The News & Observer, with a big boost from its recent four-part series on “Agents’ Secrets,” in which it actually shares blame with someone other than Mike Nifong for the abysmal state of the North Carolina justice system, is now the front-runner for my annual “Jedi Mind-trick Award”… barely squeaking ahead of NBC-17 News. The series by staff writers Mandy Locke and Joseph Neff predictably places blame for all the state’s criminal justice woes on a few bad apples in the State Bureau of Investigation and the forensic lab that it runs. The four-part series recounts numerous horrific tales of injustice and wrongful incarcerations that have occurred in the state in the not so distant past, but what is truly remarkable is that the writers did it while mentioning the name of a prosecutor (linked to a case) only once! And even when mentioned, it was not in a derogatory context. Ms. Locke and Mr. Neff surely deserve accolades for adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy when presented with such a challenging topic. And they did well to shift all responsibility from North Carolina State prosecutors to SBI agents and SBI lab personnel.
When it comes down to it, a few individuals in the SBI and its lab were sacrificed as scapegoats to take the downfall and accept blame for all of the malicious and baseless prosecutions and lengthy incarcerations of the innocents that have occurred. The prosecutors, the newspaper would like you to believe, were nothing much more than bystanders and onlookers when the prosecutorial treads of injustice squashed designated individuals (mostly the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color) along with their civil and constitutional rights. From reading the four-part series, one would swear that the investigative agents and lab technicians were single-handedly in charge of determining the fate of the state’s defendants.
The Gregory Taylor case was, of course, mentioned. Revelations from his hearing before a three judge bench in February 2010 was responsible for media focus being directed at the SBI and its forensic practices. But Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned in the series, and his actions in that case were some of the most despicable in the annals of North Carolina juris prudence. Ford was responsible for the vindictive and malicious incarceration of Mr. Taylor because he (Taylor) would not bow to Ford’s urgings for him to implicate an innocent African American man in a murder. Without any credible evidence, Mr. Taylor was sentenced to life, and served 17 years before he was freed by a three judge panel. Ford was even a pivotal figure in attempts to persuade the recently seated panel to deny Taylor’s bid for freedom by arguing against Taylor’s release.
In the Taylor case, The News & Observer left the SBI lab workers and its lab protocol, which in general heavily trended in favor of the prosecution, holding the bag when it came to the fact that the prosecution identified blood on the bumper of Taylor’s car… crucial in winning a conviction against an innocent man. It was the only so-called “evidence” used by Ford against Taylor besides the trumped up testimony of two so-called “witnesses” seeking shorter sentences in exchange for their statements. Prosecutor Tom Ford is neither dumb nor naïve… to the contrary, he is smart, cunning, and calculating. Make no mistake about it, Ford knew in 1991, as well as in February of 2010, exactly what the SBI lab’s complete results were with respect to the red substance on the bumper of Greg Taylor’s vehicle. He was aware that the confirmatory tests did not support the specimen being human blood.
But with the murder of African American prostitute Jacquetta Thomas, Ford was not interested in solving a crime… because he cared not about the victim, his priority was in closing the case. Despite Tom Ford knowing that Taylor was innocent, Taylor’s refusal to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black “suspect,” was all it took for Ford to seek a life sentence conviction. Prosecutor Ford could care less whether results forthcoming from the lab were bogus or legit, as long as they supported his case against Taylor.
In another case cited by the newspaper, unnamed prosecutors referred to only as “Davie County prosecutors” supposedly relied on lab work and forensic testimony in prosecuting a Kernersville dentist for the murder of his wife. It seems that the SBI agent involved in the case did not make the appropriate notes and documentation, predated a document, and made false statements about evidence. According to the newspaper, the misdeeds by the agents and bloodstain pattern expert were done to fit the investigator’s theory. The reader is to believe that the unidentified prosecutors were totally out of the loop? Such a scenario is not to be believed as it is the prosecutors who drive the prosecution of defendants, not the other way around. The investigators and agents try to conjure up results backing up the prosecutor’s story about how the crime(s) unfolded and the defendant’s role.
Perhaps the most blatant example of the PAPEN Policy in The News & Observer series is a redacted quote by Barry Scheck who is questioning Alan Gell investigator Dwight Ransome: “When you were talking with [the district attorney], didn’t you…” Mr. Scheck probably said, “When you were talking with David Hoke, didn’t you…” So in order to protect the identity of the Gell prosecutor (Hoke) who put an innocent man (Gell) on death row despite exculpatory evidence that proved Gell could not possibly have committed a murder, the newspaper substituted a generic [the district attorney].
There are many more examples which I could point out, but doing so would only be redundant. The fact is that whether it’s DNA, bloodstain patterns, confirmatory testing for human blood, missing notations and documentation, false testimony, purposely not conducting tests on evidence, etc., the investigators and lab analysts who are acting unethically and inappropriately are doing so at the behest of the prosecutors to help win a conviction. By and large, prosecutors are anything but “ministers of justice” whom they are portrayed to be… prosecuting a case but seeking the truth and assuring that the defendant receives justice. In North Carolina with its system of “selective justice based on Class and Color,” prosecutors have absolutely no qualms about putting away individuals in society who are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Likewise, as exemplified by the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, prosecutors lack the resolve to solve to crimes against the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. They just want to close their case by sticking any body fitting the desirable profile (disenfranchise, poor, and of color) behind bars.
There once was a district attorney who did not fit the mold of the typical North Carolina prosecutor. Nearly a quarter of a decade before it became mandated, he had an open file policy wherein he shared all of his evidence with defense attorneys. He was a district attorney of the highest integrity, who believed in the principle of “equal justice for all.” He had the same respect for the law, sense of fair play, and obligation to duty as famed lawmen Wyatt Earp and Elliot Ness. And he had the independence and courage of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett to forge ahead and do what was right… and not do what was expedient or expected. As a result, Mike Nifong, former Durham district attorney was persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. The best district attorney the state of North Carolina will probably ever see was figuratively speaking thrown under the bus because he would not adhere to the Carpetbagger agenda in the Duke Lacrosse case. Unfortunately, the crimes by the state against Mr. Nifong are an abomination that has placed a scar on the justice system from which the state will never recover.
Although prompted by testimony at Greg Taylor’s hearing just months ago, the problems with the state’s criminal justice system have festered for many decades. What I find thoroughly disingenuous is the reaction to The News & Observer four-part series, with politicians and prosecutors feigning shock and indignation at problems which they have known to exist and have tolerated. Durham Representative Mickey Michaux, according to the newspaper, “was disturbed to read about false reports filed by SBI agents and the innocent people harmed, and said that agents who violate law and policy need to be punished.” But Michaux knows that the rights and liberty of innocent people (especially the poor and of color) are violated routinely by police and prosecutors. What has Representative Michaux done about it? Nothing, at least that I am aware of. And punishing agents who violate law and policy seems to be misplaced when they do so in response to the persuasion and pressure applied by prosecutors. Punishing wayward prosecutors, who are the driving force behind many innocents being locked away and mistreated, is not an unreasonable step. In my mind, it is also unlikely to be undertaken.
After reading the newspaper series, North Carolina Prosecutor Ann Kirby was quoted as saying: “It’s an absolute betrayal to us as prosecutors and to the agents who are doing their job fairly. To find out that people we relied on so heavily in so many cases were slanting results – by their own accord or by the instruction of supervisors – is the ultimate betrayal. We are not playing a game here. These are people’s lives.” To me, the betrayal seems to be on the other foot. The prosecutors entice, cajole, plead, demand, threaten and do whatever is necessary to extract results, regardless of how bogus, from willing or vulnerable agents and lab technicians in order to prevail in court. Then, when the unsavory practices for which these prosecutors are responsible are exposed by the media spotlight, they attack the agents and lab techs who did their bidding. Now that’s what I call the ultimate betrayal.
