North Carolina’s disgraceful treatment of Erick Daniels continues…

Click the link below to access the flog.

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog3redo.html


The Independent Weekly, a Triangle area arts and entertainment tabloid out of Durham, has made it clear to me, for reasons which are not, that it doesn't want anything to do with me. I believe its hostility towards me is due to the fact that I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. Despite that, however, I would be remiss to miss an opportunity to look at the publication every chance I get because it does tackle important criminal and social justice issues that other mainstream media avoid like the plague. In fact, I credit its articles about the unjust incarceration of Erick Daniels to be instrumental in public awareness about his plight, and to be responsible for his subsequent release from prison after serving seven of a ten to fourteen year sentence for an armed robbery conviction... a crime he did not commit.

What is particularly tragic about the Daniels case is that he never should have been arrested for the September 21, 2000 armed robbery, let alone convicted and allowed to serve time. Compounding the tragedy is that Erick Daniels was taken into custody at the age of fourteen... hand-cuffed and led away from his middle school class room like a hardened criminal. That the case against him was flawed was evident from the very beginning, but his defense attorney seriously compromised his case by putting the young boy on the witness stand.

Licking her chops, the Durham Prosecutor Freda Black tore into her prey, convincing a pliable jury that Daniels was a threat to society... that he had gang affiliations, etc. She was unable to present credible evidence linking Daniels to the armed robbery, as he differed from the victim's initial description of the perpetrator in hair style and complexion.

The victim’s description of the armed robber was an African American male of light complexion with his hair braided in cornrows. Erick Daniels has a dark complexion and his hair is short cropped.

Fingerprints at the crime scene did not match Daniels's and there was no other forensic evidence to implicate him either. Discrepancies in the lead investigator's records and missing police reports further raised doubts about the legitimacy of the state's case against Daniels. The prosecuting attorney even failed to interview a young man who was later incarcerated who fit the suspect's profile and admitted to committing the robbery.

Perhaps what is most disturbing is that the reason Erick Daniels was deemed to be the most likely suspect was due to the fact that he was picked out of a middle school yearbook based upon the shape of his eyebrows. Daniels appeared before Judge Osmond Smith III, the same judge who sentenced Mike Nifong to 24 hours in jail on a trumped up contempt of court charge. The honorable Judge Smith sentenced Daniels to a sentence of ten to fourteen years. So Daniels languished in jail, year after year, with the state having stolen his youth.


While incarcerated, appeals were filed on his behalf, but all were for naught.
In 2003, after spending several years in jail, Erick Daniels passed a polygraph test which supported his contention that he was not involved in the crime for which he was convicted. It wasn't until the following year that Attorney Carlos Mahoney took over Daniels's case and filed an appeal with Durham Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson which eventually led to Daniels’s release from prison. In releasing Daniels, the judge dismissed all of the charges against him, and as he is legally empowered to do, declared that Erick Daniels was "innocent."

The News & Observer, a Johnny-come-lately in the travails of Erick Daniels, published a front page article in its Sunday, February 1, 2009, issue titled "After injustice, Durham man's eyes are on the future." However, the article by Anne Blythe was quick to turn its attention and sympathies to the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. Defendants who served no time in jail, who through their avaricious lawyers shook down Duke University for $20 million each, and who are attempting to pry another $10 mil each from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Per mainstream media custom, the Duke three are described as "exonerated” and “declared innocent..." However, writer Blythe failed to mention in the article that they were declared "innocent" by an attorney general... a proclamation which she very well knew carried no legal weight and which was meant to mislead the public.

Comparing the Duke Lacrosse defendants to Erick Daniels is like comparing apples and eggplant... as Daniels was declared "innocent" by a judge, not an attorney general. In addition, the Duke Lacrosse defendants were never convicted of a felony, as was Daniels. Daniels’s record is stained by the unjust felony charge and conviction, whereas the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ record is spotless.

Despite a case in which Daniels did not have a forensic print, had ineffective legal representation, had a confession from another man with a criminal past who fit the description, and had been declared "innocent" by a judge, he has been unsuccessful in receiving a pardon. Under state law, without the pardon he is not eligible to receive compensation that the state legislature has designated to go to the wrongfully incarcerated.

