Durham Prosecutors: “Oops!” Charges dropped against two in the Durham cult murder case

Word count 1,183


On Tuesday, June 12, 2012, Durham prosecutors dismissed charges of “accessory after the fact” against Sheilda Evelyn Harris and Sheila Falisha Moses, the mother and sister respectively of Peter Lucas Moses Jr. The day before, Peter Moses pled guilty to the murders of four year-old Jadon Higganbothan and Antoinetta Yvonne McCoy, in her late twenties. Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses were amongst a group of six people other than Peter Moses who were charged with murder shortly after the bodies of the two victims were discovered a year ago around June 8, 2011.

The reasons the Durham prosecutors had for dismissing the charges against Peter Moses’ mother and sister are unknown to media, and not having access to prosecution discovery, I can supply no reason either, other than the fact that evidence for bringing the charges never existed in the first place. A year ago, when the two were arrested, Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses were charged with murder and ordered to be held without bail. However, some time during the interval, the charge used to hold them behind bars was changed to “accessory after the fact.”

What is bothersome regarding the others who are charged with “accessory after the fact” in the cult murder case is the probability that much of the prosecutor’s case will rely on testimony from Peter Lucas Moses, who entered into a plea deal to spare him from the death penalty. Surely such testimony from a confessed murderer in cooperation with prosecutors lacks credibility from the git-go.

Dismissal of the accessory charge against them was not of insignificant consequence as both of them in essence served a one year term for committing no crime. In dropping the charges, the Durham prosecutors are admitting to mistakenly arresting and incarcerating Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses… holding them in jail custody for more than a year… and subjecting them to scorn, shame, and ridicule by media reports spreading their names and faces across the state. Dropping the charges against them will not restore the lost year of their lives, which the prosecutors were all to eager and unapologetically to take from them… neither will it remove the emotional and physical scars they suffered as a result of their unjust incarceration… nor will it cleanse their reputations that have been smeared by the reckless charges and arrests.

The problem with mass arrests and incarcerations based on “accessory after the fact” charges is that it tends to entrap many innocent people who are related to the criminal perpetrator, as in this case, or have a brief interaction with a suspect after the commission of the crime. Prosecutors use the accessory charge to place individuals in jail who are not suspected of taking part in the defining criminal act… they are often implicated solely for their contact with the criminal, not matter how innocent or trivial.

The accessory after the fact charge is too frequently abused by North Carolina prosecutors, often to incarcerate innocent African Americans. This is the charged that was brought by Special Prosecutor Belinda Foster against James Arthur Johnson of Wilson, NC, when prosecutor Bill Wolfe’s bluff was called in his failed attempt to get Johnson to take a plea deal after serving 39 months for murder, rape, and kidnapping charges he obviously did not commit. What is particularly tragic about Johnson’s case is that he provided information which solved the heinous crimes against Brittany Willis. Instead of receiving, from the family and friends of the victim, thanks and the $20,000 reward he earned for going to the police with information that cracked the case open, all Johnson received was more than three years in jail and a criminal record.

However, it is not a rarity in North Carolina for innocent blacks to be arrested and held in jail for lengthy periods of time without there being credible evidence of their being charged. Carletta Alston of Knightdale was recently arrested and charged with the murder of her stepfather. She was imprisoned for a year before the charges against her were dropped. Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford (who prosecuted an innocent man Gregory Taylor) was evidently unable to find someone to give perjured testimony against Ms. Alston.

The entire North Carolina justice system mentality that approves charging and arresting African Americans first then coming up with credible evidence later, is what nearly led to my arrest at Duke University in April 2010. It was not enough that Duke harassed, humiliated and intimidated me just for being a supporter of Mike Nifong, but it had no compunction about tossing me in jail because I am an African American… fortunately crossing paths with Duke Law Professor James Coleman prevented that.

There is another case in Durham County Prosecutor’s docket that should be immediately dismissed. The murder and larceny charges against Crystal Mangum, the victim/accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, lack credible evidence and are based on bogus and fraudulent documents… all part of a vendetta prosecution for payback because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks conspired with her predecessor on the case, Kelly Gauger, and medical examiner Clay Nichols to trump up the murder charge against Mangum. Governor Bev Perdue and the Durham district attorney she appointed, Leon Stanback, are aware of the injustice in the charges against Mangum and are in position to rectify them… however, by remaining silent, they are conspirators after the fact.

The fiasco surrounding the charges against Mangum would not be happening if Mike Nifong were the Durham district attorney. Mr. Nifong was a prosecutor of highest integrity who was professionally represented a paragon of a “minister of justice.” Prosecutors and politicians who allow innocent people to remain incarcerated for political reasons are lacking in integrity and morals.

Crystal Mangum has been incarcerated 441 days as of today… a victim of domestic abuse who stabbed Reginald Daye in self defense… a non-fatal stab wound to Daye, who died after elective removal from life support due to an unrelated botched medical procedure by Duke University Hospital staff… a victim of a trumped up larceny charge for cashier’s checks given to her by Daye; cashier’s checks she could not convert for her use; cashier’s checks which Daye retained value of despite lacking physical possession of the paper documents.

It is past time for the state to drop charges against Mangum and release her from jail so that she can reunite with her three young children who have suffered because of her absence in their lives. By dropping charges against Sheilda Harris and Sheila Moses, the state has shown its proficiency in destroying lives of innocent people by taking away years of their liberty. If the state has an ounce of compassion, humanity, ethics, or sense of true justice, it would immediately drop the bogus charges against Crystal Mangum and release her from custody.

Durham prosecutors need to face the fact that Mangum’s freedom is inevitable, and it needs to cut its losses by doing the right thing now, rather than later. 

Why Tracey Cline should be reinstated as Durham D.A.

Readers of my blog and viewers of my flog know that I am no fan of suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. As the county’s head prosecutor, I believe that she should have stepped in and dismissed her Assistant D. A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca’s 2010 vendetta prosecution of Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Likewise, I feel she should have moved to force prosecutor Kelly Gauger to drop the murder and larceny charges against Ms. Mangum related to the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye. Despite the fact that D.A. Cline is a friend of former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong and has treated him with civility and respect, I am nonetheless not an ardent backer of her.

You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.

Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.

I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.

Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.

In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.

The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.

It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.

Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.

Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.

I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person. 

Restatement of purpose

Every now and again it seems as though the readers and commenters of this blog site get derailed about the purpose of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and its members. Once again, let me put the train back on track to avoid the discourse of distractions and the obstacles of obfuscation… so we can locomotion along the rails to enlightenment.

As we near our four anniversary this coming June, our mission statement and resolve has been steady, uncompromising, and one which follows the light of truth. The fundamental beliefs upon which this organization was founded have been and remain based upon the following principles: (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case; (2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor; (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), just to name a few. Our group’s focus remains committed to encouraging the NC State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. Although Mr. Nifong has expressed that he never intends to practice law again, it is the contention that his license to practice law was unjustly taken by the Bar, and that it needs to man up and do the right thing by reinstating it.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, I believe, are some of the most courageous people in the state, because they lend their names and their faces to a righteous cause that is widely unpopular with the public because of contamination of the news that is broadcast and published by biased media-types… the big wigs in the upper echelons who determine what stories to follow, which stories to ignore, and what spin to give. Instead of remaining silent in the face of blatant anti-Nifong injustice, like most politicians, media outlets, and many civil rights organizations, members of the Committee speak loudly by their demonstration of courage. There are many ways to put it, but I like the saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln who stated: “To sin by silence makes cowards of men.” One thing is certain… the members of our group, currently one shy of two dozen, are not cowards.

The Committee is, and always has been an inclusive organization, welcoming brave individuals who coalesce around the principles recited above with respect to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. No one has been turned down for membership, and dues and/or investment of time or money is not required. All that is required is the heart to seek justice for Mike Nifong, which at its most primal form would be the reinstatement of his law license. Potential members are not vetted or required to provide personal information about themselves, their political leanings, or their ideologies on other topics. Likewise, our group is extremely tolerant of others and we do not discriminate with respect to granting membership.

It is not expected, or even desired that everyone who joins the group hold the same beliefs or opinions on issues other than Mike Nifong’s mistreatment by the state and the media. Gay and lesbians, people of all races and colors, worshippers of all religions as well as atheists, Democrats and even Republicans are all invited to join.

