Showing posts with label Joseph Neff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Neff. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Judge allows Floyd Brown suit against SBI to proceed
According to The News & Observer February 4, 2011 edition, Floyd Brown’s civil suit against the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation will be allowed to proceed. The article by Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff, which strictly followed the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) never once mentioned the name of Brown’s prosecutor, Anson County District Attorney Michael D. Parker. It was Parker who charged the severely retarded African American male, with the intelligence of a seven year-old, with a 1993 murder that was based solely on the existence of a so-called confession from Brown that was taken by verbatim by SBI agent Mark Isley.
There was no eyewitness or forensics evidence tying Brown to the crime… in other words, there was no credible evidence for with which to charge Brown. Therefore, Parker relied on the “verbatim confession” to charge Brown with murder and hold him in a mental institution. It was the objective of the mental health staff to somehow miraculously whip Brown’s severe retardation into a state that would allow him stand trial for the murder with which he was charged. But the mental health team was unable to perform miracles, and Floyd Brown languished in the institution at taxpayer expense for fourteen years until an appeal was held outside of Anson County wherein he was freed.
Brown’s declaration of freedom was based on the fact that the judge heard from a variety of expert mental health witnesses who averred that Floyd Brown’s retardation was so severe that there was no way that the six page verbatim written confession could have been attributed to him. So Brown was finally released to the custody of his family, but not before prosecutor Parker maliciously went out of his way to disrupt assisted living plans that the government social workers had put together for Brown’s release.
Brown’s family sought to bring a civil suit against the prosecutors, but Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed that Michael Parker had immunity against such action. This is not the stance he took in the Duke Lacrosse case when he invited civil suits against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who had prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case within acceptable bounds, acted as a true “minister of justice,” and did so without malice.
Parker, with the complicity of media-types, transferred all of the blame for the “doctored” confession on SBI agent Isley. Any person of reasonable mind would no doubt believe that Parker was aware that the alleged “verbatim confession” by Brown was a fabrication, which was more likely than not pressed forward by prosecutor Parker. Michael Parker is an intelligent man, and has likely had much experience in orchestrating unethical schemes to prevail with a favorable verdict, yet steer clear of any liability. Parker was also indoctrinated by the state’s policy of “selective justice based on Class and Color” and was fully aware that stealing years of a man’s life would be of little consequence as long as he/she were poor, disenfranchised, and a person of color.
When Brown’s family brought the suit against the SBI for its role in Floyd’s lengthy detention, the Attorney General’s Office objected, according to the newspaper, by arguing that it didn’t matter whether a SBI agent “elaborated or augmented or even smoothed out the alleged confession.” In other words, when defendants belong to a certain class and color, it is permissible in the eyes of the state’s head prosecutor to charge a defendant with a confession that is bogus… or as the state euphemistically put it “smoothed out.”
Unfortunately the state of North Carolina “smooths out” a lot of evidence and testimony in order to place behind bars many innocent people who are considered by the Powers-That-Be to be disposable. Attorneys representing the Attorney General’s Office do not feel that Floyd Brown, a retarded man who was involuntarily held in a mental hospital for fourteen years based on a bogus “verbatim confession,” is deserving of any compensation from the state. There is no doubt that he deserves compensation… just like Alan Gell deserved compensation… and Greg Taylor deserved compensation. Many others who deserve compensation by the state but are unlikely to receive any are Erick Daniels, Levon Bo Jones, and James Arthur Johnson.
Superior Court Judge Forrest D. Bridges undeniably made the right decision in allowing the civil case against the SBI to proceed. The civil suit against Mike Nifong for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case is the one that should have been dismissed, as it was prosecuted honorably and in good faith. Not to mention that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants not only received seven million dollars each, but in contrast to Floyd Brown, Gell, Taylor, Johnson, Daniels, and others, never spent one day in jail.
With the SBI now under scrutiny thanks to the ill-advised challenge by Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby against Greg Taylor’s release, it seems like the scales of justice are tipping, ever so slightly, towards that which is just.
Be sure to catch the latest installment of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” -- Part 6. Just click on to the Link below. Also be sure to view the “Commentary, Insight, and Analysis” which immediately follows the strip. A new feature to the commentary allows viewer feedback by e-mail at its conclusion.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc127.htm
Note: The e-mail response at the end of the commentary which follows the strip may not be functional at this time.
There was no eyewitness or forensics evidence tying Brown to the crime… in other words, there was no credible evidence for with which to charge Brown. Therefore, Parker relied on the “verbatim confession” to charge Brown with murder and hold him in a mental institution. It was the objective of the mental health staff to somehow miraculously whip Brown’s severe retardation into a state that would allow him stand trial for the murder with which he was charged. But the mental health team was unable to perform miracles, and Floyd Brown languished in the institution at taxpayer expense for fourteen years until an appeal was held outside of Anson County wherein he was freed.
Brown’s declaration of freedom was based on the fact that the judge heard from a variety of expert mental health witnesses who averred that Floyd Brown’s retardation was so severe that there was no way that the six page verbatim written confession could have been attributed to him. So Brown was finally released to the custody of his family, but not before prosecutor Parker maliciously went out of his way to disrupt assisted living plans that the government social workers had put together for Brown’s release.
Brown’s family sought to bring a civil suit against the prosecutors, but Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed that Michael Parker had immunity against such action. This is not the stance he took in the Duke Lacrosse case when he invited civil suits against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who had prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case within acceptable bounds, acted as a true “minister of justice,” and did so without malice.
Parker, with the complicity of media-types, transferred all of the blame for the “doctored” confession on SBI agent Isley. Any person of reasonable mind would no doubt believe that Parker was aware that the alleged “verbatim confession” by Brown was a fabrication, which was more likely than not pressed forward by prosecutor Parker. Michael Parker is an intelligent man, and has likely had much experience in orchestrating unethical schemes to prevail with a favorable verdict, yet steer clear of any liability. Parker was also indoctrinated by the state’s policy of “selective justice based on Class and Color” and was fully aware that stealing years of a man’s life would be of little consequence as long as he/she were poor, disenfranchised, and a person of color.
When Brown’s family brought the suit against the SBI for its role in Floyd’s lengthy detention, the Attorney General’s Office objected, according to the newspaper, by arguing that it didn’t matter whether a SBI agent “elaborated or augmented or even smoothed out the alleged confession.” In other words, when defendants belong to a certain class and color, it is permissible in the eyes of the state’s head prosecutor to charge a defendant with a confession that is bogus… or as the state euphemistically put it “smoothed out.”
Unfortunately the state of North Carolina “smooths out” a lot of evidence and testimony in order to place behind bars many innocent people who are considered by the Powers-That-Be to be disposable. Attorneys representing the Attorney General’s Office do not feel that Floyd Brown, a retarded man who was involuntarily held in a mental hospital for fourteen years based on a bogus “verbatim confession,” is deserving of any compensation from the state. There is no doubt that he deserves compensation… just like Alan Gell deserved compensation… and Greg Taylor deserved compensation. Many others who deserve compensation by the state but are unlikely to receive any are Erick Daniels, Levon Bo Jones, and James Arthur Johnson.
