A prosecution case built on lies

Durham prosecutors need to dismiss the “larceny of chose in action” charge against Crystal Mangum

Part One

Part Two

LINK to Interactive Flog below:

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog29/flog29.html

Transcribed Text

Word count: 2,126

On the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, Reginald Daye told first responder police and paramedics that he and Crystal Mangum were arguing over money prior to the stabbing incident.

Daye claimed that Mangum, who gained notoriety in the media as the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, either took his money or refused to return his money… his story on this point not being consistent. Never once in these early interviews with police and investigators did Daye, or his nephew Carlos Wilson, ever mention that she had taken cashier’s checks or money orders… leaving the impression that she had stolen cash.

Durham police and investigators also failed to ask how much cash was allegedly taken by Ms. Mangum. According to police reports, the question is never asked by Durham’s Finest, and Daye and Wilson never voluntarily mentioned the amount of cash allegedly stolen.

Without even having the opportunity to give her statement as to what transpired leading up to the stabbing of Daye, Crystal Mangum was arrested on sight within hours of the incident and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill.

According to Durham officer Marianne Bond, Mangum wanted to make a statement, but before she could, she was informed that she had been arrested and was read her Miranda Rights which stated that anything she said could be used against her. Officer Bond then asked Mangum if she wanted to answer some questions at which time she declined, and the so-called interview was terminated.

Daye underwent successful trauma surgery hours after his admission to Duke University Hospital through its emergency department… his prognosis was for a full recovery.

According to Officer Bond’s report, during an interview with Daye the next day, Monday, April 4, 2011, he admitted that he gave two cashier’s checks to Mangum for safekeeping. The checks totaled seven hundred dollars and were to be used to cover April rent.

More importantly, he admitted that the argument early the previous day had nothing to do with money or finances, but rather with her disrespect towards him… in particular, her flirtatious ways with other men.

On the third postoperative day,Wednesday, April 6, 2011, complications from delirium tremens set in, Daye was moved to intensive care, and an endotracheal tube was accidentally placed in his esophagus instead of his airway. By the time the grave mistake was realized, Daye was brain dead and in cardiac arrest. After twenty minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, spontaneous restoration of circulation was achieved, but he remained in what was determined to be an irreversible coma.

After a week of monitoring his condition under an umbrella of media silence, Daye, having shown no signs of improvement, was electively taken off life support, and he died… the evening of April 13, 2011.

Up until the time of Reginald Daye’s death, Mangum had been charged only with assault with a deadly weapon. She had not been charged with larceny, larceny of chose in action, or any other crime.

The following Monday, April 18, 2011, Durham Prosecutor Kelly Gauger obtained a grand jury indictment against Mangum for first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye. The prosecutor had also gotten an indictment for two counts of ‘larceny of chose in action’ against Mangum related to the two cashier’s checks that Daye admitted to have given her and which were in her possession at the time of her arrest. Both cashier’s checks were filled out with Daye as remitter and the apartment complex as the payee. Magnum had no ability to convert them for her own personal use even if she wanted, and Daye never was without the ability to redeem their cash value… provided he did so before they were cashed by the payee.

Larceny of chose in action is a loophole law in which neither of its two primary elements was met. Mangum was given the cashier’s checks… she did not steal or unlawfully take them. Furthermore, she merely held on to them per Daye’s request… making no attempt to alter or convert them for her use. There was no crime committed by Mangum.

However, Prosecutor Gauger, and her successor, Charlene Coggins-Franks, held on to the charge because it was automatically a class H felony… and the prosecution needed a felony for the “felony-murder rule” to be applicable. This problematic and controversial rule enables prosecutors to saddle criminals with first degree murder if an individual dies during the commission of a felony.

A vendetta prosecution from day one as payback against Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, Gauger and Coggins-Franks were seeking a life sentence against her… something that a conviction on a first degree murder charge could assure. And that was the purpose for the charge of “larceny of chose in action”… to guarantee that Mangum spend the remainder of her life incarcerated.

“Larceny of chose in action” charge should be immediately dismissed as the charge lacks probable cause… the elements of the charge missing in this case. Prosecution lacks an eyewitness to the alleged taking of the documents. Not only that, but Daye admits that he gave the checks to Mangum.

The prosecution has failed to present a plausible theory or a motive for Mangum to allegedly steal two cashier’s checks that were filled out and that she could not convert. The prosecution has yet to present a consistent scenario of events involving the cashier’s checks and the stabbing incident… and it has failed to present a connection between the two that is substantiated by their discovery.

