Although I have concentrated on other cases of injustice since the founding of the “Friends of Crystal Mangum” advocacy group, I feel compelled to comment on the obvious. There is no way that this so-called trial should be held in Durham, the cash-strapped city which is for all intents and purposes owned by Duke University. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a better chance of getting a fair trial in a federal court in Washington, DC than Ms. Mangum has in Durham. In jury selection, having a residence in Durham, working in Durham, working for Duke University, having any relationship to Duke University should all be grounds for automatic dismissal for consideration.
Is it any wonder that jury selection took five days, and that defense and prosecution exhausted their peremptory challenges? Actually, I am shocked that Superior Court Judge Abraham Penn Jones even bothered to dismiss five potential jurors who admitted that bias might keep Mangum from getting a fair trial. At least they were being honest, and I would be more inclined to have one of them sit on the jury than a graduate from Duke University who states he had formed opinions about the Duke Lacrosse case but that he could put them aside and make an unbiased finding.
The prosecution’s case is totally screwed up, and one cannot ignore the bias inherent in the charges and prosecution which are selective and stem from Ms. Mangum’s involvement in the Duke Lacrosse case. For one thing, I don’t understand why Crystal Mangum’s attorney would even bother trying to suppress “evidence.” What evidence? This whole case brought by the authorities and prosecution is a complete waste of time, and is obviously done in concert with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda… the same one that nearly got me arrested on the Duke University campus for being an openly known supporter of Mike Nifong.
Officer Hilary Thompson testified that Mangum lunged over her shoulder and threatened to stab Milton Walker, her ex-boyfriend… but she does not say with what… a knife, shears? How ridiculous is that? Thompson and her supervisor John Tyler then arrest Mangum for communicating threats, according to The News & Observer article… but that charge is dropped. The charge of attempted first degree murder (a charge used for the sole purpose of obtaining a million dollar bail against Mangum) is also dropped prior to going to trial. And although the police describe how badly Milton Walker is scratched and beat up, prosecutors drop the charge of assault against Mangum. That is a wise move on their part in light of the fact that the physical altercation was initiated when Walker first sucker punched Mangum in the face with his fist. Something which the police and the media continually keep hidden from the public.
So, what are the catastrophic charges against Mangum that warranted an initial million dollar bail, and prompted Durham Assistant District Attorney Mark McCullough to ask Judge Jones to sequester the jury for the duration of a trial expected to last a week?
They are as follows:
(1) first degree arson (for allegedly setting clothes in a bathtub on fire in the presence of police… and during which police made no attempt to extinguish the fire – keep in mind that the clothes are in the bathtub);
(2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (a convoluted charge related somehow to the so-called arson… attempting to explain how the charge is related to the arson would require a treatise);
(3) injury to personal property - media is extremely vague on this… burned clothing, alleged damages to the car… what? (Instead of using the word “damage” the prosecution uses the word “injury” to try and humanize inanimate objects for the purpose of making the charge seem more serious); and
(4) resisting an officer - for allegedly using a false first name when questioned by police.
For the above trifle, the Durham prosecutors have gone out of their way in wasting taxpayer money and time that could be spent on serious crime, to try and place Crystal Mangum behind bars for a lengthy period of time… again a further waste of taxpayer money. If the prosecutors were so concerned about Ms. Mangum's children they would not make it such a priority to take away the mother they love and put her behind bar in order to settle a score (the Duke Lacrosse case).
As weak as the case is against Ms. Mangum, because of the extreme bias that Crystal Mangum faces in Durham, the likelihood of a conviction is not beyond the bounds of possibility. However, the fact of the matter is, that Ms. Mangum, despite the outcome, cannot receive a fair trial in the city of Durham. Just like James Arthur Johnson could not receive a fair trial in the city of Wilson in the case related to Brittany Willis’s murder. That is probably why James Arthur Johnson made the Alford plea to a misprision of felony charge, even though he was innocent by its very definition of “not notifying authorities of his knowledge of a crime.” The judge in that instance, Milton Fitch, tightly controlled the case against Johnson, denying the defense motion for a change of venue from the racially divided town. It is unlikely that Honorable Abe Jones would have permitted a change of venue in the case against Crystal Mangum.
