Showing posts with label Judge Orlando Hudson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Orlando Hudson. Show all posts
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Friday, April 1, 2016
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Obstruction of justice in the Mangum case
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, January 1, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 29, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, December 11, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 3, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, November 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 12, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, November 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 7, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 5, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, October 26, 2015
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Durham prosecutors need to dismiss the “larceny of chose in action” charge against Crystal Mangum
Part One
Part Two
LINK to Interactive Flog below:
Transcribed Text
On the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, Reginald Daye told first responder police and paramedics that he and Crystal Mangum were arguing over money prior to the stabbing incident.
Daye claimed that Mangum, who gained notoriety in the media as the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, either took his money or refused to return his money… his story on this point not being consistent. Never once in these early interviews with police and investigators did Daye, or his nephew Carlos Wilson, ever mention that she had taken cashier’s checks or money orders… leaving the impression that she had stolen cash.
Durham police and investigators also failed to ask how much cash was allegedly taken by Ms. Mangum. According to police reports, the question is never asked by Durham’s Finest, and Daye and Wilson never voluntarily mentioned the amount of cash allegedly stolen.
Without even having the opportunity to give her statement as to what transpired leading up to the stabbing of Daye, Crystal Mangum was arrested on sight within hours of the incident and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill.
According to Durham officer Marianne Bond, Mangum wanted to make a statement, but before she could, she was informed that she had been arrested and was read her Miranda Rights which stated that anything she said could be used against her. Officer Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer some questions at which time she declined, and the so-called interview was terminated.
Daye underwent successful trauma surgery hours after his admission to Duke University Hospital through its emergency department… his prognosis was for a full recovery.
According to Officer Bond’s report, during an interview with Daye the next day, Monday, April 4, 2011, he admitted that he gave two cashier’s checks to Mangum for safekeeping. The checks totaled seven hundred dollars and were to be used to cover April rent.
More importantly, he admitted that the argument early the previous day had nothing to do with money or finances, but rather with her disrespect towards him… in particular, her flirtatious ways with other men.
On the third postoperative day,Wednesday, April 6, 2011, complications from delirium tremens set in, Daye was moved to intensive care, and an endotracheal tube was accidentally placed in his esophagus instead of his airway. By the time the grave mistake was realized, Daye was brain dead and in cardiac arrest. After twenty minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, spontaneous restoration of circulation was achieved, but he remained in what was determined to be an irreversible coma.
After a week of monitoring his condition under an umbrella of media silence, Daye, having shown no signs of improvement, was electively taken off life support, and he died… the evening of April 13, 2011.
Up until the time of Reginald Daye’s death, Mangum had been charged only with assault with a deadly weapon. She had not been charged with larceny, larceny of chose in action, or any other crime.
The following Monday, April 18, 2011, Durham Prosecutor Kelly Gauger obtained a grand jury indictment against Mangum for first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye. The prosecutor had also gotten an indictment for two counts of ‘larceny of chose in action’ against Mangum related to the two cashier’s checks that Daye admitted to have given her and which were in her possession at the time of her arrest. Both cashier’s checks were filled out with Daye as remitter and the apartment complex as the payee. Magnum had no ability to convert them for her own personal use even if she wanted, and Daye never was without the ability to redeem their cash value… provided he did so before they were cashed by the payee.
Larceny of chose in action is a loophole law in which neither of its two primary elements was met. Mangum was given the cashier’s checks… she did not steal or unlawfully take them. Furthermore, she merely held on to them per Daye’s request… making no attempt to alter or convert them for her use. There was no crime committed by Mangum.
However, Prosecutor Gauger, and her successor, Charlene Coggins-Franks, held on to the charge because it was automatically a class H felony… and the prosecution needed a felony for the “felony-murder rule” to be applicable. This problematic and controversial rule enables prosecutors to saddle criminals with first degree murder if an individual dies during the commission of a felony.
A vendetta prosecution from day one as payback against Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, Gauger and Coggins-Franks were seeking a life sentence against her… something that a conviction on a first degree murder charge could assure. And that was the purpose for the charge of “larceny of chose in action”… to guarantee that Mangum spend the remainder of her life incarcerated.
“Larceny of chose in action” charge should be immediately dismissed as the charge lacks probable cause… the elements of the charge missing in this case. Prosecution lacks an eyewitness to the alleged taking of the documents. Not only that, but Daye admits that he gave the checks to Mangum.
The prosecution has failed to present a plausible theory or a motive for Mangum to allegedly steal two cashier’s checks that were filled out and that she could not convert. The prosecution has yet to present a consistent scenario of events involving the cashier’s checks and the stabbing incident… and it has failed to present a connection between the two that is substantiated by their discovery.
Dropping the criminal charge against Mangum definitely would not be precedent setting, as charges throughout the state and especially in Durham County have been dismissed recently… specifically charges against Stephanie Nickerson, Michael Dorman, Stephen Lavance Oates, Shielda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, and Erick Daniels.
Late in October 2012, 25-year old Navy veteran Stephanie Nickerson was at a friend’s house when Durham Police arrived on a noise complaint. When the police wanted to enter the house, Ms. Nickerson advised the house owner that she did not have to allow the police in without a search warrant. This prompted the police officer to grab Nickerson’s wrists to place them behind her back to make an arrest. When she jerked her hands away, the officer threw her to the ground and began punching her in the face.
Nickerson sustained a broken nose, black eye, and swollen lip as a result of the beating and was charged with resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. These charges, of course, were without probable cause, and they were subsequently dropped a short time later by the Durham District Attorney’s Office.
In August 2011, Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed a murder charge against Michael Dorman. Prosecutors claim Dorman inadvertently killed a woman he was attempting to rape. When apprehended years later, he had her bones in his backpack.
In his order, Hudson stated that defendant Dorman was unable to receive a fair trial because of the destruction of important evidence… the woman’s skeletal remains had been released to the victim’s family and were cremated.
It is interesting to note that Judge Hudson accused the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office of conspiring to destroy evidence and violate Dorman’s right to a fair trial. These are the same claims made by the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong in Mangum’s current murder charge… specifically that the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office conspired in producing a trumped up autopsy report on Reginald Daye.
Around February 22, 2013, Durham prosecutors dropped the murder charge against Stephen Lavance Oates in the 2008 death of Duke graduate student Abhijit Mahato. The Durham prosecutor, in his order requesting the dismissal, stated that the State had been unable to locate a key witness and that it had “no other available and admissible evidence.” Oates’ attorney, Mark Edwards, had been lobbying for more than a year to have the case thrown out.
Mr. Edwards stated that the Oates case illustrated a “troubling pattern in the Durham police department.” He could have easily gone further with the inclusion in that pattern of the post-Nifong Durham District Attorney’s Office.
