Showing posts with label Michael Peterson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Peterson. Show all posts
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Friday, January 29, 2010
Nifong’s past convictions under scrutiny?
Another wcbstv.com online article, this one titled: “Ousted DA Nifong’s Past Convictions May Appeal,” is totally misleading and prejudicial. It is yet another arrow from the quiver of a biased media agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by misleading the malleable media consumer with outrageous lies and innuendos. Another headline patent made for pulling the wool over the eyes… another Jedi mind-trick. This ridiculous headline infers that Mike Nifong’s actions in handling the Duke Lacrosse case were not only far outside the bounds of acceptable prosecutorial practice, but that his past convictions were won using unacceptable practices. What’s worse is that it states that those who were convicted by Mike Nifong in the past are entitled to an appeal. How absurd. Again the media insults the intelligence of those who no better, while misleading those who don’t.
Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state. Mr. Cron did not mention what Mr. Nifong did that was so “outrageous.” Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, like prosecutor David Hoke did in winning a wrongful conviction against Alan Gell, or like prosecutor Tom Ford did in winning a wrongful conviction against Greg Taylor, or like Jim Hardin did in winning a conviction against Michael Peterson and depriving him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court, as the court would want everyone to believe. The court purposely misinterpreted Mr. Nifong’s statements in order to levy the cockamamie charge against him… then, used it as a basis for a contempt of court charge and a 24 jail sentence. This chain of events is totally mind boggling. Statements Mr. Nifong made to the press, which defense attorneys labeled as so prejudicial and inflammatory, were made prior to indictments being handed down. They were mild, and made for the purpose of encouraging party-goers to break from the “athletic no-snitch rule” and give truthful honest statements about what transpired during the party.
The headline is, in fact, cruel in giving false hope to those convicted under prosecutor Nifong, and it encourages those convicted by Nifong to entertain the possibility of seeking an appeal. Worst of all, the headline suggests that others convicted by Mr. Nifong were victimized by his inherent prosecutorial misconduct. The article presents nothing to substantiate its reckless, illogical, and biased headline.
If one wants to investigate past cases, then I would strongly recommend looking into convictions won by Wake prosecutor Tom Ford. His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, should be overturned by the three judge panel at its hearing which begins on February 9, 2010. The vendetta prosecution by Ford was made against Mr. Taylor because Taylor refused to wrongfully implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. Ford offered Taylor a reduced sentence if only he would implicate Beck, an African American male. When Taylor refused, he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. And Ford won a conviction against Greg Taylor on the testimony of two witnesses… a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch. Both had received deals, similar to the one Ford offered Taylor… testimony Ford wanted them to give in exchange for a reduction in their sentences. It was an offer which they could not refuse, because they did not have the moral values of Greg Taylor. And, it was an offer that Prosecutor Tom Ford withheld from Greg Taylor’s defense team, in violation of ethical rules.
Rather than do the right thing and get the conviction overturned, Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby is fighting to keep an innocent man in jail in order to protect his prosecutor, Tom Ford, from complaints of prosecutorial misconduct.
From the prosecution of Gregory Taylor in 1993, Tom Ford displayed a propensity of winning convictions by making deals in exchange for testimony to suit his agenda. This type of conduct by a prosecutor is frightening, and leads one to question the testimony used by Ford to convict others in the seventeen years since. If past cases should be examined for prosecutorial misconduct in hopes of establishing grounds for appeals, then Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford is the ideal prosecutor with which to begin investigating. They should scrutinize whether backroom deals were made with witnesses in exchange for a favor from Ford, and whether the knowledge of such deals was withheld from the defense team.
Don’t expect the media to advocate such a position, however, because it operates under the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. The media wants to stir the public and those convicted under Nifong into a frenzy against a prosecutor (Nifong) who acted well within acceptable standards, yet tiptoe around the minefield of misdeeds of the truly unethical prosecutors and shield their wrongdoings from the public. This is indeed a pathetic situation.
Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state. Mr. Cron did not mention what Mr. Nifong did that was so “outrageous.” Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, like prosecutor David Hoke did in winning a wrongful conviction against Alan Gell, or like prosecutor Tom Ford did in winning a wrongful conviction against Greg Taylor, or like Jim Hardin did in winning a conviction against Michael Peterson and depriving him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court, as the court would want everyone to believe. The court purposely misinterpreted Mr. Nifong’s statements in order to levy the cockamamie charge against him… then, used it as a basis for a contempt of court charge and a 24 jail sentence. This chain of events is totally mind boggling. Statements Mr. Nifong made to the press, which defense attorneys labeled as so prejudicial and inflammatory, were made prior to indictments being handed down. They were mild, and made for the purpose of encouraging party-goers to break from the “athletic no-snitch rule” and give truthful honest statements about what transpired during the party.