Superior Court Judge Forrest D. Bridges undeniably made the right decision in allowing the civil case against the SBI to proceed. The civil suit against Mike Nifong for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case is the one that should have been dismissed, as it was prosecuted honorably and in good faith. Not to mention that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants not only received seven million dollars each, but in contrast to Floyd Brown, Gell, Taylor, Johnson, Daniels, and others, never spent one day in jail.
With the SBI now under scrutiny thanks to the ill-advised challenge by Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby against Greg Taylor’s release, it seems like the scales of justice are tipping, ever so slightly, towards that which is just.
Be sure to catch the latest installment of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” -- Part 6. Just click on to the Link below. Also be sure to view the “Commentary, Insight, and Analysis” which immediately follows the strip. A new feature to the commentary allows viewer feedback by e-mail at its conclusion.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc127.htm
Note: The e-mail response at the end of the commentary which follows the strip may not be functional at this time.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The mystery of Isley’s promotion is elementary
In the Sunday, October 17, 2010 edition of The News & Observer, was a front page, below the fold, article titled, “Isley’s climb at SBI followed his claim of racism.” Evidently Mark Isley’s claim had teeth, and in accordance with terms of a 2005 settlement which was reached after he filed a discrimination complaint against the SBI, he was promoted with a wage increase.
Mark Isley is an African American SBI agent who played an integral part in the successful incarceration of mentally impaired Floyd Brown, who was held in limbo for years awaiting a trial that never materialized. The article, by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff, was in strict compliance with the paper’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, as it never once mentioned the name of the prosecutor responsible for the handling of Mr. Brown’s case, Anson County prosecutor Michael D. Parker.
Now the question posed by the N & O writers concerns the mysteries of how SBI agent Mark Isley’s career "soared" while evidence mounted that he fabricated a confession that forced a disabled man to be locked away at a mental hospital for 14 years. After putting on my “Sherlock Holmes cap,” and making a few deductions, the answer is, well, elementary. The key to this puzzle has to do with the timeline.
The investigative reporting in this article is a little sloppy and vague, with attempts to mislead the reader. In early 2004, Mr. Isley had been employed by the SBI for approximately 15 years… the length of time spent as a supervisor of field agents is unclear. At some point during his employment he began to complain about discriminatory practices in the SBI which had prevented him and other African Americans from advancing in the ranks. Now the N & O, without giving dates, stated that Isley began complaining months after attorneys for Floyd Brown began registering complaints about Isley’s work. The importance of this statement is to dispel any “cause and effect” relationship. However, I believe that Mr. Isley’s complaints about racial discrimination preceded those against him by Brown’s attorneys. The timing is a critical issue here. Why in spring of 2004 would one look into Isley’s handling of Brown’s case?
The facts concerning Floyd Brown had not changed since he was first charged and held in a mental hospital in 1993. He was severely retarded and, according to mental health experts, could not have dictated a confession which Isley allegedly wrote word for word. This so-called confession was the only thing tying Brown to the crime, as no forensic or physical evidence linking Brown to the murder could be established. The defense attorneys were aware of this, as was Anson prosecutor Michael D. Parker. But everyone, including the media, was content to allow Brown to languish in the mental hospital because he was disenfranchised, poor, and an African American… in accordance with the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
So, evidently there seemed to be no movement in Brown’s situation until nearly a decade later… around the time Mark Isley began complaining about being discriminated against by being passed over for promotion by other less qualified white SBI applicants. Then, all of a sudden and out of the clear blue Floyd Brown’s attorneys request Isley’s personnel records from the SBI and began making allegations of misconduct against him. There was no indication that any complaints were made against the prosecutor who was actually responsible for Brown being held in custody without a trial, Michael D. Parker.
It can also be deduced from the newspaper article that the SBI and Mr. Isley did not see eye to eye regarding his complaints, as he was forced to eventually file a racial discrimination claim against the SBI.
It can also be deduced, from the settlement which included a promotion and pay raise for Isley, that his claim of racial discrimination had substance, a matter that the media has chosen to gloss over. In addition to settling with Isley, the agency was forced to pay Isley’s attorney fees, and the SBI later issued a revised policy regarding the promotion process and incorporated increased minority hiring and recruitment.
After being dealt a significant blow by Mr. Isley’s complaint, it is not a stretch to come to the realization that Mr. Isley did not hold a favored agent status within the state agency. This is a situation which usually engenders retribution… and what better way to knock Mr. Isley down a peg or two than to bring to the fore earlier acts of possible serious misconduct, of which the agency had been aware since the beginning.
Now, David Rudolf, a Charlotte criminal defense attorney who filed a civil suit on behalf of Floyd Brown and is smacking his lips at the thought of his percentage of a potential humongous award in court, was quick to criticize SBI agent Mark Isley. He was quick to blame Isley for Brown being held for fourteen years in a mental hospital without a trial. I have not heard a disparaging word coming from the mouth of Mr. Rudolf about the prosecutor, Michael D. Parker. Parker was the person in charge of the Brown case, and he knew, or should have known, about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Brown’s so-called written confession. Parker was also the person who refused mental health staff requests to allow Mr. Brown to have lunch with his sister and to leave for several hours to attend the fair. Parker was also the person who maliciously interfered with living arrangements which had been painstakingly made by state social workers for Brown in an assisted living facility. But, again, there apparently are no complaints from Attorney Rudolf about Mr. Parker’s conduct.
I only used the newspaper article as a source for analyzing its topic of Isley’s complaint, his promotion, and the Brown case, so my conclusions, which follow, are mostly based on educated supposition. They are as follows:
(1) Attorneys on both sides of the murder charge against Brown knew that the so-called confession allegedly obtained by Isley was bogus, but it was the only thing that the prosecution had with which to hold Brown;
(2) Floyd Brown definitely had ineffective counsel at his original trial;
(3) the North Carolina SBI agency practiced racial discrimination with regards to promotions at the time that Isley first complained about it;
(4) the sudden emergence of complaints by Brown’s attorneys about Isley, including the request to see his personnel records, was directly related to Isley’s complaints of discrimination;
(5) as pointed out in The News & Observer, Isley’s promotion was related to his settlement regarding complaints of racial discrimination in the SBI;
(6) the media reporting on the Floyd Brown case adhere to the PAPEN Policy, and are scapegoating Mark Isley; and
(7) the problems Mark Isley now face are a result of his complaints against the SBI.
Mark Isley is an African American SBI agent who played an integral part in the successful incarceration of mentally impaired Floyd Brown, who was held in limbo for years awaiting a trial that never materialized. The article, by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff, was in strict compliance with the paper’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, as it never once mentioned the name of the prosecutor responsible for the handling of Mr. Brown’s case, Anson County prosecutor Michael D. Parker.