Dropping the criminal charge against Mangum definitely would not be precedent setting, as charges throughout the state and especially in Durham County have been dismissed recently… specifically charges against Stephanie Nickerson, Michael Dorman, Stephen Lavance Oates, Shielda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, and Erick Daniels.

Late in October 2012, 25-year old Navy veteran Stephanie Nickerson was at a friend’s house when Durham Police arrived on a noise complaint. When the police wanted to enter the house, Ms. Nickerson advised the house owner that she did not have to allow the police in without a search warrant. This prompted the police officer to grab Nickerson’s wrists to place them behind her back to make an arrest. When she jerked her hands away, the officer threw her to the ground and began punching her in the face.

Nickerson sustained a broken nose, black eye, and swollen lip as a result of the beating and was charged with resisting arrest and assault on a police officer. These charges, of course, were without probable cause, and they were subsequently dropped a short time later by the Durham District Attorney’s Office.

In August 2011, Durham County Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed a murder charge against Michael Dorman. Prosecutors claim Dorman inadvertently killed a woman he was attempting to rape. When apprehended years later, he had her bones in his backpack.

In his order, Hudson stated that defendant Dorman was unable to receive a fair trial because of the destruction of important evidence… the woman’s skeletal remains had been released to the victim’s family and were cremated.

It is interesting to note that Judge Hudson accused the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office of conspiring to destroy evidence and violate Dorman’s right to a fair trial. These are the same claims made by the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong in Mangum’s current murder charge… specifically that the Durham County District Attorney’s Office, the Durham Police Department, and the State Medical Examiner’s office conspired in producing a trumped up autopsy report on Reginald Daye.

Around February 22, 2013, Durham prosecutors dropped the murder charge against Stephen Lavance Oates in the 2008 death of Duke graduate student Abhijit Mahato. The Durham prosecutor, in his order requesting the dismissal, stated that the State had been unable to locate a key witness and that it had “no other available and admissible evidence.” Oates’ attorney, Mark Edwards, had been lobbying for more than a year to have the case thrown out.

Mr. Edwards stated that the Oates case illustrated a “troubling pattern in the Durham police department.” He could have easily gone further with the inclusion in that pattern of the post-Nifong Durham District Attorney’s Office.

On June 12, 2012, Durham prosecutors dropped charges against Sheilda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Moses, respectively the mother and sister of Peter Lucas Moses Jr., a cult leader who pled guilty to murders of Antoinetta Yvonne McCoy, and five year-old Jadon Higganbothan. The two had been held on charges of “accessory after the fact of murder.” No reason was given by prosecutors for their dismissal.

In September 2000, a home-invasion style armed robbery took place in Durham, and 14 year-old Erick Daniels was convicted of the crime despite the lack of evidence and not even having the appearance of the perpetrator… Erick’s hair was close cropped and the description of the robber was that he had cornrows. The chief witness in the case picked him out of a middle school yearbook based on the shape of his eyebrows. Durham police led him out of his middle school in handcuffs. He was sentenced to ten to fourteen years.

Erick Daniels always maintained his innocence and even passed a lie-detector test in 2003. In late 2004, Durham attorney Carlos Mahoney took up his case, and despite a January 2007 denial by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, he fought on for his client.

In September 2008, Durham prosecutors, knowing that they had a weak case against him, offered him an Alford plea deal in exchange for his immediate release from custody with seven years of time served. Had Erick Daniels accepted the plea deal he would have been forever labeled a felon with an armed robbery conviction. He declined… placing his faith in Attorney Mahoney.

During two days of a September 2008 hearing in which Mahoney sought a new trial for his client, the evidence he presented before Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson was so strong and convincing that the black rober took the initiative of dropping the felony charge and declaring Daniels innocent.

Judge Hudson specifically stated, “I would order a new trial if I were satisfied that this defendant committed this crime and the state could prove it. I have no confidence the defendant committed these charges.”

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue denied Erick Daniels’ petition for a Pardon of Innocence… thereby preventing him from receiving compensation as mandated by legislation for his more than seven years of wrongful incarceration.

In cases outside of Durham, a first degree murder charge was dismissed against Knightdale resident Carletta Patrice Alston. She was charged by Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the June 2009 death of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. The weight of the case against her consisted of gunpowder residue found on her nightgown and the fact that her account of what transpired during the early morning hours of the shooting differed from that of a neighbor.

Alston’s defense attorney pointed out to the court that the residue on the nightgown could easily be due to contamination by the lab… as there was no gunpowder residue on her hands.

