Magistrate Recommendation and Petitioner Objection in the Crystal Mangum Habeas Corpus Case

A stacked deck in the courthouse

Dr. Christena L. Roberts – the newest addition of conspirators against Mangum

Word count: 1,633

In a Durham courtroom last Friday, December 7, 2012, Defense Attorney Woody Vann, who was appointed as Crystal Mangum’s backup assistant, brought before the court his scheduled Monday, December 10th meeting with Black Mountain forensic pathologist Christena L. Roberts, M.D., and an unidentified member from the Capital Defender’s office where the tête-à-tête was to take place. This clandestine meeting had been arranged by Mr. Vann without the knowledge of Ms. Mangum, the murder defendant who is representing herself with his appointment as a backup assistant. The stated purpose of this meeting was to discuss Dr. Roberts’ sudden concerns about the privacy rights of the deceased Reginald Daye (the intoxicated abuser who was stabbed by Mangum in self-defense on April 3, 2011). Upon hearing about this gathering for the first time while at her court hearing, Mangum expressed her desire to be present.

Honorable Judge Michael O’Foghludha, one of a revolving door of black robers to preside over Mangum’s hearings, instructed for her to be in attendance (brought over from jail in chains and leg irons) at the get-together. However, the judge set a condition that the meeting was to consist only of Dr. Roberts, Mr. Vann, an unidentified person from the Capital Defense office, and Crystal Mangum. In other words, Sidney B. Harr, a retired physician and supporter of Mangum, was not invited.

In my blog of December 8, 2012, I made the following insightful and prophetic statements:

“A written report by Roberts for a ten hour investigation not completed after more than five months? It doesn’t make sense. What does make since is her desire not to produce a written report about Reginald Daye’s death or the autopsy report by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols. Dr. Roberts is well aware that any report she drafts will directly implicate Duke University Hospital in Daye’s death, and it will support my contention, all along, that Medical Examiner Nichols’ autopsy report of April 14, 2011, contains false findings and an unsupported conclusion regarding Daye’s death. In addition, the report will sink the prosecution’s claim that Mangum’s stabbing of Daye (which was in self-defense) was the direct and proximate cause of his death.”

I also stated as follows regarding this mysterious meeting arranged behind Mangum’s back and its objectives:

“Why travel all the way from Black Mountain, NC, to Durham just in order to give Crystal Mangum a verbal report only… which is what I am expecting. My expectation is that after five months with no written report at hand, Dr. Christena Roberts has no intention of putting in writing the sins of Dr. Nichols, Duke University Hospital, and the City of Durham. This trip, I believe, is part of an intricate ploy to attempt to address Judge Robert Hobgood’s order to provide Ms. Mangum with a written report and yet still not put anything in writing. It’s time for the gamesmanship by Durham prosecutors and turncoat defense attorneys to stop and for Dr. Roberts to immediately provide Mangum with a written report as directed by Judge Hobgood.”

And, for good measure, using Sherlockian deduction, I averred:

“If a written report from Dr. Roberts is forthcoming on the possible Monday visit, I will be shocked.” Unfortunately, I was not shocked… this Monday, December 10th, there was no report from Dr. Roberts.

On Monday, December 10, 2012, at about 3:00 pm, Vann, Roberts, and Mangum convened at the Capital Defenders office, without the presence of the unidentified person from the office. This meeting, most likely orchestrated by Mr. Vann was to help the forensic pathologist Dr. Roberts contravene Judge Robert Hobgood’s order to produce a written report (about Reginald Daye’s death and autopsy) and turn it over to Crystal Mangum. Judge O’Foghludha’s order limiting attendees at this meeting (in particular excluding Mangum supporter Dr. Harr) left Ms. Mangum, a tethered lamb, in a den of famished jackals. Had Dr. Harr been invited to the soiree to look after Mangum’s interests, you can bet that Dr. Roberts would have been a no-show.