The headline is, in fact, cruel in giving false hope to those convicted under prosecutor Nifong, and it encourages those convicted by Nifong to entertain the possibility of seeking an appeal. Worst of all, the headline suggests that others convicted by Mr. Nifong were victimized by his inherent prosecutorial misconduct. The article presents nothing to substantiate its reckless, illogical, and biased headline.
If one wants to investigate past cases, then I would strongly recommend looking into convictions won by Wake prosecutor Tom Ford. His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, should be overturned by the three judge panel at its hearing which begins on February 9, 2010. The vendetta prosecution by Ford was made against Mr. Taylor because Taylor refused to wrongfully implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. Ford offered Taylor a reduced sentence if only he would implicate Beck, an African American male. When Taylor refused, he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. And Ford won a conviction against Greg Taylor on the testimony of two witnesses… a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch. Both had received deals, similar to the one Ford offered Taylor… testimony Ford wanted them to give in exchange for a reduction in their sentences. It was an offer which they could not refuse, because they did not have the moral values of Greg Taylor. And, it was an offer that Prosecutor Tom Ford withheld from Greg Taylor’s defense team, in violation of ethical rules.
Rather than do the right thing and get the conviction overturned, Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby is fighting to keep an innocent man in jail in order to protect his prosecutor, Tom Ford, from complaints of prosecutorial misconduct.
From the prosecution of Gregory Taylor in 1993, Tom Ford displayed a propensity of winning convictions by making deals in exchange for testimony to suit his agenda. This type of conduct by a prosecutor is frightening, and leads one to question the testimony used by Ford to convict others in the seventeen years since. If past cases should be examined for prosecutorial misconduct in hopes of establishing grounds for appeals, then Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford is the ideal prosecutor with which to begin investigating. They should scrutinize whether backroom deals were made with witnesses in exchange for a favor from Ford, and whether the knowledge of such deals was withheld from the defense team.
Don’t expect the media to advocate such a position, however, because it operates under the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. The media wants to stir the public and those convicted under Nifong into a frenzy against a prosecutor (Nifong) who acted well within acceptable standards, yet tiptoe around the minefield of misdeeds of the truly unethical prosecutors and shield their wrongdoings from the public. This is indeed a pathetic situation.
Monday, January 5, 2009
“Stormy Nifong era”?
The anti-Nifong biased media is at it again, with an entry in the “Up-and-comers in ’09” article in today’s News & Observer newspaper. Authored by staff writer Anne Blythe, it alludes to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s tenure at that position as “the stormy days of the Mike Nifong era,” and she infers that as district attorney, Mr. Nifong’s approach was not “even-keeled.”
What constituted the “stormy days” of his era other than the media-propelled Duke Lacrosse case? The media, working with State Attorney General Roy Cooper, the North Carolina State Bar, Duke University, and families of the Duke Lacrosse case defendants, whipped up the furor that turned a zephyr into a hurricane. And it is not only to the detriment of Lady Justice, but to Duke University and the city of Durham itself. Duke, the State Bar, and the media try to blame Mr. Nifong for the slew of lawsuits currently pending against the city and the university, but they are at fault for undermining the work of a rare prosecutor with integrity who would not follow the directives of the powerful university or other state officials.
Duke University, by caving into the outrageous demands of the Lacrosse defendants and settling with them for multiple millions of dollars without putting up a fight, and the persecutorial and prosecutorial onslaught against Mr. Nifong by the state, itself, as well as the sympathetic media coverage of the three defendants, laid the groundwork for the legal turmoil that will envelop the Raleigh-Durham area for some time to come.
The carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have already cost the cash-strapped city of Durham more than a million dollars of taxpayer money in preparing a legal defense and the avaricious litigants are seeking to extract at least thirty million. Money that is desperately needed for Durham’s programs (including funds needed to improve the probation system).