Some commenters are quick to cast some Committee members as homophobes or racists, but I find that these labels are often made without substance. There are people who might not agree with same-sex relationships or who might have a problem with gay and lesbians getting married, but that, at least to my way of thinking, does not categorize them as being homophobes. Personally, I have no problem whatever with gay and lesbian relationships. I have no problem with civil union between couples of the same sex and I do not object to the term “marriage” being used to define such relationships. To my mind marriage is an institution in which two individuals are fully and lovingly committed to one another regardless of their sexes. Not only that, but I believe that the liberal tolerance towards gays and lesbians is growing and gaining greater acceptance.

Hopefully this blog will put issues about homophobia and racism to rest, and the future blogs can be devoted to issues of criminal justice… such as the vendetta prosecutions of Crystal Mangum, the racist pardon policy that the governor’s office has used to deny pardons to Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, the anti-Nifong discrimination by Duke University against me, and other important issues facing Tar Heelians who believe in the principle of “equal justice for all” instead of those who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” 

“Race played no role” in Governor’s denial of pardon for Daniels

Click Link below to view interactive flog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog6redo.html

Script of flog

On Friday, September 9, 2008, Erick Daniels, at 22 years of age was freed after more than seven years of incarceration after being convicted of a September 21, 2000 armed robbery. His road to freedom had begun in late 2004, when attorney Carlos Mahoney began to appeal Daniels’ conviction. Despite several unsuccessful appeals, including a setback in January 2007 when the state’s Court of Appeals denied his case, Mahoney was undaunted and persevered.

Then in September 2008, state prosecutors, knowing they had a pitifully weak case against Erick Daniels, offered an Alford plea deal… wherein he would deny involvement in the crime but acknowledge evidence existed for his conviction in exchange for his immediate release. Had he accepted the plea deal, Daniels would forever be branded a felon. With faith in his attorney, Daniels refused to accept the deal… he would take his chances with an appeals hearing in hopes of getting a new trial.

During two days of the hearing, in which attorney Mahoney dissected the prosecutors’ case against Daniels like a skilled surgeon, the evidence to support Daniels’ innocence was so substantial and overwhelming, that Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson took the initiative to dismiss the charges and proclaiming that Erick Daniels was 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.”

Lending support to Judge Hudson’s assessment was the fact that in 2003 Daniels submitted to a polygraph tests in which he denied robbing the victim, denied pointing a gun at the victim and denied being present when the robbery took place. According to polygraph examiner Steve Davenport, “It is my opinion there were no reactions indicative of deception to those relevant questions.”

Not only that, but a young man who fit the description of the armed perpetrator and had a history of committing armed robberies, had confessed to his attorney that he was responsible for the September 2000 armed robbery for which Daniels was convicted.

Shortly after Daniels was proclaimed innocent by the judge and released, Durham attorney Gladys Harris began filing a petition for a pardon of actual innocence on behalf of Erick Daniels. Such a pardon was a prerequisite for him to be able to receive financial compensation for his years of wrongful incarceration… as legislated at the North Carolina General Assembly.

In 2010, attorney Carlos Mahoney met with Eddie Speas, Will Polk, and Barry Jenkins, and he requested that Governor Perdue grant Daniels’ petition and issue a pardon of actual innocence. To assist the governor, Mahoney even provided a notebook containing pleadings and trial transcripts.

Apparently in February 2011, the North Carolina Office of Executive Clemency denied a pardon of actual innocence for Erick Daniels, but failed to notify him or his attorney. It was only in mid-April 2011 that Daniels accidentally uncovered the panel’s decision. An article titled, “Erick Daniels denied pardon,” in the April 20, 2011 edition of the “Independent Weekly” brought this to my attention, as all other mainstream media outlets ignored the story.

Erick Daniels’ petition for a pardon was not the only one presented to Governor Perdue… she also received one from Gregory Flynt Taylor.

I had been a staunch supporter of Gregory Taylor since 2009 when I first learned through the media of his questionable conviction for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Like many others, I admired and was in awe of Greg Taylor’s integrity, principles, courage and ethics. Rather than falsely implicate an African American man, who Greg knew to be innocent, at the urgings of prosecutor Tom Ford in the Thomas murder case, Greg refused, and as a result spent seventeen of his best years behind bars. He was facing life in prison.

Gregory Taylor, who was found innocent of the murder by a unanimous three panel judge during mid February 2010, immediately sought a pardon from the governor after his exoneration.

When a pardon for Taylor was not forthcoming in what I considered a timely manner, I hand delivered a letter to Governor Perdue on April 12, 2010. I questioned the delay in her response to his request for a pardon. No reply was forthcoming.

The following month, on May 21, 2010, I hand-delivered another letter to the Capitol building for the governor. Again, I received no response. However, shortly thereafter an official pardon was granted by Governor Perdue.

On June 1, 2011, a little over a month following the “Independent Weekly” article about Daniels’ petition for a pardon being denied, I hand-delivered a letter to the governor. I pointed out how Erick Daniels had been unjustly convicted, served seven years wrongly incarcerated, and how he, like Gregory Taylor, had been declared “innocent” by a judge or judges.

Finally, I asked the governor to explain why the Office of Executive Clemency denied Daniels’ request for a pardon. I did not hear from her office.

On July 13, 2011, roughly six weeks after the previous letter, I hand delivered another for the governor. In it, I praised her for granting the pardon to Gregory Taylor, although belatedly. Furthermore, I specifically expressed that I did not feel that because Erick Daniels is an African American that he should be disqualified from being given a pardon. I expressed to her that unless I received an explanation for the denial of Erick Daniels’ petition, I would conclude that the decision to deny his request for a pardon was racially based. To this letter, I did receive a reply from the Office of the Governor.

On July 27, 2011, I received a letter from the governor’s office dated July 26th. It was written by her general counsel Mark A. Davis. He vigorously denied that race played any role in Governor Bev Perdue’s decision to deny Erick Daniels a pardon… that it was based on results of their extensive investigation that failed to prove his innocence. Then he stated that “confidentiality concerns” prevented him from sharing details of this investigation with me.

I have many serious problems with Mr. Davis’s reply. First he suggested that the Governor’s Office conducted an extensive investigation. I don’t believe it. If they did, in fact, investigate Daniels’ case as he claimed, then it was an extravagant waste of taxpayer dollars.

Secondly, he averred that due to “confidentiality concerns” he was unable to share results of the investigation. The confidentiality concerns excuse is commonly used to obstruct and to make opaque and keep from the public information that is damaging to officials, be they in the corporate or governmental spheres. However, what I find most hypocritical is the illusion that Governor Bev Perdue places a high value on “transparency.”

Thirdly, and most importantly, the governor decided that the findings of their alleged investigation did not support Erick Daniels’s innocence. By such a statement it is inferred that she approached the Daniels’ case with a presumption of guilt… this, after Judge Hudson dropped the armed robbery charges against Daniels and proclaimed that he was innocent.

What the governor fails to understand is the basic concept found in Civics 101 called the separation of powers. The governor, like the attorney general, belongs to the executive branch of government. Judicial decisions are handed down by those belonging to the judicial branch of government. Proclamations of “innocent” or “guilt,” whether made by the governor or the attorney general, carry no legal weight.

Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 promulgation in which he declared the three Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent” is as invalid and irrelevant as Governor Perdue’s claim that Erick Daniels is “guilty” of armed robbery.

To summarize, the entire gist of the governor’s letter was that race played no role in the governor’s decision to deny Daniels’ request for a pardon of innocence, and that the secret extensive investigation they conducted contradicts the ruling of Judge Hudson… but they can’t divulge results of their investigation due to confidentiality concerns.

This letter from the Office of the Governor actually hurt my feelings as my intelligence was justifiably insulted. Mr. Davis’s letter profoundly failed to convince me that the denial of a pardon for Erick Daniels was not based on racism.

The onus remains on the governor to come up with another excuse for denying Daniels a pardon, or to do the right thing by reversing the February 2011 decision, and granting Erick Daniels a pardon of innocence.



The cosmetic self-serving bill that the Guv shouldn’t’ve signed into law

In the Saturday, June 25, 2011 issue of The News & Observer is an article by staff writer Craig Jarvis titled, “Perdue vetoes bill on lawsuits.” The article makes mention of some of the other bills that Governor Bev Perdue signed into law on Friday. One bill she signed was to “protect prosecutors if police don’t give them all the material they’re supposed to in criminal cases…” This is truly a joke and it’s the kind of thing that cements into the minds of countrymen and women that North Carolina is the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to criminal justice.