At the time of her arrest, Alston had been working at two jobs at nursing homes and was hoping to save enough money to move from the residence she shared with her mother and stepfather into her own apartment. Even though the charge has since been expunged from her record, she has had difficulty landing employment because of it.

She was held in jail for nearly a year before Ford dropped the charges, without explanation or comment, and she was released.

There are other examples I could recite where baseless and reckless charges resulted in many months and years of the wrongful incarceration of innocents… but that would be superfluous.

The charges against Crystal Mangum are baseless, bogus, and vendetta-driven. Both charges she now faces are without merit and malicious and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The prosecutors should have dropped charges against her or a judge dismissed them long ago.

Now that Ms. Mangum is out on bond, the prosecutors are without their bargaining chip needed to help secure a plea deal. Although neither charge is supported by probable cause, and both are deserving to be dismissed, the “larceny of chose in action” is most egregious, and was obviously utilized with malice in the State’s sadistic plot to saddle Crystal Mangum with a life sentence.

One thing you can rest assured of… these criminally cruel antics would not be taking place if Mike Nifong was still the Durham County district attorney. 

Regarding Mangum case, the State and media are sending the public the wrong message about domestic violence

Word count: 2,563

After reading the blog, Click on the link at the end
to access a directory with additional information.

Today’s news stories are filled with reports about domestic violence which often result in death of one party or murder-suicide. However, the publicized cases are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the number of domestic violence instances occurring in the state that are not covered by the media. The frequency and likelihood of a fatal outcome in these disputes is finally being brought forth, as well as the need to take measures to address these crimes. That is all good, however, the treatment of Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum by the State and the media is one giant leap backward.

Ever since she was identified as the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, Ms. Mangum has been in the justice system’s and the mainstream media’s crosshairs. Although Mangum claimed to have been sexually abused by partygoer’s at a March 13, 2006, Duke lacrosse hosted beer-guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanal, talk was bandied about whether or not she should face criminal charges after Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, without precedence proclaimed them to be “innocent,” and then averred that “nothing happened.” Although Mr. Cooper refused to pursue charges against Mangum because of her supposed emotional problems and mental instability, I suspect the real reason for not charging her was because if taken to trial, the truth would come out… a truth about which the State and media did not want Durhamians and Tar Heelians to know.

A Duke Lacrosse trial would have brought to the surface a lot of unseemly activity by the Blue Devil’s team which had earned it the disreputable reputation it had… one which forced Duke University President Richard Brodhead to warn the lacrosse Coach Pressler to rein in his players… one in which a third of the team had had run-ins with the law (mainly misdemeanors associated with alcohol, under-aged drinking, open alcoholic containers in the car, public drunkenness, and urinating in public), and one which showed disdain towards females. Under the light of any amount of scrutiny, no matter how cursory, the accusation of sexual abuse by this motley crew would be more than plausible.

I surmise that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, knowing the racial (Ms. Mangum and another African American dancer were called the N-word epithet by partygoers) and political implications of this case, and how the powerful Duke University would likely sweep the incident under the carpet, took control of the investigation in order to assure that equal justice for all was the outcome of this case. That’s when the State stepped in, with the State Bar targeting Mr. Nifong in order to get him off the case. Not only that, but the State and media set out to make an example of Nifong in order to assure that in the future no attorney would dare oppose the will of the Powers-That-Be. Mr. Nifong was then disbarred on some trumped up charges, while the NAACP, and leaders in the African American community silently sat on their hands doing nothing while he was persecuted to the most extreme extent.

In what was to develop into a pattern, Mangum’s side of the story was not presented to the public.

Approximately four years later, Mangum was involved in a domestic violence incident in which an ex-boyfriend struck her repeatedly in the face because of an unflattering comment she made about him. This February 17, 2010 attack, which took place before her three children, galvanized the oldest one to phone 9-1-1 seeking assistance for their mother out of fear for her welfare or life. This was the opening that the State had long sought… a chance for payback against Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse accuser. Even Mangum was wary about the role her past might play regarding the treatment she received by the Durham Police force… so she advised them that their assistance was not required and identified herself using her sister’s name. However, once the men and women in blue had her true identity, the plotting began in earnest.

A bathtub fire of unknown origin was allowed by police to burn without attempts to extinguish it while awaiting the fifteen minute arrival of Durham’s Bravest. Several fire truck units and two dozen firefighters were roused from their beds in the middle of the knight to douse a few clothes burning in a bathtub. Although none of the building’s structure was damaged by flame, the smoke damage to the bathroom that was the consequence of police idleness was extensive. At most, the charge sought against the fire-starter should have been a misdemeanor vandalism, and not felony first degree arson as was indicted by a grand jury.