According to staff writer Blythe, public scrutiny is on for the new Durham district attorney, Tracey Cline, presumably due to the Duke Lacrosse case. Well, how about some scrutiny for Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney, Jr. who’s prosecutorial missteps racially divided a city; held a hero in jail for 39 months; attempted to introduce two bogus eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson police department) against an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson); worked with the family and friends of Brittany Willis to renege on the $20,000.00 reward with Mr. Johnson earned; conspired with Forsyth County District Attorney Thomas Keith to have Assistant District Attorney Belinda Foster (as a special prosecutor) drop charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery against Johnson (which they knew that they could not prove) and instead bring the charge of “accessory after the fact” against Johnson (for wiping fingerprints [which played no role in the conviction of the murderer] from the victim’s car); and is working with current private sector special prosecutor W. David McFadyen (at extra taxpayer expense) and Superior Court Judge Milton F. Fitch (who refused a defense motion for a change of venue and has expressed his wish to hear the case) to win a conviction against a young man who, is by all accounts, a person who had never been in trouble with the law, had no prior criminal record, and who was planning to attend college on a soccer scholarship. The label of being a convicted felon will follow Johnson (if convicted) the rest of his life, but the Wilson district attorney has no qualms about ruining the life of a young African American lad in order to protect his prosecutor from being disciplined by the State Bar for prosecutorial misconduct (something that will never happen).
The media, including the News & Observer, is doing its part to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe, by keeping the public ignorant about crucial events taking place in Wilson regarding the case against Johnson. Instead, the media wants the public to place its attention on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, who I believe is the only African American district attorney in the state of North Carolina.
It looks like in 2009 the News & Observer will continue its course of supporting the current tenet of North Carolina’s justice system – “selective justice based on Class and Color,” by refusing to report on stories that are favorable to the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar, Mr. Nifong. Like most of the media, it wants to keep the public ignorant about misdeeds and malfeasants of other district attorneys by refusing to publish articles, such as the complaint filed against James “Jim” Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys of novelist Michael Peterson, and activities occurring in Stanly County by District Attorney Michael Parker against defendant Theodore Jerry Williams.
Unfortunately, public scrutiny is, in large measure, determined by the media. The stories upon which the media chooses to focus are, very often, to the detriment of the public which it serves.
What constituted the “stormy days” of his era other than the media-propelled Duke Lacrosse case? The media, working with State Attorney General Roy Cooper, the North Carolina State Bar, Duke University, and families of the Duke Lacrosse case defendants, whipped up the furor that turned a zephyr into a hurricane. And it is not only to the detriment of Lady Justice, but to Duke University and the city of Durham itself. Duke, the State Bar, and the media try to blame Mr. Nifong for the slew of lawsuits currently pending against the city and the university, but they are at fault for undermining the work of a rare prosecutor with integrity who would not follow the directives of the powerful university or other state officials.
Duke University, by caving into the outrageous demands of the Lacrosse defendants and settling with them for multiple millions of dollars without putting up a fight, and the persecutorial and prosecutorial onslaught against Mr. Nifong by the state, itself, as well as the sympathetic media coverage of the three defendants, laid the groundwork for the legal turmoil that will envelop the Raleigh-Durham area for some time to come.
The carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have already cost the cash-strapped city of Durham more than a million dollars of taxpayer money in preparing a legal defense and the avaricious litigants are seeking to extract at least thirty million. Money that is desperately needed for Durham’s programs (including funds needed to improve the probation system).
According to staff writer Blythe, public scrutiny is on for the new Durham district attorney, Tracey Cline, presumably due to the Duke Lacrosse case. Well, how about some scrutiny for Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney, Jr. who’s prosecutorial missteps racially divided a city; held a hero in jail for 39 months; attempted to introduce two bogus eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson police department) against an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson); worked with the family and friends of Brittany Willis to renege on the $20,000.00 reward with Mr. Johnson earned; conspired with Forsyth County District Attorney Thomas Keith to have Assistant District Attorney Belinda Foster (as a special prosecutor) drop charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery against Johnson (which they knew that they could not prove) and instead bring the charge of “accessory after the fact” against Johnson (for wiping fingerprints [which played no role in the conviction of the murderer] from the victim’s car); and is working with current private sector special prosecutor W. David McFadyen (at extra taxpayer expense) and Superior Court Judge Milton F. Fitch (who refused a defense motion for a change of venue and has expressed his wish to hear the case) to win a conviction against a young man who, is by all accounts, a person who had never been in trouble with the law, had no prior criminal record, and who was planning to attend college on a soccer scholarship. The label of being a convicted felon will follow Johnson (if convicted) the rest of his life, but the Wilson district attorney has no qualms about ruining the life of a young African American lad in order to protect his prosecutor from being disciplined by the State Bar for prosecutorial misconduct (something that will never happen).