With his current attorney Gladys Harris, Daniels had been in the pursuit of a pardon for years through the North Carolina Office of Executive Clemency, which is charged with granting pardons and commuting sentences. A Pardon of Innocence is granted when an individual has been convicted and criminal charges are subsequently dismissed, as has occurred in Daniels's case. Although, like Gregory Taylor, Erick Daniels has been legally determined to be "innocent," a petition to the Governor for a declaration of innocence to enable him to seek compensation from the State for being erroneously convicted and imprisoned by it has not been granted.

There is no doubt among fair-minded people of good conscientious that Erick Daniels is innocent of the charge of armed robbery for which he was convicted, sentenced, and suffered seven years of incarceration. Neither is their doubt that Daniels deserves to be made whole by all measures at the State's disposal, such as expungement of the crime from his record and financial compensation to which he is rightfully entitled by state law.

In the Gregory Taylor case, Governor Bev Perdue had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing in giving Taylor a pardon for his seventeen years of wrongful incarceration and enabling him to receive the compensation to which he was entitled. For reasons which have no logical answer, the Governor and her Executive Office of Clemency are bracing themselves to deny justice for Erick Daniels.

According to the Independent Weekly, the Clemency Office denied Daniels's pardon in February 2011, and Daniels's attorney Harris stated that she had not received notification from the state office. Harris went on to state that the office informed her that the denial was issued because "those granting pardons from the state do not disturb jury verdicts." Whoever the mysterious people are in the Clemency Office must believe that Attorney Harris is an idiot. If I am not mistaken, practically all innocent people are wrongfully convicted by a jury. Gregory Taylor was convicted by a jury... yet he was pardoned by the Governor's office. Their explanation for refusing to pardon Daniels makes no sense and they know it. That is why the Governor's office and the secretive Office of Clemency rebuffed the Independent Weekly's efforts to contact them. This is the kind of insanity that makes North Carolina the laughing stock of the country.

One reason that the governor and her Executive Office of Clemency believe that they can get away with this egregious and amoral mistreatment of Erick Daniels is because Daniels’s political representatives U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall keep at arms length when it comes to defending their constituents caught in a system that dispenses selective justice based on Class and Color.

The injustice suffered by Daniels is not a problem restricted to the Durham area, rather it is an issue which plagues the entire state of North Carolina. Representatives, senators, and all politicians who value the concept of “equal justice for all” should not just feel shock and abhorrence at the mistreatment of Erick Daniels, but they should do something about it.

The NAACP’s state organization under its president, Reverend Doctor William Barber, as well as the Durham chapter of the NAACP, has remained silent as dormice. By so doing, this civil rights organization is nothing more than an enabler to the unacceptable and discriminatory status quo and it does a disservice to all people of color who’s civil and constitutional rights it professes to protect.

It is time for Governor Bev Perdue, her administration, and other state officials to start assuring that “equal justice for all” is being dispensed by the state’s criminal justice system instead of bad jokes. Erick Daniels certainly deserves better... and so do all Tar Heelians.

A criminal justice system well designed for the well-heeled

It should not be a surprise to anyone, but the criminal justice system, like so much else in our society, is designed to benefit the wealthy and privileged… not only by the way in which laws are put on the books, but by the way they are carried out. In short, criminals belonging to society’s upper crust, are mainly saddled with a fine. Real serious crimes by the aristocrats might also include probation (unsupervised, naturally) and possibly community service (arbitrary and vague). Now for the rest of the people, which is mostly comprised of those living in poverty and those on the verge of living in poverty, if they commit a crime you can bet he/she will serve time behind bars. And, of course the penalty for crimes committed by the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color is disproportionately more severe than it is for crimes committed by those in high places.

Wealthy people in positions of prominence, for example, are often not even charged when they go afoul of the law, much less prosecuted. Look no further than what happened when North Carolina senator R. C. Soles shot an unarmed man who was walking away from him and posed no immediate threat. The police report, if one was taken, was never released. Mr. Soles was not arrested. He was not charged. The whole incident was swept under the carpet and the media was muzzled. For the average citizen who carried out such action, you better believe that he/she would be charged with “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury” at the minimum. Factors such as Class and Color of the victim would determine the amount of bail, and the way in which the prosecution moved forward.