The bill is one without substance, offers no benefits to the majority of Tar Heelians, and at its worst is capable of debilitating court room justice. It is self-serving in that the General Assembly, which is comprised mostly of attorneys and individuals with law degrees, in passing it is merely protecting one of its flock from civil liability. This should not even be an issue because prosecutors enjoy immunity in cases which they are prosecuting… all attorneys except former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Because Nifong exhibited rare independence and refused to kowtow to the Power-That-Be and dismiss the Duke Lacrosse case charges, he was subjected to the most overbearing and devastating persecution by the state, including disbarment, and crucifixion in the media. The protection he was due as a prosecutor was stripped away to permit the unprecedented filing of civil suits against him. What makes this all the more tragic is that he prosecuted the case well within acceptable standards.

Other prosecutors, such as Tom Ford, who solicit and use perjured testimony, withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense, utilize hocus-pocus forensics, and have no qualms about holding “suspects” in jail for lengthy periods without bringing them to trial, are and have been protected by the laws already in place that provide them with immunity. They are protected under the umbrella of the law so long as they comply with the wishes of those in power… if not the consequences of their actions can be predicted by observing what happened to the independently thinking prosecutor seeking true justice, Mike Nifong.

With the Mike Nifong situation, the state merely bypassed the law that protected Nifong… acted as though it didn’t exist. Because the media had thoroughly poisoned the minds of the masses with its anti-Nifong reporting and opinions there was little reason to believe that the public would object this judicial indiscretion.

But, that is the way things work in the Tar Heel state. When people of privilege, power, status, and connections go afoul of the law, then the laws are bended or broken and they receive “a rare deal for the privileged.” When the disenfranchised, poor, people of color, and those who have incurred the wrath of the state bigwigs are involved in a controversy, then you can bet that the laws will be manipulated and molded in a way that is not to their advantage… a “rare deal for the not-so-privileged.” Bottom line is that this bill is totally useless. The courts and state will continue to use creative means when dealing with the law in order to obtain the results it desires.

The absence of civil lawsuits filed against prosecutors is evidence that this bill to protect them is superfluous. Prosecutor Tom Ford, who vindictively put Gregory Taylor, a man he knew to be innocent, behind bars for a life sentence is not being sued. Even though after serving 17 years wrongfully in prison Greg Taylor was exonerated and proclaimed “innocent” by a three judge panel. Prosecutor David Hoke who put Alan Gell on death row even though he possessed exculpatory evidence of his innocence, is not being sued. This, despite the fact that Alan Gell served ten years wrongfully incarcerated. These are but two of many cases where prosecutors exhibited egregious professional misconduct far worse than anything Mr. Nifong has been accused of and yet are not subjected to civil suits. This bill is unnecessary for protecting those prosecutors who tow the state’s line by following the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

What the bill does is divest prosecutors of responsibility for the cases they choose to prosecute. In this way, it is a major impediment for criminal defendants who are seeking justice. It is an out for the prosecutors, allowing them to put the blame of an ill-fated and wrongful prosecution on police and investigators. If crucial evidence, records, lab results, notes, and/or documentation are found to be withheld from the defense, then prosecutors can do as they have done in the past… which is to put the blame on the investigator, police, or lab tech. This bill allows prosecutors to say, loud and clear, “Hey, it’s not my fault,” whenever an innocent person has been found to have languished behind bars for years and decades due to a prosecutorial misdeed. If anything, this bill which was just signed into law, has the propensity to ramp up the number of bad acts by prosecutors. This is an outcome that is obviously not in the best interests of Tar Heelians.

A prime example of what I’ve stated comes from an article which appeared in The News & Observer titled, “Bill critics: Hold DAs accountable.” In the news piece, by AP writer Emery P. Dalesio, it discussed an Iredell County double-murder case in which the judge declared a mistrial and barred prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty against defendant Al Bellamy. This ruling from the bench was the result of prosecutors, who three weeks into the trial and having completed presenting their case, handed defense attorneys about 1,700 pages of interview notes taken by a former narcotics detective. Although the prosecutors’ case may be in slight jeopardy, the prosecutors themselves certainly are at no risk. In accordance with the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), the names of the prosecutors are not even mentioned. The bill newly signed into law would have absolutely no bearing on this case.

These Iredell County prosecutors will not face sanctions, punishment, or disbarment for withholding gobs of evidence from defense attorneys well into the trial, which is an abomination when one considers that the North Carolina State Bar, in large measure, disbarred Mike Nifong for allegedly not giving defense attorneys non-exculpatory lab results fast enough… a trial date having not even been set in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Final analysis: it is the people who need protection from prosecutors, not the prosecutors who need protection from the people. However, through obfuscation, Jedi mind-speak, spin, and fancy rhetoric, the General Assembly has been able to convince many of those who do not adequately exercise their gray matter that this new law to protect prosecutors will lead to fairer criminal justice outcomes. Hah. The laugh’s on us. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

More of Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford’s handiwork…

To access flog, click on the link below:

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog4.html


In the Saturday, June 04, 2011 edition of The News & Observer newspaper, an article titled “Accused stepdaughter wants her life back” by staff writer Thomasi McDonald chronicled yet another chapter in the malfeasance and misdeeds of Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford.

The name “Tom Ford” probably does not sound familiar to most but it should, as Ford was the prosecutor in the botched murder investigation of Jacquetta Thomas that unfolded nearly two decades ago. As is it’s PAPEN Policy (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), The News & Observer article never once mentioned the Gregory Taylor case or linked Tom Ford to it. It was Gregory Flynt Taylor who Prosecutor Ford saddled with that homicide… but he did so only because Taylor, who is white, would not give perjured testimony in order to convict Johnny Beck, the African American designated suspect who was Ford’s primary target.

In 1993, Taylor was convicted by the use of perjured testimony, a specialty of Prosecutor Ford, and with some hocus-pocus forensics which manipulated evidence to favor the prosecution’s scenario. In Taylor’s case, a stain on the bumper of his car was misleadingly determined to be human blood… which, in fact, it was not.

Prosecutor Ford won a life sentence against Greg Taylor because Taylor refused to implicate another innocent man with perjured testimony.

Returning to the story about the accused stepdaughter… Carletta Alston was charged in June 17, 2009 with the death of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. Smith, standing in his Knightdale driveway, was shot in the face during the early morning hours as he prepared to drive to work. His wife Phyllis and stepdaughter Carletta were inside the house when they heard the gunfire.

Afraid to venture outside to investigate, they placed a hysterical 9-1-1 call. Police arrived later and conducted an investigation that produced a stack of letters between the murdered victim Smith, who was also a co-pastor at a church and another woman. The correspondence pointed towards a romantic relationship between the two. Michael Smith’s wife Phyllis, denied knowledge of any affair until it was brought to her attention by the police.

Two days following the murder of Michael Donnell Smith, June 6, 2009, Wake deputies first interviewed Carletta Alston. They could not determine a motive for her to commit the murder. According to the newspaper article, police focused on the stepdaughter Carletta because her account of the shooting differed with other witnesses… specifically, police stated that the time Carletta Alston gave for hearing the shot was significantly later than the time given by neighbors.

Police did not state how much different, but surely a record of the 9-1-1 call would narrow down the timeline. Allegedly gunpowder residue was found somewhere on Alston’s nightgown, but not on her hands, or the hands of her mother. And, as Alston’s attorney, Karl Knudsen of Raleigh stated regarding gunpowder residue, “There’s always the possibility of contamination.”

Based upon Alston’s version of the time at which she heard the gunshot differing with the time given by the neighbors and the forensic report that gunpowder residue was found on Alston’s nightgown… exactly where it was never stated… Carletta Alston was charged with the murder of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. Police and prosecutors did not even have a motive in arresting Alston.

What is truly absurd is the statement made by Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby which fundamentally stated that there was reason enough to arrest Carletta Alston, there was reason enough for a grand jury to indict Carletta Alston for the murder of Michael Donnell Smith, but that they didn’t have a strong enough case to take it to court. Tea Party conservatives and birthers may believe this line spewed by the Wake County D.A., but Jedi mind-tricks have no affect on me and others with strong logical minds and a modicum of common sense.

Put another way, if the prosecutors did not have a strong enough case to take to court, then Alston should not have been indicted. And, if prosecutors did not have a strong enough case to indict Alston, she should have never been arrested. It’s as simple as that. To aver otherwise is what makes North Carolina justice the laughing stock of the country.

So Carletta Alston upon being arrested lost the two jobs that she held at nursing homes, and she languished in jail at costly taxpayer expense for a year. When she was unexpectedly released from custody without explanation, she had in essence served a one year sentence for not committing a crime… courtesy of prosecutor Tom Ford and the state’s selective justice system based on Class and Color.