On June 12, 2012, Durham prosecutors dropped charges against Sheilda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, respectively the mother and sister of Peter Lucas Moses Jr., a cult leader who pled guilty to murders of Antoinetta Yvonne McCoy, and five year-old Jadon Higganbothan. The two had been held on charges of “accessory after the fact of murder.” No reason was given by prosecutors for their dismissal.
In September 2000, a home-invasion style armed robbery took place in Durham, and 14 year-old Erick Daniels was convicted of the crime despite the lack of evidence and not even having the appearance of the perpetrator… Erick’s hair was close cropped and the description of the robber was that he had cornrows. The chief witness in the case picked him out of a middle school yearbook based on the shape of his eyebrows. Durham police led him out of his middle school in handcuffs. He was sentenced to ten to fourteen years.
Erick Daniels always maintained his innocence and even passed a lie-detector test in 2003. In late 2004, Durham attorney Carlos Mahoney took up his case, and despite a January 2007 denial by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, he fought on for his client.
In September 2008, Durham prosecutors, knowing that they had a weak case against him, offered him an Alford plea deal in exchange for his immediate release from custody with seven years of time served. Had Erick Daniels accepted the plea deal he would have been forever labeled a felon with an armed robbery conviction. He declined… placing his faith in Attorney Mahoney.
During two days of a September 2008 hearing in which Mahoney sought a new trial for his client, the evidence he presented before Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson was so strong and convincing that the black rober took the initiative of dropping the felony charge and declaring Daniels innocent.
Judge Hudson specifically stated, “I would order a new trial if I were satisfied that this defendant committed this crime and the state could prove it. I have no confidence the defendant committed these charges.”
North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue denied Erick Daniels’ petition for a Pardon of Innocence… thereby preventing him from receiving compensation as mandated by legislation for his more than seven years of wrongful incarceration.
In cases outside of Durham, a first degree murder charge was dismissed against Knightdale resident Carletta Patrice Alston. She was charged by Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the June 2009 death of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. The weight of the case against her consisted of gunpowder residue found on her nightgown and the fact that her account of what transpired during the early morning hours of the shooting differed from that of a neighbor.
Alston’s defense attorney pointed out to the court that the residue on the nightgown could easily be due to contamination by the lab… as there was no gunpowder residue on her hands.
At the time of her arrest, Alston had been working at two jobs at nursing homes and was hoping to save enough money to move from the residence she shared with her mother and stepfather into her own apartment. Even though the charge has since been expunged from her record, she has had difficulty landing employment because of it.
She was held in jail for nearly a year before Ford dropped the charges, without explanation or comment, and she was released.
There are other examples I could recite where baseless and reckless charges resulted in many months and years of the wrongful incarceration of innocents… but that would be superfluous.
The charges against Crystal Mangum are baseless, bogus, and vendetta-driven. Both charges she now faces are without merit and malicious and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The prosecutors should have dropped charges against her or a judge dismissed them long ago.
Now that Ms. Mangum is out on bond, the prosecutors are without their bargaining chip needed to help secure a plea deal. Although neither charge is supported by probable cause, and both are deserving to be dismissed, the “larceny of chose in action” is most egregious, and was obviously utilized with malice in the State’s sadistic plot to saddle Crystal Mangum with a life sentence.
One thing you can rest assured of… these criminally cruel antics would not be taking place if Mike Nifong was still the Durham County district attorney.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
What really happened in the wee hours of April 3, 2011
The biased mainstream media has unfortunately flooded the newsprint and airwaves with false declarations that the stab wound inflicted by Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum during the early morning hours of Sunday, April 3, 2011, resulted in the death of Reginald Daye. This myth has been adequately debunked by the previously posted blog which has gone into depth with medical records about how and why Daye died. The short version is that an intubation tube was misplaced by the staff at Duke University Hospital, resulting in lack of oxygen to the lungs, bloodstream, and eventually the brain cells. The brain cells died and Daye lapsed into a comatose state… and unlike brain damaged inmates Joshua Wrenn and Timothy Helms, who both regained consciousness after months in a coma, Daye was removed from life support after only a week. He died shortly thereafter and as a proximate cause of its removal.
The medical examiner reached the conclusion that Reginald Daye died “secondary to complications of a stab wound to the chest” in order to provide Durham Prosecutor Kelly Gauger with a basis for charging Crystal Mangum with murder. He did so with full knowledge that the stab wound had nothing to do with Daye’s death, and made no attempt to develop a nexus between the stabbing and Daye’s brain death or actual death. The mainstream media, however, attributes Daye’s death to the stabbing, and does its best to keep hidden from the public the fact that a Duke University Hospital staff member is the one who should take the blame for Daye’s demise… not Crystal Mangum.
But, even if the stab wound was directly responsible for Daye’s death, there is plenty within the prosecutor’s discovery to support the fact that Crystal Mangum acted in self defense when she stabbed Daye. The two, who had been in a brief relationship at the time, were living together in Daye’s apartment along with Crystal’s three children. She contributed financially to help pay the rent for the apartment which had fallen into arrears due to a recent layoff at his job. However, he was now back at his job, and Daye purchased a money order on March 25, 2011, and one on April 1, 2011, both totaling $700.00 – rent for the month of April. Daye was scheduled to work on Monday, April 4, 2011, leaving at six in the morning and returning home after five in the afternoon. Because he would not be at home during the office hours of the rental company, he gave both cashier’s checks to Crystal prior to April 3rd with instructions to drop them off at the rental office the following Monday. Mangum placed both checks in her purse for safekeeping.
On Saturday, April 2, 2011, Crystal Mangum had a couple of drinks whereas Reginald Daye imbibed quite a bit of alcohol… enough to the point that he became heavily intoxicated. Daye became upset with Crystal because she was not totally attentive to him, and this led to an argument. Although Daye’s nephew stated that the two were fussing over rent and money, this was definitely not the case according to Ms. Mangum. The argument between the two was strictly due to personal relationship issues.
Early in the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, the argument became physical as Reginald Daye started punching Crystal in the face and pulling her by the hair. To escape him, she sought refuge in the bathroom and she locked the door behind her. An out of control Daye proceeded to kick in the bathroom door, then grabbed Crystal by her hair and took her to the bedroom. Sometime during this horrific altercation, Daye brought a bunch of steak knives from the kitchen and started throwing them, using Ms. Mangum as a target. These knives ended up being scattered all over the bedroom, as was noted in a later police report. The struggle came to an end as Daye was astride Mangum with both of his hands on her throat choking her. She managed to grab one of the steak knives that was lying around and stabbed him once in the left torso. No “defensive wounds” were sustained by Daye to his left upper extremity as was stated in the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination report.
Prosecution discovery documents scattered knives throughout the house, the damage to the bathroom door, notes clumps of Crystal’s hair by the bathroom door and in the bedroom, in addition to physical signs of injury she sustained which included a cut below her left eye, a swollen lower lip, a lesion to the back of her left hand, torn clothing, and blood on clothing (most likely from Daye when she stabbed him while he was atop her).