Although Mr. Soles acted criminally and exhibited extremely poor judgment in the shooting incident, the North Carolina State Bar refused to act on a complaint filed against Mr. Soles. Again, not surprising since the Bar is an unregulated agency that is drunk with power… so much that it disbarred former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong on baseless trumped up “ethics” charges; charges which were initiated by some anonymous person in the Bar for the sole purpose of removing Mr. Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case.

But businessmen are revered in our capitalistic society, and great pains are taken to look the other way when they commit crimes. Although most of the mainstream media has ignored the crimes of Somerhill Gallery President Joe Rowand, the weekly entertainment tabloid, The Independent Weekly, did expose his criminal activities. In short, Rowand defrauded artists out of at least $270,000 worth of commissions for artwork on consignment at the Durham gallery. And, according to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, he owed $200,000 in unpaid rent, and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars to other creditors. He managed to amass this debt for the business while paying himself a salary of $15,000 per month (roughly $180,000 annually). Now Mr. Rowand is not even charged with a crime. Why? Because he is a businessman.

Heather Holley was not a businesswoman. So when she went on her identity theft spree, during which she tried to obtain some health insurance, and spent $1,800 at Best Buy, police and prosecutors and the courts were ready to throw the book at her. After her arrest, bail was set at $5 million. What made Ms. Holley’s crime so unforgivable was that she victimized a wealthy respectable lady. Had she targeted riff-raff in her crimes, she might have been released without bond, especially considering it was her first run-in with the law. When Ms. Holley had the audacity to ask the judge about her bail being excessive considering the charges against her, he retaliated by raising it an additional million. Of course, there was no outrage at her treatment in court by the media. No editorials in newspapers… in other words, this selective and unjust treatment is as acceptable to the media as the unjust disbarment and persecution of Mike Nifong. The media is well aware of which side its bread is buttered on, and who’s doing the buttering. To champion "equal justice for all" would undoubtedly garner consternation amongst the bigwigs who help support the media by paying for advertising and other contributions.

Recently Rusty Carter, a businessman and owner of Atlantic Corporation, was fined $100,000 by the State Board of Elections because he illegally funneled money to the campaigns of Governor Bev Perdue and two state senators. His company gave $266,900 to state and federal candidates during the 2008 election cycle, according to a sworn affidavit. According to The News & Observer the three recipients of the businessman’s largess “agreed to forfeit the donations.” What does that mean? Are they going to return it to Atlantic? Give the money to charity? And, who’s going to see that these politicians follow up on their promises? Is there going to be a public accounting? (I doubt it.)

Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina asked the State Board of Elections to hand out a $200,000 fine to Carter, suggesting that a hefty fine “sends a signal that these kids of violations deserve to be punished.” Sure, these types of violations deserve punishment, but because he is a businessman, jail time is out of the question… not even a consideration. Regarding the amount of the fine, the Board, under Chairman Larry Leake couldn’t bear to issue a fine greater than $100,000. Hall considers the fine imposed, although half of what he sought, to be “some serious money.” Who does he think he is fooling? $100 grand is serious money to common folk (or “little people”), but to the owner and CEO of a large corporation, that amount probably is barely enough to cover his monthly bar tab. But the media, Mr. Hall, and the courts want the people to believe that Mr. Carter has been severely wounded fiscally. That amount is nothing more than pocket change to a businessman of Mr. Carter’s means.

The General Assembly, which is basically a reactionary body, responded to the Carter case by passing a law making it a felony if a donor gives more than $10,000 in illegal campaign donations, not a misdemeanor like Mr. Carter faced. From what I read from the newly passed law, a donor can make illegal donations up to the $10,000 limit and still be considered to have committed a misdemeanor crime. Why the big cushion? Keep in mind that laws are made by the wealthy and privileged, and they are going to have a definite slant towards benefiting the upper echelon.

Not long ago, I was nearly arrested on the Duke campus because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. Duke, of course, denied this, with Michael Schoenfeld, a vice president, accusing me of repeatedly violating the school’s regulation against solicitation. What is their definition of solicitation? According to Mr. Schoenfeld it is passing out business cards (I passed out about a half dozen to people with whom I had had a conversation) and asking someone to visit your website. That is unbelievable, but it was the only excuse the university could come up with for kicking me off of its campus when I went to attend an event which was advertised as open to the public. Even if it was the reason behind my near-arrest… to arrest me for passing out business cards? This unjust and malicious behavior against me on Duke’s part is acceptable to the media, and subsequently, the masses because I do not matter when the issue is scrutinized through the lens of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Laws, and the way they are applied are adjustable to the individuals involved, their standing in society, and the color of their skin.

