To his credit as a columnist, The News & Observer’s Barry Saunders in a recent commentary brought up an issue that is rarely touched upon by the media… the cruelty that seems embedded in our state’s criminal justice system. In his article, Mr. Saunders alluded to Anson County Prosecutor Michael Parker’s treatment of a mentally retarded defendant when he wrote, “Parker spitefully refused Dix workers’ request to take him to the State Fair.” However, Parker carried spite much further by directly interfering with Brown's placement by sabotaging the arrangements at an assisted living facility that had been painstakingly arranged by social workers after his 14 years of wrongful incarceration. Thereafter state employees involved in helping Brown find appropriate housing had to work in secret to prevent District Attorney Parker from intervening.
Is the cruelty exhibited by Michael Parker typical? Yes, and it can be found among police officers serving on the front lines of the urban battlefield to judges sitting behind the benches, and even among ancillary workers in the social/criminal justice field. Is the cruelty exhibit by Parker to be construed as Christ-like behavior? No. People who call themselves Christians and act like heathens are as phony as the currently trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum and those leveled against Mike Nifong by the State Bar. It takes more than attending church to embody the true spirit of Christianity.
The vendetta justice treatment of Crystal Mangum is an example of the cruel and malign attitudes of many in the justice system. The vindictive/retribution motive empowering the backlash by all state officials and staff against Ms. Mangum has its roots in her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Even though she was the victim in that incident, the state, Carpetbagger families, and the media defined her as the villain. Cruelty in the present problems engulfing Ms. Mangum began on the night of February 17, 2010. Police were summoned to her apartment in response to a 9-1-1 call placed by Ms. Mangum’s daughter who feared her mother might be killed after Mangum’s ex-boyfriend began punching her in the face. When Crystal’s true identity became apparent to police, she was designated as the instigator, aggressor, and offender, and her ex-boyfriend, with a past history of physical violence against women, became the vulnerable victim of the altercation. Then the Durham Police Department got creative and manufactured a crime (which they called “arson”) and laid the blame on Ms. Mangum. A specific incident of police cruelty manifested itself by their commands given to Ms. Mangum to “stand up” while she was lying facedown on the floor with her hands cuffed behind her back. Police reports referred to this as Ms. Mangum refusing to follow commands. (Ask yourself, would a true Christian, in emulating Jesus Christ, taunt a helpless woman lying facedown with her hands cuffed in back, by ordering her to stand up? Is that what Christianity is about?)
What is so tragic about this entire incident is that Durham Police harbored unjustified animosity towards Ms. Mangum based solely on her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, and they abused their power by exacting revenge based on fraudulent and trumped up charges. Most serious was the attempted first degree murder charge. No where in the Durham Police reports is there anything to substantiate such a charge. Likewise, the charge of identity theft was a stretch, to say the least. Ms. Mangum was concerned with how the authorities would respond if they knew her true identity and realized her link to the Duke Lacrosse case. The events that transpired that night validated her concerns, as she was hauled off to jail and placed under a $1 million bail, despite being the victim of domestic violence.
Magistrate B. Wakil acted cruelly towards Ms. Mangum by imposing a $1 million dollar bail on someone who was definitely not a flight risk or a threat to society. By issuing that unreachable bail Ms. Mangum languished in jail, unable to report to work at her full-time job. Because of the bail set by Wakil, Ms. Mangum lost her source of income (with its health benefits), which meant she was unable to pay rent for her apartment (which she lost). Behind bars, she was unable to attend classes at NCCU where she was enrolled in the graduate program working towards a Master’s degree; she was dropped from the courses after she obtained a loan to pay for tuition, books, and supplies. In jail, she was unable to take care of her three children, and she lost custody of them.
Wakil was merely a cog in the wheel of the injustice visited upon Ms. Mangum, but her role in unnecessarily and brutally disrupting Mangum’s life was instrumental and cruel beyond measure. Nothing in the police report could support such draconian treatment. While Ms. Mangum struggles, trying to keep her head above water, Magistrate Wakil goes on with her life, without accounting for the wanton damage to that of another.