The media, including the News & Observer, is doing its part to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe, by keeping the public ignorant about crucial events taking place in Wilson regarding the case against Johnson. Instead, the media wants the public to place its attention on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, who I believe is the only African American district attorney in the state of North Carolina.
It looks like in 2009 the News & Observer will continue its course of supporting the current tenet of North Carolina’s justice system – “selective justice based on Class and Color,” by refusing to report on stories that are favorable to the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar, Mr. Nifong. Like most of the media, it wants to keep the public ignorant about misdeeds and malfeasants of other district attorneys by refusing to publish articles, such as the complaint filed against James “Jim” Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys of novelist Michael Peterson, and activities occurring in Stanly County by District Attorney Michael Parker against defendant Theodore Jerry Williams.
Unfortunately, public scrutiny is, in large measure, determined by the media. The stories upon which the media chooses to focus are, very often, to the detriment of the public which it serves.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
2009 Wish List for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong
With each new year comes new promise, and I am hopeful that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong's dreams for significant and positive changes come true during 2009. Our 2009 wish list for the North Carolina criminal justice system would include the following:
· The state comes to its senses and, without condition, re-instates the law license, without restrictions, of Mike Nifong. This is the only fair and just option when one considers that: (1) Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception, (2)that his hearing before the bar was marred by conflict of interest and pre-hearing statements, and (3) that the charges for which he was disbarred (withholding non-exculpatory, extraneous, irrelevant DNA evidence from the defense team) was far less egregious than actions committed by other prosecutors (including withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating crucial evidence, and destroying material evidence).
· Fair and just resolution of the state’s fiasco of a case against James Arthur Johnson, the hero in solving the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis. Such a resolution would include: (1) the immediate dismissal of the bogus “accessory after the fact” charge, (2) payment of the $20,000.00 reward which he earned for solving the crime, (3) a proclamation of “innocent” by the governor, and (4) the payment of the measly compensation of $20,000.00/year of wrongful incarceration.
· The proclamation of “innocent” and the compensatory payment for the wrongful incarceration of Erick Daniels, who, as a middle school student was unjustly convicted of armed robbery based solely on the shape of his eyebrows by the victim/witness.
· The release from jail of Alan Gell, who was incarcerated by a vindictive justice system on a cockamamie and convoluted charge (cooked up by a district attorney) that defies all logic.
· That novelist Michael Peterson be given a new trial (or that murder charges against him be dropped), based on the recent revelation that exculpatory evidence (the existence and test results of a possible murder weapon) was withheld by state prosecutors from Mr. Peterson’s defense team.
· That state-wide media frees itself from the tethers of the NC Attorney General’s Office and all state prosecutors, and begins to report fairly and without bias. Giving coverage to criminal justice stories that merit the attention of the public would be a refreshing and welcomed change, indeed.
There are many other justice issues we would like to see become a reality in North Carolina, but the six referenced above are those to which we give the highest priority.
We, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, are not going to just wish for the aforementioned changes, but we are going to work for them throughout 2009, and beyond.
Here’s wishing all readers of this blog the very best in 2009. May it be one of good health and happiness for you and your family.
- Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong
· The state comes to its senses and, without condition, re-instates the law license, without restrictions, of Mike Nifong. This is the only fair and just option when one considers that: (1) Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception, (2)that his hearing before the bar was marred by conflict of interest and pre-hearing statements, and (3) that the charges for which he was disbarred (withholding non-exculpatory, extraneous, irrelevant DNA evidence from the defense team) was far less egregious than actions committed by other prosecutors (including withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating crucial evidence, and destroying material evidence).
· Fair and just resolution of the state’s fiasco of a case against James Arthur Johnson, the hero in solving the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis. Such a resolution would include: (1) the immediate dismissal of the bogus “accessory after the fact” charge, (2) payment of the $20,000.00 reward which he earned for solving the crime, (3) a proclamation of “innocent” by the governor, and (4) the payment of the measly compensation of $20,000.00/year of wrongful incarceration.
· The proclamation of “innocent” and the compensatory payment for the wrongful incarceration of Erick Daniels, who, as a middle school student was unjustly convicted of armed robbery based solely on the shape of his eyebrows by the victim/witness.
