Although I have concentrated on other cases of injustice since the founding of the “Friends of Crystal Mangum” advocacy group, I feel compelled to comment on the obvious. There is no way that this so-called trial should be held in Durham, the cash-strapped city which is for all intents and purposes owned by Duke University. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a better chance of getting a fair trial in a federal court in Washington, DC than Ms. Mangum has in Durham. In jury selection, having a residence in Durham, working in Durham, working for Duke University, having any relationship to Duke University should all be grounds for automatic dismissal for consideration.
Is it any wonder that jury selection took five days, and that defense and prosecution exhausted their peremptory challenges? Actually, I am shocked that Superior Court Judge Abraham Penn Jones even bothered to dismiss five potential jurors who admitted that bias might keep Mangum from getting a fair trial. At least they were being honest, and I would be more inclined to have one of them sit on the jury than a graduate from Duke University who states he had formed opinions about the Duke Lacrosse case but that he could put them aside and make an unbiased finding.
The prosecution’s case is totally screwed up, and one cannot ignore the bias inherent in the charges and prosecution which are selective and stem from Ms. Mangum’s involvement in the Duke Lacrosse case. For one thing, I don’t understand why Crystal Mangum’s attorney would even bother trying to suppress “evidence.” What evidence? This whole case brought by the authorities and prosecution is a complete waste of time, and is obviously done in concert with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda… the same one that nearly got me arrested on the Duke University campus for being an openly known supporter of Mike Nifong.
Officer Hilary Thompson testified that Mangum lunged over her shoulder and threatened to stab Milton Walker, her ex-boyfriend… but she does not say with what… a knife, shears? How ridiculous is that? Thompson and her supervisor John Tyler then arrest Mangum for communicating threats, according to The News & Observer article… but that charge is dropped. The charge of attempted first degree murder (a charge used for the sole purpose of obtaining a million dollar bail against Mangum) is also dropped prior to going to trial. And although the police describe how badly Milton Walker is scratched and beat up, prosecutors drop the charge of assault against Mangum. That is a wise move on their part in light of the fact that the physical altercation was initiated when Walker first sucker punched Mangum in the face with his fist. Something which the police and the media continually keep hidden from the public.
So, what are the catastrophic charges against Mangum that warranted an initial million dollar bail, and prompted Durham Assistant District Attorney Mark McCullough to ask Judge Jones to sequester the jury for the duration of a trial expected to last a week?
They are as follows:
(1) first degree arson (for allegedly setting clothes in a bathtub on fire in the presence of police… and during which police made no attempt to extinguish the fire – keep in mind that the clothes are in the bathtub);
(2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a convoluted charge related somehow to the so-called arson… attempting to explain how the charge is related to the arson would require a treatise);
(3) injury to personal property - media is extremely vague on this… burned clothing, alleged damages to the car… what? (Instead of using the word “damage” the prosecution uses the word “injury” to try and humanize inanimate objects for the purpose of making the charge seem more serious); and
(4) resisting an officer - for allegedly using a false first name when questioned by police.
For the above trifle, the Durham prosecutors have gone out of their way in wasting taxpayer money and time that could be spent on serious crime, to try and place Crystal Mangum behind bars for a lengthy period of time… again a further waste of taxpayer money. If the prosecutors were so concerned about Ms. Mangum's children they would not make it such a priority to take away the mother they love and put her behind bar in order to settle a score (the Duke Lacrosse case).
As weak as the case is against Ms. Mangum, because of the extreme bias that Crystal Mangum faces in Durham, the likelihood of a conviction is not beyond the bounds of possibility. However, the fact of the matter is, that Ms. Mangum, despite the outcome, cannot receive a fair trial in the city of Durham. Just like James Arthur Johnson could not receive a fair trial in the city of Wilson in the case related to Brittany Willis’s murder. That is probably why James Arthur Johnson made the Alford plea to a misprision of felony charge, even though he was innocent by its very definition of “not notifying authorities of his knowledge of a crime.” The judge in that instance, Milton Fitch, tightly controlled the case against Johnson, denying the defense motion for a change of venue from the racially divided town. It is unlikely that Honorable Abe Jones would have permitted a change of venue in the case against Crystal Mangum.
Whether or not Mangum’s attorney Mani Dexter filed a motion for a change of venue is unknown to me, but if I Mangum were my client, a change of venue would be my first line of defense.