Of course, Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca holds the lion’s share of cruelty and inhumanity towards Ms. Mangum because she is the prosecuting attorney. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca, as a prosecutor, is charged not only with representing the state, but also with seeking the truth… acting as a “Minister of Justice,” if you will. But she has become the hub in this conspiracy of evil by proceeding with a prosecution which is suspect, lacks merit, and trumped up. Her initial plea offer to Ms. Mangum shortly after her arrest was for Mangum to plead guilty to the false charges (eight in total, including attempted first degree murder, arson, assault and battery, and child abuse) against her and serve a two year prison sentence. What a deal. Her public defender thought she should give it serious consideration stating that if she went to trial and was convicted she could possibly be sentenced to six years behind bars. It was only after the miraculous satisfaction of her $100,000 bail by generous and benevolent bail bondsmen several months later that the prosecution’s plea offer was modified as follows: plead guilty to arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer in exchange for time served (three months). This is quite a drastic departure from the prosecutor’s previous offer, which goes to emphasize the non-existence of the prosecution’s case.
Ms. Garcia-Lamarca’s cruelty is also responsible for totally destroying Crystal Mangum’s life. Not being a flight risk or threat to society, Ms. Mangum should have been released without bail, so that she could continue to work, pay the bills, attend classes, support her three children, and help take care of her parents. Instead, Ms. Garcia-Lamarca took the toughest position possible to assure that Ms. Mangum would be locked up for a lengthy period of time. Now ask yourself, if Jesus of Nazareth was prosecuting the case against Ms. Mangum, would he proceed as Ms. Garcia-Lamarca? Undoubtedly not… and if he was given the identical case by police, after looking at it, he would dismiss all charges and rebuke police officers for trumping up such garbage.
District Court Judge Claude Allen’s cruelty and animus against Ms. Mangum is evident by his ruling to subject Ms. Mangum to electronic house arrest in the event that she bonded out. Ms. Mangum (who is neither a flight risk nor threat to society) should not have even been placed under bail, much less considered for monitoring and house arrest after making bond. Judge Allen gave no explanation for this cruel, bizarre and unjust ruling. But, he is not held accountable by any person or body. The Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox when confronting a suspected rape defendant who had been placed under similar conditions (requiring house arrest and monitoring if bonded out), reduced the amount of his bail to $300,000, but dropped the condition of house arrest if he bonded out. Surely, one would consider a suspected male rape defendant more of a threat to society than a female victim of domestic violence. But Judge Knox acted honorably and righteously by dismissing the house arrest condition. There is no doubt that in considering the two aforementioned judges that Judge Knox acted in the true spirit of Christianity. The same cannot be said for Judge Allen.
Crystal Mangum, a victim in the Duke Lacrosse case, has been caught up in the vindictive vortex spun in response to the call of the Carpetbagger Jihad. And this malicious fervor against Mangum and surrogates of Mike Nifong has permeated through all walks of life and levels of government… including the Jail Diversion Program. This county agency provides defendants with an alternative to incarceration while awaiting trial. Since her May 18, 2010 transfer from the Durham County Detention Center to house arrest, Ms. Mangum has been under its auspices. Although she achieved limited relief from the courts (unrestricted mobility weekdays from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm), she is still required to be at home in the evenings and on weekends.
Recently, Ms. Mangum requested to have a weekend free in order to go to the beach. Her immediate supervisor authorized her to have the freedom to enjoy this activity. Days later, she learned that the supervisor had been overruled by someone higher up in the pre-trial program’s chain. The excuse given for denying Ms. Mangum’s request is that “it wouldn’t look good.” This mean-spirited denial by the Jail Diversion Program is yet another troubling example of the cruelty that is so prevalent in the state’s criminal justice system that it has been accepted as the norm. But inhumanity was not the only driving force here… the state does not want to do anything that would make Ms. Mangum look vulnerable, innocent, or non-threatening. Keeping her tied to house monitoring on a short leash, solidifies the media created perception that Ms. Mangum is an imminent threat and danger to society… just like the affable and severely retarded Floyd Brown (as determined by Prosecutor Michael Parker). Therefore, because Ms. Mangum and Mr. Brown do not come from families of wealth, power, and prestige, the North Carolina system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” has no qualms with their being subjected to cruel treatment and punishment.