Now the question posed by the N & O writers concerns the mysteries of how SBI agent Mark Isley’s career "soared" while evidence mounted that he fabricated a confession that forced a disabled man to be locked away at a mental hospital for 14 years. After putting on my “Sherlock Holmes cap,” and making a few deductions, the answer is, well, elementary. The key to this puzzle has to do with the timeline.
The investigative reporting in this article is a little sloppy and vague, with attempts to mislead the reader. In early 2004, Mr. Isley had been employed by the SBI for approximately 15 years… the length of time spent as a supervisor of field agents is unclear. At some point during his employment he began to complain about discriminatory practices in the SBI which had prevented him and other African Americans from advancing in the ranks. Now the N & O, without giving dates, stated that Isley began complaining months after attorneys for Floyd Brown began registering complaints about Isley’s work. The importance of this statement is to dispel any “cause and effect” relationship. However, I believe that Mr. Isley’s complaints about racial discrimination preceded those against him by Brown’s attorneys. The timing is a critical issue here. Why in spring of 2004 would one look into Isley’s handling of Brown’s case?
The facts concerning Floyd Brown had not changed since he was first charged and held in a mental hospital in 1993. He was severely retarded and, according to mental health experts, could not have dictated a confession which Isley allegedly wrote word for word. This so-called confession was the only thing tying Brown to the crime, as no forensic or physical evidence linking Brown to the murder could be established. The defense attorneys were aware of this, as was Anson prosecutor Michael D. Parker. But everyone, including the media, was content to allow Brown to languish in the mental hospital because he was disenfranchised, poor, and an African American… in accordance with the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
So, evidently there seemed to be no movement in Brown’s situation until nearly a decade later… around the time Mark Isley began complaining about being discriminated against by being passed over for promotion by other less qualified white SBI applicants. Then, all of a sudden and out of the clear blue Floyd Brown’s attorneys request Isley’s personnel records from the SBI and began making allegations of misconduct against him. There was no indication that any complaints were made against the prosecutor who was actually responsible for Brown being held in custody without a trial, Michael D. Parker.
It can also be deduced from the newspaper article that the SBI and Mr. Isley did not see eye to eye regarding his complaints, as he was forced to eventually file a racial discrimination claim against the SBI.
It can also be deduced, from the settlement which included a promotion and pay raise for Isley, that his claim of racial discrimination had substance, a matter that the media has chosen to gloss over. In addition to settling with Isley, the agency was forced to pay Isley’s attorney fees, and the SBI later issued a revised policy regarding the promotion process and incorporated increased minority hiring and recruitment.
After being dealt a significant blow by Mr. Isley’s complaint, it is not a stretch to come to the realization that Mr. Isley did not hold a favored agent status within the state agency. This is a situation which usually engenders retribution… and what better way to knock Mr. Isley down a peg or two than to bring to the fore earlier acts of possible serious misconduct, of which the agency had been aware since the beginning.
Now, David Rudolf, a Charlotte criminal defense attorney who filed a civil suit on behalf of Floyd Brown and is smacking his lips at the thought of his percentage of a potential humongous award in court, was quick to criticize SBI agent Mark Isley. He was quick to blame Isley for Brown being held for fourteen years in a mental hospital without a trial. I have not heard a disparaging word coming from the mouth of Mr. Rudolf about the prosecutor, Michael D. Parker. Parker was the person in charge of the Brown case, and he knew, or should have known, about the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of Brown’s so-called written confession. Parker was also the person who refused mental health staff requests to allow Mr. Brown to have lunch with his sister and to leave for several hours to attend the fair. Parker was also the person who maliciously interfered with living arrangements which had been painstakingly made by state social workers for Brown in an assisted living facility. But, again, there apparently are no complaints from Attorney Rudolf about Mr. Parker’s conduct.
I only used the newspaper article as a source for analyzing its topic of Isley’s complaint, his promotion, and the Brown case, so my conclusions, which follow, are mostly based on educated supposition. They are as follows:
(1) Attorneys on both sides of the murder charge against Brown knew that the so-called confession allegedly obtained by Isley was bogus, but it was the only thing that the prosecution had with which to hold Brown;
(2) Floyd Brown definitely had ineffective counsel at his original trial;
(3) the North Carolina SBI agency practiced racial discrimination with regards to promotions at the time that Isley first complained about it;
(4) the sudden emergence of complaints by Brown’s attorneys about Isley, including the request to see his personnel records, was directly related to Isley’s complaints of discrimination;
(5) as pointed out in The News & Observer, Isley’s promotion was related to his settlement regarding complaints of racial discrimination in the SBI;
(6) the media reporting on the Floyd Brown case adhere to the PAPEN Policy, and are scapegoating Mark Isley; and
(7) the problems Mark Isley now face are a result of his complaints against the SBI.
Keep in mind that Prosecutor Michael D. Parker is in good standing with the North Carolina State Bar... as are Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson), and David Hoke (Alan Gell). And Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933 - a travesty of justice... something that defies logic and is definitely not elementary.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Prosecutors lie and work with defense team to pressure man who’s maintained his innocence to accept guilty murder plea
Exposure of typical widespread prosecutorial misconduct was once again made apparent in an article in August 29, 2010’s The News & Observer, titled “‘Bloody’ evidence misused to elicit plea deal in death.” The article by J. Andrew Curliss actually eschewed the paper’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy by actually mentioning the name of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecutorial misconduct, Durham Prosecutor Freda Black… even though buried deep in the article, it was nonetheless mentioned. Mr. Curliss deserves kudos for this, but it is not surprising (as he has taken on former Governor Mike Easley and other heavyweights with his investigative reporting). The article about the injustice against Derrick Allen, who was recently granted a new trial, only reinforces the contention that North Carolina follows a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
In the summer of 1999, Durham prosecutors, led by Freda Black, were pursuing the death penalty against Derrick Allen for allegedly killing and sexually assaulting the two-year old daughter of his girlfriend. When Black received confirmatory lab results stating that what was presumed to be blood stains on the victim’s clothing was in fact not blood, the prosecution changed course and sought a plea deal. In offering the deal, prosecutors lied to defendant Allen, who had always maintained his innocence, telling him that their was blood on the child’s garments. They offered a deal which would remove the death penalty from consideration in exchange for a lengthy prison sentence.
Although he knew of his innocence, Allen agreed to pleading guilty to committing a murder which he knew that he did not commit because of what he believed to be honest and accurate lab results, and because his own defense attorneys expended their efforts in advising him to accept the offered plea deal rather than preparing for his defense against the charges in court. Unfortunately, and all too often, defense attorneys pressure their clients to accept deals even when they know it is not in their clients' best interests. The reasons may be due to shear laziness or in the form of incentives, but let there be no doubt that defense attorneys often purposely work with prosecutors to get their clients to plead guilty… even in a case that is weak and has no credible evidence.