Whether or not Mangum’s attorney Mani Dexter filed a motion for a change of venue is unknown to me, but if I Mangum were my client, a change of venue would be my first line of defense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Mike Nifong: "This case remains a Durham problem and it demands a Durham solution."
Sid latest gem: "Whether or not Mangum’s attorney Mani Dexter filed a motion for a change of venue is unknown to me, BUT IF I MAGNUM WERE MY CLIENT, a change of venue would be my first line of defense."
Now that's a frightening thought. But then again, maybe the two of them make the perfect couple.
Syd, the fact that the court could seat a jury that satisfied both the state and the Crystal that it would be fair undermines your assertion that a change of venue is called for. Keep in mind that the state and defense had an unlimited number of challenges for cause. Of course they could not exhaust those. What the did is exhaust their preemptory challenges.
The state's case is not at all weak, indeed it's quite strong. Crystal, through counsel, did not challenge any of the facts the state said it would produce at trial. So far, the Crystal's defense seems to be that the police should not have entered her apartment at all. Very weak given she's already lost that argument once before the trial judge.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"Syd, the fact that the court could seat a jury that satisfied both the state and the Crystal that it would be fair undermines your assertion that a change of venue is called for. Keep in mind that the state and defense had an unlimited number of challenges for cause. Of course they could not exhaust those. What the did is exhaust their preemptory challenges.
The state's case is not at all weak, indeed it's quite strong. Crystal, through counsel, did not challenge any of the facts the state said it would produce at trial. So far, the Crystal's defense seems to be that the police should not have entered her apartment at all. Very weak given she's already lost that argument once before the trial judge.
Walt-in-Durham"
Walt, the judge and defense attorney may be satified with the jurors seated, but I would not be satisfied having a jury selected from the city of Durham where Duke University has such a pervasive presence. There is no doubt in my mind that there should have been a change of venue.
With regards to the prosecution's defense, since when does setting clothes on fire in the bathtub constitute first degree arson? I am not even certain that Ms. Mangum set the fire to begin with.
As you may know, defense attorneys do not always work in the best interests of their clients. I speak not only from personal experience, but I will give you an example in the next blog, posted today, December 13th. It involves the Donald Brunson murder case in Wilmington against defendant Shan Carter. Read the blog and the link, and tell me what you think. With regards to Crystal's attorney, I don't know where her true loyalties lie, but then I don't have all of the relevant information in the case.
Sid --- Can you even CITE North Carolina's definition of 1st degree Arson?
If not, then you are absolutely no judge as to what does or does not meet the legal requirement for this charge.
Here -- I'll get you started -- North Carolina General Statute 14-58 states:
"There shall be two degrees of arson as defined at the common law. If the dwelling burned was occupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the first degree and is punishable as a Class D felony."
Now answer this question -- "was the building occupied at the time of the burning".
If you are somehow able to arrive at a "Yes" to this question, then you can see how the prosecution arrived at the 1st degree arson charge.
I would question the phrase "dwelling burned."
A piece of clothing burning in a bathtub is not necessarily a dwelling being burned.
Neither is a lit candle or a fireplace.
Purpose for the fire in a house is also relevant.
If the purpose of the fire was not to destroy the dwelling and in fact the dwelling was not destroyed from "burning", it would seem to be difficult to prove arson from your quoted definition.
The damage to the dwelling seemed to be from smoke, not from the fire. The dwelling may not have been "burned".
Anonymous said...
"If the purpose of the fire was not to destroy the dwelling and in fact the dwelling was not destroyed from 'burning', it would seem to be difficult to prove arson from your quoted definition.