The state does have a mandate to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes they commit. That said, in a civilized society, defendants, whether charged or convicted, deserve to be treated with basic dignity and compassion. To act in a malevolent manner against those disadvantaged by being in the throes of the correctional system is contrary to the very principles upon which Christianity is based. Ask yourself this question: “If Jesus of Nazareth was managing the Durham County Jail Diversion program, and Crystal Mangum (wrongfully charged, wrongfully placed on electronic house arrest, not a flight risk, and not a threat to society) requested to have a weekend free to go to the beach, what would he say?”
Showing posts with label Judge Jennifer Knox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Jennifer Knox. Show all posts
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Judge Claude Allen owes an explanation in Crystal Mangum case
If the trumped up charges were not enough, Magistrate B. Wakil compounded problems by placing a $1 million bail against Crystal Mangum. What could justify such a high bail, you ask? It must undoubtedly be the charge of attempted first degree murder that was lodged against Ms. Mangum by the arresting police. The best I can tell, as the police reports are really vague, sketchy, and non-existent when it comes to details, Ms. Mangum, after seeing her ex-boyfriend re-enter her apartment following their earlier encounter, allegedly lunged forward towards him and shouted something to the effect that, “I’m going to stab you.” Although she may have uttered those words, police did not record her as having any implement with which to carry out her threat. In fact, she was never recorded as having anything in her hands, except clothes which she allegedly placed in the bathtub. This, of course, is a total fabrication, as she never carried clothes in the officers’ presence, and the bathroom door was closed until Durham Police Officer Tyler kicked it in (long after Ms. Mangum was handcuffed). Anyway, the alleged forward movement by Ms. Mangum coupled with the words “I’m going to stab you,” constituted grounds for attempted first degree murder.
Compare this with the case of Labrian Lynch who had a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. During the dispute, Mr. Lynch stabbed his girlfriend in the leg with a knife. To escape from him, she jumped out of the car which they occupied, and ran into the street where she was struck by another car. She was taken to the emergency room, then hospitalized for treatment. Mr. Lynch was arrested on the charge of “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.” Now, he was not charged with “attempted first degree murder” even though he did, in fact, stab his girlfriend. In other words, you won’t be charged with attempted first degree murder if you stab someone, but you will be charged with attempted first degree murder if you lunge, unarmed, towards someone and say, “I’m going to stab you.” This is the sort of thing that makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the country.
Mr. Lynch’s bail was set at $60,000, a fraction of the initial $1million bail for Ms. Mangum on trumped up charges. And when Mr. Lynch’s bail was satisfied, he was told not to have contact with his girlfriend. He was not put under electronic house arrest with an anklet. Yet, Crystal Mangum, a victim of domestic violence who posed no flight risk or threat to society was placed under house arrest after satisfying a $100,000 bail. Why? I don’t know, but it is my understanding that the condition requiring Ms. Mangum to be place under house arrest in the event that she bonded out came from District Court Judge Claude Allen. He was the first judge to sit in on a hearing for Ms. Mangum after her arrest, and he reduced her bail from $1million to $250,000. When he did so, he put in place the condition that if she bonded out, she would be required to be placed under electronic house arrest.
To my knowledge, Judge Allen never explained why he felt that it was necessary to impose this punitive and burdensome condition on Ms. Mangum in a case that a cursory look would tell anyone that the charges were bogus. Judge Allen, furthermore had no reason to believe that Ms. Mangum would be a flight risk, as she was born in Durham, had spent most of her life in Durham (with the exception of a couple of years while serving in the U.S. Navy), had three children in Durham, had no car or means of transportation, and had not the financial wherewithal to pick up and move elsewhere. Was Judge Allen’s action in requiring house arrest on a defendant who had bonded out arbitrary? To determine whether or not it was the rule or the exception to the rule would necessitate an investigation of how Judge Allen handled other similar cases. If I knew Judge Allen’s past history, I could more accurately determine the motives for his peculiar house arrest ruling. However, until I have more data, I am inclined to believe that his action in requiring monitoring of Ms. Mangum was directly due to his desire to adhere to the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, which calls for the malicious and vindictive treatment of those determined by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong-end of the Duke Lacrosse case. Whether or not it was a conscious or subconscious decision is another matter that might be considered for debate. The mainstream media’s success in playing Jedi mind-tricks on the public is a powerful force which should not be underestimated.