When led from the apartment, Mangum was held handcuffed in a patrol car while officers talked and mingled with Mangum’s ex-boyfriend. Although he initiated the physical altercation by punching Mangum repeatedly in the face, he was neither arrested nor charged… and instead was described as a “victim of Mangum.” That is the story that the media carried, with no investigator or media-type interviewing Ms. Mangum for her account of what had transpired.

This is a definite case of domestic violence in which the true victim, Mangum, is labeled as the aggressor in an outrageously unbelievable reversal of roles. But the State and the media did not want to delve into the specifics… and neither did the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a Durham-based organization. Back in 2010, Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong members Sidney B. Harr and Steven Matherly went to that organization to seek support and assistance for Mangum, a victim of domestic violence who was being wrongfully imprisoned in a vendetta prosecution by the State. The Coalition refused to provide any help for Crystal Mangum.

Although the State planned to have Mangum languish in jail for a couple of years before bringing her case to trial, her bond was unexpectedly satisfied after only three months of incarceration, at which time she was release… but under electronic monitoring house arrest. The trial that followed months later resulted in her conviction of three trumped up misdemeanor charges, and a mistrial on the most serious felony first degree arson charge… this despite a featherweight defense. Mangum was sentenced to time served and the prosecutors decided not to re-try her on the arson case.

This brings us to the current legal episode in which Crystal Gail Mangum is being charged with first degree murder in the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye, and two counts of “larceny of chose in action.” The latter charge was filed concomitantly with the murder charge in order to elevate it to first degree status using the “felony-murder rule.” This charge is totally bogus as none of the elements required for “larceny of chose in action” are met as: (1) Mangum did not steal any cashier’s checks and Daye admitted in a police report that he gave the checks to Mangum; (2) Mangum never converted or attempted to convert the cashier’s checks in order to unlawfully obtain the property of another person or corporation; and (3) with Daye’s untimely and unfortunate death – for which Mangum had no responsibility – the prosecution lacks a prosecuting witness. Defense attorneys for Mangum for more than a year and a half have refused to challenge the baseless larceny charge; something that a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts would conclude that Mangum’s representation was not acting in accordance with her best interests.

That this is a vendetta prosecution by the State is obvious, but what is cleverly concealed from the public by the State and media is the roles of the two participants in this domestic violence incident… as once again, Mangum, the true victim, is the designated assailant, and Reginald Daye, the true aggressor, is depicted as the victim. Although Daye was the victim of a stabbing, which Mangum admits to have inflicted in self-defense, he was the perpetrator of the domestic violence that preceded it and of which it was a consequence.

The State has played down the truths about Reginald Daye while the mainstream media has shown remarkable ambivalence about knowing the man and his demons. Reginald Daye had a violent criminal background that included assault on a female… brass knuckles even being recovered in his apartment. In a police interview with Sgt. Marianne Bond, Daye admitted to punching Lavern Reed, a female, in the face four or five times, although he says that that attack occurred 20-25 years ago. The State and media have also suppressed the fact that Daye was an alcoholic, who Mangum estimated drank a case of beer each weekday, and a gallon of whiskey on weekends. His capacity for prodigious ethanol consumption was evidenced by his apparent alert level of consciousness while he had a blood alcohol level at the time of the incident of 296 mg/dL – a level that would put the average non-alcoholic adult male in a stupor.

That Daye was an enraged and out-of-control aggressor in the domestic violence incident is evidenced by the following: (1) he physically punched Mangum about the face and head with swelling to the left lower lip and left side of her face evident; (2) he physically attacked her by gouging at her face with his fingernails – depicted on police forensic photographs; (3) he pulled out her hair – clumps noted near the bathroom door and in the master bedroom; and (4) he busted down the locked bathroom door, knocking the frame from the jamb, in order to get at a terrified Mangum who was seeking refuge from him.

Ms. Mangum states that Daye had his hands on her throat strangling her when she grabbed a nearby steak knife (which Daye had brought in from the kitchen), and stabbed him once. However, neither Officer Bond nor any other officer or investigator got this history because they never asked her. No one interviewed Mangum because she was arrested first, based solely on Daye’s questionable account of an armed robbery scenario in which she stole money and stabbed him… an account that was echoed by his nephew Carlos Wilson, who did not witness the incident. According to Bond’s own report, when she first visited Mangum in custody, she asked the defendant if she wanted to give a statement, to which Mangum replied, “Yes.” Sgt. Bond then informed Mangum that she was under arrest and charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill, and the officer then read Mangum her Miranda Rights informing her that anything she said can and would be used against her in a court of law. After informing her of her rights, Bond asked Mangum if she “wanted to answer some questions,” to which Mangum responded in the negative, and the alleged interview was concluded with the officer leaving.