· The release from jail of Alan Gell, who was incarcerated by a vindictive justice system on a cockamamie and convoluted charge (cooked up by a district attorney) that defies all logic.
· That novelist Michael Peterson be given a new trial (or that murder charges against him be dropped), based on the recent revelation that exculpatory evidence (the existence and test results of a possible murder weapon) was withheld by state prosecutors from Mr. Peterson’s defense team.
· That state-wide media frees itself from the tethers of the NC Attorney General’s Office and all state prosecutors, and begins to report fairly and without bias. Giving coverage to criminal justice stories that merit the attention of the public would be a refreshing and welcomed change, indeed.
There are many other justice issues we would like to see become a reality in North Carolina, but the six referenced above are those to which we give the highest priority.
We, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, are not going to just wish for the aforementioned changes, but we are going to work for them throughout 2009, and beyond.
Here’s wishing all readers of this blog the very best in 2009. May it be one of good health and happiness for you and your family.
- Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Media in cahoots with the State when it comes to Mike Nifong and justice
There is no doubt that the media, both locally and nationwide, is in cahoots with the state of North Carolina, its attorney general, and its State Bar when it comes to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and other issues of justice.
The media, charged with keeping the public informed of newsworthy articles related to, among other things, the justice system, has used its position to keep the people of North Carolina ignorant of important issues that would expose the state justice system to be one following the tenet of selective justice based on Class and Color. The most recent evidence is a story that was buried on the sixth page of the “News & Observer” Triangle & State section of the Sunday, December 14, 2008 issue. The article, titled “Poster was evidence, high court says,” is about Stanly County prosecutors who violated a man’s rights by destroying evidence needed for his defense, according to the NC Supreme Court. Although the defendant is named in the article, the Stanly County prosecutors are not. Another example of the “News & Observer” withholding the names of the prosecutors alleged of wrongdoing comes from an article, again buried on the fourth page of the Triangle & State section of the December 4, 2008 issue titled “Hearing slated in Peterson case.” In this article about a hearing to determine whether a convicted murderer should have a re-trial because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team, staff writer Anne Blythe fails to mention the names of the prosecutors of the alleged misconduct. The prosecutors were James “Jim” E. Hardin, Jr. (now a Superior Court judge) and Durham prosecutor Freda Black. When I filed a complaint with the State Bar against Hardin and Black, and notified the newspaper, it refused to make note of it and remained silent.
Remaining silent is something the “News & Observer” has been doing recently with the James Arthur Johnson case. There has been much movement in the case during the month of November 2008, but the paper has not mentioned any of the developments, which include the decision by the judge to hold the trial in the racially divided city of Wilson, despite a motion by the defense attorney for a change of venue. The “accessory after the fact” charge, which special prosecutor Belinda Foster of Forsyth County was forced to file by her boss (Forsyth District Attorney Thomas Keith), is without merit and was filed only to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a complaint filed with the State Bar by the NAACP.
The principle basis for my outrage at the disbarment of Mike Nifong is the fact that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. Yet, this is an issue that I have never heard addressed or even mentioned by the media, either locally or nationally. The reason the media remains silent about this fact is that it does not want the public to think for itself. If the people knew that Mr. Nifong is the only NC prosecutor ever to be disbarred, they might come to the conclusion that he was selectively singled out for prosecution by the State Bar and excessively disciplined. Mr. Nifong is alleged to have withheld, from the defense, incidental, non-exculpatory, irrelevant information that was of absolutely no value to the defense, and he is disbarred. Compare that with prosecutors who withhold exculpatory (murder-weapon) evidence from the defense team, and prosecutors who destroy evidence that the defense needs to support its case. Nothing is going to happen to those prosecutors, and a good indication of that is because the media will go out of its way to conceal the name of the prosecutors, or withhold doing a story about it altogether.
Yes, there is no doubt that the media is in cahoots with the state in efforts to uphold its tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Ted Vaden, Public Editor for the “News & Observer” titled his December 14, 2008 editorial column “The watchdog still barks – and bites.” The truth is that when it comes to the justice system in the state of North Carolina, this newspaper is not a watchdog, but a lap dog… a dog that does the bidding of its masters, the state attorney general, State Bar, and other state officials and agencies.