Only Judge Claude Allen has an idea as to the reasons why he made the condition that Ms. Mangum be placed under house arrest in the event she was able to bond out. I think that it is important for him to explain the reasoning behind that determination. My opinion is that he set forth that condition as a last-ditch measure to assure that in the unlikely event Ms. Mangum was able to bond out, that she would still be under the control of the prosecutor… that the prosecutor would still have a bargaining chip with which to try and secure a plea deal with Ms. Mangum.
I am aware of only one other case in which the condition was in place that if a defendant bonded out he/she would be placed under house arrest. This is the case of a suspected rape defendant named Gregory Boykin, and it took place a couple of month after Judge Allen’s ruling in the Mangum case. Someone, I believe a magistrate, set bail at $500,000 (half the initial bail of Ms. Mangum) and set a condition that if he bonded out, he would be required to be under electronic house arrest (the same conditions that Ms. Mangum faced). Two days later, however, Mr. Boykin’s case was brought before the Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox, who reduced his bail to $300,000, and dismissed the condition that he would have to be placed under house arrest if he satisfied bail. In other words, he would be treated like everyone else who satisfied bail… he would be free until his case came to trial. The reasons Judge Knox struck down the house arrest condition for Mr. Boykin I do not know, but I believe that she did it because it was the fair, ethical and moral thing to do.
I applaud the Honorable Judge Knox for doing the right thing in Gregory Boykin’s case. Judges Paul Ridgeway and Michael Morgan, who have sat on hearings before Crystal Mangum, both failed to fully address the house arrest and monitoring issue, and let it stand. It is Judge Allen, however, who owes all an explanation for imposing the electronic monitoring issue in the first place. An explanation is due in order to satisfy questions of fairness and impartiality in our state’s justice system. Until a logical reason for implementing the house arrest condition is forthcoming from Judge Allen, faith in the state’s system of justice will be lacking.
To test your comprehension on a recent topic about MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan, visit the link below and click on Quiz 9. You will be graded.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm
Compare this with the case of Labrian Lynch who had a domestic dispute with his girlfriend. During the dispute, Mr. Lynch stabbed his girlfriend in the leg with a knife. To escape from him, she jumped out of the car which they occupied, and ran into the street where she was struck by another car. She was taken to the emergency room, then hospitalized for treatment. Mr. Lynch was arrested on the charge of “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury.” Now, he was not charged with “attempted first degree murder” even though he did, in fact, stab his girlfriend. In other words, you won’t be charged with attempted first degree murder if you stab someone, but you will be charged with attempted first degree murder if you lunge, unarmed, towards someone and say, “I’m going to stab you.” This is the sort of thing that makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the country.
Mr. Lynch’s bail was set at $60,000, a fraction of the initial $1million bail for Ms. Mangum on trumped up charges. And when Mr. Lynch’s bail was satisfied, he was told not to have contact with his girlfriend. He was not put under electronic house arrest with an anklet. Yet, Crystal Mangum, a victim of domestic violence who posed no flight risk or threat to society was placed under house arrest after satisfying a $100,000 bail. Why? I don’t know, but it is my understanding that the condition requiring Ms. Mangum to be place under house arrest in the event that she bonded out came from District Court Judge Claude Allen. He was the first judge to sit in on a hearing for Ms. Mangum after her arrest, and he reduced her bail from $1million to $250,000. When he did so, he put in place the condition that if she bonded out, she would be required to be placed under electronic house arrest.