At no time since that April 3, 2011 morning after the incident, has anyone on the prosecutor side attempted to obtain Mangum’s statement about transpired in the wee predawn hours earlier. Durham Prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks have been content to go along with the version given by the late Reginald Daye and his nephew Carlos Wilson… which apparently goes as follows:

• After coming home from a birthday party early that Sunday morning, Daye, who was heavily intoxicated, got into an argument with Mangum over money? The amount never indicated by prosecutors.

• Daye can’t remember whether or not he may have punched Crystal, however he states that she punched him in the face with her fists several times. (Crystal denies punching Daye in the face but states that when he grabbed her by her legs to pull her off the bed, she flailed her legs and may have kicked him in the face.)

• Daye told her to leave, then admits to later telling her she wasn’t going anywhere… then telling her again to leave?

• According to Daye, Mangum sometime thereafter locked herself in the bathroom to make a call to a male to give her a ride, at which time he busted down the door.

• After breaking down the door, Daye grabs her by the hair in order to escort her out of the apartment… and accidentally pulls out a couple of globs of hair.

• Crystal then goes into the kitchen, grabs a steak knife, at which time he tries to get out of her way, and then, without provocation, she stabs him in the back.

The above account is one that not even the police or prosecutors believe because Mangum was not charged with larceny of property at that time and it was not pursued. There is ample evidence, even in the police account of brutality and violence on behalf of Daye, not to mention his intoxicated state and his uncontrolled rage which led to his busting the door frame from the door jamb.

Prosecutors were even aware of a prior incident of domestic violence that occurred approximately nine days prior to the self-defense stabbing when Daye assaulted Mangum so severely that she called a friend, Larry O’Briant, to give her a ride to a medical clinic. Mr. O’Briant even gave a voluntary statement to the police about this incident that occurred on Thursday, March 24, 2011. However, prosecutors did not even have curiosity enough to even look into this incident… as it did not factor into their accusing Mangum as being the assailant in the April 3, 2011 conflict. Neither prosecutors nor Mangum’s defense attorneys, all aware of the fight that preceded the stabbing by just over a week, asked Mangum about it or had her sign a release to obtain clinic records of her visit. All because they do not want Crystal Mangum to be portrayed as what she was… a victim of domestic violence.

Using a criminally fraudulent April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols, Durham prosecutors have been trying to put Crystal Mangum, a two time victim of domestic violence and an alleged victim of sexual abuse, in prison for the rest of her life without the possibility of parole as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. This goal they have tried to achieve with the cooperation of the mainstream media, and by having politicians (McKissick, Michaux, Hall, Price and others) and civil rights groups (NAACP, ACLU, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence) look the other way.

Only the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has stood up to this conspiratorial injustice against Mangum, and because of its efforts, the State is no longer seeking a life sentence for her, but instead is now attempting to force Mangum to accept a plea deal in order to protect the medical examiner, Duke University Hospital for its culpability in Daye’s death, and to protect the City of Durham from liability for its malicious prosecution of Mangum. The Committee is fighting this, as well.

The State and the mainstream media, local and national, can talk tough against domestic violence, but when it comes to proof being in the pudding, it is definitely sending the wrong message by its vindictive and horrendous treatment of Crystal Mangum… a true victim of domestic violence who is, in addition, a victim of the State and the media. 
LINK:  http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/direc/direc01.htm

Why Crystal Mangum should continue to legally represent herself

Word count: 1,850

NOTE: The day after this blog was posted, on Friday, November 30, 2012, Dr. Harr physically carried to the Clerk of court's office a Motion to Dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge by Mangum, as well as his own Petition for writ of Mandamus to effect the release of Mangum on her own recognizance.  Both of these documents, along with their exhibits have been added to the directory of the link at the end of the blog.

After reading the blog, click on the link at the end to view directory (which now contains an extra button to view the documents filed with the court on November 30, 2012.)