Showing posts with label Milton Fitch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Milton Fitch. Show all posts
Friday, December 10, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Lessons learned from James Arthur Johnson
James Arthur Johnson served a sentence of 39 months in jail. Because Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen, Judge Milton Fitch and others applied sufficient pressure, Johnson accepted an Alford plea to a “misprision of felony” charge. Despite pleading guilty to the charge, Johnson was not technically or legally guilty of the charge. The misprision charge is rarely employed by the prosecution for a person who withholds his/her knowledge of a crime. James Arthur Johnson did not withhold knowledge of a crime because he was the one who told police the true identity of the person he believed to be responsible. The prosecutors were quick to point out that Mr. Johnson waited three days before going to the police with the evidence, but the charge of misprision of felony does not specify a time limit. Johnson didn’t wait three years, three months, or even three weeks before going to the police with his knowledge of the crime, yet he spent more than three years in jail because he did not go to the police within three hours or so of learning about the crime.
The plea deal in Johnson’s case is very chilling, because the misprision of felony can be leveled against anyone who does not report knowledge of a crime immediately. Most people want to at least think about the consequences to themselves and their families if they go to the police with information of a crime. As things stand with the James Arthur Johnson plea deal, as the clock ticks, people will be less inclined to come forward to help solve a crime out of fear of being incarcerated for misprision of felony… especially people of color and in the lower socio-economic strata.
Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe had full knowledge that James Arthur Johnson was not involved in the crimes against Brittany Willis, but because the confessed killer was an African American male, Wolfe transferred his hostility of the killer to all African American men. Wolfe wanted to punish Johnson because he was an African American, not because he felt he had any involvement in the crime. And, Wolfe, along with Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney Jr. were able to obtain an unreachable bail and drag out pre-trial proceedings for 39 months before a trial could no longer be delayed. Wolfe never had a case against Johnson, as the only witness, the confessed killer, later admitted he implicated Johnson out of anger because he had “snitched” on him. That didn’t deter Wolfe, as he lined up two other “eyewitnesses,” both with connections with the Wilson Police Department. However, when Reverend William Barber of the NAACP took interest in the case, the increased scrutiny forced Wolfe to silently jettison his witnesses.
Up until the day of the trial, Wolfe tried to wrangle a plea deal out of Johnson, who had languished in jail more than three years. Johnson refused, and in calling the prosecution’s bluff, the Wolfe and Boney folded like an accordion and announced they were turning the case over to a special prosecutor so there would be no doubt about the fairness of the proceedings.
The truth is that Wolfe, after releasing his two phony witnesses, had no plan of taking his case to trial because he had no case. All his marbles were on Johnson agreeing to a plea deal, which, fortunately, did not happen. However, because Johnson had stated during his initial interview with police investigators that he had helped wipe fingerprints off the victim's car (an event that had no bearing on the confession of the admitted killer), Forsyth Prosecutor Belinda Foster was forced to charge Johnson with “accessory after the fact” while dropping charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against him. It was the threat of being convicted on the “accessory” charge (though remote) and the possibility of being sentenced to more jail time, along with unbearable pressure from others that made Johnson accept the Alford plea. The Alford plea allows the defendant to maintain his/her innocence while forcing him/her to admit that the prosecution has enough evidence to prevail in obtaining a conviction.
Like James Arthur Johnson unjustly served a sentence of 39 months without being convicted of a crime, it was the intent of the Durham prosecution, under Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca, to have Crystal Gail Mangum serve a two year sentence… minimum. That was the first plea deal the prosecution made after Ms. Mangum’s arrest on charges which included felony attempted first degree murder, and felony first degree arson. The prosecution never had any intention of taking the case against Ms. Mangum to trial. Their intent was to follow the pattern of Bill Wolfe, which is: 1) levy a serious charge (felony attempted first degree murder); 2) use the charge to bolster a high bail ($ 1 million); 3) have the prosecution (which controls the pace of court proceedings) move at a snail’s pace; and 4) after sufficient time has been deemed to have been served, offer a plea deal in exchange for “time served.” This was the way things were supposed to go.
Unexpectedly, after Mangum had served 90 days behind bars, angelic bail bondsmen with courage, kindness, and generosity, satisfied the bond needed to release her from the Durham Detention Center, although a condition of her release was that she be placed under house arrest. The house arrest is the last vestige of leverage the prosecutors have on forcing Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal, and so they offered it to Ms. Mangum in order to extricate themselves from the sticky mess that they had gotten into. The prosecution is not now, and has never been preparing to take this case to trial. It was a plea deal from the beginning, and the District Attorney’s office was counting on the other state employees from the Public Defender’s office, to encourage Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal.