For what Ms. Mangum estimated to be three hours, she stated that Dr. Roberts went over the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report prepared by Dr. Clay Nichols, the North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, point by point. According to Mangum, the doctor stated that Dr. Nichols’ autopsy report was essentially accurate. When queried about the perforation to the left lung mentioned in the autopsy report and its absence in the operative report, Dr. Roberts tried to convince Mangum that it is possible for surgeons to miss certain lesions that are found at autopsy… in other words, the emergency department doctors, radiologists, and trauma surgeons at Duke University Hospital, missed a laceration to the left lung and diaphragm. This explanation is a variant on another explanation given earlier from Dr. Roberts via Woody Vann which explained that the lesion to the left lung was caused by the insertion of a chest tube… in other words, Duke University Hospital medical staff injured Daye’s left lung while introducing a chest tube. I am not sure what explanation Dr. Roberts gave for the autopsy report stating that the fundus of the stomach had a sutured laceration whereas the operative report mentioned that the stomach appeared to be normal. In addition to discrepancies between the autopsy report and other medical records of Daye with regards to the left kidney and diaphragm, there is also the question of the multiple left upper extremity lesions described by Dr. Nichols as “defensive injuries”… their presence being contradicted by a preoperative orthopedic consultation and EMS assessment of Daye at the scene. Not only that, but prosecution discovery photographs showed no lesions to the left upper extremity, neither during his hospitalization nor postmortem.

At this meeting, Dr. Roberts and Attorney Vann spent three hours attempting to convince Crystal Mangum that the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols was accurate and correct, and that the case against her was strong. In particular, they tried to make her believe that if they were to produce a written report, it would be detrimental to her case, and be subject to retrieval by the prosecution. This makes absolutely no sense because if the prosecution wanted, they could easily hire their own forensic pathologist to review the autopsy report… but they won’t, because it knows that that would only bring to light the flaws of the Nichols report.

In avoiding the order by Judge Hobgood for Dr. Roberts to produce a written report and send it to Mangum, Dr. Roberts and Woody Vann are hoping that this Monday meeting is a satisfactory substitute. Dr. Roberts even went so far as to say to Mangum that she would not produce a written report. She also told Ms. Mangum that she had not yet completed her investigation.

Well, congratulations are in order for Mr. Vann who has successfully turned Dr. Roberts to the Dark Side… welcoming her to the growing list of conspirators bent on convicting Mangum (the victim of domestic violence) of the first degree murder of Reginald Daye – whose death for which she was not responsible. All along, since he was first appointed by the Court to represent Crystal Mangum against charges related to the April 3, 2011 incident, Mr. Vann’s mission was to work with the prosecution in convicting Mangum, to protect Medical Examiner Clay Nichols (who went out of his way to prepare a fraudulent report to facilitate a murder conviction with a life sentence), to conceal Duke University Hospital’s culpability in Daye’s death, and to eliminate any legal liability against the City of Durham for its malicious prosecution and unjust incarceration of Mangum.

Dr. Christena L. Roberts finds herself entrapped in this legal morass of false statements and intrigue, without an easy means with which to extricate herself. Had she been cognizant of the pitfalls beforehand of being forced to tell the truth and incriminating the state’s deputy chief medical examiner, Dr. Roberts would never have undertaken the assignment. Realistically, there is no other medical examiner or physician in the Tar Heel State who would be willing to review Reginald Daye’s death and autopsy. That is because they all lack Nifongian courage*. They’re afraid to buck the Powers-That-Be.

For Dr. Roberts to defy Judge Hobgood’s order to provide a written report to Mangum is an outrage and affront to the principles of equal justice for all. Mangum is deserving of it so that she can prepare her defense. The defiance of Hobgood’s order along with the entire vendetta-driven case is a humongous blot on the state of North Carolina, and all Durhamians and Tar Heelians should be shamed and embarrassed by it.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media, which has shown much interest in cell phone records of former UNC football coach Butch Davis, and the many parking tickets accrued by UNC football players that were surreptitiously paid off, lacks even a scintilla of apparent curiosity about the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols… despite the report’s inconsistencies and contradictions with other medical records that are easily understandable by anyone with a fifth grade reading comprehension level. By assuming a position of ignorance of the misdeeds and malfeasances associated with the Mangum’s prosecution based on Nichols’ criminally fraudulent autopsy report, the mainstream media, both locally and nationally, can join the Durham prosecutorial team, Mangum’s defense attorneys, and now Dr. Christena L. Roberts in protecting the state’s Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols, Duke University Hospital, and the City of Durham. By not providing a written report, Dr. Roberts is protecting herself, as well. 


* “Nifongian courage” is from the Dictionary of Harr and is defined as: “the courage to do the right thing in the face of the most harsh and extreme consequences.”

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. 

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. 