While the saying, “A person who represents himself has a fool for a client,” may be applicable in many, if not most, instances, that is definitely not the case in which Crystal Mangum is currently facing a first degree murder charge and a “Larceny of chose in action” charge (a Class H felony). The criminal charges against Mangum, the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, are vendetta-driven and baseless charges that any competent attorney acting in the client’s best interest should have been able to dismantle and debunk hastily. That the prosecution should even have the audacity to level such charges against a young lady who committed no crimes but was the victim of a heinous domestic battery, is due to the politics surrounding the case and the prosecutors’ assurance that the defense attorneys for Mangum will work in collusion against her best interests.

The initial intent of Durham prosecutors Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks was to use the bogus trumped up charges in an attempt to convict Ms. Mangum of first degree murder and have her sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole… not because of Daye’s death, but rather as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. However, Sidney B. Harr, the Mangum supporter and Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, has gotten involved in publicly pointing out the following: (1) that major discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions existed in the April 14, 2011 Autopsy Examination Report tendered by North Carolina Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Clay Nichols; (2) that the true cause of Reginald Daye’s death was due to wrongful endotracheal tube placement for treatment of complications arising from delirium tremens; (3) the stab wound inflicted by Mangum was non-fatal and successfully treated with emergency surgery with a postoperative prognosis for a full recovery; and (4) the “Larceny of chose in action” charge met none of the criteria and was implemented for the sole purpose of elevating the murder charge to first degree… resulting in a reassessment of their original pie-in-the-sky aspirations.

Durham prosecutors’ desperate objectives now are centered around getting Crystal Mangum to accept a plea deal in order to achieve the following major goals: (1) help prosecutors save face and limit legal civil liability for its malicious prosecution and wrongful incarceration of Mangum; (2) protect Medical Examiner Nichols who conspired with the prosecutors to produce a criminally fraudulent autopsy report as the basis for a trumped up murder charge against Mangum; and (3) shield Duke University Hospital’s reputation and its staff for culpability in Daye’s demise… in which a potential hospital staff homicidal contribution was never even taken into consideration by Durham Police or prosecutors.

During Mangum’s 606 days of unjust incarceration (as of today’s date, and counting…), her legal representation has been, for all intents and purposes, impotent and totally lacking in urgency while their client is confined. There has been no attempt to conduct the most minimal investigation by her legal counsel… no attempt made to obtain clinic records of a March 24, 2011 visit by Mangum after being beaten by Daye – occurring nine days prior to the self-defense stabbing incident… no attempt to interview one of Daye’s former girlfriends whom Daye admitted to punching in the face four or five times… nothing!

The request for forensic pathologist Christena L. Roberts to review Daye’s death and autopsy report was made only after Lay Advocate Harr spent a half hour pointing out discrepancies in the autopsy report to Mangum’s attorney on or about May 24, 2012… and a court order to pay for that defense expert witness was issued on June 18, 2012… more than a year after Mangum was charged. Although the court allowed payment for only ten hours of work, a written report by Dr. Roberts has yet to be completed after more than five months.

Mangum did not have the benefit of a preliminary hearing, and during her 600-plus days behind bars, the only motions filed on her behalf by her attorneys have been for bail reduction; the last four failing to get it reduced below $200,000. No motions have been filed to have the “Larceny of chose in action” charge dismissed, no motions filed to have the first degree murder charge dismissed, and no motion made to have Judge Osmond Smith III recuse himself from hearing a bail reduction case for Mangum (Smith presided over the Duke Lacrosse case and made rulings against Mangum and was responsible for sentencing former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong to 24 hours in jail).

During Mangum’s incarceration her attorneys have essentially conducted no investigation and filed no motions of substance… therefore, they have achieved nothing for their client. Crystal Mangum, in representing herself, surely could do no worse. However, because she is currently representing herself she is now in position to have the Court provide finances for an investigator, she is in position to receive all records and documents (including the long-awaited report from Dr. Roberts), and she is able to file motions with the Court. These are invaluable rights that she now has and she needs to hold on to them lest she be put back in the same situation as she was before when others were named as her counsel of record… that situation being that no substantive motions were filed and prosecution discovery and other evidence was withheld from her.

Around August19, 2012, Lay Advocate Harr first contacted Louisburg attorney Paris Branch-Ramadan, a recent graduate from North Carolina Central University Law School… and he has kept her apprised of the case and his contributions on the internet and his filings with the Clerk of Court. Although Attorney Branch-Ramadan has spoken with Mangum on at least two occasions, and received from Harr the entire prosecution discovery disks (thirteen in all), she has evidently not committed to help by assisting Mangum to represent herself. According to an article by Beth Velliquette of The Herald-Sun titled, “Confusion reigns at Mangum court appearance,” Paris Branch-Ramadan “later said that she purposefully did not appear at the hearing because Mangum had not hired her.”