The damage to the dwelling seemed to be from smoke, not from the fire. The dwelling may not have been 'burned'."
Let's face it. There would have been little or no smoke damage if the police would have turned on the water in the bathtub and extinguished the fire. Instead, what do Durham's finest do? They let the clothes in the bathtub burn, making no attempt to put out the fire, close the door, and call the fire department in the middle of the night. During the eight or so minutes that it takes the firemen to arrive, smoke damage has been significant.
And as other commenters have pointed out, since the building was not burned, I see it difficult for the prosecution to make a case for arson.
To prove arson you must prove malicious intent.
Also the gain that the person with malicious intent set the fire. To what purpose? What would Crystal Mangum gain by setting her own place on fire?
Typical reasons for arson is to receive insurance money.
The prosecution would have to prove that this was not an impulsive act from a lovers' quarrel. Even if they could prove that she indeed did set the fire.
Arson is intentional and malicious for the purpose of private gain.
"There is no doubt in my [Syd's] mind that there should have been a change of venue."
Be that as it may, the legal test is the ability to seat a jury and alternates who say they can be fair to both parties.
"With regards to the prosecution's defense, since when does setting clothes on fire in the bathtub constitute first degree arson?"
North Carolina follows a common law definition of arson. Clearly, this is not the way a well drafted criminal code would be constructed. However, the law as codified in § 14-58 has been around since 1870 and is well settled. This approach was upheld unanimously as recently as 2006 in State v. Nipper, ___ S.E.3d ___, 177 N.C. App. 794.
Further, Crystal is likely to face the lesser included offense of Burning the Property of Another under NCGS § 14-66. The state is on firm ground on either § 14-58 or § 14-66 with the facts alleged and uncontroverted in this case.
"As you may know, defense attorneys do not always work in the best interests of their clients." On that point we are in complete agreement. However, Crystal was sitting right next to Mani Dexter for the entire jury selection, if she didn't like the way Mani was handling it, she could have fired her. Mani wouldn't be the first lawyer Crystal has fired in this case.
Walt-in-Durham
edited to get the punctuation right
To my knowledge, it has never been established that the building was burned... only smoke damage... which could have been mitigated had the police turned on the water in the bathtub.
If Mangum did set fire to clothes in the bathtub, then the prosecution did overcharge her, just like it did with the attempted first degree murder charge when she was first arrested. (That charge, of course, was to support the million dollar bail.)
With regards to Public Defender Clayton Jones, Ms. Mangum did not fire him. He requested to be dismissed as her attorney, and the judge allowed it. It is not easy for a person without monetary resources to fire an attorney at the time he/she is set to go to trial for a crime.
"To my knowledge, it has never been established that the building was burned... only smoke damage... which could have been mitigated had the police turned on the water in the bathtub."
You missed yesterday's testimony then. Captains Ray and Abney both established that the structure was damaged by fire. Which is not a required element of arson in any case. Nor is the failure of the police to mitigate the damage in any way exculpatory. Once the fire was set with intention, the crime of arson become complete.
"With regards to Public Defender Clayton Jones, Ms. Mangum did not fire him. He requested to be dismissed as her attorney, and the judge allowed it."
Syd, you're exalting form over substance. The form was a motion to withdraw. Holt wouldn't have filed it if she hadn't fired him. As a matter of fact, he could not have filed the motion without her instruction to do so.
Walt-in-Durham
Oops, 2 of Sidney's most cherished beliefs go up in smoke, as it were...:
In a videotaped interview shown to the jury this morning, Crystal Mangum confessed to smashing her boyfriend Milton Walker's windshield with a vacuum cleaner and setting his clothes on fire
And:
Two firefighters testified Monday that a fire spread from Crystal Mangum's bathtub to the walls and ceiling during a domestic dispute in February.
Did Crystal lie to you about these, Sidney?
Walt - what do you think the chances are that Mangum will testify? Especially after the videotaped interview with the police?