The North Carolina justice system is one in which the well-heeled, powerful, privileged, and connected are given “rare deals.” Most of these deals substitute a small fine in place of serving jail time. Those who are disenfranchised, indigent, and people of color are dumped onto the scrap heap of despair and injustice, left to fend for themselves after losing years of their lives and their self dignity to an uncaring, inhumane, and unsympathetic system.

What happened to Carletta Alston is not an isolated incident. The following are but a smattering of examples:

James Arthur Johnson was charged with the murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery of Brittany Willis by Wilson County prosecutor Bill Wolfe. Despite lacking credible evidence Johnson, who solved the crimes against Willis, served a 39 month sentence before being forced to agree to an Alford plea deal for a misprision of felony. A misprision of felony charge is applied to person who has knowledge of a crime but does not go to authorities with it. Even this charge did not fit the plea deal which Johnson accepted.

Not only that, but friends and family of Brittany Willis offered a $20,000 reward upon which they reneged after Johnson identified the perpetrator of the crimes against Willis. The media has kept quiet about this.


Judge Osmond Smith III sentenced 15 year-old Erick Daniels to confinement for ten to fourteen years after he was convicted of an armed robbery in which prosecutor Freda Black offered not a shred of credible evidence. The victim of the robbery picked out the young boy’s photograph from a middle school year book based solely on the shape of his eyebrows.

Although he has been proclaimed “innocent” by a judge, the governor and her Office of Executive Clemency has refused to issue a pardon to Erick Daniels who is struggling to get a job with a false felony conviction on his record.

Crystal Gail Mangum, who was the victim and accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, had charges trumped up against her in February 2010 after police were called to her apartment by her children out of fear for their mother’s safety. Crystal had been repeatedly punched in the face by her ex-boyfriend after she made an insulting comment.

When the responding police realized the identity of Crystal, they dropped attention from Crystal’s abuser and focused on her instead. In order to have Mangum convicted of a crime that would carry serious jail time, the Durham Police, the only ones with the motive, means, and opportunity, set fire to clothing in the bathtub, claimed it was arson, and attributed it to Crystal.

With a slew of other bogus charges, initial bail was set at $1 million. Like Carletta Alston, Crystal Mangum lost her job… but in addition lost her apartment, many of her belongings, custody of her children, was dropped from graduate school classes in which she was enrolled, and she lost her independence.

Crystal spent three months in jail before a $100,000 bail was unexpectedly satisfied by a benevolent bail bondsman. Even though her attorney, Mani Dexter, put up an almost non-existent feather-weight defense, Mangum was not convicted of the most serious arson charge, and was sentenced to time served on other frivolous charges for which she was convicted.

The system of selective justice based on Class and Color thrives in North Carolina because civil rights groups, politicians, and community leaders allow it. They remain silent while the vulnerable individuals, who look to and depend upon them for protection, are mashed under the uncaring heel of those in positions of power in the justice system.

The NAACP, under leadership of Dr. Rev. William Barber II, remained silent as a dormouse. Where was his voice, or that of the NAACP, when Carletta Alston was thrown into the slammer because her recollection of events differed from others about the time at which a gun was fired? State senators and representatives in Wake County have also remained silent when their constituent Carletta Alston languished in jail at taxpayer expense despite the fact that prosecutor Tom Ford had not built a case against her.

Clergymen throughout the state may deliver fiery sermons to their flock from within the confines of their houses of worship, but when it comes to speaking out publicly against the injustice against the very people they serve , then it is as though they have suddenly lost their voices.

Because of the deafening silence amongst community and civil rights leaders, prosecutors like Tom Ford are emboldened and have no compunction against tossing the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color in jail in order to close a case. So what if innocent people are serving time behind bars while the real culprits run free? Who cares?

And, Tom Ford can count on the media coddling up to him, in conjunction with the media’s PAPEN Policy. Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Mike Nifong in doing his job within acceptable standards, was vilified and butchered by the media… but not so with the Greg Taylor Prosecutor Tom Ford.

Even though the Greg Taylor case received plenty of media press, the prosecutor of the case Tom Ford was rarely mentioned. SBI lab agent Duane Deaver was the designated scapegoat for the case. Well known defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, in defending Greg Taylor, was lenient when discussing the prosecutor who snatched seventeen years of his client’s best years from him. No disparaging words about Ford were uttered from Cheshire’s lips… even referring to Ford as a capable opponent. Cheshire saved his criticism for Mike Nifong only.

In fact, that was Cheshire’s strategy in the Duke Lacrosse case. Not to defend the defendants, but to attack Nifong, the prosecutor who was too independent and would not yield to the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” So with the media in tow, the Duke Lacrosse defense set out to destroy Mike Nifong, which was culminated with his disbarment, making him the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933.

I have to hand it to The News & Observer for even having the gumption to mention Tom Ford’s name in the article. However, even in doing so, it attempted to mislead. Take the passage “Knudsen also noted that the prosecutor handling the case, Tom Ford, has a reputation for being very thorough and willing to do everything he can with the available evidence.” Ford exhibited his talents with evidence in the Greg Taylor case when he turned a bumper stain into human blood, and when he took a negative scent from a tracking hound and with a little abracadabra turned it into a positive one.

Then the article tried to define Tom Ford as a dedicated prosecutor by stating, “But he backed away from taking Alston to trial.”

“He came to the conclusion that it was not a case they wanted to move forward with,” Knudsen said.

I have not a problem with that decision, but why did it take twelve months for Tom Ford to come to the conclusion that he did not, and never did have a case against Carletta Alston? Twelve months while Ms. Alston served time without being convicted of a crime. The fact of the matter is, as was previously stated, that Carletta Alston should never have been arrested and charged with the crime.

Thanks to Tom Ford’s handiwork, the state of North Carolina owes Carletta Alston. As Ms. Alston struggles to find work and deal with other problems related to her unjust incarceration, the state needs to step in and help make her whole… as much as is humanly possible. That is what true justice demands and that is what we, as Tar Heelians, should demand. 

Lock ‘em all up, and sort out the facts later… Durham Police Department Policy regarding the Not-So-Privileged?

A recent article in The News & Observer, titled “Accused stepdaughter wants her life back,” recounts how Carletta Alston, was arrested and charged with the murder of Michael Donnell Smith in June 2009. Although Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford (who also wrongly prosecuted Gregory Taylor in the 1991 death of Jacquetta Thomas) had no credible evidence or even a motive against Ms. Alston, he held her in jail for a year before finally releasing her. It seems that in North Carolina’s justice system this practice of arresting an individual first and then working up a case against the person is not all that rare… especially amongst the poor, disenfranchised, people of color and those considered Not-So-Privileged.

This kind of arrest first, investigate later policy would not be tolerated if it was applied to the privileged, or those who were deemed to be professionals or educated. For example, Jason Young, who is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Michelle Young, was not scooped up and dumped in the slammer as soon as suspicions about him arose. Heck, no. The police and their investigators conducted a thorough investigation before making the arrest and bringing charges against him.

That is the way the justice system should work when it comes to making an arrest and bringing charges. Justice definitely was not served in the Carletta Alston case… more of which will be presented in the flog which is soon to follow.

In the past few days evidence has been unearthed, literally, which has brought media attention to yet another sad chapter of crime in the cash-strapped city of Durham. Specifically, the case of the so-called “Black Hebrews” religious cult with its leader Pete Moses Jr., who along with a half dozen others, has been charged with the murder of 28 year-old Antoinette McKoy and a five year-old boy, Jadon Higginbothan. According to media sources, a witness stated that cult leader Moses killed the little boy and ordered a follower, Vania Sisk, mother of the murdered boy, to shoot McKoy. It is believed that the deaths occurred sometime in December 2010.

Let me preface my following remarks by stating that neither Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez nor any of his investigators have shared any information about the case with me. All that I have gleaned about the case has come from the mainstream media… which is not the most reliable source. But it is the only source available to me.

I do not question the arrest and murder charges leveled against Pete Moses Jr. and Vania Sisk. From what I have read and viewed on television news, those charges seem to be warranted. Charges against five other individuals seems to be somewhat more suspect. Although Moses’s mother Sheilda Evelyn Harris rented the house nearly a year ago on Ashe Street where the bodies were found, I have seen no evidence that she was involved or had knowledge of the murders. On the television news broadcasts however, relatives of Ms. Harris claimed that she had no involvement in Moses’s religious cult or his crimes. Others arrested included Sheila Falisha Moses, 20; P. Leonard Moses, 20; Larhonda Renee Smith,40; and Lavada Quinzetta Harris, 40. Sheila and Leonard Moses are children of Ms. Harris, and siblings of cult leader Pete Moses Jr. Other than living in the house on Ashe Street, there was no information linking Sheila and Leonard in the crimes.