Whether or not Ms. Branch-Ramadan elects to assist Mangum in representing herself, she has already brought to Harr’s attention the fact that the Court acted maliciously in denying Mangum visitation with her children while she “was incarcerated in any detention center.” Judge Doretta Walker issued this order in family court after acknowledging that she was not an unfit mother. Visitation at the detention center is one in which inmates have no physical contact with visitors who they can see through a thick glass barricade.

Attorney Branch-Ramadan’s observation alerted Harr to the fact that this is not the first time the State has used Mangum’s children as a tool to punish her. In the 2010 so-called “arson case,” Durham prosecutors magically proclaimed that Mangum’s children were her “victims” because she allegedly set fire to the clothes in the bathtub while they were inside the apartment. Based on this obtuse rationale, the Court severely restricted the length and conditions of Mangum’s visitation with her three children while she was on electronically monitored house arrest following released from jail after her bond was satisfied.

Now, because of Judge Walker’s ruling, Mangum is denied visitation with her children while she is in the detention center… a cruel and inhumane punitive order. And it is an order which works to the advantage of the prosecution in trying to force Mangum to accept an unjust plea deal in order to be able to see her children again. Once again, Mangum’s defense attorneys have been, or should have been, aware of this and taken steps to rectify this injustice and draconian leverage against Mangum… but, as usual, no motions were filed by her attorneys to allow Mangum to have visitation with her children. As Paris Branch-Ramadan stated, this is nothing but malicious behavior on the part of the State.

Ms. Branch-Ramadan also pointed out to Harr that the “Larceny of chose in action” charge is being brought against Mangum without a prosecuting witness… in other words, the prosecution does not even have an eyewitness who allegedly saw Ms. Mangum steal, take and carry away, or take by robbery the two cashier’s checks. In fact, Reginald Daye, in a police report interview specifically stated that he gave the two cashier’s checks to Mangum to hold on to, and he is never quoted as saying that she unlawfully took possession of them. Daye’s nephew, Carlos Wilson, never claimed to have seen Mangum steal or take the two cashier’s checks. According to Mr. Wilson, in all police accounts, Daye and Mangum were arguing about “money” and not cashier’s checks. Even Daye, in his highly intoxicated state during the early morning hours of April 3, 2011, stated that the argument leading up to the stabbing was centered about “money” and not cashier’s checks. (During an interview the following day of Monday, April 4, 2011, from his hospital bed, Daye confessed to police officer Marianne Bond that the argument of the prior morning’s incident stemmed from his perception that Mangum disrespected him and that she was “running off at the mouth.”)

Because Mangum’s legal representation has been woefully inept (either purposefully or not) in representing her and protecting her rights, it is imperative that Mangum retain control of her legal destiny in this politically charged case and not turn it over to the control of anyone else. If she does, she will be in the same position as she was previously when motions were not filed on her behalf and prosecution discovery and evidence were withheld from her.

I believe that the reason the Dr. Roberts report has not yet been delivered is because as things now stand Judge Robert Hobgood has ordered that attorney Woody Vann contact Dr. Roberts and have her send her report directly to Mangum. However, any attorney who is considered by the Court to be Mangum’s legal representative would be the person to whom the all important report would be sent, and as in the past, it could be withheld from her.

It is obvious that neither the Durham prosecutors nor Mangum’s past defense attorneys want her to have the Dr. Roberts report, and the prosecution is supposedly moving ahead with plans to offer a plea deal without Mangum having the benefit of having seen the Roberts report… which would undoubtedly favor Mangum and strengthen her position. So in order for Mangum to be assured of receiving the report, it is imperative that she remain at the helm of her defense.

If Attorney Branch-Ramadan agrees to sign on to help Mangum, it should only be as a back-up assistant. She should not seek to represent Mangum which could only be viewed by a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts as an overreaching power grab that could very likely accrue to Mangum’s extreme detriment.

It would be ill-advised and pure folly for Crystal Mangum to now relinquish control of her defense and her destiny, and place her fate in the hands of another. 

LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/blink/blink112912/direcBlink112912.htm

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to dismiss “Larceny of chose in action”

Click on link at end to view directory. 

To return to the blog, use browser return arrows.