After stabbing Daye in self defense, Crystal grabbed her purse, which happened to contain the two cashier’s checks, and made her escape from Daye’s apartment and went to her aunt’s house. There she was later apprehended after calling 9-1-1, and the two cashier’s checks confiscated. The presence of these two cashier’s checks in Crystal Mangum’s possession would be the basis for Prosecutor Kelly Gauger to file two counts (one for each check) of larceny even though Daye gave them to Crystal, she did not take them from him, and she could not convert them to cash for her own personal use because she was not listed as the payee or remitter.
Daye’s blood alcohol was 296 mg/dL, a level which would put a non-alcoholic adult into a stupor. No alcohol, toxicology, or blood testing was conducted on Ms. Mangum, most likely due to lack of suspicion of her possibly being intoxicated.
That the stabbing was self defense is a logical conclusion from the evidence and investigation provided by the prosecution alone. Chris Shella, Mangum’s defense attorney, who claims to be working Pro Bono on her behalf, had not conducted any investigation into the incident, and the only thing he did was weaken the self-defense argument by seeking a mental health evaluation for his client.
The link below will connect to a directory of prosecution documents supporting the veracity of events as described above. When taken in conjunction with the previously posted blog and its link to the medical records, one cannot help but come to the following conclusions regarding the incident that occurred in the early morning of April 3, 2011:
(1) Crystal Mangum was the victim of domestic abuse at Reginald Daye’s hands;
(2) Crystal Mangum stabbed Reginald Daye in self-defense;
(3) the stab wound to Daye was non-life threatening;
(4) Duke University Hospital staff’s misplacement of the endotracheal tube was responsible for Daye’s brain death;
(5) Reginald Daye’s death was due to his elective removal from life support by Duke University Hospital staff with the consent of Daye’s family;
(6) the Autopsy Examination Report of April 14, 2011, in listing injuries to Daye that were fabricated and not inflicted by the stab wound, did so to make the stab wound appear more serious than it actually was;
(7) the autopsy reports, in listing “complications due to a stab wound to the chest” as the cause of Daye’s death, did so fraudulently and for the purpose of providing a basis for first degree murder charge against Ms. Mangum;
(8) Daye gave the two cashier’s checks to Mangum with the intention that she would drop them off at the rental office while he was at work on Monday, April 4, 2011;
(9) Mangum could not have converted the checks to cash even if she wanted as she was not listed as the payee or remitter; and
(10) Crystal Mangum is innocent of the murder of Reginald Daye and both counts of larceny, and both charges against her should be dropped and she should be immediately released from custody.
The date of this blog posting, April 22, 2012, is day 385 of Crystal Mangum’s wrongful incarceration. This, more than any colorful language used by former Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline in her public feud with Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, is what puts the Durham County and Tar Heel state’s justice system in disrepute. It is apparent to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about recent Durham history that the actions against Ms. Mangum are motivated by her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Because this African American woman made accusations of sexual abuse against three student/athletes from families of wealth, power, and privilege, destroying her life and keeping her behind bars is the retribution being sought by these Carpetbagger families in their Jihadist agenda against those they deemed to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
In order to carry out the diabolical plot against Mangum, many individuals had to collude in a grand conspiracy… some of the conspirators being as follows:
(1) Durham prosecutor Kelly Gauger who had Ms. Mangum indicted for murder on a fraudulently false autopsy report;
(2) Medical examiner Clay Nichols, M.D. who provided the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report that contained erroneous findings and conclusions;
(3) Dr. Andrew W. Buck who authorized the flawed autopsy report of April 14, 2011;
(4) the doctor who authored the April 13, 2011 Autopsy Investigative Report whose name was not typed on the report and whose signature was not legible. The conclusions he/she reached were misleading and in agreement with those of Dr. Nichols in supporting the prosecutor’s bogus murder charge against Mangum;
(5) defense attorney Chris Shella, who volunteered his Pro Bono services to Crystal Mangum, is an enabler who allowed Prosecutor Gauger to proceed with her prosecution of Ms. Mangum. Representation of Mangum by a capable and dedicated defense attorney would have been enough to prevent Gauger from pursuing the murder and larceny indictments, and would’ve brought the prosecution of Mangum to a halt;
(6) Judge Osmond Smith III, who should have recused and disqualified himself from hearing a motion by Shella for a bail reduction from $200,000 to $100,000, was predisposed to maintain Mangum’s bail at a high enough level to prevent her from satisfying bond; and
(7) the media, mainstream and otherwise, by heavily reporting the false conclusions of the autopsy-related documents that attributed Daye’s demise to the stab wound, and by fiercely keeping from the public the fact that the autopsy reports and their conclusions are spurious.
However, the media’s role is quite insidious and represents one of Prosecutor Gauger’s most powerful allies in the malicious, vindictive, and unfair war against Crystal Mangum. The media kept quiet for the entire week that Reginald Daye was in a coma, only mentioning it after he had died. The media showed absolutely no curiosity about the unexpected and unusual etiology of Daye’s lapse into a comatose state. The media even kept the fact that Daye was on life support hidden from the public and that it was only after he was electively removed from it that he died. The media has downplayed Reginald Daye’s state of intoxication the morning of the incident and has suppressed informing the masses of the injuries sustained by Mangum at Daye’s hand. The media did not attempt to find the basis for the charge of larceny. Because the case against Mangum was so weak, many of the media-types restricted reporting on the case in order to keep its weaknesses concealed. This accounts for a disproportionately large part of articles about Mangum/Daye being devoted to rehashing the Duke Lacrosse case… and reminding the people of Mangum’s role as the “false” accuser.
Although anti-Mangum media reporting is punitive in large measure to retaliate for her part in the Duke Lacrosse case, another significant motive is likely due to financial reasons. By blaming Daye’s death on Crystal Mangum’s actions, it takes away the real responsibility from Duke University Hospital for malpractice that led to the loss of Daye’s life… and Duke University advertises heavily in state’s media markets (with the exception of African American newspapers).
Politicians and so-called “civil rights organizations” which possess knowledge of the injustice against Ms. Mangum and elect to remain quiet and do nothing out of fear and/or apathy, are culpable in this conspiracy of enormous size and intensity. As long as the conspirators keep rank and their deeds remain secreted away, minorities will continue to suffer throughout North Carolina. As long as those with the knowledge of the injustices stay on the sidelines and apart from the struggle for equal justice for all, the unholy persecution of Crystal Mangum will continue, Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey will be deprived of the pardons they deserve, Duke University will continue to discriminate with impunity against Nifong supporters and African Americans, and the GOP will proceed with its onslaught against the Racial Justice Act.
In the post Duke Lacrosse era, Crystal Mangum has emerged the true victim of a broken North Carolina criminal justice system. Innocent of any crime and a victim of domestic abuse, she approaches 400 days in jail with a bail that is higher than Sanford, Florida’s George Zimmerman, who targeted, stalked, and killed 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. The media is generously providing its contribution by vilifying and demonizing Crystal Mangum while holding this revenge-driven grand conspiracy against her together.
LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/pddirec.htm
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
It’s a done deal… Cline is out!
To Access the flog, click on the LINK below.
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog15.html
Tracey Cline, the Durham County district attorney, will shortly be relieved of her position. The handwriting has been spray-painted on the wall like sickening graffiti for many months. In September 2011, when The News & Observer came out with its three-part series titled “Twisted Truth,” it heralded the official beginning of its smear campaign against Ms. Cline; and anyone with any familiarity with North Carolina politics and law, especially as practiced in Durham, knew back then that her days in office were numbered. I was aware from what I read in the newspaper that Ms. Cline was in the media’s crosshairs long before the publication of their “Twisted Truth” series.
As staff investigative reporter Mandy Locke stated in her article in the Sunday, February 19, 2012 edition of the newspaper, Tracey Cline has uncommon zeal in prosecuting those charged with crimes… and for that reason, she will lose her publicly elected position by virtue of the decision of one man… a superior court judge from Franklin County, Robert H. Hobgood.
According to the Saturday, February 18, 2012 edition of The News & Observer, the hearing that is to hold court, on what I believe to be a pre-determined outcome, will begin on Monday, February 20, 2012… Presidents’ Day… a national holiday.
The removal affidavit process was initiated in mid-January 2012 by Durham Defense Attorney Kerry Sutton. She was critical of Cline because of Cline’s repeated attempts to keep Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson from hearing any of her criminal cases. Cline believes her attacks against Judge Hudson are a justified reflection of her passion for prosecuting the bad guys whereas her detractors, such as Attorney Sutton, feels Cline’s attacks against a sitting judge are detrimental to the judicial process and puts it in “disrepute.” In specific, Attorney Sutton has referred to some of Cline’s more colorful passages as “venom.”
Three actions by Judge Robert Hobgood since taking control of the proceeding which finds Cline in the hot seat do much to peel away veneers of objectivity and fairness. The alternatives to the decisions taken by the judge would have been preferable, I feel, and made it more likely that a fair and unbiased ruling could be reached. These important decisions are as follows:
One – Judge Hobgood’s decision to immediately suspend Tracey Cline was extremely prejudicial, and uncalled for. There was no impending threat to justice, life, or liberty had Ms. Cline been allowed to remain in her elected position until a determination could have been reached at the culmination of the hearing. Instead the only dividend reaped from this action was to force taxpayers’ monies to go towards paying the salary of an interim D.A. while Ms. Cline is suspended with pay. That is reason enough for allowing Ms. Cline to remain as the district attorney pending a final disposition.
Not only that, but issuing a suspension greatly prejudices the case against Ms. Cline, giving the impression that her conduct was so potentially hazardous that it required her immediate removal. Were I sitting in judgment of Ms. Cline in this matter, I would not have called for her suspension… as a matter of fairness.
Two – Judge Hobgood’s decision to deny Ms. Cline’s attorneys adequate time to prepare is a major disadvantage and handicap to the defendant. It is obvious that her attorneys, who were recently hired out of Pinehurst law firm, have not had time to get up to speed and prepare an adequate and effective defense. Delaying the hearing for several weeks is the reasonable approach in this instance. Denying Cline’s attorneys time to investigate, strategize, and build a case is not justifiable. It is like scheduling a boxing match and not giving one opponent the opportunity to train for the bout.
This is perhaps the main point of the three that bodes ill regarding the chance that Ms. Cline might hang on to her job. My understanding is that Attorney Sutton, who launched the removal process against Ms. Cline, argued against a delay because it would be inconvenient to some people involved. The initial delay of only one week that Judge Hobgood gave Ms. Cline, was stingy; and she required most of that time just to recover from a serious bout of pneumonia. Sutton also chided Cline for not being prepared when in Ms. Cline’s position to find legal representation without any conflict of interest is next to impossible.
I submit that the process of attaining true justice should be placed ahead of expediency and convenience. For Ms. Cline to receive justice in this hearing, it is imperative that she be given ample time to prepare her defense.
Three – Judge Hobgood’s decision to limit the scope of the hearing to statements Tracey Cline made against Judge Hudson. In other words, Judge Hobgood wants to take questionable actions by the media, mainly The News & Observer, and possible mistakes or misconduct by Judge Hudson out of the equation. By not allowing in questions put before journalists, how can she uphold a position that the media acted conspiratorially and with malice? By not being permitted to question the judge’s behavior and rulings in cases which she prosecuted, how can she prove bias on Judge Hudson’s part? Apparently, the only issue Judge Hobgood is willing to consider is Ms. Cline’s harsh diatribe against Hudson… period.
One of the commenters to my blog recently enlightened me with information that North Carolina is one of twelve states without a process for the general public to recall elected officials. The reason for that is because North Carolina is a backward state that has a little know rarely used law to allow a single individual to remove an official who was elected by the people. The more progressive states give the people the power, instead of a single individual, to remove the officials who the masses are responsible for putting into office. When Judge Hobgood removes Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, he will be defying the will of the people who voted for her.
I believe in treating everyone with respect, be they judge, preacher, pauper, scoundrel, or Republican. Likewise we are all human beings with imperfections and frailties. There are no deities walking amongst us, and that includes those sitting on benches in our courtrooms. I believe in treating them with respect, but I do not feel they should be immune from vigorous criticism.
From what I can ascertain from Attorney Sutton’s complaint, she is appalled at the viciousness of the dialogue Ms. Cline directs at Judge Hudson… but from what I can tell about the judge, his skin is as thick as a rhinoceros, and he can take anything that Tracey Cline can dish out… or anything that I can dish out, although my basic comments about him have been in a lighthearted vein. For an example, I used humor in my comic strip – “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” – to criticize his decision to deny Michael Peterson’s defense a new trial when it became known that his prosecutors withheld the existence of a tire iron that could have possibly been a murder weapon. Personally, I felt that that prosecutorial transgression demanded that the murder charge against him be dismissed.
I am not at conflict with Judge Hudson on all of his rulings. He was right on target when he dismissed the charge against African American Erick Daniels and freed him. Although he is deserving of a pardon so that he can receive compensation for the seven years of wrongful incarceration he served after his arrest at age fourteen, the racial-based policies in the governor’s office have denied his petition. The governor refuses to correct this injustice because Durham’s African American political leaders, such as Senator Floyd McKissick, and Representatives Larry Hall and Mickey Michaux, as well as Congressman David Price are enabling this discriminatory behavior by remaining silent.