The media, charged with keeping the public informed of newsworthy articles related to, among other things, the justice system, has used its position to keep the people of North Carolina ignorant of important issues that would expose the state justice system to be one following the tenet of selective justice based on Class and Color. The most recent evidence is a story that was buried on the sixth page of the “News & Observer” Triangle & State section of the Sunday, December 14, 2008 issue. The article, titled “Poster was evidence, high court says,” is about Stanly County prosecutors who violated a man’s rights by destroying evidence needed for his defense, according to the NC Supreme Court. Although the defendant is named in the article, the Stanly County prosecutors are not. Another example of the “News & Observer” withholding the names of the prosecutors alleged of wrongdoing comes from an article, again buried on the fourth page of the Triangle & State section of the December 4, 2008 issue titled “Hearing slated in Peterson case.” In this article about a hearing to determine whether a convicted murderer should have a re-trial because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team, staff writer Anne Blythe fails to mention the names of the prosecutors of the alleged misconduct. The prosecutors were James “Jim” E. Hardin, Jr. (now a Superior Court judge) and Durham prosecutor Freda Black. When I filed a complaint with the State Bar against Hardin and Black, and notified the newspaper, it refused to make note of it and remained silent.
Remaining silent is something the “News & Observer” has been doing recently with the James Arthur Johnson case. There has been much movement in the case during the month of November 2008, but the paper has not mentioned any of the developments, which include the decision by the judge to hold the trial in the racially divided city of Wilson, despite a motion by the defense attorney for a change of venue. The “accessory after the fact” charge, which special prosecutor Belinda Foster of Forsyth County was forced to file by her boss (Forsyth District Attorney Thomas Keith), is without merit and was filed only to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a complaint filed with the State Bar by the NAACP.
The principle basis for my outrage at the disbarment of Mike Nifong is the fact that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. Yet, this is an issue that I have never heard addressed or even mentioned by the media, either locally or nationally. The reason the media remains silent about this fact is that it does not want the public to think for itself. If the people knew that Mr. Nifong is the only NC prosecutor ever to be disbarred, they might come to the conclusion that he was selectively singled out for prosecution by the State Bar and excessively disciplined. Mr. Nifong is alleged to have withheld, from the defense, incidental, non-exculpatory, irrelevant information that was of absolutely no value to the defense, and he is disbarred. Compare that with prosecutors who withhold exculpatory (murder-weapon) evidence from the defense team, and prosecutors who destroy evidence that the defense needs to support its case. Nothing is going to happen to those prosecutors, and a good indication of that is because the media will go out of its way to conceal the name of the prosecutors, or withhold doing a story about it altogether.
Yes, there is no doubt that the media is in cahoots with the state in efforts to uphold its tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Ted Vaden, Public Editor for the “News & Observer” titled his December 14, 2008 editorial column “The watchdog still barks – and bites.” The truth is that when it comes to the justice system in the state of North Carolina, this newspaper is not a watchdog, but a lap dog… a dog that does the bidding of its masters, the state attorney general, State Bar, and other state officials and agencies.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The N & O news team - Part of the NC Attorney General's Office's team?
In today’s issue (Thursday, December 11, 2008) of the News & Observer, the newspaper had a nice column that featured its news team. Joseph Neff, a veteran investigative reporter was cited for his stories which helped lead to the exoneration of Alan Gell. There, however, was no mention of the fact that the prosecutors in that case, David Hoke (who is currently Assistant Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts) and Debra Graves withheld exculpatory evidence from Gell’s defense team that proved that he could not have possibly committed the crime of murder for which he was charged. The article failed also to mention that Mr. Gell is currently back in jail serving a five year sentence for a case which barely made the limits for a statutory rape charge, after having served nearly ten years wrongly incarcerated for murder (half of it on death row). This sentence against Gell is nothing more than payback because after being exonerated for the murder conviction, he sued (unsuccessfully) the state. It seems that Mr. Neff is perfectly content to allow Mr. Gell to languish in jail because of retribution by the state.
Today’s column also mentioned that Mr. Neff’s five part series about the Duke Lacrosse case and the “prosecutorial misconduct of Mike Nifong” garnered honors by the NC Bar Association and the NC Press Association, and was a finalist for an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award. I do not consider that much of an accomplishment. All that is required is to write or do something negative against Mr. Nifong and that will automatically qualify one for an award. The taxi cab driver who vouched that he had given Reid Seligman a ride home from the lacrosse party received a Heroes award (from the Reader’s Digest, I believe).