To my knowledge, Judge Allen never explained why he felt that it was necessary to impose this punitive and burdensome condition on Ms. Mangum in a case that a cursory look would tell anyone that the charges were bogus. Judge Allen, furthermore had no reason to believe that Ms. Mangum would be a flight risk, as she was born in Durham, had spent most of her life in Durham (with the exception of a couple of years while serving in the U.S. Navy), had three children in Durham, had no car or means of transportation, and had not the financial wherewithal to pick up and move elsewhere. Was Judge Allen’s action in requiring house arrest on a defendant who had bonded out arbitrary? To determine whether or not it was the rule or the exception to the rule would necessitate an investigation of how Judge Allen handled other similar cases. If I knew Judge Allen’s past history, I could more accurately determine the motives for his peculiar house arrest ruling. However, until I have more data, I am inclined to believe that his action in requiring monitoring of Ms. Mangum was directly due to his desire to adhere to the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, which calls for the malicious and vindictive treatment of those determined by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong-end of the Duke Lacrosse case. Whether or not it was a conscious or subconscious decision is another matter that might be considered for debate. The mainstream media’s success in playing Jedi mind-tricks on the public is a powerful force which should not be underestimated.
Only Judge Claude Allen has an idea as to the reasons why he made the condition that Ms. Mangum be placed under house arrest in the event she was able to bond out. I think that it is important for him to explain the reasoning behind that determination. My opinion is that he set forth that condition as a last-ditch measure to assure that in the unlikely event Ms. Mangum was able to bond out, that she would still be under the control of the prosecutor… that the prosecutor would still have a bargaining chip with which to try and secure a plea deal with Ms. Mangum.
I am aware of only one other case in which the condition was in place that if a defendant bonded out he/she would be placed under house arrest. This is the case of a suspected rape defendant named Gregory Boykin, and it took place a couple of month after Judge Allen’s ruling in the Mangum case. Someone, I believe a magistrate, set bail at $500,000 (half the initial bail of Ms. Mangum) and set a condition that if he bonded out, he would be required to be under electronic house arrest (the same conditions that Ms. Mangum faced). Two days later, however, Mr. Boykin’s case was brought before the Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox, who reduced his bail to $300,000, and dismissed the condition that he would have to be placed under house arrest if he satisfied bail. In other words, he would be treated like everyone else who satisfied bail… he would be free until his case came to trial. The reasons Judge Knox struck down the house arrest condition for Mr. Boykin I do not know, but I believe that she did it because it was the fair, ethical and moral thing to do.
I applaud the Honorable Judge Knox for doing the right thing in Gregory Boykin’s case. Judges Paul Ridgeway and Michael Morgan, who have sat on hearings before Crystal Mangum, both failed to fully address the house arrest and monitoring issue, and let it stand. It is Judge Allen, however, who owes all an explanation for imposing the electronic monitoring issue in the first place. An explanation is due in order to satisfy questions of fairness and impartiality in our state’s justice system. Until a logical reason for implementing the house arrest condition is forthcoming from Judge Allen, faith in the state’s system of justice will be lacking.
To test your comprehension on a recent topic about MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan, visit the link below and click on Quiz 9. You will be graded.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Million dollar bail… a case comparison – Part 9
On or about April 7, 2010, in Elizabeth City, NC, six men were arrested for the brutal beating of Travis Howard. Heavily outnumbered in what he stated was an unprovoked attack at a nightclub, Mr. Howard sustained four skull fractures in the incident. In addition, he stated that he suffered a broken nose, concussion, and sprained neck. Five of his attackers were Special Forces soldiers who were in the area for training exercises in Camden County. The sixth man is listed as a resident from Jacksonville, FL, although the media reports are conflicting and uncertain as to his military status. All six were charged with felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury, but none were charged with attempted first degree murder. All six men were released without bond after promising in writing that they would be in attendance for their scheduled July 12, 2010 court event.
More recently, Gregory Boykin, a 29 year-old Wake County resident was arrested and charged with raping a 6 year-old girl. He faces charges of first degree rape of a child and three counts of felony sex offense with a child for offenses which allegedly took place in May 2009. Initially bail was set for Mr. Boykin in the amount of $500,000 with a condition that if he made bond he would be placed on electronic house arrest. However, on June 11, 2010, Wake District Court Judge Jennifer Knox reduced his bail to $300,000 and ruled that he would not be confined to house arrest if he bonded out of jail while awaiting trial. Currently, he remains in jail.