I can appreciate the passion of Ms. Cline’s rebukes of Judge Hudson, but I cannot speak to the wisdom of them. My verbiage in complaints against U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp tended to be a little spicy, but most importantly, it was accurate. My encounter with this magistrate judge stems from a lawsuit that I filed against Duke University in April 2011. The media has kept the public in the dark about the discrimination incident the previous year in which Duke University attempted to arrest me for being a Mike Nifong supporter. I complained about Magistrate Judge Sharp because, in making a recommendation adverse to me, he lied about the facts of my case in an attempt to boost the position of Duke University. As things now stand, I await hearing from the U.S. District Court judge about a decision regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss; one which takes into consideration a recommendation that contains lies and misleading statements from the magistrate judge.
Finally, for anyone to believe that Tracey Cline’s ravings against Judge Hudson are capable of pulling the Durham D.A. Office or the justice system into disrepute is unrealistic. There is reason enough without that to draw such conclusions… specifically the 2010 and 2011 vendetta prosecutions against Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser.
Like the referee says prior to a coin toss, there are two sides to every coin. The fact that the suspended Durham district attorney has an unbridled zeal when it comes to prosecuting those charged with crimes, could very well be comforting to crime victims, their advocates, and those ensconced in crime-ridden neighborhoods. On the other hand, many defense attorneys may very well prefer going up against a district attorney who is more docile, passive, and compliant than Ms. Cline.
At all costs, justice should be strived for in any court and in every case. However, the outcome of this case is plainly evident. Judge Robert Hobgood is going to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney. It’s a done deal. What is scheduled to proceed in court on Monday, Presidents’ Day, is nothing more than window dressing… a charade to give the appearances of justice being served. It is a deception for the unenlightened.
I would recommend that as soon as the court next convenes, the judge proceeds directly to issuing an order removing Tracey Cline as the elected Durham district attorney without any testimony, witnesses, or evidence. Since the outcome is foreordained and justice irreparable compromised, there’s no sense in inconveniencing anyone by going through the motions of holding a hearing. I am sure that Attorney Sutton would have no objections.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Why Tracey Cline should be reinstated as Durham D.A.
Readers of my blog and viewers of my flog know that I am no fan of suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. As the county’s head prosecutor, I believe that she should have stepped in and dismissed her Assistant D. A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca’s 2010 vendetta prosecution of Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Likewise, I feel she should have moved to force prosecutor Kelly Gauger to drop the murder and larceny charges against Ms. Mangum related to the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye. Despite the fact that D.A. Cline is a friend of former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong and has treated him with civility and respect, I am nonetheless not an ardent backer of her.
You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.
Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.
I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.
Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.
In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.
The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.
It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.
Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.
Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.
I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person.
You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.
Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.
I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.
Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.
In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.
The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.
It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.
Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.
Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.
I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
2010 Mangum prosecutor scolded… a warning to Kelly Gauger
In a January 14, 2012, News & Observer article by J. Andrew Curliss titled “Chiding prosecutor, judge resets sex-offender case,” the former Durham prosecutor in the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum, Angela Garcia-Lamarca, was rebuked for vindictive and improper actions against a fifty year-old man accused of child molestation decades ago. Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson stated that he would enter a written order that Ms. Garca-Lamarca, who resigned from the Durham District Attorney’s Office last month, violated ethics rules for lawyers while dealing with a heavy-handed plea deal. Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton claimed that the assistant district attorney acted vindictively in seeking harsh charges against her client because he (the defendant in a sex abuse case) refused to accept a plea deal for time served. Although he denied the defense’s motion to have the case dismissed entirely, Judge Hudson refused to allow the defendant to face the more serious vindictive charges that Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca had subsequently filed.
It was this same prosecutor who, in February 2010, prosecuted Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser on a series of trumped up charges. The prosecution against Mangum was “payback” for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Among the initial charges leveled against Ms. Mangum was attempted first degree murder (with the weapons used being listed as her hands and feet), assault (although it was her ex-boyfriend who initiated physical interaction by repeatedly punching her in the face), communication of threats, identity theft (a charge abused by the prosecution as Ms. Mangum made no attempt to fraudulently misrepresent her identity in order to gain property unlawfully), child abuse, and a slew of other charges.
During that February 2010 incident, in which it was crystal clear that Ms. Mangum was innocent of committing any crime, the Durham Police vindictively wanted to saddle her with a serious charge that carried a lengthy prison sentence, so under the pretense of smelling smoke, the apartment was emptied by the officers which presented them with the opportunity, to go along with the means and motive, to set fire to clothes in the bathtub. The police then closed the door without making any attempt to extinguish the blaze they had ignited, and allowed smoke to damage the apartment while waiting for several fire trucks and two dozen firemen to come to the scene in the middle of the night to douse some flames that had scorched some articles of clothing. Keep in mind that the police did not set the building on fire, so the charge at best should have been nothing more than vandalism… not arson. And since everyone but the arsonist officers had vacated the building, it was not even a first degree felony as charged against Mangum.
In addition to first degree felony arson, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca also charged Mangum with three counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” asserting that the potential of destroying the apartment would make it more likely that her three children would run afoul of the law. As tenuous as the charge was, it was indisputably linked to the arson charge. This was borne out by a statement by the presiding judge, Superior Court Judge Abe Jones who ruled that the three charges of contributing to the abuse or neglect of her children would rise and fall on how the jury handled the arson charge. He promised to dismiss the abuse charge if the jury doesn't find Mangum guilty of arson. Judge Jones’ statement makes perfect sense. It’s crystal clear.
Yet, the jury, after a mistrial on the arson charge of nine to three in favor of acquittal, went on to unanimously convict Mangum on the charge related to the child abuse/endangerment/neglect. What was this jury thinking? Did the jurors not understand what Judge Abe Jones said prior to their reaching a verdict? As a result, the only true bogus charges for which Crystal Mangum was convicted was (1) injury to personal property for allegedly slashing the tires of her ex-boyfriend’s car and breaking its windshield; and (2) resisting a public officer (for allegedly struggling during her arrest and giving officers her sister's name and birth date). As most people are aware, the resisting a public officer charge is one that is used most commonly to tack onto other charges to make an offender’s offenses seem worse, or to make an arrest of an innocent person who has not committed a crime.
At the time of the prosecution, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca was far along in her pregnancy, and could take solace in knowing that she would be on maternity leave well before the case went to trial… leaving the unscrupulous dirty prosecutorial work to fellow Durham prosecutor Mark McCullough. Because of Garcia-Lamarca’s vindictive misconduct, Ms. Mangum served three months in jail, during which time she suffered the following: (1) lost her job; (2) lost her apartment; (3) lost custody of her children; (4) was kicked out of the Masters program at NCCU; (5) lost much of her personal property; (6) her father passed away; and (7) she lost her independence as a productive citizen moving positively towards turning her life around following the Duke Lacrosse incident. Quite a legacy, that Angela Garcia-Lamarca built for herself, and one in which Mangum’s current prosecutor is currently following.