A “Minister of Justice” would not lie about such important evidence in order to wring out a knowingly false admission of guilt. To make it more palatable for the defendant to enter into a plea deal despite insisting upon his innocence, the Alford Plea was introduced. It is the same tool that was successfully used by the prosecutors in the James Arthur Johnson case. Unfortunately, although it facilitates the prosecution’s ability to obtain a plea deal, it has no legal bearing or benefit to the defendant. In other words, the Alford Plea is nothing more than a “legal Jedi Mind-trick”… just another sinister weapon in the prosecutor’s arsenal to gain an unfair advantage over the defendant.
Wake prosecutor Tom Ford tried unsuccessfully to force Gregory Taylor to enter into a plea deal which included fingering another innocent man (an African American) for a murder that neither of them committed. Taylor stood on his principles and refused to implicate a man he knew to be innocent, and therefore he was subjected to the wrath of Ford who convicted him with phony and misleading blood testimony… not unlike that used by Prosecutor Black to sway Derrick Allen to admit guilt. Sadly, Taylor served 17 years of a life sentence before he was cleared by a three judge panel in February 2010. During this hearing, Ford, the original prosecutor in 1992, fought to keep Taylor behind bars for the rest of his life based solely on the testimony of two witnesses who offered statements in exchange for a reduction of their time of incarceration. Tom Ford, and his district attorney, Colon Willoughby, are definitely not “Ministers of Justice.”
In another article by Mr. Curliss, titled “Defense sees evidence 12 years after plea deal,” he explains that the defendant, Derrick Allen and his current attorneys are seeing for the first time important evidence about the murder and sex charges brought against him 12 years ago. Evidence of particular importance that prosecutors held back from the defendant was a statement by the state’s main witness against Allen in which she stated that she and Allen had an intimate relationship that had turned sour and that she considered him her enemy. Since his incarceration more than a decade ago, Mr. Allen has been trying to obtain all evidence prosecutors had in their file, but prosecutors have been reluctant to release it to him.
So with regards to his case 12 years ago, Prosecutor Black withheld from defendant Allen crucial lab evidence regarding alleged “bloody” stains, withheld from Allen crucial information about a witness statement that was favorable to the him, and she lied to the Allen about results of a lab test in order to coerce him into accepting a plea deal instead of a possible death penalty conviction.
Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has never purposely withheld evidence from defendants, including the Duke Lacrosse defense teams (although the media has grossly misled the public into believing that he did just that). Furthermore, he has never lied to the defense to give the impression that he had incriminating evidence for the purpose of forcing a defendant to accept a plea deal. Mr. Nifong has always maintained an open file policy which granted the defense counsel complete access to the prosecution’s evidence… he did this for more than two decades before it was mandated into law. He has prosecuted in good faith to uphold equal justice for all, not unlike principles that guided Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. And Mr. Nifong acted independent of pressures brought by his superiors and public sentiment… actions were guided by his overriding desire to see that justice prevailed. In the Duke Lacrosse case, he proceeded with his prosecution of the defendants despite its unpopularity with the Attorney General’s Office, Duke University, the media, and the general public. He prosecuted despite the fact that by doing so it markedly damaged his chances for being elected to the post of Durham district attorney. And, like another courageous man in history, Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, Mr. Nifong suffered the consequences.
Yet, it is Mr. Nifong that the state persecutes and the media crucifies. Prosecutors like Freda Black, Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others of their ilk are protected by the Attorney General’s Office and the media, in general. The articles in The News & Observer by Mr. Curliss are an unexpected and pleasant change from the PAPEN Policy. Without doubt, had Joseph Neff authored the story, the identity of the prosecutor responsible for the misdeeds and malfeasance against Derrick Allen would not have been mentioned.
Because of problems with the SBI lab, as exposed during the Greg Taylor hearings and which are really reflections on the prosecutors, Derrick Allen now has an opportunity to get justice. However, even if he is found “not guilty” on re-trial, if the prosecution chooses that route, do not expect for Governor Bev Perdue to issue a pardon. Do not expect to see him compensated for a dozen years wrongfully spent behind bars. The North Carolina justice system does not work that way… it is not fair. In North Carolina, justice tends to benefit those who are well-heeled, privileged, and not people of color.
Likewise, do not expect an upsurge in demands for sanctions or disciplinary actions against Prosecutor Black by the media, the governor, the Attorney General’s Office, or the public. After all, Allen does not come from a family of wealth, power, and privilege, so injustice meted out to him is readily tolerated by the Tar Heel masses. To paraphrase Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) and put things in perspective, Prosecutor Freda Black, in pursuing and prosecuting Derrick Allen, picked on a person from the “right” family to indict… namely one that is poor, disenfranchised, and of color. Because Mr. Nifong picked on people to indict who came from the “wrong” families, the avenging agenda of the Carpetbagger Jihad that calls for his total destruction in appropriate in the eyes of many.
In the summer of 1999, Durham prosecutors, led by Freda Black, were pursuing the death penalty against Derrick Allen for allegedly killing and sexually assaulting the two-year old daughter of his girlfriend. When Black received confirmatory lab results stating that what was presumed to be blood stains on the victim’s clothing was in fact not blood, the prosecution changed course and sought a plea deal. In offering the deal, prosecutors lied to defendant Allen, who had always maintained his innocence, telling him that their was blood on the child’s garments. They offered a deal which would remove the death penalty from consideration in exchange for a lengthy prison sentence.
Although he knew of his innocence, Allen agreed to pleading guilty to committing a murder which he knew that he did not commit because of what he believed to be honest and accurate lab results, and because his own defense attorneys expended their efforts in advising him to accept the offered plea deal rather than preparing for his defense against the charges in court. Unfortunately, and all too often, defense attorneys pressure their clients to accept deals even when they know it is not in their clients' best interests. The reasons may be due to shear laziness or in the form of incentives, but let there be no doubt that defense attorneys often purposely work with prosecutors to get their clients to plead guilty… even in a case that is weak and has no credible evidence.
A “Minister of Justice” would not lie about such important evidence in order to wring out a knowingly false admission of guilt. To make it more palatable for the defendant to enter into a plea deal despite insisting upon his innocence, the Alford Plea was introduced. It is the same tool that was successfully used by the prosecutors in the James Arthur Johnson case. Unfortunately, although it facilitates the prosecution’s ability to obtain a plea deal, it has no legal bearing or benefit to the defendant. In other words, the Alford Plea is nothing more than a “legal Jedi Mind-trick”… just another sinister weapon in the prosecutor’s arsenal to gain an unfair advantage over the defendant.
Wake prosecutor Tom Ford tried unsuccessfully to force Gregory Taylor to enter into a plea deal which included fingering another innocent man (an African American) for a murder that neither of them committed. Taylor stood on his principles and refused to implicate a man he knew to be innocent, and therefore he was subjected to the wrath of Ford who convicted him with phony and misleading blood testimony… not unlike that used by Prosecutor Black to sway Derrick Allen to admit guilt. Sadly, Taylor served 17 years of a life sentence before he was cleared by a three judge panel in February 2010. During this hearing, Ford, the original prosecutor in 1992, fought to keep Taylor behind bars for the rest of his life based solely on the testimony of two witnesses who offered statements in exchange for a reduction of their time of incarceration. Tom Ford, and his district attorney, Colon Willoughby, are definitely not “Ministers of Justice.”