Again, unexpectedly, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong enveloped Ms. Mangum in their protective arms, and encouraged her not to plead guilty for a crime that she did not commit. Ms. Mangum needs to be restored, as best as possible, to the same condition that she was on the day of her arrest: living independently and supporting her three children in an apartment, employed full-time, and taking a full load in a graduate program at NCCU where she is pursuing a Master’s Degree in psychology. The Durham Police Department and Durham District Attorney’s office have a duty to restore in Crystal and her children faith in law enforcement, so that when the need arises they can feel comfort in calling 9-1-1 instead of consternation.
James Arthur Johnson pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit. We, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, do not want history to repeat in Crystal Mangum’s case.
Link follows to News & Observer article about Ms. Mangum and her attorney:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/08/570257/crystal-mangums-attorney-quits.html
The plea deal in Johnson’s case is very chilling, because the misprision of felony can be leveled against anyone who does not report knowledge of a crime immediately. Most people want to at least think about the consequences to themselves and their families if they go to the police with information of a crime. As things stand with the James Arthur Johnson plea deal, as the clock ticks, people will be less inclined to come forward to help solve a crime out of fear of being incarcerated for misprision of felony… especially people of color and in the lower socio-economic strata.
Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe had full knowledge that James Arthur Johnson was not involved in the crimes against Brittany Willis, but because the confessed killer was an African American male, Wolfe transferred his hostility of the killer to all African American men. Wolfe wanted to punish Johnson because he was an African American, not because he felt he had any involvement in the crime. And, Wolfe, along with Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney Jr. were able to obtain an unreachable bail and drag out pre-trial proceedings for 39 months before a trial could no longer be delayed. Wolfe never had a case against Johnson, as the only witness, the confessed killer, later admitted he implicated Johnson out of anger because he had “snitched” on him. That didn’t deter Wolfe, as he lined up two other “eyewitnesses,” both with connections with the Wilson Police Department. However, when Reverend William Barber of the NAACP took interest in the case, the increased scrutiny forced Wolfe to silently jettison his witnesses.
Up until the day of the trial, Wolfe tried to wrangle a plea deal out of Johnson, who had languished in jail more than three years. Johnson refused, and in calling the prosecution’s bluff, the Wolfe and Boney folded like an accordion and announced they were turning the case over to a special prosecutor so there would be no doubt about the fairness of the proceedings.
The truth is that Wolfe, after releasing his two phony witnesses, had no plan of taking his case to trial because he had no case. All his marbles were on Johnson agreeing to a plea deal, which, fortunately, did not happen. However, because Johnson had stated during his initial interview with police investigators that he had helped wipe fingerprints off the victim's car (an event that had no bearing on the confession of the admitted killer), Forsyth Prosecutor Belinda Foster was forced to charge Johnson with “accessory after the fact” while dropping charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against him. It was the threat of being convicted on the “accessory” charge (though remote) and the possibility of being sentenced to more jail time, along with unbearable pressure from others that made Johnson accept the Alford plea. The Alford plea allows the defendant to maintain his/her innocence while forcing him/her to admit that the prosecution has enough evidence to prevail in obtaining a conviction.
Like James Arthur Johnson unjustly served a sentence of 39 months without being convicted of a crime, it was the intent of the Durham prosecution, under Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca, to have Crystal Gail Mangum serve a two year sentence… minimum. That was the first plea deal the prosecution made after Ms. Mangum’s arrest on charges which included felony attempted first degree murder, and felony first degree arson. The prosecution never had any intention of taking the case against Ms. Mangum to trial. Their intent was to follow the pattern of Bill Wolfe, which is: 1) levy a serious charge (felony attempted first degree murder); 2) use the charge to bolster a high bail ($ 1 million); 3) have the prosecution (which controls the pace of court proceedings) move at a snail’s pace; and 4) after sufficient time has been deemed to have been served, offer a plea deal in exchange for “time served.” This was the way things were supposed to go.
Unexpectedly, after Mangum had served 90 days behind bars, angelic bail bondsmen with courage, kindness, and generosity, satisfied the bond needed to release her from the Durham Detention Center, although a condition of her release was that she be placed under house arrest. The house arrest is the last vestige of leverage the prosecutors have on forcing Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal, and so they offered it to Ms. Mangum in order to extricate themselves from the sticky mess that they had gotten into. The prosecution is not now, and has never been preparing to take this case to trial. It was a plea deal from the beginning, and the District Attorney’s office was counting on the other state employees from the Public Defender’s office, to encourage Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal.