Prosecutor Kelly Gauger has charged Ms. Mangum with first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye, a man who was electively removed from life support by the medical staff at Duke University Hospital. Mr. Daye was taken off support after being declared to be “brain-dead”… the cause of which is either unknown, undisclosed, or both. What is clear is that Daye’s comatose state had no nexus to the stab wound inflicted by Ms. Mangum… and therefore, she is not responsible for Daye’s death. The comatose state could be explained by medical malpractice or possibly even a hospital homicide, but the Durham Police Department is loathed to even take such a possibility into consideration.
According to my reliable sources, Daye admitted to police that prior to the stabbing that he had “dragged Crystal by her hair and slapped her around.” So, after an involvement in a lengthy argument, it is very likely that the stabbing by Mangum was the result of self defense. The murder charge by Gauger is ludicrous and is not even supported by a motive.
Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca has already been called out by Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson for her vindictive prosecutorial approach, similar to the one she used against Ms. Mangum in 2010. Prosecutor Kelly Gauger is following the same disgraceful path as her recently resigned colleague. And even though Ms. Mangum is getting what I believe to be, once again, less than adequate legal representation, prosecutor Gauger should heed the actions taken by Judge Hudson against Garcia-Lamarca. Gauger needs to consider that the biased mainstream media and the misguided anti-Nifong public sentiment cannot indefinitely hold back the march of Lady Justice in meting out “equal justice for all.” The day of reckoning for anti-Nifong legal eagles is close at hand. That much is crystal clear.
It was this same prosecutor who, in February 2010, prosecuted Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser on a series of trumped up charges. The prosecution against Mangum was “payback” for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Among the initial charges leveled against Ms. Mangum was attempted first degree murder (with the weapons used being listed as her hands and feet), assault (although it was her ex-boyfriend who initiated physical interaction by repeatedly punching her in the face), communication of threats, identity theft (a charge abused by the prosecution as Ms. Mangum made no attempt to fraudulently misrepresent her identity in order to gain property unlawfully), child abuse, and a slew of other charges.
During that February 2010 incident, in which it was crystal clear that Ms. Mangum was innocent of committing any crime, the Durham Police vindictively wanted to saddle her with a serious charge that carried a lengthy prison sentence, so under the pretense of smelling smoke, the apartment was emptied by the officers which presented them with the opportunity, to go along with the means and motive, to set fire to clothes in the bathtub. The police then closed the door without making any attempt to extinguish the blaze they had ignited, and allowed smoke to damage the apartment while waiting for several fire trucks and two dozen firemen to come to the scene in the middle of the night to douse some flames that had scorched some articles of clothing. Keep in mind that the police did not set the building on fire, so the charge at best should have been nothing more than vandalism… not arson. And since everyone but the arsonist officers had vacated the building, it was not even a first degree felony as charged against Mangum.
In addition to first degree felony arson, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca also charged Mangum with three counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” asserting that the potential of destroying the apartment would make it more likely that her three children would run afoul of the law. As tenuous as the charge was, it was indisputably linked to the arson charge. This was borne out by a statement by the presiding judge, Superior Court Judge Abe Jones who ruled that the three charges of contributing to the abuse or neglect of her children would rise and fall on how the jury handled the arson charge. He promised to dismiss the abuse charge if the jury doesn't find Mangum guilty of arson. Judge Jones’ statement makes perfect sense. It’s crystal clear.
Yet, the jury, after a mistrial on the arson charge of nine to three in favor of acquittal, went on to unanimously convict Mangum on the charge related to the child abuse/endangerment/neglect. What was this jury thinking? Did the jurors not understand what Judge Abe Jones said prior to their reaching a verdict? As a result, the only true bogus charges for which Crystal Mangum was convicted was (1) injury to personal property for allegedly slashing the tires of her ex-boyfriend’s car and breaking its windshield; and (2) resisting a public officer (for allegedly struggling during her arrest and giving officers her sister's name and birth date). As most people are aware, the resisting a public officer charge is one that is used most commonly to tack onto other charges to make an offender’s offenses seem worse, or to make an arrest of an innocent person who has not committed a crime.
At the time of the prosecution, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca was far along in her pregnancy, and could take solace in knowing that she would be on maternity leave well before the case went to trial… leaving the unscrupulous dirty prosecutorial work to fellow Durham prosecutor Mark McCullough. Because of Garcia-Lamarca’s vindictive misconduct, Ms. Mangum served three months in jail, during which time she suffered the following: (1) lost her job; (2) lost her apartment; (3) lost custody of her children; (4) was kicked out of the Masters program at NCCU; (5) lost much of her personal property; (6) her father passed away; and (7) she lost her independence as a productive citizen moving positively towards turning her life around following the Duke Lacrosse incident. Quite a legacy, that Angela Garcia-Lamarca built for herself, and one in which Mangum’s current prosecutor is currently following.
Prosecutor Kelly Gauger has charged Ms. Mangum with first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye, a man who was electively removed from life support by the medical staff at Duke University Hospital. Mr. Daye was taken off support after being declared to be “brain-dead”… the cause of which is either unknown, undisclosed, or both. What is clear is that Daye’s comatose state had no nexus to the stab wound inflicted by Ms. Mangum… and therefore, she is not responsible for Daye’s death. The comatose state could be explained by medical malpractice or possibly even a hospital homicide, but the Durham Police Department is loathed to even take such a possibility into consideration.
According to my reliable sources, Daye admitted to police that prior to the stabbing that he had “dragged Crystal by her hair and slapped her around.” So, after an involvement in a lengthy argument, it is very likely that the stabbing by Mangum was the result of self defense. The murder charge by Gauger is ludicrous and is not even supported by a motive.
Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca has already been called out by Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson for her vindictive prosecutorial approach, similar to the one she used against Ms. Mangum in 2010. Prosecutor Kelly Gauger is following the same disgraceful path as her recently resigned colleague. And even though Ms. Mangum is getting what I believe to be, once again, less than adequate legal representation, prosecutor Gauger should heed the actions taken by Judge Hudson against Garcia-Lamarca. Gauger needs to consider that the biased mainstream media and the misguided anti-Nifong public sentiment cannot indefinitely hold back the march of Lady Justice in meting out “equal justice for all.” The day of reckoning for anti-Nifong legal eagles is close at hand. That much is crystal clear.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Another featherweight defense for Crystal Mangum in her upcoming trial for the murder of Reginald Daye?
Interactive Flog
Running time: 25 minutes
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog9.html
NOTE: Click the link above to access the flog, or read the script below.
Tracy E. Cooper was a correctional officer with fifteen years of service in the state of Illinois. Tragically, on September 28, 2010, at the age of 42, Officer Cooper passed away. Records acquired online state that he died as a result of an assault that was alleged to have occurred months earlier.
According to documents, on January 25, 2010, Cooper escorted a convicted felon to court, at which time the judge ordered for the felon to be unshackled. Upon being freed from his bonds, the young man bolted in an attempt to escape. Officer Cooper subdued the would-be fugitive by wrestling the convict to the floor, during which time he injured his left shoulder.