The person who deserves an award for being a hero is James Arthur Johnson, the African American young man who risked breaking the “no snitch” rule of the streets in order to turn over a violent criminal to the Wilson police. Instead, due to prosecutorial misconduct of Bill Wolfe, Johnson was incarcerated for 39 months on murder charges for which he was threatened with execution. The prosecution team, which had no case, used plan B to extricate themselves from their predicament. Plan B consisted of having an “independent” special prosecutor come in and drop the charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery, and then lodge a charge of “accessory after the fact” because Johnson had stated that while under duress he had wiped fingerprint off of the victim’s SUV.
The News & Observer has been purposely holding back coverage of what has recently transpired in the case. (Because the Administrative Office of the Courts had been unable to find a state salaried prosecutor willing to prosecute the frivolous “accessory” case against Johnson, Private Sector Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen was hired at extra taxpayer expense to pursue this case.) The Brittany Willis murder case, which by consensus has been considered to have been terribly mismanaged by the Wilson police and prosecutors has racially divided the city (the confessed killer is an African American, and the teenage female victim is white). In November 2008, Johnson’s defense attorney requested a change of venue from the city of Wilson, and the private sector prosecutor was agreeable to the motion. However, Judge Milton F. Fitch, Jr., without giving any explanation, refused, stating that he wanted to keep the trial in Wilson, and that he also wanted to be the judge for the trial. His so-called remedy to give appearances of an unbiased jury was to bring in jurors selected from outside Wilson’s county. He initially agreed to have a jury selected from Wake County, and then he changed his mind and decided to have the jurors picked from Edgecombe County, a neighboring county. All of these actions are of major significance, are unjust, and do not bode well for the defendant or justice. The News & Observer’s position is to keep its readers ignorant about the state’s justice system malfeasance that is taking place in this case. To date they have refused to write about these recent developments.
Another issue in the Johnson case that warrants attention is the twenty thousand dollar ($20,000.00) reward that was offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis for information leading to Ms. Willis’s murderer. James Johnson earned that reward because he turned in the murderer who later confessed to the crime. The killer, after learning from police investigators that Johnson had “snitched” on him, then implicated Johnson in the crime out of anger. The Wilson police even used the reward as a motive for Johnson coming forward to the police. The initial Wilson police version is as follows: James Johnson, with a friend, robs, kidnaps, and rapes Brittany Willis. James then kills her. Days later, when the $20,000 reward is offered by family and friends of Brittany Willis, James (who had never been in trouble with the police, had no criminal record, and was considering soccer athletic scholarships to college at the time) decided to accuse his friend of the crime in order to collect the reward. About four and a half years after Johnson gave information to the police that resulted in the arrest and conviction of the confessed perpetrator, Mr. Johnson has not been paid the reward that was offered.
Why? Is it possible that the prosecution team requested that the reward not be paid, for by doing so, it would be favorable to Johnson’s public perception, and make the prosecution against him more difficult? I asked reporters at the Wilson Times to look into the matter, but they refused. The News & Observer likewise refused to investigate or offer and editorial opinion about the matter. One News & Observer editor did tell me, however, that it was not against the law for a private citizen to offer a reward and then renege on it.
The bottom line is that the local media, especially the News & Observer is as selective in the stories that it publishes, as the Attorney General’s Office and state prosecutors are in their application of the law. The application of justice in North Carolina is selective, based on Class and Color, and that is why an attorney, of Mike Nifong’s stature, reputation, and 27 years of exemplary service to the state of North Carolina, has been disbarred (the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar since its inception), prosecuted, persecuted, and sentenced to jail. Selective justice is also why the state is going out of its way, at taxpayer expense, to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe while vilifying the hero James Arthur Johnson. Selective justice is also why the North Carolina State Bar will not take any action on a complaint (filed with it on December 9, 2008) of prosecutorial misconduct against former Mike Petereson prosecutor Jame “Jim” E. Hardin, Jr. (currently serving as a Superior Court judge) and Durham prosecutor Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defendant’s legal team (the existence of a possible murder weapon and tests its lab ran on it).
The media, by its selective coverage of news events and subjects of editorial it chooses to publish, is complicit in the injustice that continues to be administered in the state of North Carolina.
Today’s column also mentioned that Mr. Neff’s five part series about the Duke Lacrosse case and the “prosecutorial misconduct of Mike Nifong” garnered honors by the NC Bar Association and the NC Press Association, and was a finalist for an Investigative Reporters and Editors Award. I do not consider that much of an accomplishment. All that is required is to write or do something negative against Mr. Nifong and that will automatically qualify one for an award. The taxi cab driver who vouched that he had given Reid Seligman a ride home from the lacrosse party received a Heroes award (from the Reader’s Digest, I believe).