In another article by Mr. Curliss, titled “Defense sees evidence 12 years after plea deal,” he explains that the defendant, Derrick Allen and his current attorneys are seeing for the first time important evidence about the murder and sex charges brought against him 12 years ago. Evidence of particular importance that prosecutors held back from the defendant was a statement by the state’s main witness against Allen in which she stated that she and Allen had an intimate relationship that had turned sour and that she considered him her enemy. Since his incarceration more than a decade ago, Mr. Allen has been trying to obtain all evidence prosecutors had in their file, but prosecutors have been reluctant to release it to him.
So with regards to his case 12 years ago, Prosecutor Black withheld from defendant Allen crucial lab evidence regarding alleged “bloody” stains, withheld from Allen crucial information about a witness statement that was favorable to the him, and she lied to the Allen about results of a lab test in order to coerce him into accepting a plea deal instead of a possible death penalty conviction.
Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has never purposely withheld evidence from defendants, including the Duke Lacrosse defense teams (although the media has grossly misled the public into believing that he did just that). Furthermore, he has never lied to the defense to give the impression that he had incriminating evidence for the purpose of forcing a defendant to accept a plea deal. Mr. Nifong has always maintained an open file policy which granted the defense counsel complete access to the prosecution’s evidence… he did this for more than two decades before it was mandated into law. He has prosecuted in good faith to uphold equal justice for all, not unlike principles that guided Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. And Mr. Nifong acted independent of pressures brought by his superiors and public sentiment… actions were guided by his overriding desire to see that justice prevailed. In the Duke Lacrosse case, he proceeded with his prosecution of the defendants despite its unpopularity with the Attorney General’s Office, Duke University, the media, and the general public. He prosecuted despite the fact that by doing so it markedly damaged his chances for being elected to the post of Durham district attorney. And, like another courageous man in history, Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, Mr. Nifong suffered the consequences.
Yet, it is Mr. Nifong that the state persecutes and the media crucifies. Prosecutors like Freda Black, Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others of their ilk are protected by the Attorney General’s Office and the media, in general. The articles in The News & Observer by Mr. Curliss are an unexpected and pleasant change from the PAPEN Policy. Without doubt, had Joseph Neff authored the story, the identity of the prosecutor responsible for the misdeeds and malfeasance against Derrick Allen would not have been mentioned.
Because of problems with the SBI lab, as exposed during the Greg Taylor hearings and which are really reflections on the prosecutors, Derrick Allen now has an opportunity to get justice. However, even if he is found “not guilty” on re-trial, if the prosecution chooses that route, do not expect for Governor Bev Perdue to issue a pardon. Do not expect to see him compensated for a dozen years wrongfully spent behind bars. The North Carolina justice system does not work that way… it is not fair. In North Carolina, justice tends to benefit those who are well-heeled, privileged, and not people of color.
Likewise, do not expect an upsurge in demands for sanctions or disciplinary actions against Prosecutor Black by the media, the governor, the Attorney General’s Office, or the public. After all, Allen does not come from a family of wealth, power, and privilege, so injustice meted out to him is readily tolerated by the Tar Heel masses. To paraphrase Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) and put things in perspective, Prosecutor Freda Black, in pursuing and prosecuting Derrick Allen, picked on a person from the “right” family to indict… namely one that is poor, disenfranchised, and of color. Because Mr. Nifong picked on people to indict who came from the “wrong” families, the avenging agenda of the Carpetbagger Jihad that calls for his total destruction in appropriate in the eyes of many.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
An ultimate betrayal by the SBI agents and its lab?
The News & Observer, with a big boost from its recent four-part series on “Agents’ Secrets,” in which it actually shares blame with someone other than Mike Nifong for the abysmal state of the North Carolina justice system, is now the front-runner for my annual “Jedi Mind-trick Award”… barely squeaking ahead of NBC-17 News. The series by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff predictably places blame for all the state’s criminal justice woes on a few bad apples in the State Bureau of Investigation and the forensic lab that it runs. The four-part series recounts numerous horrific tales of injustice and wrongful incarcerations that have occurred in the state in the not so distant past, but what is truly remarkable is that the writers did it while mentioning the name of a prosecutor (linked to a case) only once! And even when mentioned, it was not in a derogatory context. Ms. Locke and Mr. Neff surely deserve accolades for adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy when presented with such a challenging topic. And they did well to shift all responsibility from North Carolina State prosecutors to SBI agents and SBI lab personnel.
When it comes down to it, a few individuals in the SBI and its lab were sacrificed as scapegoats to take the downfall and accept blame for all of the malicious and baseless prosecutions and lengthy incarcerations of the innocents that have occurred. The prosecutors, the newspaper would like you to believe, were nothing much more than bystanders and onlookers when the prosecutorial treads of injustice squashed designated individuals (mostly the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color) along with their civil and constitutional rights. From reading the four-part series, one would swear that the investigative agents and lab technicians were single-handedly in charge of determining the fate of the state’s defendants.
The Gregory Taylor case was, of course, mentioned. Revelations from his hearing before a three judge bench in February 2010 was responsible for media focus being directed at the SBI and its forensic practices. But Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned in the series, and his actions in that case were some of the most despicable in the annals of North Carolina juris prudence. Ford was responsible for the vindictive and malicious incarceration of Mr. Taylor because he (Taylor) would not bow to Ford’s urgings for him to implicate an innocent African American man in a murder. Without any credible evidence, Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life, and served 17 years before he was freed by a three judge panel. Ford was even a pivotal figure in attempts to persuade the recently seated panel to deny Taylor’s bid for freedom by arguing against Taylor’s release.
In the Taylor case, The News & Observer left the SBI lab workers and its lab protocol, which in general heavily trended in favor of the prosecution, holding the bag when it came to the fact that the prosecution identified blood on the bumper of Taylor’s car… crucial in winning a conviction against an innocent man. It was the only so-called “evidence” used by Ford against Taylor besides the trumped up testimony of two so-called “witnesses” seeking shorter sentences in exchange for their statements. Prosecutor Tom Ford is neither dumb nor naïve… to the contrary, he is smart, cunning, and calculating. Make no mistake about it, Ford knew in 1991, as well as in February of 2010, exactly what the SBI lab’s complete results were with respect to the red substance on the bumper of Greg Taylor’s vehicle. He was aware that the confirmatory tests did not support the specimen being human blood.
But with the murder of African American prostitute Jacquetta Thomas, Ford was not interested in solving a crime… because he cared not about the victim, his priority was in closing the case. Despite Tom Ford knowing that Taylor was innocent, Taylor’s refusal to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black “suspect,” was all it took for Ford to seek a life sentence conviction. Prosecutor Ford could care less whether results forthcoming from the lab were bogus or legit, as long as they supported his case against Taylor.