A newspaper article in today’s The News & Observer titled, “Site of woman’s body yields remains of child,” conveyed that Durham Police Chief Lopez stated that prior to discovery of the bodies on the Ashe Street property, Ms. Harris was not a suspect. The mere discovery of the bodies on the property does not in-and-of itself implicate Ms. Harris in the murder.

Although the five charged with murder (outside of Pete Moses and Vania Sisk), are being held without bail, the real possibility exists that they may be totally innocent… that they could have had no knowledge of the crime. It is possible that one or more may have aided or abetted Pete Moses, and possibly deserved a lesser charge of “accessory after the fact.” And, although I believe that it is highly unlikely, the five could have all taken part in the murders and be guilty as charged.

It just seems to me that when it comes to making arrests amid those who are of the Not-So-Privileged class, police and prosecutors in Durham and Wake Counties, as well as other counties within the state, have no qualms about making arrests first and investigating second. I believe that it should be the other way around.

If I were a bettin’ man, I would be inclined to believe that before the dust settles, of the five presently in custody and facing murder charges (excluding Pete Moses Jr. and Vania Sisk), most, if not all of them will have the murder charges against them reduced or dropped. Although arresting the Not-So-Privileged may be popular with conservative law and order Republicans, arresting and charging people without credible evidence is an unjust policy that results in unnecessary misery and hardship, and drains the county coffers that are maintained with taxpayer dollars.

Arrest first and investigate second policies in Durham, Wake County and throughout North Carolina should be abandoned immediately, and in its place there should be a principle that requires an investigation that yields credible evidence before an arrest takes place… in other words, the same policy that is currently in place for the Privileged class should be applied to the Not-So-Privileged.



Update on the Un-Indicted Duke LAXer’s attempted money-grab

I spent the better part of last evening skimming the 223 page March 31, 2011 ruling issued by U.S. District Judge James A. Beaty on the complaint filed by the three un-indicted “Duke Lacrosse Defendant wannabe’s” Ryan McFadyen, Matthew Wilson, and Breck Archer. Three civil case plaintiffs who want to parlay their evening of bacchanal barbarianism at a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling, under-aged drinking party in March 2006 into a big pay day… and I’m not referring to the peanutty candy bar.

These three lads were never charged with a crime related to that evening of debauchery and criminality, and they were not arrested. Ryan McFadyen, in fact, invited closer scrutiny by his hateful and threatening e-mail about the night’s entertainers, though when exposed, he stated that it was just a harmless joke. In the atmosphere of events that night, talking about skinning strippers alive is cruelty at its worst and insensitivity on a grand scale at best. However, such an action as McFadyen’s befits the well-earned reputation that the Duke Lacrosse players had cultivated over the years.

The lawsuit by the three Un-Indicteds listed 29 defendants (I don’t believe any janitors at Duke were included), and claimed 41 counts of deprivation of their civil rights. What a joke. Plaintiffs had the gall to claim that they suffered emotional distress on many of the counts, which Judge Beaty wisely dismissed. The claims were so ludicrous that even the plaintiffs themselves could not support them in writing. I, however, believe that the Un-Indicted Threesome did suffer severe emotional distress… only not at the hands of the defendants. When they learned that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants settled out of court with Duke University for $20 million each, they were extremely distressed. And since Duke was in the gifting mood, they wanted some of that charity.

Greed by the Un-Indicted and their avaricious attorneys are what has fueled this ambitious, though ridiculous, legal storm surrounding the Duke Lacrosse case, and it was undoubtedly brought about by Duke University’s excessive largess in settling with the three original Duke Lacrosse defendants without a fight. Well, Duke is now willing to put up a vigorous defense, but it is too little and too late, as the wolves are loose and in search of their pecuniary prey, which has spread to encompass the deep pockets of the cash-strapped city of Durham and any individual with even the remotest and most benign contact with the case.

Although the judge complained about the plaintiff’s submissions being long on wind, his ruling which comes close to requiring a half ream, surely could have been condensed. My ruling in the Un-Indicted’s case would have taken no more than three pages total, considering that the first two pages list all of the defendants and the counts. No doubt I would have tossed out all of the Un’s charges.

In most circumstances, the setting of precedence is taken into consideration, but as has been show to be clear with all of its singular rulings and the total disregard for the rule of law, what happens in the Duke Lacrosse case stays with the Duke Lacrosse case. It gets special treatment by the state of North Carolina, the biased media, and the misguided public. So, it is safe to say that defendants such as Gregory Flynt Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, Floyd Brown, Levon “Bo” Jones, Alan Gell, and Erick Daniels will never be afforded the wide breadth of opportunity to pursue recompense in the civil courts for losses incurred when wrongfully charged, convicted and incarcerated. If that was the case defense attorneys like David Rudolf, Joseph B. Cheshire V., James Cooney, and Wade Smith would have already filed civil suits against prosecutors, investigators, and labs for these victims of Tar Heel injustice. Joe Cheshire won’t be filing a civil suit on behalf of his client Gregory Taylor against Prosecutor Tom Ford. It ain’t gonna happen. In fact, Cheshire has not one disparaging word to say about Ford, who used perjured testimony from felons in exchange for leniency and hocus-pocus forensics to win a murder conviction against Taylor and a life sentence. Cheshire even considers Ford to be an estimable courtroom opponent.

What did not come as a surprise when going over the ruling is that as many counts as humanly possible that were lodged by the Un-Indicteds against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong were kept intact. As has been long demonstrated, Mr. Nifong is the sole designated lightning rod for all of the state’s justice system ills. He has been in a biblical sense sacrificed to atone for sins of his fellow prosecutors… not unlike another man from Nazareth. Discount fairness, ethics, and the rule of law when dealing with Nifong. This biased media, wealth-idolizing, capitalistic society encourages keeping the heel on the necks of the downtrodden and heeping praise, privilege, and riches on the well-heeled.

I dread reading the opinions with regards to the complaints by the original Duke Lacrosse defendant threesome as they seek to enhance the $20 mil gifted to them by Duke resulting from a shakedown of the institution by their high-profile attorneys. Think I’ll take a break for a couple of days before slogging through that morass of legalese mumbo-jumbo. Although I venture to say that I am sure to be disappointed by what I find, at least I believe that it will be more palatable than the civil complaint filed by McFadyen, Wilson, and Archer. Keep in mind that these Un-Indicted gold diggers were never even charged with a crime.  <>

Below is a link to Part 14 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Be sure to check out the commentary which follows by clicking the upper left blue button. At the end of the commentary is a link for feedback. Enjoy.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc175.htm

Judge allows Floyd Brown suit against SBI to proceed

According to The News & Observer February 4, 2011 edition, Floyd Brown’s civil suit against the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation will be allowed to proceed. The article by Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff, which strictly followed the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) never once mentioned the name of Brown’s prosecutor, Anson County District Attorney Michael D. Parker. It was Parker who charged the severely retarded African American male, with the intelligence of a seven year-old, with a 1993 murder that was based solely on the existence of a so-called confession from Brown that was taken by verbatim by SBI agent Mark Isley.

There was no eyewitness or forensics evidence tying Brown to the crime… in other words, there was no credible evidence for with which to charge Brown. Therefore, Parker relied on the “verbatim confession” to charge Brown with murder and hold him in a mental institution. It was the objective of the mental health staff to somehow miraculously whip Brown’s severe retardation into a state that would allow him stand trial for the murder with which he was charged. But the mental health team was unable to perform miracles, and Floyd Brown languished in the institution at taxpayer expense for fourteen years until an appeal was held outside of Anson County wherein he was freed.

Brown’s declaration of freedom was based on the fact that the judge heard from a variety of expert mental health witnesses who averred that Floyd Brown’s retardation was so severe that there was no way that the six page verbatim written confession could have been attributed to him. So Brown was finally released to the custody of his family, but not before prosecutor Parker maliciously went out of his way to disrupt assisted living plans that the government social workers had put together for Brown’s release.

Brown’s family sought to bring a civil suit against the prosecutors, but Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed that Michael Parker had immunity against such action. This is not the stance he took in the Duke Lacrosse case when he invited civil suits against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong who had prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case within acceptable bounds, acted as a true “minister of justice,” and did so without malice.