Showing posts with label Jedi mind-trick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jedi mind-trick. Show all posts
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong members – Justice Crusaders
I think that it is imperative that I explain in greater detail about the brave individuals who make up the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. The organization, which was formed in June 2008 with just two people, has recently seen a steady increase in its membership. Those who join the Committee come from all walks of life, varying backgrounds, and a diversity of cultures. They have different social-justice interests, however what they all have in common is the belief that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. He is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. This is an outrage when one considers that other prosecutors have conducted themselves far more egregiously than Mr. Nifong’s alleged misconduct. The Committee members are united in their goal of seeing that the State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstates Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state of North Carolina without restrictions.
What makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special is that they backup the conviction of their commitment by courageously lending their names and faces to a cause that is at odds with the State of North Carolina, at odds with the biased media, and at odds with the misguided public which has succumbed to the Jedi mind tricks of the media. Members have the freedom to contribute what legal and moral efforts they wish in pursuing the Committee’s goal of Mr. Nifong’s reinstatement. This may be in the form of letter writing, participating in peaceful demonstrations, or engaging in debates.
As the Lay Advocate of the Committee, I am actively involved in writing letters, posting and maintaining the Committee’s website and blog site, and interacting with media types and politicians. It must be kept in mind that everything that I write represents my opinion solely, and that I am solely responsible for my comments and actions. That does not preclude the fact that others wholeheartedly agree with what I say or do. However, I believe that it is important for this distinction to be clear, especially as membership in the Committee grows.
What makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special is that they backup the conviction of their commitment by courageously lending their names and faces to a cause that is at odds with the State of North Carolina, at odds with the biased media, and at odds with the misguided public which has succumbed to the Jedi mind tricks of the media. Members have the freedom to contribute what legal and moral efforts they wish in pursuing the Committee’s goal of Mr. Nifong’s reinstatement. This may be in the form of letter writing, participating in peaceful demonstrations, or engaging in debates.
As the Lay Advocate of the Committee, I am actively involved in writing letters, posting and maintaining the Committee’s website and blog site, and interacting with media types and politicians. It must be kept in mind that everything that I write represents my opinion solely, and that I am solely responsible for my comments and actions. That does not preclude the fact that others wholeheartedly agree with what I say or do. However, I believe that it is important for this distinction to be clear, especially as membership in the Committee grows.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
NC media able to dish it out, but can’t take it
An interesting article by Anne Blythe appeared in the March 2, 2010 edition of the News & Observer titled, “Media protest call for reports on Carson case.” It states how media companies across the state of North Carolina are fighting attempts by federal defense attorneys to have media outlets in North Carolina hand over copies of everything published about the Eve Carson homicide case. The defense contends that media in the state have saturated the public with such adverse publicity against Carson’s accused killer, Demario Atwater, that it would be impossible for him to get a fair trial within the state. They are seeking to have the federal capital murder trial held in the neighboring state of Virginia.
Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.
What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.
For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.
Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).
Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.
One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.
MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.
At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.
Sixty news organizations have been subpoenaed by the defense to produce copies of all related newspaper articles, letters and editorials, and copies of TV and radio broadcasts. In response to the request, news organizations teamed up to quash the subpoena. Raleigh attorney Amanda Martin, representing the News & Observer argues that it would be unduly burdensome and expensive to comply, despite the fact that a man is facing a death penalty if convicted. Obviously, the media’s convenience and bottom line are more important than whether or not a man, who is fighting for his life, has the benefit of a fair trial.
What makes this issue so pitifully hypocritical is the fact that many media sources, such as the News & Observer, frequently use the subpoena to obtain information that North Carolina state agencies arbitrarily withhold (against the law) in order to stonewall a media investigation. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how does the media respond when they are subpoenaed by the defense in a capital murder case? They whine about the inconvenience of a reduced staff and hardships in the current economic times… and they do so to stonewall Atwater’s defense team in the federal case. But, that is not the overriding reason. In my opinion, the media are trying to dispel any notion that their reporting on the Carson case was in any way, shape, or form, biased. But it was.
For example the media constantly showed images from the ATM camera depicting the defendants withdrawing cash, allegedly using Eve Carson’s bank card. Evidence against the defendants in the Carson case is repeatedly played across television screens throughout the state. This is a prime example of the prosecution trying a case in the media. Only this time, they’re being called on it by competent federal defenders. Although former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of trying the Duke Lacrosse case in the media, the fact is that he did not. To call unidentified perpetrators in an alleged gang-like sexual assault “hooligans” is a far cry from trying the case in the media. Fact is, that Mr. Nifong never presented his case before the media, a trial was never held, and the public is, therefore, unaware of the evidence supporting the prosecution’s case against the defendants. It was the defense teams in the Duke Lacrosse case that held press conferences to release lab results, to display photographs taken at the Duke Lacrosse party, and to present other information favorable to their clients. However, the media has steadfastly represented Mr. Nifong as being the one trying his case in the court of public opinion… not the Duke Lacrosse defense team.
Of course, the media in North Carolina has been biased in its reporting on the Carson case, and a change of venue should be granted to assure that justice is served. A change of venue was not granted by Wilson Judge Milton Fitch in the case of James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson’s attorneys filed a motion to have the case moved from the city of Wilson (racially divided due to the irresponsible actions of the local law enforcement, prosecutors, and media), it was denied by Fitch without explanation. This unreasonable action by the judge was an obvious harbinger of things to come, and most likely prompted defendant Johnson to accept an Alford plea for the charge of misprision of felony (not reporting knowledge of a crime… although he did, but his three day delay in doing so was not fast enough).
Nowhere is media bias more blatant than in the attacks against Mike Nifong, and they began in the early stages of the Duke Lacrosse case. WTVD ABC-11 News was instrumental in laying groundwork for a so-called motive for Mr. Nifong’s prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case… the ridiculous claim that he pursued the prosecution for political gain in order to win the election for Durham district attorney. The rigged poll they used stated that Nifong was in a virtual tie with Freda Black, and that a large black turnout favored Mr. Nifong. It failed to mention that blacks represented only 38% of the registered voters and that whites represented 56 % of registered voters for that primary. It defies credulity to entertain the belief that Mr. Nifong would prosecute a case that was extremely unpopular in order to win a primary race. Yet, the media put it out there, and Mr. Nifong’s detractors used it.
One of the biggest Jedi mind-tricks played on the public by the media, however, has to do with their embracing the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” by Attorney General Roy Cooper. They universally used it as a basis to proclaim the three Duke defendants as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “wrongly accused,” “not guilty,” “exonerated,” “cleared of criminal charges,” etc. However, the use of these adjectives to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants is legally, technically, and factually wrong! The attorney general does not have the legal authority to make such pronouncements of “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence.” Gregory F. Taylor, who was found not guilty by a three judge panel referred by the state’s Innocence Inquiry Commission, is, on the other hand, “innocent,” or “not guilty,” and terms such as “exonerated” and “cleared” are appropriate and applicable.
MSNBC’s senior legal analyst Susan Filan has fabricated a statement about Mr. Nifong, and CBS has written headlines that falsely put words in Mr. Nifong’s mouth. Just a few of the more egregious examples of biased reporting by North Carolina media.
At least Demario Atwater is getting what appears to be competent representation by his defense attorneys in his federal case. That cannot be said about the representation Mr. Nifong received before the North Carolina State Bar. Unfair media bias against Mr. Nifong should have been brought to the fore in his defense against the trumped up ethics charges. His attorneys (David Freedman and Dudley Witt from Winston-Salem) seemed more dedicated to appeasing the unregulated North Carolina State Bar and the media than presenting an aggressive no-holds-barred defense of their unjustly disparaged client.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Nifong’s past convictions under scrutiny?