Parents of a five month-old boy were arrested in May 2010 and charged with child abuse. The infant sustained fractures of the skull, rib, and arm from an incident that, according to court documents, occurred several months earlier. Neither of the parents was charged with attempted first degree murder, and they were placed in custody under $100,000 bail.
Three cases cited above are for comparison with Crystal Mangum’s case. They illustrate the disparity and severity of the treatment to which Ms. Mangum has been subjected since her arrest on February 17, 2010.
Crystal Mangum did not inflict serious injury in her dispute with her ex-boyfriend on the night of February 17, 2010. According to police reports, she allegedly scratched him and threw punches at him. Yet, she was accused of attempted first degree murder (when no weapon was involved), and held under a $1 million bail. However five of the six member mob who attacked Travis Howard were highly skilled fighters from the Special Forces of the Army. Although they savagely beat Mr. Howard, they were released without bail.
Bail is a legal tool used to assure that a suspect who is released from custody prior to trial is in attendance at trial. Large sums of money or secured property are used as incentives to assure the suspect complies with the court calendar and mandates. In most cases, the higher the bond, the greater the flight risk of the suspect/defendant. In the case of Gregory Boykin, the judge or magistrate who set the initial bail of $500,000 made a condition similar to that imposed by Judge Claude Allen in Crystal Mangum’s case. The condition being that if bonded out, he/she would be released from jail, but be placed under monitored house arrest. In other words, after paying bond, they would still be in custody. Judge Jennifer Knox, when she reduced Mr. Boykin’s bail to $300,000, removed the condition that if he bonded out he would be under house arrest. In other words, she overruled the condition previously imposed. Judge Paul Ridgeway, when he reduced Ms. Mangum’s bail, had the opportunity to rescind the house arrest condition regarding bond, but he chose not to use it. So after Ms. Mangum’s $100,000 bond was satisfied, she was still in custody… under electronic monitored house arrest.
Undoubtedly, Judge Knox ruled properly when she removed the house arrest condition for pre-trial release of the defendant from custody. In this same respect, Judge Paul Ridgeway erred. The bail was placed to assure that Ms. Mangum would attend court dates if released from custody. She unexpectedly satisfied the bond requirements (thanks to the benevolent and generous actions of Mr. and Mrs. Hammond) and she should be free, instead of still being held in custody… albeit in a residential setting instead of the Durham County Detention Center. Judge Allen’s condition for bond for Ms. Mangum flies in the face of the true meaning of for having bail. His actions constitute a tiered level of confinement which is unevenly, unjustly, and often inappropriately applied. Ms. Mangum, for example, does not represent a flight risk. She’s a Durham resident, does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the state, country… much less, city of Durham. Her dedication as a mother is unquestioned, and therefore it is unlikely that she would take flight and leave her children behind. In addition, the crime for which she is alleged to have committed is bogus, and would not withstand a courtroom trial. The prosecution doesn’t even plan to go to trial because it knows it has no case against Ms. Mangum… their strategy is to strong-arm her into a plea deal on a so-called lesser charge in exchange for time served (strategy effectively used in the James Arthur Johnson case).
Although house arrest is not as oppressive as incarceration behind bars, it still represents a significant impediment to living a normal life. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Mangum was enrolled in graduate school pursuing a Masters degree, while being gainfully employed, and raising three children. Since being placed under house arrest, these activities have been put on hold, at taxpayer expense. Electronic monitoring, supervised leave to run errands, and associated paperwork come with a price tag that is being paid by the state.
It was an outrage for Magistrate B. Wakil to initially attach a $1 million bail with the arrest of Ms. Mangum, and it is a further outrage for her to be subjected to house arrest after she bonded out of the $100,000 bail. A comparison of cases will clearly show the discrepancies in the way punishment is selectively meted out by the North Carolina courts… and this is the biggest outrage of all.
More recently, Gregory Boykin, a 29 year-old Wake County resident was arrested and charged with raping a 6 year-old girl. He faces charges of first degree rape of a child and three counts of felony sex offense with a child for offenses which allegedly took place in May 2009. Initially bail was set for Mr. Boykin in the amount of $500,000 with a condition that if he made bond he would be placed on electronic house arrest. However, on June 11, 2010, Wake District Court Judge Jennifer Knox reduced his bail to $300,000 and ruled that he would not be confined to house arrest if he bonded out of jail while awaiting trial. Currently, he remains in jail.