Parker, with the complicity of media-types, transferred all of the blame for the “doctored” confession on SBI agent Isley. Any person of reasonable mind would no doubt believe that Parker was aware that the alleged “verbatim confession” by Brown was a fabrication, which was more likely than not pressed forward by prosecutor Parker. Michael Parker is an intelligent man, and has likely had much experience in orchestrating unethical schemes to prevail with a favorable verdict, yet steer clear of any liability. Parker was also indoctrinated by the state’s policy of “selective justice based on Class and Color” and was fully aware that stealing years of a man’s life would be of little consequence as long as he/she were poor, disenfranchised, and a person of color.

When Brown’s family brought the suit against the SBI for its role in Floyd’s lengthy detention, the Attorney General’s Office objected, according to the newspaper, by arguing that it didn’t matter whether a SBI agent “elaborated or augmented or even smoothed out the alleged confession.” In other words, when defendants belong to a certain class and color, it is permissible in the eyes of the state’s head prosecutor to charge a defendant with a confession that is bogus… or as the state euphemistically put it “smoothed out.”

Unfortunately the state of North Carolina “smooths out” a lot of evidence and testimony in order to place behind bars many innocent people who are considered by the Powers-That-Be to be disposable. Attorneys representing the Attorney General’s Office do not feel that Floyd Brown, a retarded man who was involuntarily held in a mental hospital for fourteen years based on a bogus “verbatim confession,” is deserving of any compensation from the state. There is no doubt that he deserves compensation… just like Alan Gell deserved compensation… and Greg Taylor deserved compensation. Many others who deserve compensation by the state but are unlikely to receive any are Erick Daniels, Levon Bo Jones, and James Arthur Johnson.

Superior Court Judge Forrest D. Bridges undeniably made the right decision in allowing the civil case against the SBI to proceed. The civil suit against Mike Nifong for his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case is the one that should have been dismissed, as it was prosecuted honorably and in good faith. Not to mention that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants not only received seven million dollars each, but in contrast to Floyd Brown, Gell, Taylor, Johnson, Daniels, and others, never spent one day in jail.

With the SBI now under scrutiny thanks to the ill-advised challenge by Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby against Greg Taylor’s release, it seems like the scales of justice are tipping, ever so slightly, towards that which is just. 


Be sure to catch the latest installment of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” -- Part 6. Just click on to the Link below. Also be sure to view the “Commentary, Insight, and Analysis” which immediately follows the strip. A new feature to the commentary allows viewer feedback by e-mail at its conclusion.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc127.htm

Note: The e-mail response at the end of the commentary which follows the strip may not be functional at this time.

Not surprising that D.A. won’t re-try Mangum

I recently was made aware by an e-mail from a friend that the prosecution has publicly stated that it will not seek to re-try Duke Lacrosse case victim Crystal Mangum on the phony trumped up arson charge. Although I know that the Carpetbagger families and their attorneys, the higher echelon at Duke University, and the media types would love to stick Mangum with a felony, prosecutors obviously learned their lesson from the Gregory Taylor case. Prosecutor Tom Ford and Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby fought a hearing before a three judge panel in which Gregory Taylor sought to have his 17 year old murder conviction overturned. It was during his hearing that misdeeds and malfeasance by the SBI lab came to light. For whatever reason, the media, especially The News & Observer, put this issue on the front burner and went after SBI agents, lab techs, and everyone but the very prosecutors who were behind legal culture of deceit. The risk Durham prosecutors run in re-trying Ms. Mangum on the so-called “first degree arson” charge is the possible exposure of the Durham police force’s role in starting the fire. After all it was the Durham police, specifically Officer Tyler, who had the motive, means, and opportunity to set the fire… not Crystal Mangum or her ex-boyfriend.

There was never any doubt in my mind that there would not be a re-trial. Prosecutors were relieved just to get a conviction on the misdemeanor charges, which themselves had no merit. Furthermore, Durham’s Assistant D.A. Mark McCullough should send Mangum’s defense attorney Mani Dexter a couple of dozen roses or a floral bouquet of orchids for her lackluster featherweight defense of her client which allowed prosecutors to prevail on all of the measly misdemeanor charges. The majority of jurors, fortunately, did not have the heart to find Mangum guilty on the felony arson charge, especially when they most likely believed that the police were responsible for the fire. Had Joseph Cheshire been defending Mangum with the gusto he did in the Duke Lacrosse case, Officer Tyler would be charged with arson and felony fraud, the Durham Police chief would have been forced to resign, and all of the officers involved in the case would have been severely sanctioned.

I did not find it surprising that the prosecution would not re-try the case… however, what I did find surprising is that the media would actually cover the story. I never heard it mentioned on WRAL-TV 5 News, ABC-11 News, or NBC 17 News. I searched throughout the deepest recesses of most recent The News & Observer newspaper to see if I could find an article about it tucked away somewhere, but I came up empty. However, that’s what I expect from the media types. So, The Herald-Sun has some kudos coming its way… not only for covering the announcement, but for the photograph used in the online story (which was e-mailed to me). The Mangum photo was a file photo which was taken at a book signing event a couple of years ago, and was one which nicely represented her. What I expected was the usual photo with her shackled and handcuffed in an orange jumpsuit.

The article by Herald-Sun staff writer John McCann followed national media protocol with its obligatory misleading statement “The players were later completely exonerated.” Mr. McCann is not stupid, and neither is the staff at The Herald-Sun, but they think its readers are. This so-called “exoneration” is based solely on Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocence Promulgation.” This is a big lie that the biased media has tried to stuff down the public’s throat for years, and it is shameful.

The article also downplays Mangum’s supporter Jackie Wagstaff’s opinions about the criminal charges by writing, “Ms. Wagstaff was of the mindset Mangum never started the fire.” Of course, and there are many people who believe that Mangum did not set the fire… but the media doesn’t want the people to know that. And if Ms. Mangum did not set the fire, then that leaves the police as the likely culprits. What also focuses the light on police as instigators of the fire is that no effort was expended to extinguish the blaze. Police wanted there to be just enough fire damage to the building to support a felony charge. Had police not been responsible for setting the fire they would have reacted like any other reasonable person and at least turned on water in the bathtub.

McCann also documented the following: “The forewoman on that jury said the charges against Mangum seemed too harsh in light of the evidence presented.” That they were and it begs the question, why was she convicted? The three count charge of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” was directly, but convolutedly, tied to the arson charge. Logic is defied by her not being guilty of the arson charge, yet being convicted on the child delinquency charges… and the judge rightfully returned full custody of her children to Ms. Mangum after he declared a mistrial on the only unresolved felony charge. And the media has also stayed away from the alleged damages to the ex-boyfriend’s car. Questions abound as to the number of articles of clothing burned and the owner of clothes placed in the bathtub. This covert operation performed by the Durham police to trump up a felony charge against Ms. Mangum turned out to be a sticky mess from which prosecutors were fortunate to extricate themselves and the men in blue.

What began with a rabid flourish in the media about an attempted first degree murder, identity theft, communicating threats, assault, child abuse and arson slunk out meekly in the dead of night when the final page was turned in this sordid chapter of Tar Heelian justice wherein a young lady who was independent, employed, self-sufficient in raising her three children, and enrolled in graduate school for a master’s degree had her life suddenly and unjustly snatched from her. The volume of the media’s outlet on this subject has been muted by their gradual realization that what was heralded initially as a serious criminal case was more likely than not a piece of fiction that was staged. Phony. 

NOTE: A link is presented below to Part 4 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Following the strip is a commentary about installment presented.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc115.htm

SBI agent Duane Deaver is fired

North Carolina SBI agent Duane Deaver, who testified on behalf of Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby and prosecutor Tom Ford against Gregory F. Taylor’s bid for freedom after 17 years of wrongful incarceration, was fired on January 7, 2011. Before the three judge panel of the Innocence Commission which heard the appeal, Deaver testified about the SBI lab and its long-standing policy of withholding and/or skewing data and lab results from a criminal investigation which might be beneficial to defendants. Such was the case in Gregory Taylor’s case, as Deaver stated the SBI lab, according to policy, allowed the jury hearing Taylor’s case to be misled into believing that blood was on the bumper of Taylor’s vehicle (which prosecutor Tom Ford maintained came from a murder victim Jacquetta Thomas). Fact was that although a presumptive test was positive a confirmatory test for human blood was not. Deaver’s testimony under questioning by defense attorney Mike Klinkosum exposed how the SBI lab purposely and systematically tilted the playing field against defendants in hundreds of cases. This revelation, in part, no doubt played a role in Greg Taylor’s subsequent exoneration.