Another wcbstv.com online article, this one titled: “Ousted DA Nifong’s Past Convictions May Appeal,” is totally misleading and prejudicial. It is yet another arrow from the quiver of a biased media agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by misleading the malleable media consumer with outrageous lies and innuendos. Another headline patent made for pulling the wool over the eyes… another Jedi mind-trick. This ridiculous headline infers that Mike Nifong’s actions in handling the Duke Lacrosse case were not only far outside the bounds of acceptable prosecutorial practice, but that his past convictions were won using unacceptable practices. What’s worse is that it states that those who were convicted by Mike Nifong in the past are entitled to an appeal. How absurd. Again the media insults the intelligence of those who no better, while misleading those who don’t.
Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state. Mr. Cron did not mention what Mr. Nifong did that was so “outrageous.” Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, like prosecutor David Hoke did in winning a wrongful conviction against Alan Gell, or like prosecutor Tom Ford did in winning a wrongful conviction against Greg Taylor, or like Jim Hardin did in winning a conviction against Michael Peterson and depriving him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court, as the court would want everyone to believe. The court purposely misinterpreted Mr. Nifong’s statements in order to levy the cockamamie charge against him… then, used it as a basis for a contempt of court charge and a 24 jail sentence. This chain of events is totally mind boggling. Statements Mr. Nifong made to the press, which defense attorneys labeled as so prejudicial and inflammatory, were made prior to indictments being handed down. They were mild, and made for the purpose of encouraging party-goers to break from the “athletic no-snitch rule” and give truthful honest statements about what transpired during the party.
The headline is, in fact, cruel in giving false hope to those convicted under prosecutor Nifong, and it encourages those convicted by Nifong to entertain the possibility of seeking an appeal. Worst of all, the headline suggests that others convicted by Mr. Nifong were victimized by his inherent prosecutorial misconduct. The article presents nothing to substantiate its reckless, illogical, and biased headline.
If one wants to investigate past cases, then I would strongly recommend looking into convictions won by Wake prosecutor Tom Ford. His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, should be overturned by the three judge panel at its hearing which begins on February 9, 2010. The vendetta prosecution by Ford was made against Mr. Taylor because Taylor refused to wrongfully implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. Ford offered Taylor a reduced sentence if only he would implicate Beck, an African American male. When Taylor refused, he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. And Ford won a conviction against Greg Taylor on the testimony of two witnesses… a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch. Both had received deals, similar to the one Ford offered Taylor… testimony Ford wanted them to give in exchange for a reduction in their sentences. It was an offer which they could not refuse, because they did not have the moral values of Greg Taylor. And, it was an offer that Prosecutor Tom Ford withheld from Greg Taylor’s defense team, in violation of ethical rules.
Rather than do the right thing and get the conviction overturned, Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby is fighting to keep an innocent man in jail in order to protect his prosecutor, Tom Ford, from complaints of prosecutorial misconduct.
From the prosecution of Gregory Taylor in 1993, Tom Ford displayed a propensity of winning convictions by making deals in exchange for testimony to suit his agenda. This type of conduct by a prosecutor is frightening, and leads one to question the testimony used by Ford to convict others in the seventeen years since. If past cases should be examined for prosecutorial misconduct in hopes of establishing grounds for appeals, then Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford is the ideal prosecutor with which to begin investigating. They should scrutinize whether backroom deals were made with witnesses in exchange for a favor from Ford, and whether the knowledge of such deals was withheld from the defense team.
Don’t expect the media to advocate such a position, however, because it operates under the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. The media wants to stir the public and those convicted under Nifong into a frenzy against a prosecutor (Nifong) who acted well within acceptable standards, yet tiptoe around the minefield of misdeeds of the truly unethical prosecutors and shield their wrongdoings from the public. This is indeed a pathetic situation.
Steve Cron, a defense lawyer from Santa Monica, California, stated: "But his behavior in this case was so outrageous and so beyond what's required of an ethical prosecutor that everyone's going to start going back and looking." Please give me a break. Mr. Nifong acted well within accepted standards of prosecutors within the state. Mr. Cron did not mention what Mr. Nifong did that was so “outrageous.” Mr. Nifong did not withhold evidence from the defense attorneys, like prosecutor David Hoke did in winning a wrongful conviction against Alan Gell, or like prosecutor Tom Ford did in winning a wrongful conviction against Greg Taylor, or like Jim Hardin did in winning a conviction against Michael Peterson and depriving him of a fair trial. Furthermore, Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court, as the court would want everyone to believe. The court purposely misinterpreted Mr. Nifong’s statements in order to levy the cockamamie charge against him… then, used it as a basis for a contempt of court charge and a 24 jail sentence. This chain of events is totally mind boggling. Statements Mr. Nifong made to the press, which defense attorneys labeled as so prejudicial and inflammatory, were made prior to indictments being handed down. They were mild, and made for the purpose of encouraging party-goers to break from the “athletic no-snitch rule” and give truthful honest statements about what transpired during the party.
The headline is, in fact, cruel in giving false hope to those convicted under prosecutor Nifong, and it encourages those convicted by Nifong to entertain the possibility of seeking an appeal. Worst of all, the headline suggests that others convicted by Mr. Nifong were victimized by his inherent prosecutorial misconduct. The article presents nothing to substantiate its reckless, illogical, and biased headline.
If one wants to investigate past cases, then I would strongly recommend looking into convictions won by Wake prosecutor Tom Ford. His conviction of an innocent man, Gregory Taylor, should be overturned by the three judge panel at its hearing which begins on February 9, 2010. The vendetta prosecution by Ford was made against Mr. Taylor because Taylor refused to wrongfully implicate another innocent man (Johnny Beck) in a murder. Ford offered Taylor a reduced sentence if only he would implicate Beck, an African American male. When Taylor refused, he was sentenced to life in prison for a murder he did not commit. And Ford won a conviction against Greg Taylor on the testimony of two witnesses… a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch. Both had received deals, similar to the one Ford offered Taylor… testimony Ford wanted them to give in exchange for a reduction in their sentences. It was an offer which they could not refuse, because they did not have the moral values of Greg Taylor. And, it was an offer that Prosecutor Tom Ford withheld from Greg Taylor’s defense team, in violation of ethical rules.
Rather than do the right thing and get the conviction overturned, Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby is fighting to keep an innocent man in jail in order to protect his prosecutor, Tom Ford, from complaints of prosecutorial misconduct.
From the prosecution of Gregory Taylor in 1993, Tom Ford displayed a propensity of winning convictions by making deals in exchange for testimony to suit his agenda. This type of conduct by a prosecutor is frightening, and leads one to question the testimony used by Ford to convict others in the seventeen years since. If past cases should be examined for prosecutorial misconduct in hopes of establishing grounds for appeals, then Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford is the ideal prosecutor with which to begin investigating. They should scrutinize whether backroom deals were made with witnesses in exchange for a favor from Ford, and whether the knowledge of such deals was withheld from the defense team.
Don’t expect the media to advocate such a position, however, because it operates under the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. The media wants to stir the public and those convicted under Nifong into a frenzy against a prosecutor (Nifong) who acted well within acceptable standards, yet tiptoe around the minefield of misdeeds of the truly unethical prosecutors and shield their wrongdoings from the public. This is indeed a pathetic situation.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Responding to blog commenters: justice on a case by case basis
At times the conversation that takes place in the comment section of the blog can be stimulating, relevant, and important. Although I try to respond directly and immediately in the comment section, there are times when I feel the topics covered in the comment section should be addressed in the blog itself.