Word count: 1,004

Posting of this blink marks the 594th day of Crystal Mangum’s wrongful incarceration on bogus and trumped up charges of first degree murder and “Larceny of chose in action.” Throughout her lengthy incarceration, neither of the two attorneys representing her even made the simplest of efforts to dismiss the larceny charge. Had I been representing Mangum in this criminal case arising from the self-defense stabbing incident in the wee hours of Sunday, April 3, 2011, I would have filed a motion to dismiss the “Larceny of chose in action” charge on day one.

First, it is obvious that not only is the charge not supported, but that it was diabolically used in conjunction with the “felony-murder rule” solely for the purpose of validating the murder charge status to first degree. It was the intent of the malicious prosecutors to carry out this vendetta prosecution against Mangum as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case… this is clear and without doubt.

Problems with the “Larceny of chose in action” charge against Mangum can be categorized as follows:
(1) elements of the charge were not met by Mangum’s actions;
(2) timeline of the charge related to the incident suggests that it was not made in good faith;
(3) indictment of the charge in conjunction with the murder charge two weeks following the incident strongly supports that it was made to bolster the first degree status of the murder charge;
(4) nothing in the prosecution discovery even states that Mangum stole cashier’s checks; and
(5) it is illogical for the charge to apply to cashier’s checks in which the payee and remitter” are registered.

Beginning with the “Larceny of chose in action” charge, two elements must be met. First, in this case, the cashier’s checks must be stolen, taken and carried away, or taken by robbery. This did not occur, as Reginald Daye in an interview with Sgt. Marianne Bond on the first postoperative day said that “he gave her the checks to hold on to.” In fact, his intention was for her not only to hold onto them, but to turn them over to the apartment manager on Monday, April 4, 2011, during office hours… a time during which he would be at work as a house painter. Daye correctly knew that she even had deposited them in her purse for safekeeping… as was recorded by Sgt. Bond in this same police report.

The second element of this little known/rarely used law is that it is not merely enough to be in unlawful possession of the cashier’s checks, but that she be required to use them to for the payment of money or the delivery of specific articles that are the property of another person or corporation. This never occurred… this was never attempted… and the prosecution knows this to be a fact. In fact, Mangum never forged, altered, or manipulated the cashier’s checks that were in her possession for days.

If Durham prosecutors made the “Larceny of chose in action” charge in good faith, it would have been brought sometime within the proximity of the incident. Prosecution maintains Mangum took or stole the cashier’s checks on April 3, 2011, but made no such larceny charge until more than two weeks later, concomitantly with the murder charge. The timeline of the simultaneous indictment of the “Larceny of chose in action” charge along with the murder charge furthermore bolsters the premise that its sole purpose was to use it to justify elevating the murder to first degree.

In the November 16, 2012 issue of The Herald-Sun, in an article titled, “Confusion reigns at Mangum court appearance,” for the first time in recorded history, it states in writing that Mangum was charged with “.. stealing two checks from him (Daye).” However, no where in the prosecution discovery in any of the police reports and interviews does it state that Mangum specifically stole “checks,” “cashier’s checks,” or “money orders.” The only references to theft in the prosecution discovery have to do with the theft or unlawful taking of “money” or “rent money.” And, the taking of money or cash is a disqualifier when it comes to the “Larceny of chose in action” charge.

Finally, the “Larceny of chose in action” charge can be assumed by a reasonable person to apply to a blank check or blank cashier’s check, and not one wherein the payee and remitter are denoted… as in the case against Mangum with the apartment listed as payee and Daye as remitter. If unlawfully taken or stolen, a blank check has the potential of being easily and illegally converted to cash for the criminal benefit of the holder who unlawfully obtained it. It is this situation in which the “Larceny of chose in action” Class H felony is applicable. However, if a cashier’s check is filled out with payee and remitter named, its theft or physical loss is of no consequence as the remitter still retains the ability to redeem its value even without the check in his possession. Likewise, it is unreasonable for anyone to steal a check that has been filled out as to payee and remitter since that check’s value can only be converted by the payee or remitter, and not by the thief.

The only reason that Prosecutors had the nerve to bring this ridiculous charge against Mangum to satisfy the murder charge’s first degree standing, was because they were well aware that it would not be challenged by Mangum’s defense attorneys. And it wasn’t. Over more than a year and a half, neither of Mangum’s defense lawyers bothered to file a motion to dismiss this merit-less charge… and that is ineffective legal representation at its best.

In the criminal case against Crystal Mangum, which is nothing more than a house of cards built on a foundation of quicksand, the “Larceny of chose in action” charge will undoubtedly be the first underpinning of this criminal travesty to go. 

LINK:  http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/direc/direcMasC.htm