Christine Mumma, executive director of the NC Center on Actual Innocence, who also represented Taylor, aptly referred to Deaver’s termination as the SBI’s “throwing the employee under the bus while those responsible for giving the employee direction and approving his work walk away unscathed.” Her assessment is right on the money. Deaver, the good soldier who was following orders to help prosecutors with their weak cases by providing hocus-pocus lab results and misleading testimony on the stand, was given the shaft by the very people who had earlier depended upon and lauded his devious work. His firing, however is cold comfort for the many innocents who have spent years wrongfully behind bars, dependent mainly on their Class and Color.

The fortuitous exposure and downward spiral of the reliability in the SBI’s past prejudicial lab work on criminal evidence was a self-inflicted wound. Hubris of Taylor’s original prosecutor Tom Ford enabled him and the Wake County district attorney to fight the overwhelming evidence which strongly supported Greg Taylor’s innocence. According to the January 11, 2011 article in The News & Observer, which per PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy did not mention Tom Ford’s name, Deaver plans to appeal his firing. This is a good thing… not so much in that it could possibly lead to Deaver’s reinstatement, but rather for the light it will shed on the conduct, attitudes, and culture of prosecutors statewide.

As I have religiously maintained, the prosecutors (such as Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others) are at the crux of the injustice that has been meted out by the North Carolina justice system. For the most part they are intelligent, diabolical, and cunning, and have no qualms about orchestrating lab techs and agents in order to obtain convictions in weak cases without credible evidence. To suggest that prosecutor Tom Ford was unaware of the underlying deceit in Deaver’s testimony in the case against Taylor is not credulous. Ford knew that the SBI lab’s statements about alleged blood on the bumper of Taylor’s SUV was as credible as the plea deals he brokered to acquire false testimony against Taylor in retaliation for Taylor’s refusal to implicate a black man, Johnny Beck, who he knew to be innocent of a murder.

The solution to North Carolina state’s woeful justice system is to institute a policy following the principle of “equal justice for all” and to abandon its current tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” A tall order indeed. Prosecutors need to become something that few of them have ever been… Ministers of Justice. As was clearly evident in the Duke Lacrosse case, however, doing so can be hazardous to one’s professional and private lives. Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was honorably executing his prosecutorial duties in that case and was exemplifying the very concept of “Minister of Justice.” As a result, he was disbarred, tossed in jail, deprived of professional immunity, denied representation before the State Bar, and crucified in the media – both locally and nationally.

Until the North Carolina State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions, the state’s system of justice will never take a step on the road to recovery.

Joseph Cheshire’s criticism of the media is the height of hypocrisy

Joseph B. Cheshire V, the state’s premiere defense attorney for the powerful, privileged, and well-heeled, should know about the media, and its ability to mold the minds of individuals who are ill-informed and have an abiding faith in whatever the media spoon-feeds them. Cheshire used the media in the Duke Lacrosse case, playing it like a well-tuned Stradivarius, in laying waste to the good reputation that had been built over nearly three decades by a dedicated prosecutor and man of the highest integrity, Mike Nifong. When called upon to destroy the man who dared to charge and prosecute the sons of the three Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, Cheshire exceeded all expectations in helping to orchestrate the downfall of the man who Rae Forker Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, vowed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” would “pay every day for the rest of his life.” Cheshire did not pull any punches in lambasting Nifong in the media… the media working in unison with Cheshire, state agencies of North Carolina, the North Carolina State Bar and others in fulfilling the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda against Nifong. It was the perfect storm that the media used to control public thought about the Duke Lacrosse case, and mindless individuals exposed to the biased media spin came away believing that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated, that Prosecutor Mike Nifong prosecuted the case in an attempt to win an election, and that nothing untoward happened at the Duke house on Buchanan Street, which Duke University wasted no time in secretly razing. The media characterized Mr. Nifong as the second coming of Satan, and he was vilified to the extent that almost all individuals in North Carolina, and those individuals somewhat familiar with the media’s presentation of it throughout the country, have negative and even hostile feelings towards Mr. Nifong. And one person responsible for fanning the media flames has been Joseph Cheshire.

In the November 24, 2010 edition of The News & Observer is an article titled “Lawyer says media fanned the flames.” In it Mr. Cheshire decries the media treatment of his client, former North Carolina Governor Mike Easley. The former governor was involved in several shady deals during which he received substantial financial gain… deals involving real estate and travel. Cheshire managed to wrangle out a plea agreement in which his client pled guilty to a single felony charge in exchange for the State and Federal investigations and prosecutions coming to a close. And, of course, he was to face no jail time… that is punishment reserved for those North Carolinian felony offenders who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Privileged felons are usually required to pay a nominal fee to the court… and I believe that the fine for Mr. Easley was approximately one thousand dollars. Also he is not subject to probation or required to spend time with community service.

All told, Mr. Easley got off easy. He was treated with kid gloves not only by the media, but by the prosecutors and judge as well. State and federal prosecutors were quick to bring their investigations to a close as soon as the former governor agreed to plead guilty to a minor, but felonious, charge. Easley was probably well advised to take the deal in order to prevent more damaging revelations from being brought to the fore. Although Cheshire was able to arrange for the attorney general to state that his Duke Lacrosse clients were “innocent” (and which the media falsely gave credence to), he could not engineer one in this case, so he took it upon himself to state that although his client pled guilty to a felony charge, there was no corruption. I don’t know what Mr. Cheshire’s definition of “corruption” is, but it must come from the same dictionary used by Duke’s Michael Schoenfeld who defined “solicitation” as handing out a business card and asking someone to visit your website.

It’s hard for me to conjure up sympathy for the friendly media treatment of Mike Easley when one considers the hostile and blatantly biased media treatment of Mike Nifong. The media’s greatest flaw is in using Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” as a basis for stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent or exonerated. Despite being informed about this misleading statement, it continues to this day, nearly four years later. In addition, the media persistently labeled Mike Nifong as the “disgraced” former Durham district attorney. Any negative adjectives used to describe Easley were sparingly if ever used. For me, it is more disgraceful to abuse one’s position of power in exchange for one’s personal gain… such as what apparently transpired with Cheshire’s client. Mike Nifong, on the other hand, was merely carrying out his job as the Durham district attorney when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case. And he carried it out at the risk of losing his election bid as the incumbent district attorney. By proceeding with the prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case, the May 2006 primary election was tightened, and he nearly lost to a November candidate who ran only to oppose Nifong, with the publicized intention of resigning if victorious in order to permit the governor to appoint a new district attorney.

Joe Cheshire is selective when it comes to criticizing the media, or others. For example, he is highly critical of Mike Nifong, but when it comes to Tom Ford, the prosecutor of one of Cheshire’s other clients, Gregory Taylor, Cheshire doesn’t utter one disparaging word. Ford put an innocent man in jail for life as a vendetta because he would not turn and give perjured testimony to implicate an innocent black man in the death of Jacquetta Thomas. Taylor was convicted by hocus-pocus forensics and Ford’s witnesses who gave perjured testimony against Taylor… and although Taylor was wrongfully incarcerated for seventeen years because of Ford’s vengeful actions, Cheshire publicly refers to Tom Ford as a good prosecutor and admirable court-room adversary.

Tom Fetzer, the state Republican chairman stated in response to Easley’s plea deal, “I think North Carolina has developed a reputation for being a very corrupt state.” Well, I agree with Fetzer’s observation, and believe that it is a reputation that is well deserved. How else can the state explain why Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in1933, when it trails only the states of Louisiana and Illinois in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated by DNA evidence? How else can the state explain the draconian, singular, and unwarranted persecution of Mike Nifong when it is not even apparent to public why Nifong was disbarred? There is no logical or reasonable explanation for the persecution meted out to Nifong… he was punished to set an example for other prosecutors who elect to pursue the principle of “equal justice for all” instead of abiding by the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Nifong was also punished as part of the Jihad against him that was launched by Rae Evans in her “60 Minutes” interview.

For his Duke Lacrosse defendant, for Gregory Taylor, and for Mike Easley, Joseph Cheshire served his clients well. And even though only one of his aforementioned clients was legally found to be innocent (Gregory Taylor), the media has been favorable to them all. The same cannot be said for Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Mike Nifong who the media attacked with relish. Spearheading the media onslaught against Nifong was Joseph Cheshire who now takes umbrage at the slightest media insult of his client, the former governor of the state. The complaints by Cheshire leveled at the media for its coverage of Mike Easley’s alleged corrupt actions are hypocritical and mind-boggling when one considers Cheshire’s role in the media war aimed at Mike Nifong… a war that has not let up since its first volleys in 2006.