I find it absolutely amazing that a couple of blog commenters would even suggest that because I champion former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s case, that I would blindly support all state prosecutors. They imply that I would begrudge the wrongly incarcerated Erick Daniels compensation for his unjust conviction and incarceration for an armed robbery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have advocated for Erick Daniels' release long before the charges against him were dismissed, and I have urged that he be declared “innocent” (he is currently seeking a pardon from Governor Bev Perdue) and that the state compensate him. The fact is that I am more likely than not going to lean in favor of justice for defendants than prosecutors. Bottom line is that I define justice based on a case by case basis.
Although I have staunchly supported Mike Nifong, I have been at odds with most prosecutors me when it comes to North Carolina justice. I have even filed complaints with the North Carolina State Bar against several, including Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford for his withholding information from the defense about two plea deals which enabled him to win a conviction against an innocent man (Gregory Taylor), and Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his prosecution of an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson) without probable cause. On the other hand, I was vociferously supportive of Johnston County Prosecutor Gregory C. Butler who was brought before the State Bar’s grievance panel on the flimsiest of charges. My schedule allowed me to be present throughout his hearing to lend my moral support to the embattled prosecutor, who was ultimately not charged with misconduct. Although the case against Mr. Butler should never have been brought by the State Bar to begin with, the outcome was just. Yet it is not only prosecutors against whom I have registered complaints with the State Bar. I filed a complaint against Defense Attorney Johnny S. Gaskins for his breach of attorney client privilege against his former client James Arthur Johnson. However, I wrote favorably and in support of Mr. Gaskins when articles in the media discussed that he had tried to evade federal laws when he made bank deposits just under the limit that would trigger scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. Justice is not the sole province of the prosecutor, defender, defendant, or complaintant. It is determined on a case by case basis.
Another point of contention seems to be the role of the executive branch in matters that are judiciary in nature. Blog commenters have pointed out that the governor of the state has the power to grant a pardon, thereby exercising a power that is usually held by the judiciary branch of government. Somehow, they try to convey the power to apply to the state’s attorney general. First of all, Governor Mike Easley did not grant pardons to the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be innocent on April 11, 2007 (at the prompting of defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's underling, Brad Bannon). My point is that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation carried no more legal weight than one made by me or you. What I find disturbing is that the media, which should know better, gave Mr. Cooper’s proclamation credence, instead of challenging it. The media should have known better. The media did know better, but it was working in cahoots with the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ attorneys, and the state of North Carolina to ruin prosecutor Mike Nifong. The Duke Lacrosse defendants, who were indicted by a grand jury, did not go through a judicial process in which their innocence or guilt was determined. As special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office had only the option of proceeding with the prosecution, or dismissing the case. To make a proclamation regarding innocence or guilt was not its mandate, was overreaching in the extreme, and was inappropriate. The media, universally, made the situation all the worse by embracing the “innocent” declaration, and misleading media consumers on a broad scale.
Every time the media uses the phrase “falsely accused” and “innocent” when referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, it is disseminating misleading and false information… in short, playing a Jedi mind-trick on the public. Every time the media refers to the Duke Lacrosse accuser as being a “false accuser” it is, again, spreading lies.
What makes the “Roy Cooper Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” all the more suspect is that, to my knowledge, such a statement by a state attorney general has never been made in the past in North Carolina or any other state in the Union. If someone is aware of a prior instance, I would certainly appreciate a reference source.
Finally, I want to thank the blog commenters for their insightful and thought-provoking comments. Our democracy is founded on the principle of vigorous and civil debate, and justice is better served when there is healthy discourse from individuals with differing points of view.
I find it absolutely amazing that a couple of blog commenters would even suggest that because I champion former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s case, that I would blindly support all state prosecutors. They imply that I would begrudge the wrongly incarcerated Erick Daniels compensation for his unjust conviction and incarceration for an armed robbery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have advocated for Erick Daniels' release long before the charges against him were dismissed, and I have urged that he be declared “innocent” (he is currently seeking a pardon from Governor Bev Perdue) and that the state compensate him. The fact is that I am more likely than not going to lean in favor of justice for defendants than prosecutors. Bottom line is that I define justice based on a case by case basis.
Although I have staunchly supported Mike Nifong, I have been at odds with most prosecutors me when it comes to North Carolina justice. I have even filed complaints with the North Carolina State Bar against several, including Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford for his withholding information from the defense about two plea deals which enabled him to win a conviction against an innocent man (Gregory Taylor), and Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his prosecution of an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson) without probable cause. On the other hand, I was vociferously supportive of Johnston County Prosecutor Gregory C. Butler who was brought before the State Bar’s grievance panel on the flimsiest of charges. My schedule allowed me to be present throughout his hearing to lend my moral support to the embattled prosecutor, who was ultimately not charged with misconduct. Although the case against Mr. Butler should never have been brought by the State Bar to begin with, the outcome was just. Yet it is not only prosecutors against whom I have registered complaints with the State Bar. I filed a complaint against Defense Attorney Johnny S. Gaskins for his breach of attorney client privilege against his former client James Arthur Johnson. However, I wrote favorably and in support of Mr. Gaskins when articles in the media discussed that he had tried to evade federal laws when he made bank deposits just under the limit that would trigger scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. Justice is not the sole province of the prosecutor, defender, defendant, or complaintant. It is determined on a case by case basis.
Another point of contention seems to be the role of the executive branch in matters that are judiciary in nature. Blog commenters have pointed out that the governor of the state has the power to grant a pardon, thereby exercising a power that is usually held by the judiciary branch of government. Somehow, they try to convey the power to apply to the state’s attorney general. First of all, Governor Mike Easley did not grant pardons to the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be innocent on April 11, 2007 (at the prompting of defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's underling, Brad Bannon). My point is that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation carried no more legal weight than one made by me or you. What I find disturbing is that the media, which should know better, gave Mr. Cooper’s proclamation credence, instead of challenging it. The media should have known better. The media did know better, but it was working in cahoots with the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ attorneys, and the state of North Carolina to ruin prosecutor Mike Nifong. The Duke Lacrosse defendants, who were indicted by a grand jury, did not go through a judicial process in which their innocence or guilt was determined. As special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office had only the option of proceeding with the prosecution, or dismissing the case. To make a proclamation regarding innocence or guilt was not its mandate, was overreaching in the extreme, and was inappropriate. The media, universally, made the situation all the worse by embracing the “innocent” declaration, and misleading media consumers on a broad scale.
Every time the media uses the phrase “falsely accused” and “innocent” when referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, it is disseminating misleading and false information… in short, playing a Jedi mind-trick on the public. Every time the media refers to the Duke Lacrosse accuser as being a “false accuser” it is, again, spreading lies.
What makes the “Roy Cooper Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” all the more suspect is that, to my knowledge, such a statement by a state attorney general has never been made in the past in North Carolina or any other state in the Union. If someone is aware of a prior instance, I would certainly appreciate a reference source.
Finally, I want to thank the blog commenters for their insightful and thought-provoking comments. Our democracy is founded on the principle of vigorous and civil debate, and justice is better served when there is healthy discourse from individuals with differing points of view.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Dismissal and “innocent” are not one and the same
A recent blog commenter (who identified itself as "Whatchoo talkin' '
bout Sidney?") was kind enough to share with me the information that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filled out form AOC-CR-307 when disposing of the Duke Lacrosse case. The commenter also told me that the form was signed by a judge. I presume this document was tendered and signed on or around April 11, 2007, the date of the A.G.’s “Innocent Promulgation.” I have not seen the form, but I will take the commenter at his/her word.