When his traumatized left shoulder failed to heal, it was later determined that Cooper had torn his left rotator cuff. Approximately eight months later Cooper underwent surgery to repair the damaged shoulder. Unfortunately he never emerged from the general anesthesia, and he was pronounced dead the following day.
The Illinois Department of Corrections has recorded the cause of death to be an “assault” and the weapon used, a “person.” In other words, the inmate who attempted to flee in January 2010 is being held responsible for the death of the correctional officer in September 2010… eight months later.
I have a problem with this reasoning on many levels. My reading of the incident suggests that the inmate was attempting to escape and that Correctional Officer Cooper executed his job appropriately by its prevention. The injury to Cooper’s left shoulder was plainly work-related and not a result of an assault. It might be different had the inmate charged at Cooper and knocked him to the ground… but that did not happen.
In addition, it is obvious that the proximate cause of Officer Cooper’s death was due to a complication in surgery, most likely due to a problem with the administration of the anesthesia. The injury sustained eight months earlier had nothing to do with Cooper’s passing.
With Cooper’s death being attributed to the incident eight months prior, and it being deemed to be due to an assault, then the inmate, for attempting to flee the courtroom, could be charged with murder… a totally ridiculous and inappropriate charge.
This is the same emotionally irrational logic used in Reginald Daye’s death. The stab wound by Crystal Mangum had absolutely nothing to do with Daye’s death… and everyone knows it, including the prosecutors, the medical personnel at Duke University Hospital, the medical examiners, and the media.
A stab wound made by a paring knife that only damaged the splenic flexure of the colon should have been easily managed without residual effects… Reginald Daye should have made a full recovery.
The pathetic autopsy reports purposely shed no light on the cause of death in Daye’s case, giving us no more information than was initially available from the media on April 13, 2011… that Daye sustained a stab wound, and that he died. For the medical examiner to say that he died of “complications of a stab wound” provides not a scintilla of enlightenment. The links connecting the stab wound to Daye’s death ten days later are omitted… again, on purpose.
I no more agree with the Illinois DOC that the cause of Tracy Cooper’s death was due to an assault eight months earlier, than I do with Durham Assistant District Attorney Kelly Gauger’s position that the stab wound to Reginald Daye resulted in his demise ten days later. The cause of death in both cases is folly and lacks serious merit and consideration.
The amazing cases of Cory Harrison and Joshua Wrenn
On life support, twenty-one year-old Cory Harrison was not expected to come out of the coma, and his doctor in Spain recommended that no heroic measures be taken if he were to contract a life threatening infection. The coma was the result of severe head trauma he sustained when he landed on it after falling from a second story balcony onto a cobblestone pavement while working at a summer job in Spain. In addition to a skull fracture, he had fractures of his ribs and vertebrae.
Although many neurological practitioners did not expect him to recover consciousness, Cory Harrison did just that… but only after more than seven weeks in a comatose state. Currently he is undergoing rehab and physical therapy to help him regain use of his extremities and the ability to speak. Because he was not pulled off life-support prematurely, Cory had the opportunity to emerge from his comatose state.
On April 3, 2011, 29 year-old Joshua Martin Wrenn was arrested on a warrant for assaulting his wife. Shortly after being booked, Wrenn was involved in an altercation with correction officials during which he lost consciousness. He, like Reginald Daye, was taken to Duke University Hospital and placed on life support in its intensive care unit.
Doctors told Wrenn’s mother, Kathy Treadway, that her son was brain dead. However, on the advice of an attorney, the family would not allow doctors to remove him from life support… because that would prevent them from filing a lawsuit against the state for inflicting wounds that rendered Joshua comatose.
Then, on May 30, 2011, approximately eight weeks after being beaten into unconsciousness, Wrenn surprisingly emerged from the coma… no longer requiring the ventilator, making eye contact, and moving his extremities. He is far from being fully recovered as he is partially paralyzed, and has yet to talk… morbidity possibly in part due to several strokes he suffered during hospitalization. According to his mother, he is making progress, slowly but surely.
Now, contrast these two cases to that of Reginald Daye. For certain reasons, which have been concealed from the public by the Duke University Hospital staff and media, Reginald Daye went into a coma on the third post-op day. Prior to lapsing into unconsciousness his evaluation had him on the mend from the stab wound to the torso. Specifics surrounding his downward spiral and his week-long coma were shielded from media consumers, their first awareness that the hospital course of Mr. Daye had gone terribly wrong was with the announcement of his death.
Although I have not been privy to actual events, my sources have stated that Daye passed away shortly after he was taken off life support. In other words, the neurologists had determined that Daye had suffered irreversible brain damage – was “brain dead” in the layman’s parlance – concluded that he would never awaken from his comatose state, and electively removed him from life support with the consent of Daye’s family. The cessation of supportive measures by the medical staff was the proximate cause of Reginald Daye’s death and not any actions that preceded it.
Doctors are not gods and their prognoses are not 100% accurate. If that were the case, then Cory Harrison and Joshua Wrenn would both have been removed from life support and would have expired many weeks before their miraculous awakenings. Like Harrison and Wrenn, Reginald Daye deserved the opportunity to recover. However it was not to be because before a week’s time had elapsed, Daye was removed from life sustaining treatment at Duke University Hospital and allowed to die.
From media coverage just days following his emergency surgery the public had been led to believe that Daye’s course would be uneventful and his recovery complete. But that was not to be and mysterious events at the hospital resulted in a loss of consciousness as well a cardiac arrest. And while Daye lingered in a coma over a long seven day period, the media kept mum about the frightening and unexpected chain of events… with the public first learning of his condition after he was pronounced dead.
Why the rush to remove Daye from life support? Were there those with decision making powers who were concerned that he might recover and deprive the prosecution of charging Mangum with murder? The plug was pulled on Daye before the public even had an opportunity to enter into a debate about his comatose condition. With all certainty, Mangum was not responsible for Reginald Daye’s death or his coma.
If Cory Harrison and Joshua Wrenn could awaken from their comatose states and be weaned off life support measures, Reginald Daye should have been entitled to the same opportunity.
Mangum defense strategy: genius, inept, or Judas-like?
According to The Herald Sun, Crystal Mangum’s attorney, Chris Shella of Durham, entered a motion with the court on September 20, 2011, asking that his client be given a psychiatric evalution. Superior Court Judge G. Wayne Abernathy signed the order shortly thereafter for the purposes of supposedly determining whether or not she is mentally competent to stand trial for the murder of Reginald Daye.
This unexpected defense move was a surprise and one which I feel undercuts the original strategy which stated that she acted in self-defense. Shella had initially and repeatedly stated that Mangum stabbed Daye to prevent him from continuing to beat her up. It has been established that the two, prior to the incident, had been arguing about money orders which Mangum had purchased in the name of Daye to pay rent on the apartment the two symbiotically shared. Mangum wanted to use the money for rent, whereas Daye wanted it to purchase beer and alcohol.