Annual Justice System Thanksgiving blessings

During the past twelve months, Tar Heelians have had few successes in the criminal justice system tally, but the few we have had have been profoundly significant. Without doubt, our number one blessing for which we should all be thankful is the release from a life sentence and exoneration from a murder conviction of Gregory Flint Taylor. Taylor, you will recall, was maliciously and willfully convicted for the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas in Raleigh. Prosecutor Tom Ford managed to win a conviction against Taylor despite 1) lack of physical evidence tying Taylor to the crime; 2) the use of perjured testimony from unreliable and compromised witnesses; and 3) hocus-pocus forensics by the SBI lab. With full knowledge that Taylor was innocent of the crime, Prosecutor Ford prosecuted Taylor in a vendetta against Taylor who refused to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black man who was the primary target of Ford in this crime. We are all grateful that Taylor, though wrongfully incarcerated for seventeen years, was finally freed through the efforts of advocates for the wrongly convicted.

Secondly, all Tar Heelians should be thankful for the work of the NC Center for Actual Innocence for its significant contributions in winning the freedom of Greg Taylor. We are fortunate to have Christine Mumma, its director and co-founder, along with co-founder retired Judge I. Beverly Lake, heading this august group.

Third, we can also be thankful for work done by Duke law professor James Coleman on behalf of the wrongly convicted and incarcerated. Heading a program at Duke University School of Law, it has met with successes during the past year, as well.

Fourth, we can all be thankful for the exposure of the unfair and unethical practices employed by NC prosecutors who manipulated the shoddy SBI lab results that were instrumental in obtaining hocus-pocus “win-at-all-cost” convictions. Hopefully, revelations about these unfair practices which have been in play for decades will present currently imprisoned innocents with keys to freedom from their unjust confinement.

Fifth, we should be thankful for the courageous members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, who lend their names and faces to the worthy cause of seeking justice for Mike Nifong… justice being the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of his license to practice law in North Carolina without restrictions.

Finally, all North Carolinians can be thankful for Mike Nifong who represents the ideals of a prosecutorial “Minister of Justice.” In the Duke Lacrosse case, Nifong placed his dedication and determination to pursue justice above the real and imminent threat of losing his incumbency bid to be elected as Durham district attorney. He eschewed the warnings and pressures of prosecuting the case by acting independently to pursue justice against three defendants deemed by many – including media-types – to be of Class and Color too powerful, prestigious, privileged, and prominent to be convicted. And because Mike Nifong adhered to the principle of “equal justice for all,” he, like Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett (who defied England’s King Henry II) suffered the consequences by being subjected to singular and draconian retribution by the state of North Carolina, and crucifixion in the biased mainstream media.

We should all give thanks fo the above. Hopefully by the time next Thanksgiving rolls around, we will have more criminal justice victories under our belt to celebrate.

I would like to thank all of those who have contributed comments to this blog regardless of their positions, all who read this blog, and all who are advocates for justice in North Carolina. Your participation is what makes this blog the success it is and contributes to making justice in the state a reality and not just a mirage. I am hoping that you all enjoy the presence of family and friends during this special holiday, and that after a hearty meal of turkey, stuffing, cranberries and all of the trimmings you are able to push away from the dinner table without being uncomfortably stuffed.

“Ineffective counsel” enabled prosecution to win capital conviction in Goode case

Today’s edition of The News & Observer contains an article by Anne Blythe titled, “New trial sought in murder case that used SBI blood tests.” It briefly covers a motion that was filed in federal court yesterday that is seeking a new trial for George Goode. Initially sentenced to death for the double murder of a Johnston County couple nearly two decades ago, a judge recently threw out the death sentence because of “ineffective counsel.” Now Goode is under a sentence of two life sentences. His defense is that he was present and witnessed the murder of the couple, but was paralyzed with fear at the homicidal actions of two others.

N & O staff writer Anne Blythe, in her article, is in full compliance with the media’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy, as she never mentions the name of the prosecutor who sought the most extreme penalty for a man who was linked to the murder solely on a little prosecutorial hocus-pocus provided by SBI agent Duane Deaver. Mr. Deaver has since been admonished for misleading the jury that convicted Mr. Goode, but as has been recently divulged, he was only following the standard protocol of the slanted playing field used by the prosecution. In allowing the jurors to believe that Goode was linked to the crime by blood, Mr. Deaver used the same tactic (expressing the presumptive test for blood and withholding the negative confirmatory test) that he employed in helping to falsely convict Gregory Taylor for the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas.

Ms. Blythe would have readers believe that SBI agent Deaver acted alone in this obvious conspiracy with prosecution… she expects us to believe that Goode’s prosecutor was oblivious to the misleading statements of its star witness, Deaver. In order to win the conviction against Goode, Goode’s prosecutor needed every trick in his bag of magic, including the misleading hocus-pocus lab analysis in which the jurors had reason to believe Deaver’s testimony to be truthful, objective, and unbiased.

The fact that the case against George Goode was also tainted by “ineffective counsel” is not surprising, and was probably an essential building block in reaching the capital conviction. Was the defense counsel for Mr. Goode back in the day merely inept, or was it purposely hanging its client out to dry for the prosecution’s benefit? I have not followed that case enough to know for sure, but I would not be surprised if the defense was in cahoots with the prosecution.

Speaking from personal experience with both civil and criminal trials, attorneys were not at all shy about taking large sums of money to represent me and then selling me down the drain. More often than not, that would be the case. There are many cases in the North Carolina criminal arena in which I believe that defense attorneys, especially from the Public Defenders office which represent the poorest of the poor and those most greatly disenfranchised, throttle back in the defense of their clients in order to enable the prosecution to come away with a win.

When it comes to public defenders, they really have a conflict of interest, especially when it comes to misconduct on the prosecutor’s side of the table. By definition, public defenders are agents of the state who are tasked to represent the indigent or those without legal representation who are faced with criminal charges. The prosecutors, who are also agents of the state, are pressing for convictions of the defendants represented by the state’s public defenders. In highly publicize cases, it is definitely not to the public defender’s best interests to win an acquittal for a defendant who is unpopular with the press and the people.

The cases against some defendants are so weak that prosecutors are unable to prevail without the ineffective contributions by the defendants’ counsel. In one particular incident, a defendant who was charged with “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury” for stabbing a woman, waived his right to assigned legal counsel. Subsequently, with the defendant left to represent himself, the prosecution filed to dismiss the case. Reasons for the dismissal were that the victim refused to cooperate with prosecution, and that there was lack of evidence to corroborate the victim’s story that she was stabbed. Had this man been represented by assigned counsel, it is possible that the prosecution would have moved forward. This, however, is merely speculation.

Ineffective counsel can on occasion be due to the ineptitude of the defense attorney, such as in the case in which Erick Daniels, a 15 year-old, who was convicted of an armed robbery conviction based largely on the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school year book. With no credible case against him, Erick’s lawyer nevertheless put him on the stand to testify. He was pummeled by Prosecutor Freda Black cross-exam which contained highly prejudicial and inflammatory questions. Daniels served seven years unjustly behind bars. And despite being dragged out of a middle school classroom by police without the existence of a shred of credible evidence to implicate him, the media did not raise a ruckus because the teenage defendant was poor, disenfranchised, and an African American.

In a legal environment in which most prosecutors seek unfair advantage on a skewed playing field, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong long ago sought to level the field and give defendants fair advantage and justice. More than two decades before it became mandated by law, Mike Nifong was sharing his evidentiary files with defense attorneys. He has maintained an open file policy throughout his 27 year career as a prosecutor. (This is something that the media and the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson never mention and don't want the public to know.) When defense in the Duke Lacrosse case filed a motion seeking discovery, three sets (one for each defendant) of thousands of pages of documents, and copies of CDs and DVDs were provided within 24 hours. When Mr. Nifong sought copies of evidence held by defense attorneys, they gave him nothing (even though some so-called defense evidence was shared with the extremely friendly media). To accuse Mr. Nifong of withholding evidence is ludicrous, especially in light of past history. Such accusations should be reserved for prosecutors such as David Hoke (Alan Gell case), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael Parker (Floyd Brown case), and Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor case).

Prosecutorial hocus-pocus and ineffective defense counsel may have put George Goode on death row, but hopefully now that the unfair practice of the SBI lab have been exposed, he will at least get another trial… and this time on a more level playing field.