendants… which he did not (most, if not all, of the statements for which Mr. Nifong was accused of making took place prior to any indictments being handed down). It is the position of the Committee of Justice for Mike Nifong that Mr. Nifong acted within the acceptable standards of the state’s prosecuting attorneys.

F. Lane Williamson, the chair of the Bar’s grievance panel, used his divine powers of mind reading to reach the conclusion that Mike Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case solely for political gain (to retain his post as Durham district attorney). A rigged poll by SurveyUSA conducted for WTVD – ABC 11 News helped fertilize the idea that the May 2, 2006 primary for Durham district attorney was close and that wooing black voters would assure Nifong of victory. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth, as black voter registration was low, and black voter turnout was even lower. Using common sense and logic, the best route to a victory would have been for Mr. Nifong not to have brought charges against the Duke lacrosse player or to dismissed them. Instead, his pursuit of the prosecution turned a landslide May 2006 primary victory into a narrow one, and enabled another campaigner (who ran on a platform of solely beating Nifong and promising to give up his position to enable an appointment to the Durham D.A. position by Governor Mike Easley) to garner a whopping 39% of the fall election vote. The only person to use the Duke Lacrosse case for his/her own political gain was Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose main television campaign ad begain with a screen showing in big letters: “The Duke Lacrosse Decision.”

It should be noted that Mr. Nifong acted as a “minister of justice” as evidenced by the fact that he dropped the rape charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants after the alleged victim could not give assurances in later testimony, to his satisfaction, that a rape had taken place. Mr. Nifong’s actions in this respect are in stark contrast to those of Tom Ford, who continues to press for Greg Taylor to remain in jail for the rest of his life in spite of the fact that his contention that blood evidence used to convict Taylor was false, as was the interpretation of actions by a scent hound in the initial trial. Also, the Attorney General’s Office continued to fight for Alan Gell to remain locked up after it came to light that 17 eyewitness statements that proved Gell could not possibly have committed the crime for which he was sentenced to death.

Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford is no minister of justice, but as a prosecutor he most definitely is among the worst of the worse. Yet, the state does not go after him professionally or personally. The biased mainstream media follows the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy and shields his identity from the public whenever possible when discussing the Taylor case. Even Greg Taylor’s attorney, Joseph B. Cheshire V, has not a disparaging word to say about Tom Ford, the prosecutor responsible for his client losing 17 productive years of his life due to Ford’s malicious vendetta. Yet, Cheshire, the most powerful attorney in North Carolina, is quick to chastise and criticize Mr. Nifong for his actions in the Duke Lacrosse case (well within standards practiced by other prosecutors), even though Cheshire’s client (one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants) does not spend one day in jail, and receives a $7 million out-of-court settlement with Duke University.

What I find most disheartening, however, is the response, or lack thereof, by the leadership of the African American communities in Durham and throughout the state of North Carolina. To my knowledge, Dr. Reverend William Barber (president of the NC NAACP) and other leaders have not been critical of Prosecutor Tom Ford and his actions in the Gregory Taylor case. To my knowledge, leaders of the black communities have also been silent about the barbaric treatment of Mike Nifong by the state and the media for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case in which he adhered to the principle of “equal justice for all.” And now that fallout from the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mike Nifong etal. has engulfed Crystal Mangum (charged with attempted first degree murder for allegedly scratching her boyfriend and held in jail on a million dollar bond), the black leadership continues to follow its course of timidity, and remains silent about this injustice. This is disgraceful.

Don’t believe the hype fostered by the Carpetbagger Jihad Juggernaut and dutifully disseminated by the biased mainstream media that Mike Nifong is the worst prosector in North Carolina history and the only one deserving of disbarment. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Mr. Nifong’s nearly thirty years of service to the state has been exemplary and exemplified by the principle of “equal justice for all.” The truly worst of the worst designation, without doubt, goes to Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford, although compelling arguments could be made for prosecutors Bill Wolfe (in the James Arthur Johnson case) and David Hoke (the Alan Gell case.)