Again, unexpectedly, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong enveloped Ms. Mangum in their protective arms, and encouraged her not to plead guilty for a crime that she did not commit. Ms. Mangum needs to be restored, as best as possible, to the same condition that she was on the day of her arrest: living independently and supporting her three children in an apartment, employed full-time, and taking a full load in a graduate program at NCCU where she is pursuing a Master’s Degree in psychology. The Durham Police Department and Durham District Attorney’s office have a duty to restore in Crystal and her children faith in law enforcement, so that when the need arises they can feel comfort in calling 9-1-1 instead of consternation.
James Arthur Johnson pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit. We, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, do not want history to repeat in Crystal Mangum’s case.
Link follows to News & Observer article about Ms. Mangum and her attorney:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/08/570257/crystal-mangums-attorney-quits.html
Saturday, March 6, 2010
NC media able to dish it out, but can’t take it
An interesting article by Anne Blythe appeared in the March 2, 2010 edition of the News & Observer titled, “Media protest call for reports on Carson case.” It states how media companies across the state of North Carolina are fighting attempts by federal defense attorneys to have media outlets in North Carolina hand over copies of everything published about the Eve Carson homicide case. The defense contends that media in the state have saturated the public with such adverse publicity against Carson’s accused killer, Demario Atwater, that it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial within the state. They are seeking to have the federal capital murder trial held in the neighboring state of Virginia.
Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.
What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.
For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.
Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).
Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.
One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.
MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.
At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.
Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.
What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.
For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.
Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).
Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.
One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.
MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.
At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Governor Easley and the state are backed by the press and the media
In the December 30, 2008 News & Observer article titled, “Governor rakes the press: Easley accuses N&O of ‘hatchet job,’” Governor Easley bemoans what he feels is unfair treatment towards him by the press. In the large scheme of things, the media (including the press) is very favorable towards North Carolina state agencies and works with them, especially when it comes to the criminal justice system.
The media has reined in any positive news stories that might put former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in a positive light. For example it refuses to inform the public that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. It also refuses in large measure to acknowledge that a committee member of a group which supports Mr. Nifong filed a complaint with the State Bar against prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence (possibly a murder weapon) from the defense attorneys whose client was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life. The newpapers (News & Observer and Herald Sun) also refuse to run the comic strip “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper,” which would afford its readers another point of view and insight into the disbarment of Mr. Nifong and other injustices and disparities within the state’s criminal justice system.
The media is working closely with the state to see that Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe is protected from the complaint of prosecutorial misconduct due to the 39 month incarceration of James Arthur Johnson without probable cause. Furthermore, it is keeping the public ignorant about major events that are taking place in the “accessory after the fact” charge against Mr. Johnson. The News & Observer refused to even acknowledge that in November 2008, private sector special prosecutor (paid at extra expense by North Carolina taxpayers because no salaried state prosecutor was willing to prosecute such a frivolous case) W. David McFadyen decided to bring the case to court (again, wasting taxpayer money). McFadyen’s not prosecuting this case because Johnson (who solved the Brittany Willis murder) wiped his fingerprints off the victim’s car. He is vilifying Johnson and prosecuting him in order to protect prosecutor Bill Wolfe.
Additionally, the media is in cahoots with the Wilson prosecutors (the Attorney General’s Office, and the state) to prevent Johnson from having the appearance of being an actor who did the community service (and receive a reward) by having the friends and family of Brittany Willis renege on the $20,000.00 reward which Johnson clearly earned. The state, with the help of the media, has gone out of its way to destroy the reputation and life of this young African American boy (who had no prior criminal record, was a popular student, and, like Brittany Willis, loved soccer), in order to protect a prosecutor who had no ethical compass. The Wilson prosecutor had no physical evidence linking Johnson to the crime, and when their only witness (the vengeful confessed killer Kenneth Meeks) stated that he implicated Johnson only because Johnson had snitched on him. Lacking their star (albeit murderous) witness, Prosecutor Wolfe then arranged for two eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson Police Department) to make his case. However, when Rev. Dr. William Barber, II, from the NAACP brought media attention to the case, the prosecutors thought better of using their phony witnesses, knowing they could not stand up under scrutiny outside of the Wilson city limits.
The Wilson prosecutors, with their ineptitude and malice, divided the city of Wilson largely along racial lines, and now the judge hearing the Johnson case, denied a change of venue motion from the defense last month. Instead, Judge Milton Fitch, Jr., to give the appearance of presiding over a fair trial, proposed busing in jurors from a neighboring county. All of these shenanigans are taking place and the News & Observer and other media are doing their part for the state by keeping quiet and keeping the public ignorant.