I don't think she'll be able to resist.
"If the purpose of the fire was not to destroy the dwelling and in fact the dwelling was not destroyed from "burning", it would seem to be difficult to prove arson from your quoted definition.
The damage to the dwelling seemed to be from smoke, not from the fire. The dwelling may not have been "burned"
Well, today's testimony shot that all to sh*t....You got anything else?
Sid -- Remember writing this?
" Durham Police then staged a fire in the bathtub of Ms. Mangum’s apartment and accused her of arson. They also alleged Ms. Mangum caused damage to the car of her ex-boyfriend, without, of course, any credible evidence to substantiate the claim."
Damn -- I bet CGM is absolutely kicking herself for not accepting that "time served" offer back in August.
Nice work, Sid...You and your "friends".
"Walt - what do you think the chances are that Mangum will testify? Especially after the videotaped interview with the police?"
Crystal's in trouble either way. She testifies, she gets impeached with her prior inconsistent statement. She doesn't testify and they've got her confessing. She's quite likely to decide to testify to explain what she meant in the video. Which, of course, opens up even more avenues for impeachment. Not an enviable position to be in. If only her lawyer hadn't made that fool motion to suppress Captain Abney's interview, and won it.
Walt-in-Durham
From newsobserver.com:
"[Mani] Dexter did not deny the basic facts of the case: That Mangum piled her boyfriend Milton Walker’s clothes in the bathtub and set them on fire, then threatened to stab Walker, all in the presence of two police officers..."
Aren't these the same facts you've been denying since February?
Arson has to have intention. You cannot accidentally commit arson.
If you set clothes on fire because you're angry at your boyfriend and the fire spreads doesn't constitute arson.
"Well, today's testimony shot that all to sh*t....You got anything else?"
The purpose of the fire has to be to do damage to the dwelling.
Yesterday's testimony does not "shoot all that to sh*t".
And you don't need anything else.
Walt said...
"'Walt - what do you think the chances are that Mangum will testify? Especially after the videotaped interview with the police?'
Crystal's in trouble either way. She testifies, she gets impeached with her prior inconsistent statement. She doesn't testify and they've got her confessing. She's quite likely to decide to testify to explain what she meant in the video. Which, of course, opens up even more avenues for impeachment. Not an enviable position to be in. If only her lawyer hadn't made that fool motion to suppress Captain Abney's interview, and won it.
Walt-in-Durham"
My understanding is that in the interview Mangum, without the presence of an attorney, denied that she set the clothes on fire, or damaged Milton Walker's car. Then she was coerced into giving what Detective Bond said would be a more believeable statement which would be that she set the clothes on fire and damaged the car because she was angry that Milton punched her and that she did it to get back at him.
Mani Dexter called only one witness, to my understanding the woman who advised Crystal's children to call 911. Although the judge would not allow the witness to testify as to why she told the child to call 911.
It is my understanding that Milton Walker, with a history of mental illness for which he takes medicine, and who the prosecution designated as the victim, even though he threw the first punch, was not even called to testify by the prosecution. And although he gave a written statement admitting to setting clothes on fire and damaging his car, he was not called by Mani Dexter. A classic example of an unjust trial in which the defense attorney is in cahoots with the prosecution.
A similar case occurred with Shan Carter who was sentenced to two death penalties, and a life prison term. He was railroaded by his own attorneys, something which is not unique, as in my experience most of the attorney I paid to represent me worked against my interests. Check out the blog which I will post shortly. and be sure to check out the link which contains supportive documents.
Anonymous said...
"From newsobserver.com:
'[Mani] Dexter did not deny the basic facts of the case: That Mangum piled her boyfriend Milton Walker’s clothes in the bathtub and set them on fire, then threatened to stab Walker, all in the presence of two police officers...'
Aren't these the same facts you've been denying since February?"