With the media helping to direct public opinion, it will always be acceptable to the mindless masses for the well-heeled to pay for their crimes with their wallets, while the disenfranchised, poor, people of color, and the majority of common folk will be expected to pay for their crimes by languishing behind bars at taxpayer expense (and at the benefit of corporations in the correctional institution business).

Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, Wyatt Earp, Eliot Ness, and Mike Nifong

Recently, The Independent Weekly, a Triangle area arts and entertainment publication, which has an aversion to me, featured an article by a “Casual Observer.” The title of the July 14, 2010 article, “Razing questions: The last day of the Duke lacrosse house” by Adam Sobsey, included the following paragraph:
“The next morning, I was sitting in Parker & Otis with a cup of coffee when two men sat down at an adjacent table. One of them turned on a voice recorder and interviewed the other – about the lacrosse scandal, astonishingly. The interviewee vigorously and lengthily attacked the media coverage of the case and defended Nifong. It was even more astonishing to hear him compare Nifong to a cross between Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. The building may have been demolished, but apparently we are still picking through its controversial remains.”

Yep, I was the interviewee. A gentleman was working on a project for his doctorial thesis and we met that day in Durham for the interview about how African Americans responded and reacted to the Duke Lacrosse case. As the casual observer accurately observed, I did place well-deserved criticism about biased and unfair coverage on the mainstream media… which is in lockstep with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and anyone considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.

A most conspicuous example of slanted media coverage is the utilization of the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy as evidenced in the recent series in The News & Observer which lays prosecutorial misdeeds on SBI agents and its lab. No where in the entire four part series, spread out over a week, did any of the articles, or related articles mention a prosecutor’s name with a case of injustice. For example, Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned, although he was responsible for putting an innocent man prison for 17 years of a life sentence (Greg Taylor). The name of Prosecutor David Hoke’s name was put in print, even though he convinced a jury to place an innocent man (Alan Gell) on death row. Anson County District Attorney Michael D. Parker wasn’t named in the paper’s series even though he was responsible for an innocent man (Floyd Brown) being incarcerated for fourteen years without a trial. Instead, the newspaper placed blame for these and other flagrant injustices on SBI agents and workers in its forensic lab.

Contrast that coverage to what happened when police investigator Linwood Wilson was charged with “obscenity stalking” as a result of marital discord… the headlines blared, “Nifong’s investigator arrested,” “Nifong’s investigator charged with stalking,” etc. You get the picture. The media, unfortunately, is integrally involved in shaping public opinion, and every chance it gets to link Mr. Nifong to a negative story, it will jump at the chance.

Now, I was pleased with the reference in The Independent Weekly by Mr. Sobsey. And, as I have said for some time, Mr. Nifong has the important and positive characteristics of Wyatt Earp, Eliot Ness, and Thomas Beckett. As a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong believed in law, and he set his career to seeing justice carried out, as devoted to law enforcement as Marshal Wyatt Earp. Like the “Untouchables’” Eliot Ness, Mr. Nifong would not be swayed by coercion, peer pressure, public sentiment, or “suggestions” from higher-ups. Finally, Mr. Nifong exhibited the courage and independence of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett in seeking justice… not bending under the force of the Carpetbagger Cabal. And contrary to the lies put forth in the media from the unregulated North Carolina State Bar adjudicator F. Lane Williamson, and others, Mike Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse defendants when doing so presented a definite disadvantage to his being elected to his appointed position of Durham district attorney.

What is truly sad is that the people of Durham have been snookered out of having one of North Carolina’s truly great prosecutors serve their county. Mike Nifong exemplified a “Minister of Justice” who put getting it right ahead of winning no matter what the costs. It is the people of Durham who share in this blame because they remained silent and idle, allowing the travesty against Mr. Nifong to take root and flourish. Unfortunately, as is often the case, a man possessing the admirable qualities of Beckett, Earp, and Ness, was considered too much of a risk for the Powers-That-Be who wanted to have free rein to co-opt their version of justice as opposed to enforcing the sacrosanct principle of “equal justice for all.”