There is no doubt that the justice system is headed toward convicting a young man who helped authorities solve a heinous crime, in the interests of protecting a prosecutor who follows the tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color," and at the wasteful expense of the Tar Heel taxpayers. The media will allow this travesty to take place. A travesty in magnitude that is second only to the prosecution, persecution and disbarment of Mr. Mike Nifong, an incorruptible prosecutor who gave 27 years of exemplary service to the state of North Carolina, a Christian, and a decent, honorable family man.
Governor Easley should put things in perspective. When it comes to the press and the media, he really has no grounds for complaining.
The media has reined in any positive news stories that might put former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in a positive light. For example it refuses to inform the public that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. It also refuses in large measure to acknowledge that a committee member of a group which supports Mr. Nifong filed a complaint with the State Bar against prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence (possibly a murder weapon) from the defense attorneys whose client was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life. The newpapers (News & Observer and Herald Sun) also refuse to run the comic strip “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper,” which would afford its readers another point of view and insight into the disbarment of Mr. Nifong and other injustices and disparities within the state’s criminal justice system.
The media is working closely with the state to see that Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe is protected from the complaint of prosecutorial misconduct due to the 39 month incarceration of James Arthur Johnson without probable cause. Furthermore, it is keeping the public ignorant about major events that are taking place in the “accessory after the fact” charge against Mr. Johnson. The News & Observer refused to even acknowledge that in November 2008, private sector special prosecutor (paid at extra expense by North Carolina taxpayers because no salaried state prosecutor was willing to prosecute such a frivolous case) W. David McFadyen decided to bring the case to court (again, wasting taxpayer money). McFadyen’s not prosecuting this case because Johnson (who solved the Brittany Willis murder) wiped his fingerprints off the victim’s car. He is vilifying Johnson and prosecuting him in order to protect prosecutor Bill Wolfe.
Additionally, the media is in cahoots with the Wilson prosecutors (the Attorney General’s Office, and the state) to prevent Johnson from having the appearance of being an actor who did the community service (and receive a reward) by having the friends and family of Brittany Willis renege on the $20,000.00 reward which Johnson clearly earned. The state, with the help of the media, has gone out of its way to destroy the reputation and life of this young African American boy (who had no prior criminal record, was a popular student, and, like Brittany Willis, loved soccer), in order to protect a prosecutor who had no ethical compass. The Wilson prosecutor had no physical evidence linking Johnson to the crime, and when their only witness (the vengeful confessed killer Kenneth Meeks) stated that he implicated Johnson only because Johnson had snitched on him. Lacking their star (albeit murderous) witness, Prosecutor Wolfe then arranged for two eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson Police Department) to make his case. However, when Rev. Dr. William Barber, II, from the NAACP brought media attention to the case, the prosecutors thought better of using their phony witnesses, knowing they could not stand up under scrutiny outside of the Wilson city limits.
The Wilson prosecutors, with their ineptitude and malice, divided the city of Wilson largely along racial lines, and now the judge hearing the Johnson case, denied a change of venue motion from the defense last month. Instead, Judge Milton Fitch, Jr., to give the appearance of presiding over a fair trial, proposed busing in jurors from a neighboring county. All of these shenanigans are taking place and the News & Observer and other media are doing their part for the state by keeping quiet and keeping the public ignorant.
There is no doubt that the justice system is headed toward convicting a young man who helped authorities solve a heinous crime, in the interests of protecting a prosecutor who follows the tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color," and at the wasteful expense of the Tar Heel taxpayers. The media will allow this travesty to take place. A travesty in magnitude that is second only to the prosecution, persecution and disbarment of Mr. Mike Nifong, an incorruptible prosecutor who gave 27 years of exemplary service to the state of North Carolina, a Christian, and a decent, honorable family man.
Governor Easley should put things in perspective. When it comes to the press and the media, he really has no grounds for complaining.
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.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Judge Milton F. Fitch, Jr.: “What Happens in Wilson, Stays in Wilson.”
The Honorable Judge Milton Fitch, Jr., in following Attorney General Roy Cooper’s playbook to protect prosecutors - such as Wilson Assistant District Attorney Bill Wolfe – who follow the North Carolina state tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” has denied the change of venue motion filed by the attorney of the “accessory after the fact” defendant James Arthur Johnson.