The form AOC-CR-307 is a form used by the criminal courts in the state of North Carolina, and is officially titled, “Dismissal Notice of Reinstatement CR-307 – North Carolina.” It is a dismissal form. Since Attorney General Cooper decided to dismiss the case, one acceptable possible outcome by a special prosecutor taking over a criminal case, it stands to reason that he did, in fact, fill out the document. The presiding judge, in signing the document, agreed to grant the prosecutor’s request for dismissal, and make it final. This is what most likely transpired, and such actions seem believable.
What the blog commenter would want viewers to believe, however, is that this document is one that justifies a declaration of innocence. That the judge, by signing the document, agrees with any text within the document that may recklessly state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are “innocent” and that “no attack occurred.” Attorney General Cooper, or one of his deputy assistant attorney generals may write whatever they want within the document, but at the end of the day, it is merely a form to dismiss the case. It is not a form to declare a verdict or to declare “innocence.” Because of the blog commenter’s bias, he wants to interpret the dismissal form as being an innocent verdict by the judge who signed off on the document. Like Cooper’s promulgation of innocent, this reasoning is an example of overreaching by the blog commenter.
I have not seen the dismissal form used in the Duke Lacrosse case by the Attorney General’s Office, and if the blog commenter has an address where I could find the document, I would be very appreciative. And I appreciate the commenter bringing this form to my attention.
Now, I have no problem with Attorney General Cooper dismissing the case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants (although I doubt that such an act was justifiable having not seen the evidence). He acted appropriately as a special prosecutor in determining whether or not to proceed with prosecuting the case, or whether or not to drop the charges and dismiss the case. However, to proclaim “innocence” or “guilt” was not within his mandate as special prosecutor to the case. What I find appalling is that the media gave Mr. Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” credibility instead of challenging it. Again, by doing so, the media misled the public who believed it, and insulted the intelligence of those who know better. Likewise, the blog commenter, with respect to form AOC-CR-307, is misleading readers who believe him/her, and is insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better. For us, the Jedi mind-tricks do not work.
bout Sidney?") was kind enough to share with me the information that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filled out form AOC-CR-307 when disposing of the Duke Lacrosse case. The commenter also told me that the form was signed by a judge. I presume this document was tendered and signed on or around April 11, 2007, the date of the A.G.’s “Innocent Promulgation.” I have not seen the form, but I will take the commenter at his/her word.
The form AOC-CR-307 is a form used by the criminal courts in the state of North Carolina, and is officially titled, “Dismissal Notice of Reinstatement CR-307 – North Carolina.” It is a dismissal form. Since Attorney General Cooper decided to dismiss the case, one acceptable possible outcome by a special prosecutor taking over a criminal case, it stands to reason that he did, in fact, fill out the document. The presiding judge, in signing the document, agreed to grant the prosecutor’s request for dismissal, and make it final. This is what most likely transpired, and such actions seem believable.
What the blog commenter would want viewers to believe, however, is that this document is one that justifies a declaration of innocence. That the judge, by signing the document, agrees with any text within the document that may recklessly state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are “innocent” and that “no attack occurred.” Attorney General Cooper, or one of his deputy assistant attorney generals may write whatever they want within the document, but at the end of the day, it is merely a form to dismiss the case. It is not a form to declare a verdict or to declare “innocence.” Because of the blog commenter’s bias, he wants to interpret the dismissal form as being an innocent verdict by the judge who signed off on the document. Like Cooper’s promulgation of innocent, this reasoning is an example of overreaching by the blog commenter.
I have not seen the dismissal form used in the Duke Lacrosse case by the Attorney General’s Office, and if the blog commenter has an address where I could find the document, I would be very appreciative. And I appreciate the commenter bringing this form to my attention.
Now, I have no problem with Attorney General Cooper dismissing the case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants (although I doubt that such an act was justifiable having not seen the evidence). He acted appropriately as a special prosecutor in determining whether or not to proceed with prosecuting the case, or whether or not to drop the charges and dismiss the case. However, to proclaim “innocence” or “guilt” was not within his mandate as special prosecutor to the case. What I find appalling is that the media gave Mr. Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” credibility instead of challenging it. Again, by doing so, the media misled the public who believed it, and insulted the intelligence of those who know better. Likewise, the blog commenter, with respect to form AOC-CR-307, is misleading readers who believe him/her, and is insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better. For us, the Jedi mind-tricks do not work.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
NBC-17 News and all media need to stop misleading and insulting the public
Yesterday evening while watching Melanie Sanders deliver the evening news on NBC-17, she mentioned a story about former Governor Mike Easley retaining the services of the prominent criminal defense attorney Joseph Cheshire. She went on to state that Mr. Cheshire was well known for “representing a ‘falsely’ accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” The statement was read as a matter of fact, and not as opinion.
This statement is totally false and misleading, and is intended to further embed in the consciousness of its weak-minded viewers that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent of the charges brought by former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. It would have been accurate and responsible for Ms. Sanders to omit the adverb “falsely” and phrase the statement as follows, “…representing an accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” But, unfortunately, accuracy and truth does not appear to be the top priority of NBC-17. If it was, the statement she made would never have been uttered.
Make no mistake about it, NBC-17 is not alone in misleading the public about this issue. In fact, I would say that the majority, if not all, of the media outlets refer to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” and “wrongly accused”; while referring to the accuser and the alleged sexual assault as being a “hoax,” and “false accuser.”
These misleading statements have been made by the media ever since North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007,” in which he made the unprecedented proclamation that the Duke Lacrosse players charged with sexual assault were “innocent,” and that “nothing happened.” As has been referenced in a previous blog, the attorney general made these statements after Joe Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, had a conversation with Assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead. Mr. Bannon directed them to have the attorney general declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and that “nothing happened.” This is exactly what transpired at the attorney general’s press conference on April 11, 2007.
Now although the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government and not the judicial branch, the media has never, to my knowledge, challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s proclamations. Instead it has embraced them as a basis for making statements of fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that nothing happened. This is not objective reporting. It is biased reporting, and is a keystone in supporting our belief that the media is in cahoots with the anti-Nifong forces (the state of North Carolina and its agencies – such as the NC State Board of Elections and others – , the North Carolina State Bar, and the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players).
Unlike the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defense team and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office (through Brad Bannon), no smoking gun has directly established a direct relationship between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media. However, a reliable source does note that the father of defendant Dave Evans is an attorney who works with the media, and his position as such could give him access to the upper echelon of media bigwigs. And higher-ups in the executive offices of these media corporations have final say in the spin and propaganda used in formulating and carrying out its agenda. It is, and has been, the goal of the media, in general, to destroy Mr. Nifong, and to defend and sanitize the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has long challenged the legitimacy of the “innocent” proclamation by Roy Cooper. Committee President Victoria B. Peterson in a July 2009 interview on WPTF-680 AM’s “Bill LuMaye Show” challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s declaration of “innocent.” Likewise, Committee Lay Advocate Sidney B. Harr also called into question the propriety and legality of the “innocent proclamation” during his appearance on that radio talk show in September 2009.
NBC-17 News and all media need to begin reporting objectively and fairly on the Duke Lacrosse case. To do so would include the following when writing a factually based news story: 1) refrain from using terms such as “innocent” or “falsely accused” to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants; 2) refrain from using terms such as “hoax” to describe the alleged crime; and 3) refrain from using terms such as “false accuser” to describe the alleged victim.
The media needs to give up the biased charade to promote the Duke Lacrosse defendants as “innocent” and stop playing Jedi mind-tricks on the impressionable public. Failure to immediately cease and desist from doing so will continue to mislead those who believe what the media says, and insult the intelligence of those who know better.
This statement is totally false and misleading, and is intended to further embed in the consciousness of its weak-minded viewers that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were innocent of the charges brought by former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. It would have been accurate and responsible for Ms. Sanders to omit the adverb “falsely” and phrase the statement as follows, “…representing an accused Duke Lacrosse defendant.” But, unfortunately, accuracy and truth does not appear to be the top priority of NBC-17. If it was, the statement she made would never have been uttered.