The person who deserves an award for being a hero is James Arthur Johnson, the African American young man who risked breaking the “no snitch” rule of the streets in order to turn over a violent criminal to the Wilson police. Instead, due to prosecutorial misconduct of Bill Wolfe, Johnson was incarcerated for 39 months on murder charges for which he was threatened with execution. The prosecution team, which had no case, used plan B to extricate themselves from their predicament. Plan B consisted of having an “independent” special prosecutor come in and drop the charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery, and then lodge a charge of “accessory after the fact” because Johnson had stated that while under duress he had wiped fingerprint off of the victim’s SUV.
The News & Observer has been purposely holding back coverage of what has recently transpired in the case. (Because the Administrative Office of the Courts had been unable to find a state salaried prosecutor willing to prosecute the frivolous “accessory” case against Johnson, Private Sector Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen was hired at extra taxpayer expense to pursue this case.) The Brittany Willis murder case, which by consensus has been considered to have been terribly mismanaged by the Wilson police and prosecutors has racially divided the city (the confessed killer is an African American, and the teenage female victim is white). In November 2008, Johnson’s defense attorney requested a change of venue from the city of Wilson, and the private sector prosecutor was agreeable to the motion. However, Judge Milton F. Fitch, Jr., without giving any explanation, refused, stating that he wanted to keep the trial in Wilson, and that he also wanted to be the judge for the trial. His so-called remedy to give appearances of an unbiased jury was to bring in jurors selected from outside Wilson’s county. He initially agreed to have a jury selected from Wake County, and then he changed his mind and decided to have the jurors picked from Edgecombe County, a neighboring county. All of these actions are of major significance, are unjust, and do not bode well for the defendant or justice. The News & Observer’s position is to keep its readers ignorant about the state’s justice system malfeasance that is taking place in this case. To date they have refused to write about these recent developments.
Another issue in the Johnson case that warrants attention is the twenty thousand dollar ($20,000.00) reward that was offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis for information leading to Ms. Willis’s murderer. James Johnson earned that reward because he turned in the murderer who later confessed to the crime. The killer, after learning from police investigators that Johnson had “snitched” on him, then implicated Johnson in the crime out of anger. The Wilson police even used the reward as a motive for Johnson coming forward to the police. The initial Wilson police version is as follows: James Johnson, with a friend, robs, kidnaps, and rapes Brittany Willis. James then kills her. Days later, when the $20,000 reward is offered by family and friends of Brittany Willis, James (who had never been in trouble with the police, had no criminal record, and was considering soccer athletic scholarships to college at the time) decided to accuse his friend of the crime in order to collect the reward. About four and a half years after Johnson gave information to the police that resulted in the arrest and conviction of the confessed perpetrator, Mr. Johnson has not been paid the reward that was offered.
Why? Is it possible that the prosecution team requested that the reward not be paid, for by doing so, it would be favorable to Johnson’s public perception, and make the prosecution against him more difficult? I asked reporters at the Wilson Times to look into the matter, but they refused. The News & Observer likewise refused to investigate or offer and editorial opinion about the matter. One News & Observer editor did tell me, however, that it was not against the law for a private citizen to offer a reward and then renege on it.
The bottom line is that the local media, especially the News & Observer is as selective in the stories that it publishes, as the Attorney General’s Office and state prosecutors are in their application of the law. The application of justice in North Carolina is selective, based on Class and Color, and that is why an attorney, of Mike Nifong’s stature, reputation, and 27 years of exemplary service to the state of North Carolina, has been disbarred (the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar since its inception), prosecuted, persecuted, and sentenced to jail. Selective justice is also why the state is going out of its way, at taxpayer expense, to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe while vilifying the hero James Arthur Johnson. Selective justice is also why the North Carolina State Bar will not take any action on a complaint (filed with it on December 9, 2008) of prosecutorial misconduct against former Mike Petereson prosecutor Jame “Jim” E. Hardin, Jr. (currently serving as a Superior Court judge) and Durham prosecutor Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defendant’s legal team (the existence of a possible murder weapon and tests its lab ran on it).
The media, by its selective coverage of news events and subjects of editorial it chooses to publish, is complicit in the injustice that continues to be administered in the state of North Carolina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