Mr. Johnson was held without trial in the Brittany Willis murder case for 39 months before charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery were dropped by a special prosecutor, Belinda Foster, an assistant district attorney from Forsyth County. Ms. Foster, who was forced by her boss, Forsyth District Attorney Tom Keith, to level the “accessory after the fact” charge against Johnson, did so only on the condition that she not be forced to prosecute the frivolous case. The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts could not find among its nearly 600 state prosecutors one who was willing to take on this flawed case, finally arranged for private sector prosecutor W. David McFadyen to take the case as a special prosecutor, at extra taxpayer expense.
Although James Johnson was a young man with a promising future, no prior run ins with the law, was fielding offers for a college soccer scholarship (the love of a sport which was shared by him and the unfortunate victim Brittany Willis), and provided Wilson police with name of the perpetrator of the Willis murder despite his personal risk of breaking the “no snitch” rule of the streets, Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe built a case against him based solely on statements made by the confessed killer (after he was told by police that James “snitched” on him). Years later, the killer recanted the statements which implicated James Johnson, stating that they were made because he was angry at the time for Johnson turning him over to the police.
So, although James Johnson had no connection or participation in the crimes against Ms. Willis, he is being savagely pursued by Private Sector Prosecutor McFadyen, at taxpayer
expense, because he wiped fingerprints off the victim’s SUV, even though that forensic evidence had no relevance in the prosecution of the confessed killer.
James Johnson has already languished in jail for 39 months on charges that were eventually dropped, so what does the prosecution hope to accomplish by continuing on with this nonsense? Have the young man without a criminal record, who (though not obligated by law) turned in the killer to the police, spend more time in jail? That may be part of the reason for taking this case to trial, but the main underlying reason for this waste of court time and taxpayer money is to protect Prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a charge of prosecutorial misconduct filed with the State Bar by the NAACP. Vilifying James Johnson by proceeding with the case is part of the plan of attack to try and justify the many months Johnson was incarcerated due to Wolfe’s misconduct. Another facet is to deprive Johnson of the reward money offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis ($20,000.00) which he earned. For him to receive a reward would insinuate that he performed a positive community service, and fly against the image the prosecutors wanted to paint of him.
The city of Wilson has been torn apart by this case because of the actions and statements of the police and prosecutors. After the killer recanted and the prosecutors were left without a case, Prosecutor Wolfe manufactured two eyewitnesses (both with ties to the Wilson police department – one being a retired Wilson police officer). The case was going to proceed with their testimony when Dr. Rev. William Barber II of the NAACP became involved and brought media attention to the case. It was then and only then that the Wolfe’s prosecutorial team decided the scrutiny would be too much and that their “eyewitnesses” would not hold up. Therefore, they quietly backtracked, and made no further mention of them.
Defense attorney Irving Joyner wanted to seek a change of venue from that divided county, and the private sector prosecutor agreed to the motion, however, Judge Fitch refused. He did not give a reason for his refusal to change venue. Judge Fitch suggested that a jury be selected from outside the county and transported to the Wilson Court. Initially he agreed to having a jury selected from Wake County, but then used the feeble excuse that the courthouse was being renovated and that there wasn’t sufficient space for the selection to take place. Without considering Durham or Orange County, Fitch decides to select a jury from neighboring Edgecombe County.
Then, Fitch told the trial court administrator William Nicholls that he wanted to keep the case. Again, he did not give an explanation why.
All of this does not bode well for defendant James Arthur Johnson. What is obvious is that if Judge Fitch was independent, fair-minded, and concerned about the city of Wilson and the state of North Carolina, he would have immediately dismissed the case presented by McFadyen against Johnson. The state is not holding back any stops to protect its prosecutors of selective justice. It is only the rare prosecutor who works by the principle of “equal justice for all” (Mike Nifong) who the state will abandon, and then set out to make of him/her an example.
If true justice existed in the state of North Carolina:
1. the special prosecutor would not have pursued the “accessory after the fact case;”
2. the judge, upon receiving the “accessory after the fact” case would have dismissed it;
3. the judge, if proceeding with the trial, would agree to a change of venue; and
4. if the judge was going to bus in a jury to Wilson from another county, the jury would come from Wake, Orange, Durham, or another county that is not adjacent to Wilson’s county.
With his “What happens in Wilson, stays in Wilson” mentality, Judge Milton Fitch Jr. has made the case that he should be taken off the James Johnson case, and that it should be assigned to another judge.