In another case cited by the newspaper, unnamed prosecutors referred to only as “Davie County prosecutors” supposedly relied on lab work and forensic testimony in prosecuting a Kernersville dentist for the murder of his wife. It seems that the SBI agent involved in the case did not make the appropriate notes and documentation, predated a document, and made false statements about evidence. According to the newspaper, the misdeeds by the agents and bloodstain pattern expert were done to fit the investigator’s theory. The reader is to believe that the unidentified prosecutors were totally out of the loop? Such a scenario is not to be believed as it is the prosecutors who drive the prosecution of defendants, not the other way around. The investigators and agents try to conjure up results backing up the prosecutor’s story about how the crime(s) unfolded and the defendant’s role.
Perhaps the most blatant example of the PAPEN Policy in The News & Observer series is a redacted quote by Barry Scheck who is questioning Alan Gell investigator Dwight Ransome: “When you were talking with [the district attorney], didn’t you…” Mr. Scheck probably said, “When you were talking with David Hoke, didn’t you…” So in order to protect the identity of the Gell prosecutor (Hoke) who put an innocent man (Gell) on death row despite exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not possibly have committed a murder, the newspaper substituted a generic [the district attorney].
There are many more examples which I could point out, but doing so would only be redundant. The fact is that whether it’s DNA, bloodstain patterns, confirmatory testing for human blood, missing notations and documentation, false testimony, purposely not conducting tests on evidence, etc., the investigators and lab analysts who are acting unethically and inappropriately are doing so at the behest of the prosecutors to help win a conviction. By and large, prosecutors are anything but “ministers of justice” whom they are portrayed to be… prosecuting a case but seeking the truth and assuring that the defendant receives justice. In North Carolina with its system of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” prosecutors have absolutely no qualms about putting away individuals in society who are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Likewise, as exemplified by the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, prosecutors lack the resolve to solve to crimes against the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. They just want to close their case by sticking any body fitting the desirable profile (disenfranchise, poor, and of color) behind bars.
There once was a district attorney who did not fit the mold of the typical North Carolina prosecutor. Nearly a quarter of a decade before it became mandated, he had an open file policy wherein he shared all of his evidence with defense attorneys. He was a district attorney of the highest integrity, who believed in the principle of “equal justice for all.” He had the same respect for the law, sense of fair play, and obligation to duty as famed lawmen Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness. And he had the independence and courage of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett to forge ahead and do what was right… and not do what was expedient or expected. As a result, Mike Nifong, former Durham district attorney was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. The best district attorney the state of North Carolina will probably ever see was figuratively speaking thrown under the bus because he would not adhere to the Carpetbagger agenda in the Duke Lacrosse case. Unfortunately, the crimes by the state against Mr. Nifong are an abomination that has placed a scar on the justice system from which the state will never recover.
Although prompted by testimony at Greg Taylor’s hearing just months ago, the problems with the state’s criminal justice system have festered for many decades. What I find thoroughly disingenuous is the reaction to The News & Observer four-part series, with politicians and prosecutors feigning shock and indignation at problems which they have known to exist and have tolerated. Durham Representative Mickey Michaux, according to the newspaper, “was disturbed to read about false reports filed by SBI agents and the innocent people harmed, and said that agents who violate law and policy need to be punished.” But Michaux knows that the rights and liberty of innocent people (especially the poor and of color) are violated routinely by police and prosecutors. What has Representative Michaux done about it? Nothing, at least that I am aware of. And punishing agents who violate law and policy seems to be misplaced when they do so in response to the persuasion and pressure applied by prosecutors. Punishing wayward prosecutors, who are the driving force behind many innocents being locked away and mistreated, is not an unreasonable step. In my mind, it is also unlikely to be undertaken.
After reading the newspaper series, North Carolina Prosecutor Ann Kirby was quoted as saying: “It’s an absolute betrayal to us as prosecutors and to the agents who are doing their job fairly. To find out that people we relied on so heavily in so many cases were slanting results – by their own accord or by the instruction of supervisors – is the ultimate betrayal. We are not playing a game here. These are people’s lives.” To me, the betrayal seems to be on the other foot. The prosecutors entice, cajole, plead, demand, threaten and do whatever is necessary to extract results, regardless of how bogus, from willing or vulnerable agents and lab technicians in order to prevail in court. Then, when the unsavory practices for which these prosecutors are responsible are exposed by the media spotlight, they attack the agents and lab techs who did their bidding. Now that’s what I call the ultimate betrayal.
When it comes down to it, a few individuals in the SBI and its lab were sacrificed as scapegoats to take the downfall and accept blame for all of the malicious and baseless prosecutions and lengthy incarcerations of the innocents that have occurred. The prosecutors, the newspaper would like you to believe, were nothing much more than bystanders and onlookers when the prosecutorial treads of injustice squashed designated individuals (mostly the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color) along with their civil and constitutional rights. From reading the four-part series, one would swear that the investigative agents and lab technicians were single-handedly in charge of determining the fate of the state’s defendants.
The Gregory Taylor case was, of course, mentioned. Revelations from his hearing before a three judge bench in February 2010 was responsible for media focus being directed at the SBI and its forensic practices. But Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned in the series, and his actions in that case were some of the most despicable in the annals of North Carolina juris prudence. Ford was responsible for the vindictive and malicious incarceration of Mr. Taylor because he (Taylor) would not bow to Ford’s urgings for him to implicate an innocent African American man in a murder. Without any credible evidence, Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life, and served 17 years before he was freed by a three judge panel. Ford was even a pivotal figure in attempts to persuade the recently seated panel to deny Taylor’s bid for freedom by arguing against Taylor’s release.
In the Taylor case, The News & Observer left the SBI lab workers and its lab protocol, which in general heavily trended in favor of the prosecution, holding the bag when it came to the fact that the prosecution identified blood on the bumper of Taylor’s car… crucial in winning a conviction against an innocent man. It was the only so-called “evidence” used by Ford against Taylor besides the trumped up testimony of two so-called “witnesses” seeking shorter sentences in exchange for their statements. Prosecutor Tom Ford is neither dumb nor naïve… to the contrary, he is smart, cunning, and calculating. Make no mistake about it, Ford knew in 1991, as well as in February of 2010, exactly what the SBI lab’s complete results were with respect to the red substance on the bumper of Greg Taylor’s vehicle. He was aware that the confirmatory tests did not support the specimen being human blood.
But with the murder of African American prostitute Jacquetta Thomas, Ford was not interested in solving a crime… because he cared not about the victim, his priority was in closing the case. Despite Tom Ford knowing that Taylor was innocent, Taylor’s refusal to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black “suspect,” was all it took for Ford to seek a life sentence conviction. Prosecutor Ford could care less whether results forthcoming from the lab were bogus or legit, as long as they supported his case against Taylor.