Prosecutor Kelly Gauger and the state have never presented a motive for Mangum’s actions in stabbing Daye. Is the public to believe that she stabbed him without provocation in order to “steal” the two money orders that she had purchased? Or did she merely succumb to an underlying urge to kill boyfriends as the media would have you believe? The prosecution lacks a motive for the stabbing, while on the other hand, the self-defense argument for Mangum makes sense.
The prosecution has a weak murder case against Mangum, as a cursory look at the arrest warrant and grand jury indictment documents will show. Like the autopsy reports on Reginald Daye, both the warrant and indictment lack any information regarding the alleged murder and consist only of one generic sentence statements. Contrast it with the indictment of the trumped up case with which Crystal was charged in 2010.
Furthermore, you will notice that no where in the arrest warrant is there any mention of Reginald Daye being stabbed “seven times” or “multiple times.” ABC-11 News had frequently and erroneously stated that based on the arrest warrant Crystal Mangum stabbed Daye multiple times. This is simply false and misleading… and is typical of mainstream media reporting on this subject.
In addition to lacking a motive, discrepancies between the April 13th and 14th 2011 autopsy reports fail to provide a cause of death and introduces the strong likelihood of criminal fraud in the report of April 14th. There is nothing to support Crystal being driven by insanity to stab Daye, nor anything to suggest she is mentally unable to understand the charges that she faces or her legal situation. It seems to me that Shella undercuts Mangum’s self-defense position by suggesting that she is mentally incompetent and her mental status may have had something to do with her actions the morning of April 3, 2011. That is why his motion seeking a mental health evaluation is so troubling.
To my knowledge, Elisa Baker, who was convicted of killing, dismembering and burying her stepdaughter Zahra Baker, never had her mental faculties brought into question… she was never ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for competency.
My concerns about this psychiatric evaluation tactic venture far beyond legal matters. With her being transferred to Central Regional Hospital in Butner for evaluation, concerns about her well being and even her life are brought to the fore. Had a psychiatrist or psychologist been sent to Durham’s Detention Center for the evaluation, I would be far less anxious. Within the confines of a mental institution, however, where she is vulnerable to mind-altering drugs and treatment that is shielded by confidentiality policies, anything is possible… and I am fearful for her.
Transferring Mangum from Durham to Butner also deprives Crystal of what little access in visitation that she has to those who support her and care about her. How long she will be held at that institution is an unknown.
Weight of the prosecutor’s case
In 2010, the state of North Carolina’s trumped up case against Crystal Mangum had the weight of straw, and the prosecution was able to prevail in several misdemeanor charges which were: child endangerment, injury to personal property, and resisting a public official. Despite a feather-weight defense by attorney Mani Dexter, the
prosecution was unable to convict Mangum of the felony charge of arson. The jury deadlocked because a few of the jurors with a conscience refused to convict her when they had doubts about her responsibility for setting clothes ablaze in a bathtub. Fact is that the Durham Police officers were the only ones with the motive, means, and opportunity to set the fire.
Crystal Mangum now faces murder charges for a prosecution case that has the weight of dust. The question is whether Mangum will get another featherweight defense performance. Initially I had hopes when attorney Shella challenged the state regarding its murder charge because an autopsy report had not yet been released that specified a cause of death. My hopes were bolstered when he told the media that Crystal acted in self-defense. I have been sent into a tailspin by his recent motion to the court seeking mental evaluation for his client.
A more effective and appropriate tact would be for Shella to ask the court to dismiss the murder charge as the autopsy reports clearly fail to show a nexus between the stab wound and Daye’s death, the discrepancies between the two reports strongly suggests biased criminal fraud, and the elective removal of Daye from life support by hospital staff automatically exempts Mangum from responsibility for his death.
The lack of curiosity on the part of the media and the inactivity on the part of politicians and community leaders reinforces their willingness to allow the state to continue to purse its ruthless persecution of Crystal Mangum as retaliation for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Recently a reliable source stated that prosecution notes handed to defense as discovery, contained a written interview with Reginald Daye in which he admitted that prior to being stabbed he had dragged Crystal Mangum by her hair and “slapped her around.” This admission should be more than enough to have made the prosecution entertain the likely possibility that Ms. Mangum acted in self defense the morning of April 3, 2011. However, despite this, Prosecutor Gauger has pressed forward with her prosecution of Mangum in this case… a waste of county resources and taxpayer dollars, and a slap in the face of Lady Justice.
I have been taking action on behalf of justice by enlightening the people with flogs and by writing letters. Also, I have filed a formal complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against prosecutor Kelly Gauger for her malicious and merit-lacking prosecution of Crystal Mangum.
I am in a quandary as to what to expect next of defense attorney Chris Shella. Whose interests will have his highest priority… his client Crystal Mangum, or those of Duke University Hospital, state medical examiners, the powerful Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, and the state? Only time will tell.
A time when the Bench needs to step in and toss out
Because prosecutors often pursue criminal charges against defendants that are totally without merit, vendetta-based, and/or frivolously pursued, judges in the state of North Carolina have the ability to dismiss charges before they even reach the jury.
In a recent Durham case, Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson felt compelled to dismiss murder charges against Michael C. Dorman II because Durham police had allowed crucial evidence to be destroyed. In this particular instance, the judge issued his order following a hearing brought by a motion presented by the defendant’s attorney. The charge was dismissed despite the fact that Dorman was in possession of the murder victim’s skeletal remains and an alleged confession to another party.
On July 7, 2011, Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner dismissed a murder charge against Antonio Smith because the prosecutor failed to present any evidence that Smith committed the stabbing death for which he was standing trial. The charge was dropped even though Smith had previously been charged with another murder.
As in the aforementioned murder trials of Dorman and Smith, the trial judge in the murder case against Crystal Mangum would be well within justifiable bounds to dismiss the murder charge against Mangum in Reginald Daye’s death. The basis for dismissal would be as follows: (1) the major discrepancies between the investigative report of April 13, 2011 and the autopsy report of April 14, 2011; (2) that the autopsy reports were totally inadequate, full of omissions, did not express a specific cause of death, and did not link the stab wound to Daye’s death; and (3) Crystal Mangum had nothing to do with the removal of Reginald Daye from life support, the true and proximate cause of Daye’s death.
Prosecutor Kelly Gauger’s case is further weakened by the fact that the prosecution has offered no motive for the homicide, and the fact that public sentiment fueled by the mainstream media has insidiously tainted the public and the state’s attitudes against Ms. Mangum.
I believe that Mangum’s attorney Shella should have filed a motion long ago to have the murder charge dismissed. Because it seems to me that such a motion is not forthcoming, it is my hope that Judge Abernathy will take the initiative to step in and toss out the murder charge against Crystal Mangum… a charge that should never reach the hands of a jury.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