Mr. Johnson was held without trial in the Brittany Willis murder case for 39 months before charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery were dropped by a special prosecutor, Belinda Foster, an assistant district attorney from Forsyth County. Ms. Foster, who was forced by her boss, Forsyth District Attorney Tom Keith, to level the “accessory after the fact” charge against Johnson, did so only on the condition that she not be forced to prosecute the frivolous case. The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts could not find among its nearly 600 state prosecutors one who was willing to take on this flawed case, finally arranged for private sector prosecutor W. David McFadyen to take the case as a special prosecutor, at extra taxpayer expense.
Although James Johnson was a young man with a promising future, no prior run ins with the law, was fielding offers for a college soccer scholarship (the love of a sport which was shared by him and the unfortunate victim Brittany Willis), and provided Wilson police with name of the perpetrator of the Willis murder despite his personal risk of breaking the “no snitch” rule of the streets, Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe built a case against him based solely on statements made by the confessed killer (after he was told by police that James “snitched” on him). Years later, the killer recanted the statements which implicated James Johnson, stating that they were made because he was angry at the time for Johnson turning him over to the police.
So, although James Johnson had no connection or participation in the crimes against Ms. Willis, he is being savagely pursued by Private Sector Prosecutor McFadyen, at taxpayer
expense, because he wiped fingerprints off the victim’s SUV, even though that forensic evidence had no relevance in the prosecution of the confessed killer.
James Johnson has already languished in jail for 39 months on charges that were eventually dropped, so what does the prosecution hope to accomplish by continuing on with this nonsense? Have the young man without a criminal record, who (though not obligated by law) turned in the killer to the police, spend more time in jail? That may be part of the reason for taking this case to trial, but the main underlying reason for this waste of court time and taxpayer money is to protect Prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a charge of prosecutorial misconduct filed with the State Bar by the NAACP. Vilifying James Johnson by proceeding with the case is part of the plan of attack to try and justify the many months Johnson was incarcerated due to Wolfe’s misconduct. Another facet is to deprive Johnson of the reward money offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis ($20,000.00) which he earned. For him to receive a reward would insinuate that he performed a positive community service, and fly against the image the prosecutors wanted to paint of him.
The city of Wilson has been torn apart by this case because of the actions and statements of the police and prosecutors. After the killer recanted and the prosecutors were left without a case, Prosecutor Wolfe manufactured two eyewitnesses (both with ties to the Wilson police department – one being a retired Wilson police officer). The case was going to proceed with their testimony when Dr. Rev. William Barber II of the NAACP became involved and brought media attention to the case. It was then and only then that the Wolfe’s prosecutorial team decided the scrutiny would be too much and that their “eyewitnesses” would not hold up. Therefore, they quietly backtracked, and made no further mention of them.
Defense attorney Irving Joyner wanted to seek a change of venue from that divided county, and the private sector prosecutor agreed to the motion, however, Judge Fitch refused. He did not give a reason for his refusal to change venue. Judge Fitch suggested that a jury be selected from outside the county and transported to the Wilson Court. Initially he agreed to having a jury selected from Wake County, but then used the feeble excuse that the courthouse was being renovated and that there wasn’t sufficient space for the selection to take place. Without considering Durham or Orange County, Fitch decides to select a jury from neighboring Edgecombe County.
Then, Fitch told the trial court administrator William Nicholls that he wanted to keep the case. Again, he did not give an explanation why.
All of this does not bode well for defendant James Arthur Johnson. What is obvious is that if Judge Fitch was independent, fair-minded, and concerned about the city of Wilson and the state of North Carolina, he would have immediately dismissed the case presented by McFadyen against Johnson. The state is not holding back any stops to protect its prosecutors of selective justice. It is only the rare prosecutor who works by the principle of “equal justice for all” (Mike Nifong) who the state will abandon, and then set out to make of him/her an example.
If true justice existed in the state of North Carolina:
1. the special prosecutor would not have pursued the “accessory after the fact case;”
2. the judge, upon receiving the “accessory after the fact” case would have dismissed it;
3. the judge, if proceeding with the trial, would agree to a change of venue; and
4. if the judge was going to bus in a jury to Wilson from another county, the jury would come from Wake, Orange, Durham, or another county that is not adjacent to Wilson’s county.
With his “What happens in Wilson, stays in Wilson” mentality, Judge Milton Fitch Jr. has made the case that he should be taken off the James Johnson case, and that it should be assigned to another judge.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Crusade to protect Prosecutor Bill Wolfe takes giant leap forward
I just recently found out from a conversation with a friend that private sector prosecutor W. David McFadyen decided to move forward with the bogus "accessory after the fact" case against James Arthur Johnson in the Brittany Willis murder. This determination by McFadyen occurred two weeks ago, and normally, I would have been on top of the story because I would have read about it in the newspaper. Now, I’ve been a subscriber to the "News & Observer" for more than a year, and I do not recollect such an article appearing in the paper. Surely, it deserves some print, and unless it was buried deep in the paper, I do not believe the newspaper covered the story.