In another case cited by the newspaper, unnamed prosecutors referred to only as “Davie County prosecutors” supposedly relied on lab work and forensic testimony in prosecuting a Kernersville dentist for the murder of his wife. It seems that the SBI agent involved in the case did not make the appropriate notes and documentation, predated a document, and made false statements about evidence. According to the newspaper, the misdeeds by the agents and bloodstain pattern expert were done to fit the investigator’s theory. The reader is to believe that the unidentified prosecutors were totally out of the loop? Such a scenario is not to be believed as it is the prosecutors who drive the prosecution of defendants, not the other way around. The investigators and agents try to conjure up results backing up the prosecutor’s story about how the crime(s) unfolded and the defendant’s role.
Perhaps the most blatant example of the PAPEN Policy in The News & Observer series is a redacted quote by Barry Scheck who is questioning Alan Gell investigator Dwight Ransome: “When you were talking with [the district attorney], didn’t you…” Mr. Scheck probably said, “When you were talking with David Hoke, didn’t you…” So in order to protect the identity of the Gell prosecutor (Hoke) who put an innocent man (Gell) on death row despite exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not possibly have committed a murder, the newspaper substituted a generic [the district attorney].
There are many more examples which I could point out, but doing so would only be redundant. The fact is that whether it’s DNA, bloodstain patterns, confirmatory testing for human blood, missing notations and documentation, false testimony, purposely not conducting tests on evidence, etc., the investigators and lab analysts who are acting unethically and inappropriately are doing so at the behest of the prosecutors to help win a conviction. By and large, prosecutors are anything but “ministers of justice” whom they are portrayed to be… prosecuting a case but seeking the truth and assuring that the defendant receives justice. In North Carolina with its system of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” prosecutors have absolutely no qualms about putting away individuals in society who are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Likewise, as exemplified by the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, prosecutors lack the resolve to solve to crimes against the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. They just want to close their case by sticking any body fitting the desirable profile (disenfranchise, poor, and of color) behind bars.
There once was a district attorney who did not fit the mold of the typical North Carolina prosecutor. Nearly a quarter of a decade before it became mandated, he had an open file policy wherein he shared all of his evidence with defense attorneys. He was a district attorney of the highest integrity, who believed in the principle of “equal justice for all.” He had the same respect for the law, sense of fair play, and obligation to duty as famed lawmen Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness. And he had the independence and courage of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett to forge ahead and do what was right… and not do what was expedient or expected. As a result, Mike Nifong, former Durham district attorney was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. The best district attorney the state of North Carolina will probably ever see was figuratively speaking thrown under the bus because he would not adhere to the Carpetbagger agenda in the Duke Lacrosse case. Unfortunately, the crimes by the state against Mr. Nifong are an abomination that has placed a scar on the justice system from which the state will never recover.
Although prompted by testimony at Greg Taylor’s hearing just months ago, the problems with the state’s criminal justice system have festered for many decades. What I find thoroughly disingenuous is the reaction to The News & Observer four-part series, with politicians and prosecutors feigning shock and indignation at problems which they have known to exist and have tolerated. Durham Representative Mickey Michaux, according to the newspaper, “was disturbed to read about false reports filed by SBI agents and the innocent people harmed, and said that agents who violate law and policy need to be punished.” But Michaux knows that the rights and liberty of innocent people (especially the poor and of color) are violated routinely by police and prosecutors. What has Representative Michaux done about it? Nothing, at least that I am aware of. And punishing agents who violate law and policy seems to be misplaced when they do so in response to the persuasion and pressure applied by prosecutors. Punishing wayward prosecutors, who are the driving force behind many innocents being locked away and mistreated, is not an unreasonable step. In my mind, it is also unlikely to be undertaken.
After reading the newspaper series, North Carolina Prosecutor Ann Kirby was quoted as saying: “It’s an absolute betrayal to us as prosecutors and to the agents who are doing their job fairly. To find out that people we relied on so heavily in so many cases were slanting results – by their own accord or by the instruction of supervisors – is the ultimate betrayal. We are not playing a game here. These are people’s lives.” To me, the betrayal seems to be on the other foot. The prosecutors entice, cajole, plead, demand, threaten and do whatever is necessary to extract results, regardless of how bogus, from willing or vulnerable agents and lab technicians in order to prevail in court. Then, when the unsavory practices for which these prosecutors are responsible are exposed by the media spotlight, they attack the agents and lab techs who did their bidding. Now that’s what I call the ultimate betrayal.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
N&O SpinMeister Joseph Neff is at it again
News & Observer staff writer Joseph Neff’s December 22, 2009 front page article titled “Agency raps DA’s office” is a prime example of the double standards used by the North Carolina State Bar and by the media. Mr. Neff is quite accurate when he describes the State Bar’s disciplinary actions against the prosecutors of Alan Gell as being “tepid.” Actually, tepid is an understatement. Gell’s prosecutors actually withheld evidence that resulted in a death penalty conviction of an innocent man who was wrongfully incarcerated for nine years due to prosecutorial misconduct. Mr. Neff goes on to describe the State Bar’s disciplinary action against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong as “vigorous,” again, an understatement. The reason for the discrepancy in the degree with which the State Bar goes after its prosecutors, I believe, has to do in large measure to the autonomy of the attorney. Mike Nifong, in pursuing the principle of “equal justice for all,” went against the attorney general, and the Duke University fixer when he would not drop charges in the Duke Lacrosse case. That made Mr. Nifong a target, not unlike Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II. Like Beckett, Mr. Nifong was made to pay a steep price for not kowtowing to the wishes of the powers that be.
What is troubling is that the North Carolina State Bar, as stated by Mr. Neff, would selectively discipline some prosecutors tepidly, while vigorously disciplining others. It is the inconsistency and selective nature of the Bar’s actions that brings its fairness into question. There is no question that Mr. Nifong was given the end-stage disciplinary punishment for trumped up, merit-less accusations of trivial minutiae, and that the prosecutors of Alan Gell were given the mildest sanction possible (a reprimand) for falsely putting a man on death row, and having him spend nearly a decade wrongly in prison. It is not surprising that the prosecutors of Gell, unlike Mr. Nifong, went along with the state’s playbook of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
Now the double standard use by the media is the blatant act of withholding the identity of the prosecutors of Alan Gell from the public. Those prosecutors, David Hoke and Debra Graves, did not have their names mentioned anywhere in the article. That is because of the conscientious effort by the newspaper to shield them from bad press. This is a tact that is commonly used by the media, especially the News & Observer and Mr. Neff. In many articles on issues of social injustice wherein prosecutors have not acted as “ministers of justice,” the media will refer to their “bad deeds” but not publish their names. It is the absolute contrary when it comes to Mr. Nifong. As in this article, Mr. Nifong’s name is mentioned twice whereas the names of Hoke and Graves are never mentioned, period.
The media further goes out of its way to minimize the egregious actions of prosecutor David Hoke by writing that he “failed to hand over favorable evidence to Alan Gell…”
“Failed to hand over” sounds much more innocuous and more accidental that “withholding” (term used in the article to describe Mr. Nifong’s alleged misconduct). Furthermore, the Meister of Spin describes evidence that Mr. Hoke withheld from the defense as being “favorable.” This is, itself, a joke, because the evidence was prima-facie example of “exculpatory evidence.” Hoke withheld evidence that proved beyond doubt that Mr. Gell could not have committed the murder for which he was eventually convicted. At re-trial when the exculpatory evidence was introduced in the proceedings, the jury, when handed the case, immediately found defendant Gell not guilty.