To use Judge Milton Fitch's phrase, Mani Dexter put up a feather weight defense, although I would hardly call the prosecution's case a brick. It was more like straw.
Surely, Dexter sold her client down the river. You've got Milton Walker admitting to burning the clothes and damaging his car, plus the acknowledgement that he has mental disease. The big victim in the case, which the prosecution doesn't call. Mani doesn't want to call him either for fear of hurting the prosecution's case. She sold her client down the tubes, just like Attorney Richard Miller did to his client Shan Carter and Mike Nifong's attorneys for his bar hearing did to him.
Anonymous said...
"Sid -- Remember writing this?
' Durham Police then staged a fire in the bathtub of Ms. Mangum’s apartment and accused her of arson. They also alleged Ms. Mangum caused damage to the car of her ex-boyfriend, without, of course, any credible evidence to substantiate the claim.'
Damn -- I bet CGM is absolutely kicking herself for not accepting that 'time served' offer back in August.
Nice work, Sid...You and your 'friends'."
Would you admit guilt to something that you were innocent of? Do you recall that Milton Walker made a notarized statement admitting to setting the fire and damaging his car? Do you also recall that he admitted that he reacted irrational when he was off his medication, which he was. Don't you think it unusual that the prosecution did not call their designated "victim"? Don't you think it even more curious that Crystal's defense attorney Dexter did not call him to testify as a witness? In fact, she called only one witness for the defense. And the judge prevented her from explaining why she asked Crystal's children to call 911.
Had it not been for "Friends of Crystal Mangum" the admissions voluntarily made by Milton Walker before the notary would have remained hidden from the public... which was the aim of both the attorneys for the prosecution and the defense.
Not unlike the defense attorneys for Shan Carter who were in cahoots with helping the prosecution convict Carter of the kidnapping and murder of Donald Brunson.
"The purpose of the fire has to be to do damage to the dwelling."
I'll simply refer you to NC Statute 14-66 (Burning of personal property)
and note that this is a Class "H" felony, punishable with up to 10 years or fine or both.
Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sidney? said...
"Oops, 2 of Sidney's most cherished beliefs go up in smoke, as it were...:
In a videotaped interview shown to the jury this morning, Crystal Mangum confessed to smashing her boyfriend Milton Walker's windshield with a vacuum cleaner and setting his clothes on fire
And:
Two firefighters testified Monday that a fire spread from Crystal Mangum's bathtub to the walls and ceiling during a domestic dispute in February.
Did Crystal lie to you about these, Sidney?"
Crystal Mangum without attorneys present, received legal advice from the worst possible source, Detective Bond, who coerced her into what he suggested would be a more "believeable" narrative after she initially denied setting the fire and damaging the car.
I did not witness the firefighters' courtroom testimony, but the fire reports that I have do not have any indication of flame damage to the bathroom walls or ceiling... simply smoke damage which resulted when the police elected not to turn water in the bathtub on to extinguish the fire. Also, firemen, police, attorneys, lab techs, SBI agents, jailhouse snitches, and prosecution witnesses have all been known to tell lies.
Shan Carter should review this whole CGM situation before asking you and your "friends" for help. If the "help" you gave CGM is any indication, you'll get him executed twice.
"Would you admit guilt to something that you were innocent of?"
Are you referring to Crystal Mangum here? The same Crystal Mangum that appeared on video yesterday confessing to smashing her boyfriend Milton Walker's windshield with a vacuum cleaner and setting his clothes on fire?
Anonymous said...
"Shan Carter should review this whole CGM situation before asking you and your "friends" for help. If the "help" you gave CGM is any indication, you'll get him executed twice."
Friends did get out a video statement and notarized statement on behalf of Crystal, and the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong did manage to get the media to give a few crumbs of media coverage that was favorable to her.
Neither Friends nor Committee members are in the courtroom putting up a defense, but the state's case is so weak that there is the possibility that Crystal may prevail. The verdict is not in yet.
Post a Comment