As is obvious, the only reason this case is being brought is to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct (for the 39 month incarceration of James Johnson on charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery despite lack of physical evidence or probable cause). However, W. David McFadyen would like the public to believe that his extensive (more than eight months) investigation gives credibility to his findings for proceeding ahead with the trial against Mr. Johnson. Not only is paying for McFadyen’s services a waste of taxpayer money, but the trial itself will unnecessarily divert taxpayer dollars from providing services and programs to the state’s people and communities during these economically challenging times.
What I find particularly alarming, and a very ominous sign, is the fact that Wilson Superior Court Judge Milton Fitch Jr. refuses to change the venue for the trial. Wilson is a city that has been torn apart because of the actions of its police and prosecutors, especially Bill Wolfe. Judge Fitch said that he wanted to keep the trial in Wilson, but did not give a reason, according to the article posted by WRAL-TV. Instead, he wants a jury picked from Wake County and transferred to Wilson for the trial. Does he really believe that busing in a jury from Wake County will lend itself to a fairer proceeding? It is a cockamamie idea, which no unbiased arbiter would even suggest. What is obvious though is that Judge Fitch should not be the one presiding over this trial.
Whatever the outcome of the trial, private sector prosecutor W. David McFayden, like Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster before him, has done his job by deciding to take the flimsy case to trial. It bolsters Wolfe’s actions in holding James Johnson in jail for 39 months without a trial. And although the North Carolina State Bar had no intention of taking any action against Wolfe to begin with, it can now point to McFadyen’s actions and claim that Wolfe was indeed acting as a minister of justice when he incarcerated James Johnson and threatened him with a capital murder charge despite the lack of forensic evidence or probable cause.
This sordid exercise only reinforces the fact that prosecutors who abide by the state’s tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color" will be protected to the fullest measure (even if it requires the use of taxpayer money) by the state’s Attorney General’s Office and the NC State Bar. Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, a proponent and practitioner of the principle of "equal justice for all," therefore will remain the only prosecutor to be disbarred or severely disciplined by the State Bar since its inception.
As is obvious, the only reason this case is being brought is to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a complaint of prosecutorial misconduct (for the 39 month incarceration of James Johnson on charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery despite lack of physical evidence or probable cause). However, W. David McFadyen would like the public to believe that his extensive (more than eight months) investigation gives credibility to his findings for proceeding ahead with the trial against Mr. Johnson. Not only is paying for McFadyen’s services a waste of taxpayer money, but the trial itself will unnecessarily divert taxpayer dollars from providing services and programs to the state’s people and communities during these economically challenging times.
What I find particularly alarming, and a very ominous sign, is the fact that Wilson Superior Court Judge Milton Fitch Jr. refuses to change the venue for the trial. Wilson is a city that has been torn apart because of the actions of its police and prosecutors, especially Bill Wolfe. Judge Fitch said that he wanted to keep the trial in Wilson, but did not give a reason, according to the article posted by WRAL-TV. Instead, he wants a jury picked from Wake County and transferred to Wilson for the trial. Does he really believe that busing in a jury from Wake County will lend itself to a fairer proceeding? It is a cockamamie idea, which no unbiased arbiter would even suggest. What is obvious though is that Judge Fitch should not be the one presiding over this trial.
Whatever the outcome of the trial, private sector prosecutor W. David McFayden, like Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster before him, has done his job by deciding to take the flimsy case to trial. It bolsters Wolfe’s actions in holding James Johnson in jail for 39 months without a trial. And although the North Carolina State Bar had no intention of taking any action against Wolfe to begin with, it can now point to McFadyen’s actions and claim that Wolfe was indeed acting as a minister of justice when he incarcerated James Johnson and threatened him with a capital murder charge despite the lack of forensic evidence or probable cause.
This sordid exercise only reinforces the fact that prosecutors who abide by the state’s tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color" will be protected to the fullest measure (even if it requires the use of taxpayer money) by the state’s Attorney General’s Office and the NC State Bar. Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, a proponent and practitioner of the principle of "equal justice for all," therefore will remain the only prosecutor to be disbarred or severely disciplined by the State Bar since its inception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