Make no mistake about it, NBC-17 is not alone in misleading the public about this issue. In fact, I would say that the majority, if not all, of the media outlets refer to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” and “wrongly accused”; while referring to the accuser and the alleged sexual assault as being a “hoax,” and “false accuser.”
These misleading statements have been made by the media ever since North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007,” in which he made the unprecedented proclamation that the Duke Lacrosse players charged with sexual assault were “innocent,” and that “nothing happened.” As has been referenced in a previous blog, the attorney general made these statements after Joe Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, had a conversation with Assistant Attorney Generals James J. Coman and Mary Winstead. Mr. Bannon directed them to have the attorney general declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent” and that “nothing happened.” This is exactly what transpired at the attorney general’s press conference on April 11, 2007.
Now although the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government and not the judicial branch, the media has never, to my knowledge, challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s proclamations. Instead it has embraced them as a basis for making statements of fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are innocent and that nothing happened. This is not objective reporting. It is biased reporting, and is a keystone in supporting our belief that the media is in cahoots with the anti-Nifong forces (the state of North Carolina and its agencies – such as the NC State Board of Elections and others – , the North Carolina State Bar, and the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players).
Unlike the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defense team and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office (through Brad Bannon), no smoking gun has directly established a direct relationship between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media. However, a reliable source does note that the father of defendant Dave Evans is an attorney who works with the media, and his position as such could give him access to the upper echelon of media bigwigs. And higher-ups in the executive offices of these media corporations have final say in the spin and propaganda used in formulating and carrying out its agenda. It is, and has been, the goal of the media, in general, to destroy Mr. Nifong, and to defend and sanitize the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has long challenged the legitimacy of the “innocent” proclamation by Roy Cooper. Committee President Victoria B. Peterson in a July 2009 interview on WPTF-680 AM’s “Bill LuMaye Show” challenged the validity of Mr. Cooper’s declaration of “innocent.” Likewise, Committee Lay Advocate Sidney B. Harr also called into question the propriety and legality of the “innocent proclamation” during his appearance on that radio talk show in September 2009.
NBC-17 News and all media need to begin reporting objectively and fairly on the Duke Lacrosse case. To do so would include the following when writing a factually based news story: 1) refrain from using terms such as “innocent” or “falsely accused” to describe the Duke Lacrosse defendants; 2) refrain from using terms such as “hoax” to describe the alleged crime; and 3) refrain from using terms such as “false accuser” to describe the alleged victim.
The media needs to give up the biased charade to promote the Duke Lacrosse defendants as “innocent” and stop playing Jedi mind-tricks on the impressionable public. Failure to immediately cease and desist from doing so will continue to mislead those who believe what the media says, and insult the intelligence of those who know better.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Conspiratorial link between Duke defendants and Attorney General established
During my September 14, 2009 interview on WPTF - 680's "Bill LuMaye Show," guest host Rick Martinez scoffed at my belief that a widespread conspiracy existed which conspired to successfully bring down former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. However, thanks to the boastful statements made by Joseph Cheshire's firm's underling, Brad Bannon, a direct connection has been established between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and Attorney General Roy Cooper. In statements carried by WRAL 5 News's online website, Bannon affirms that he told representatives of the North Carolina Attorney General to: 1) proclaim the Duke Lacrosse defendants "innocent;" and 2) state that "nothing (criminal) happened." These demands by the attorney representing Duke defendant Dave Evans were made well before the mid-April 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper to the media at a press conference.
The chain of conspiracy between the defense and A. G. Cooper is irrefutable and is linked as follows: Dave Evans is one of three Duke Lacrosse defendants - Evans is represented by prominent defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's law firm - Attorney Brad Bannon is an attorney in Cheshire's law firm - Bannon meets with Assistant Attorney Generals Mary Winstead and James J. Coman - Bannon tells Winstead and Coman to instruct the attorney general to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and to state that "nothing happened" (at the March 13, 2006 beer-bash Spring Break party hosted by Duke Lacrosse players noted for their raucous regalements and beer-induced disorderly conduct and public urination) - Winstead and Coman report to their superior, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and pass on Bannon's mandate - Attorney General Roy Cooper goes before the media at an April 2007 press conference and proclaims that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and that "nothing happened."
It is also my understanding that Mr. Bannon represented Alan Gell, who was victimized by the North Carolina justice system when he was convicted of capital murder, despite being in jail at the time of its commission. After he wrongfully served more than nine years in prison (half on death row), exculpatory evidence which was withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke was uncovered and led to the judge throwing out Gell's conviction. Yet, Mr. Bannon never demanded that the attorney general proclaim Mr. Gell innocent. Why? (Hint: It has to do with selective justice based on Class.)
The carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players have sought, in addition to millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements, to have their boys declared "innocent" and an admission that "nothing happened" at the animal house on Buchanan Street. Attorney General Cooper gave them exactly what they wanted, and they used the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt of court to try and wring such statements from Mike Nifong. Despite the pressure from Judge Osmond Smith III, defense counsel, and the state, Mr. Nifong maintained his belief that something criminal did happen at the party. In order to navigate around this position that Mr. Nifong stubbornly held on to, the media took it upon itself to put words into Mr. Nifong's mouth. On the WRAL.com website, a story about the in-court apology Mr. Nifong made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was headlined: "Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened." (It is my understanding that ESPN.com also had a similarly titled headline.) Nothing could be further from the truth as the context of the story did not substantiate that he admitted that "nothing happened." Someone in the media must have made the deliberate decision to play a Jedi mind-trick on the public. To its credit, the wral.com general manager acted timely, responsibly, and appropriately in correcting the headline and including an editor's note. (espn.com apparently changed its headline, as well, since it no longer reads that Nifong "admits nothing happened.")
Now the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media exists, without a doubt in my mind. So far, no one has come forward to admit that dialogue took place between them, but that is usually the way things work in a conspiracy. I am not certain why Mr. Bannon came forward to brag about his law firm's role in prodding the attorney general to make two such unprecedented, inappropriate, overreaching, and misleading statements. Regardless of his motive, it clearly establishes that the two worked together behind the scenes in crafting the pronouncements made by Attorney General Roy Cooper, in mid-April 2007.
What I find particularly disturbing is that the Attorney General's Office is suppose to represent the interests of the people of North Carolina, not the special interests of the well-heeled families of defendants. The liaison between these two camps in the Duke Lacrosse case to quench the vindictive thirst of the vengeful families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with Mike Nifong in the cross-hairs, is a poke in both eyes of Lady Justice.
The chain of conspiracy between the defense and A. G. Cooper is irrefutable and is linked as follows: Dave Evans is one of three Duke Lacrosse defendants - Evans is represented by prominent defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's law firm - Attorney Brad Bannon is an attorney in Cheshire's law firm - Bannon meets with Assistant Attorney Generals Mary Winstead and James J. Coman - Bannon tells Winstead and Coman to instruct the attorney general to proclaim that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and to state that "nothing happened" (at the March 13, 2006 beer-bash Spring Break party hosted by Duke Lacrosse players noted for their raucous regalements and beer-induced disorderly conduct and public urination) - Winstead and Coman report to their superior, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and pass on Bannon's mandate - Attorney General Roy Cooper goes before the media at an April 2007 press conference and proclaims that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are "innocent" and that "nothing happened."
It is also my understanding that Mr. Bannon represented Alan Gell, who was victimized by the North Carolina justice system when he was convicted of capital murder, despite being in jail at the time of its commission. After he wrongfully served more than nine years in prison (half on death row), exculpatory evidence which was withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke was uncovered and led to the judge throwing out Gell's conviction. Yet, Mr. Bannon never demanded that the attorney general proclaim Mr. Gell innocent. Why? (Hint: It has to do with selective justice based on Class.)
The carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse players have sought, in addition to millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements, to have their boys declared "innocent" and an admission that "nothing happened" at the animal house on Buchanan Street. Attorney General Cooper gave them exactly what they wanted, and they used the threat of going to jail for criminal contempt of court to try and wring such statements from Mike Nifong. Despite the pressure from Judge Osmond Smith III, defense counsel, and the state, Mr. Nifong maintained his belief that something criminal did happen at the party. In order to navigate around this position that Mr. Nifong stubbornly held on to, the media took it upon itself to put words into Mr. Nifong's mouth. On the WRAL.com website, a story about the in-court apology Mr. Nifong made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was headlined: "Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened." (It is my understanding that ESPN.com also had a similarly titled headline.) Nothing could be further from the truth as the context of the story did not substantiate that he admitted that "nothing happened." Someone in the media must have made the deliberate decision to play a Jedi mind-trick on the public. To its credit, the wral.com general manager acted timely, responsibly, and appropriately in correcting the headline and including an editor's note. (espn.com apparently changed its headline, as well, since it no longer reads that Nifong "admits nothing happened.")
Now the conspiratorial link between the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the media exists, without a doubt in my mind. So far, no one has come forward to admit that dialogue took place between them, but that is usually the way things work in a conspiracy. I am not certain why Mr. Bannon came forward to brag about his law firm's role in prodding the attorney general to make two such unprecedented, inappropriate, overreaching, and misleading statements. Regardless of his motive, it clearly establishes that the two worked together behind the scenes in crafting the pronouncements made by Attorney General Roy Cooper, in mid-April 2007.
What I find particularly disturbing is that the Attorney General's Office is suppose to represent the interests of the people of North Carolina, not the special interests of the well-heeled families of defendants. The liaison between these two camps in the Duke Lacrosse case to quench the vindictive thirst of the vengeful families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, with Mike Nifong in the cross-hairs, is a poke in both eyes of Lady Justice.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Media nurtures seeds of Nifong-hate sown by the LAX defendants, State and carpetbagger families
Because of the media's unprecedented departure from objective and balanced journalism in covering the Duke Lacrosse case and former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, it must accept responsibility for the public's unwarranted and misguided hatred of Mr. Nifong. Because of the media's agenda (which I have strong reason to believe was to skew coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case in favor of the wealthy and privileged defendants, and against their prosecutor), many, if not the majority, of people exposed to the media's take on the topic have a visceral hatred towards a man with a good 27 year professional reputation who was merely doing his job in prosecuting the Lacrosse case using the principle of "equal justice for all." Of these individuals with hatred and scorn for Mr. Nifong that is on a level usually reserved for Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and O. J. Simpson, most have formed their opinions solely through media accounts... accounts which echo the lies and misleading statements from the Duke Lacrosse defense camp, the N. C. Attorney General's Office, and the North Carolina State Bar. Furthermore, the media's editorial arm fails to present relevant dialog that would kindle within its consumer objective and discerning thought. For example, is it reasonable for the public to believe that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor worthy of disbarment by the State Bar during its 76 years in existence... especially in light of the fact that North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates to be exonerated? ... also, when one considers the puny reprimand meted out by the Bar to Prosecutor David Hoke who withheld exculpatory evidence from defendant Alan Gell, which resulted in his death penalty conviction and serving an unjust nine years in prison?
A recent example of the media inspired animus against Mr. Nifong follows, and it comes from a blog commenter using the identity of "Kenneth":
"Personally, I hope Mike Nifong never works a day in law again, and dies as a poor man. He ruined several people's lives. Maybe, he'll drink his life away and die young? One can only hope. When I hear of his death in the future, I will raise a glass since it'll be a good day." ~posted November 4, 2009 1:05 PM
To begin with, Kenneth's statement contains the falsehood that Mr. Nifong ruind several people's lives. I would like to know about whom he is referring... certainly not the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. First, they never spent a day in jail. Second, they each received $7 million in settlement from Duke University for reasons unbeknownst to me. Third, they were proclaimed "innocent" by Attorney General Roy Cooper, although he has no authority to make such a proclamation... which went unchallenged by the media. Fourth, they all quickly picked up with their lives, being offered reinstatement at Duke, but either graduating and landing a job or transferring to another prestigious university with a lacrosse team. Fifth, they were treated with celebrity, as books and a movie glorifying them have been published and/or are in production. Sixth, individually, Collin Finnerty's newfound celebrity resulted in an assault charge (against an individual who he believed to be gay) being expunged from his record. Seventh, their avaricious families are seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city of Durham.
However, most troubling is Kenneth's unChristian-like statements. To wish and hope that Mike Nifong dies young and poor, and for Kenneth to state that he will celebrate when he hears of the passing of the former Durham district attorney, is at 180 degree variance to the mind-set and sentiments of Jesus of Nazareth, who prayed, as he carried the cross upon which he was to be crucified, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do."
Kenneth is not alone in his feelings towards Mike Nifong. Many people have told me that they dislike Mike Nifong personally. Invariably, they have never even met him, and when I ask why, some state that they dislike him because he tried to put innocent defendants in prison. For the record, just because A.G. Cooper proclaimed that they were innocent does not make them innocent. Also, as a prosecutor, it is his job description to take away the freedom of defendants... he was merely doing his duty in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. And these very people who give such reasons, have no ill will towards other prosecutors who have engaged in misconduct that resulted in truly innocent individuals wrongfully languishing in prison for many months and years. The names of these prosecutors are not even known by the public because the media goes out of its way to shield them... which is what it does when the defendants are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Then, there are a number of people who admit to me that they don't know why they dislike Mike Nifong. The answer is: because of what the media has spewed forth... which is its biased portrait of a man who acted for politically selfish motives in bringing a case in which he knew was without merit, and in doing so, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, lied to the court, and made pre-trial statements that were grossly prejudicial and inflammatory. However, the truth is, that nothing could be further from the truth.
Unfortunately, it is those individuals who are quick to hate whose minds are weakest and most vulnerable to the propagandistic product delivered my the media. The biased media's use of the Jedi mind-trick is very effective in disseminating hatred among the populous, as is evidenced by what has tragically transpired as a result of its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong.
A recent example of the media inspired animus against Mr. Nifong follows, and it comes from a blog commenter using the identity of "Kenneth":
"Personally, I hope Mike Nifong never works a day in law again, and dies as a poor man. He ruined several people's lives. Maybe, he'll drink his life away and die young? One can only hope. When I hear of his death in the future, I will raise a glass since it'll be a good day." ~posted November 4, 2009 1:05 PM
To begin with, Kenneth's statement contains the falsehood that Mr. Nifong ruind several people's lives. I would like to know about whom he is referring... certainly not the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. First, they never spent a day in jail. Second, they each received $7 million in settlement from Duke University for reasons unbeknownst to me. Third, they were proclaimed "innocent" by Attorney General Roy Cooper, although he has no authority to make such a proclamation... which went unchallenged by the media. Fourth, they all quickly picked up with their lives, being offered reinstatement at Duke, but either graduating and landing a job or transferring to another prestigious university with a lacrosse team. Fifth, they were treated with celebrity, as books and a movie glorifying them have been published and/or are in production. Sixth, individually, Collin Finnerty's newfound celebrity resulted in an assault charge (against an individual who he believed to be gay) being expunged from his record. Seventh, their avaricious families are seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city of Durham.