Parents of a five month-old boy were arrested in May 2010 and charged with child abuse. The infant sustained fractures of the skull, rib, and arm from an incident that, according to court documents, occurred several months earlier. Neither of the parents was charged with attempted first degree murder, and they were placed in custody under $100,000 bail.
Three cases cited above are for comparison with Crystal Mangum’s case. They illustrate the disparity and severity of the treatment to which Ms. Mangum has been subjected since her arrest on February 17, 2010.
Crystal Mangum did not inflict serious injury in her dispute with her ex-boyfriend on the night of February 17, 2010. According to police reports, she allegedly scratched him and threw punches at him. Yet, she was accused of attempted first degree murder (when no weapon was involved), and held under a $1 million bail. However five of the six member mob who attacked Travis Howard were highly skilled fighters from the Special Forces of the Army. Although they savagely beat Mr. Howard, they were released without bail.
Bail is a legal tool used to assure that a suspect who is released from custody prior to trial is in attendance at trial. Large sums of money or secured property are used as incentives to assure the suspect complies with the court calendar and mandates. In most cases, the higher the bond, the greater the flight risk of the suspect/defendant. In the case of Gregory Boykin, the judge or magistrate who set the initial bail of $500,000 made a condition similar to that imposed by Judge Claude Allen in Crystal Mangum’s case. The condition being that if bonded out, he/she would be released from jail, but be placed under monitored house arrest. In other words, after paying bond, they would still be in custody. Judge Jennifer Knox, when she reduced Mr. Boykin’s bail to $300,000, removed the condition that if he bonded out he would be under house arrest. In other words, she overruled the condition previously imposed. Judge Paul Ridgeway, when he reduced Ms. Mangum’s bail, had the opportunity to rescind the house arrest condition regarding bond, but he chose not to use it. So after Ms. Mangum’s $100,000 bond was satisfied, she was still in custody… under electronic monitored house arrest.
Undoubtedly, Judge Knox ruled properly when she removed the house arrest condition for pre-trial release of the defendant from custody. In this same respect, Judge Paul Ridgeway erred. The bail was placed to assure that Ms. Mangum would attend court dates if released from custody. She unexpectedly satisfied the bond requirements (thanks to the benevolent and generous actions of Mr. and Mrs. Hammond) and she should be free, instead of still being held in custody… albeit in a residential setting instead of the Durham County Detention Center. Judge Allen’s condition for bond for Ms. Mangum flies in the face of the true meaning of for having bail. His actions constitute a tiered level of confinement which is unevenly, unjustly, and often inappropriately applied. Ms. Mangum, for example, does not represent a flight risk. She’s a Durham resident, does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the state, country… much less, city of Durham. Her dedication as a mother is unquestioned, and therefore it is unlikely that she would take flight and leave her children behind. In addition, the crime for which she is alleged to have committed is bogus, and would not withstand a courtroom trial. The prosecution doesn’t even plan to go to trial because it knows it has no case against Ms. Mangum… their strategy is to strong-arm her into a plea deal on a so-called lesser charge in exchange for time served (strategy effectively used in the James Arthur Johnson case).
Although house arrest is not as oppressive as incarceration behind bars, it still represents a significant impediment to living a normal life. Prior to her arrest, Ms. Mangum was enrolled in graduate school pursuing a Masters degree, while being gainfully employed, and raising three children. Since being placed under house arrest, these activities have been put on hold, at taxpayer expense. Electronic monitoring, supervised leave to run errands, and associated paperwork come with a price tag that is being paid by the state.
It was an outrage for Magistrate B. Wakil to initially attach a $1 million bail with the arrest of Ms. Mangum, and it is a further outrage for her to be subjected to house arrest after she bonded out of the $100,000 bail. A comparison of cases will clearly show the discrepancies in the way punishment is selectively meted out by the North Carolina courts… and this is the biggest outrage of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