Mr. Neff states that the Bar prosecuted Mr. Nifong for withholding evidence. The media, in general, has consistently disseminated and perpetuated this lie. Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence. Like Gregory C. Butler, the Johnston County prosecutor in the Tiffany Bassett case, Mr. Nifong turned over all evidence to the defend attorneys, and he did so well before a trial date was even set. The defense team had plenty of time to work with all the DNA evidence in preparing a defense for their clients. Defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case were not prejudiced in the least by DNA evidence being presented to them in October 2006, instead of May 2006.
The fact is that Mr. Nifong has always utilized an open file discovery policy as a practicing prosecutor, doing so 25 years prior to it being mandated into law. On May 17, 2006, the Duke Lacrosse attorneys asked the courts for a discovery motion. On May 18, 2006, the following day, Mr. Nifong’s office had provided each of the three defense attorney teams with 1,267 pages of documents, a cassette, and a CD. The gathering of these items was not supervised by Mr. Nifong, and was undertaken by staff members who had no inkling of the relevance or value of the items that they were copying in compliance with the discovery motion. In essence, Mr. Nifong would provide the defense with all evidence at his disposal as soon as he became aware of it (not unlike prosecutor Butler).
Mr. Neff also wrongly claims that the Mr. Nifong withheld evidence that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were falsely charged with rape. Although the rape charge was later dismissed by Mr. Nifong, there was no evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or defense that was exculpatory in ruling out the possibility of a sexual assault.
To his credit, Mr. Neff does include the following paragraph: “This failure to produce evidence happens in virtually all complicated cases, said Jim Woodall, district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, and president of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys.” However, it begs the question that if it happens all the time in complicated cases, then why is it that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred? The answer has to do with the nature of the “selective and unjust system of justice based on Class and Color.”
The article by Joseph Neff has many problems as referenced to above, but despite the spin, the newspaper does deserve kudos for bringing this matter to the attention of the people. Like all media covering legal issues and referring to the Duke Lacrosse case, it needs to be more objective in its reporting (such as being consistent in mentioning/or not mentioning the names of all prosecutors), not biased in gratuitously singling out Mr. Nifong in a negative way, and reporting more accurately and honestly (cease and desist from referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants as “innocent” and/or “falsely accused”).
The media needs to stop misleading people who believe everything it publishes and airs, and stop insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better.
What is troubling is that the North Carolina State Bar, as stated by Mr. Neff, would selectively discipline some prosecutors tepidly, while vigorously disciplining others. It is the inconsistency and selective nature of the Bar’s actions that brings its fairness into question. There is no question that Mr. Nifong was given the end-stage disciplinary punishment for trumped up, merit-less accusations of trivial minutiae, and that the prosecutors of Alan Gell were given the mildest sanction possible (a reprimand) for falsely putting a man on death row, and having him spend nearly a decade wrongly in prison. It is not surprising that the prosecutors of Gell, unlike Mr. Nifong, went along with the state’s playbook of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
Now the double standard use by the media is the blatant act of withholding the identity of the prosecutors of Alan Gell from the public. Those prosecutors, David Hoke and Debra Graves, did not have their names mentioned anywhere in the article. That is because of the conscientious effort by the newspaper to shield them from bad press. This is a tact that is commonly used by the media, especially the News & Observer and Mr. Neff. In many articles on issues of social injustice wherein prosecutors have not acted as “ministers of justice,” the media will refer to their “bad deeds” but not publish their names. It is the absolute contrary when it comes to Mr. Nifong. As in this article, Mr. Nifong’s name is mentioned twice whereas the names of Hoke and Graves are never mentioned, period.
The media further goes out of its way to minimize the egregious actions of prosecutor David Hoke by writing that he “failed to hand over favorable evidence to Alan Gell…”
“Failed to hand over” sounds much more innocuous and more accidental that “withholding” (term used in the article to describe Mr. Nifong’s alleged misconduct). Furthermore, the Meister of Spin describes evidence that Mr. Hoke withheld from the defense as being “favorable.” This is, itself, a joke, because the evidence was prima-facie example of “exculpatory evidence.” Hoke withheld evidence that proved beyond doubt that Mr. Gell could not have committed the murder for which he was eventually convicted. At re-trial when the exculpatory evidence was introduced in the proceedings, the jury, when handed the case, immediately found defendant Gell not guilty.
Mr. Neff states that the Bar prosecuted Mr. Nifong for withholding evidence. The media, in general, has consistently disseminated and perpetuated this lie. Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence. Like Gregory C. Butler, the Johnston County prosecutor in the Tiffany Bassett case, Mr. Nifong turned over all evidence to the defend attorneys, and he did so well before a trial date was even set. The defense team had plenty of time to work with all the DNA evidence in preparing a defense for their clients. Defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case were not prejudiced in the least by DNA evidence being presented to them in October 2006, instead of May 2006.
The fact is that Mr. Nifong has always utilized an open file discovery policy as a practicing prosecutor, doing so 25 years prior to it being mandated into law. On May 17, 2006, the Duke Lacrosse attorneys asked the courts for a discovery motion. On May 18, 2006, the following day, Mr. Nifong’s office had provided each of the three defense attorney teams with 1,267 pages of documents, a cassette, and a CD. The gathering of these items was not supervised by Mr. Nifong, and was undertaken by staff members who had no inkling of the relevance or value of the items that they were copying in compliance with the discovery motion. In essence, Mr. Nifong would provide the defense with all evidence at his disposal as soon as he became aware of it (not unlike prosecutor Butler).
Mr. Neff also wrongly claims that the Mr. Nifong withheld evidence that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were falsely charged with rape. Although the rape charge was later dismissed by Mr. Nifong, there was no evidence in the possession of the prosecutor or defense that was exculpatory in ruling out the possibility of a sexual assault.
To his credit, Mr. Neff does include the following paragraph: “This failure to produce evidence happens in virtually all complicated cases, said Jim Woodall, district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, and president of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys.” However, it begs the question that if it happens all the time in complicated cases, then why is it that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred? The answer has to do with the nature of the “selective and unjust system of justice based on Class and Color.”
The article by Joseph Neff has many problems as referenced to above, but despite the spin, the newspaper does deserve kudos for bringing this matter to the attention of the people. Like all media covering legal issues and referring to the Duke Lacrosse case, it needs to be more objective in its reporting (such as being consistent in mentioning/or not mentioning the names of all prosecutors), not biased in gratuitously singling out Mr. Nifong in a negative way, and reporting more accurately and honestly (cease and desist from referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants as “innocent” and/or “falsely accused”).
The media needs to stop misleading people who believe everything it publishes and airs, and stop insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