However, most troubling is Kenneth's unChristian-like statements. To wish and hope that Mike Nifong dies young and poor, and for Kenneth to state that he will celebrate when he hears of the passing of the former Durham district attorney, is at 180 degree variance to the mind-set and sentiments of Jesus of Nazareth, who prayed, as he carried the cross upon which he was to be crucified, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do."
Kenneth is not alone in his feelings towards Mike Nifong. Many people have told me that they dislike Mike Nifong personally. Invariably, they have never even met him, and when I ask why, some state that they dislike him because he tried to put innocent defendants in prison. For the record, just because A.G. Cooper proclaimed that they were innocent does not make them innocent. Also, as a prosecutor, it is his job description to take away the freedom of defendants... he was merely doing his duty in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. And these very people who give such reasons, have no ill will towards other prosecutors who have engaged in misconduct that resulted in truly innocent individuals wrongfully languishing in prison for many months and years. The names of these prosecutors are not even known by the public because the media goes out of its way to shield them... which is what it does when the defendants are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Then, there are a number of people who admit to me that they don't know why they dislike Mike Nifong. The answer is: because of what the media has spewed forth... which is its biased portrait of a man who acted for politically selfish motives in bringing a case in which he knew was without merit, and in doing so, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, lied to the court, and made pre-trial statements that were grossly prejudicial and inflammatory. However, the truth is, that nothing could be further from the truth.
Unfortunately, it is those individuals who are quick to hate whose minds are weakest and most vulnerable to the propagandistic product delivered my the media. The biased media's use of the Jedi mind-trick is very effective in disseminating hatred among the populous, as is evidenced by what has tragically transpired as a result of its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
CNN legal observer Kendall Coffey gets it all wrong on Mike Nifong
In a January 1, 2008 CNN.com posted commentary titled: “The Best and Worst of a year of celebrity justice,” former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey got it all wrong with his blurb about former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. The Miami, Florida commentator’s statements were as far off base as those made by MSNBC legal analyst Susan F. Filan, who claimed that Mr. Nifong damaged the sport of lacrosse and damaged the reputation of Duke University when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case.
Although the column did not go into depth about Mike Nifong’s role in the Duke Lacrosse case, he begins with a zinger by labeling the prosecution as being one about a “bogus sexual assault.” The media has gone out of its way to portray the alleged sexual assault as being “bogus” despite the fact that the accuser/victim has always maintained that it did occur. The media has never used the term bogus to describe the prosecutions of Alan Gell (for a murder which he could not have possibly committed), James Arthur Johnson (who solved a heinous murder), and Erick Daniels (a 14 year old prosecuted for an armed robbery based on the shape of his eyebrows from a photo in a school yearbook). The bogus tag is used to discredit the prosecution against the three Duke University students who come from families of wealth, status, and privilege, and the media, in general, has definitely assumed a biased position in favor of the student defendants.
Mr. Coffey then makes a statement that is both true and false. He accurately states that the main excuse used by the North Carolina State Bar to disbar Mr. Nifong is because of his “failure to promptly disclose DNA (results)…” Unlike the majority of media types and Nifong detractors, he did not follow the universally accepted mantra that Mr. Nifong withheld DNA evidence. To his credit, Mr. Coffey stated that the excuse used was that Mr. Nifong did not turn DNA evidence over to the prosecution quick enough. Never mind, that when all DNA evidence was received by the defense team on October 27, 2006, a trial date had not even been set. The Duke Lacrosse defense had adequate time to mount a defense utilizing those DNA results. Compare this with Prosecutor Jim Hardin who withheld from defendant novelist Mike Peterson’s defense team the knowledge of the existence and testing performed on a possible murder weapon. Such lack of disclosure by the prosecution caused irreparable damage in building the best possible defense on Mr. Peterson’s behalf.
Secondly, Mr. Coffey refers to the delayed DNA evidence provided by Mr. Nifong to the Duke Lacrosse defense team as being “testing that exonerated the defendants.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Lack of DNA test results from the accuser’s rape kit exam being linked to any of the Duke lacrosse players was not exculpatory… its absence did not rule out the possibility that a sexual assault occurred. This is unlike the exculpatory evidence withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke from Alan Gell’s defense attorney. In that case, seventeen independent eyewitnesses gave statements that they saw the murder victim alive during a period when his suspect, Mr. Gell, was incarcerated on an unrelated charge, and could not possibly have committed the crime. Although these exculpatory statements were available well before trial, their existence was never disclosed by Prosecutor Hoke, and it never came to light until nine years after the defendant was convicted and served time in prison, half on death row.
Next, Mr. Coffey writes that Mr. Nifong was convicted and served a day in jail for failing to deal honestly with the court. If you’re looking for a bogus charge, the contempt charge against Mr. Nifong is about as fitting as one can find. Mr. Nifong’s explanation about a statement (which had no bearing on the case) was ignored by the judge, who sided with the defense team’s interpretation of the innocuous statement made by Mr. Nifong in court… “This is the first that I’ve heard of this situation..” It is apparent that the situation he is referring to is the complaint of withholding evidence lodged against him by the defense. Instead, the defense claimed that Mr. Nifong was referring to the first that he heard of certain DNA test results. Such a claim doesn’t make sense, and for him to serve jail time because of it is a travesty of justice.
Again, going with the media, Mr. Coffey refers to the Duke Lacrosse defendants as being “falsely accused.” I presume this is based on Attorney General Roy Cooper’s proclamation that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.” Such a pronouncement coming from a prosecutor, much less an attorney general, is unheard of. Attorney General Cooper definitely overstepped his boundaries, yet the media, including Attorney Kendall Coffey, gives credence to Cooper’s judgment instead of questioning its appropriateness and validity.
Mr. Coffey ponders “whether Nifong’s high-profile disaster is sufficient to give other prosecutors a chill.” It will if they, like Mike Nifong, believe in following the principle of “equal justice for all,” instead of the current North Carolina tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color”… the latter which was reinforced by the persecution of Mike Nifong. To put things in perspective, the ethics complaint was filed by the North Carolina State Bar to create a conflict of interest for the purpose of forcing Mike Nifong off the case. Mr. Nifong was too independent, and would not let the charges against the Duke students to be swept under the rug, as was standard protocol prior to his appointment as Durham district attorney. As a result, he, like the independently minded Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II, suffered the consequences at the hands of the state and the media. Likewise, he was used to set an example for other prosecutors. Lessons learned for North Carolina prosecutors to maintain their law license in good standing would be as follows: follow the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color;” don’t defy protocol or positions of the state; and don’t go against the North Carolina State Bar, the unregulated agency that is capable of arbitrary, selective, and unjust disbarment.
In prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Nifong was honorably performing his duties as district attorney. The assertion that his actions in doing so were politically motivated is nothing but baseless speculation. To make this reckless promulgation is to suggest that while running for re-election, Mr. Nifong or any incumbent candidate for district attorney should suspend all professional activity on grounds that his/her acts could be construed as pandering to the public for votes.
Finally, CNN’s special observer Kendall Coffey concludes that Mike Nifong makes a good poster-boy for prosecutors who pursue baseless charges. Obviously, I strongly disagree, and instead would offer the following nominees: Prosecutor David Hoke (who withheld from defense attorneys exculpatory evidence which clearly exonerated the defendant, Alan Gell); Prosecutor Bill Wolfe (who, without probable cause, charged James Arthur Johnson with murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery even though Johnson heroically supplied information to police which solved the crimes); and Prosecutor Freda Black (who without probable cause convicted a 14 year old boy on armed robbery charges based on the shape of his eyebrows from a school yearbook, despite the fact he did not fit the victim’s description and another inmate who was later jailed and fit the description confessed to the crime).
By using wording such as “falsely accused,” “bogus sexual assault prosecution,” “testing that exonerated the defendants,” and “politically motivated, baseless charges,” Kendall Coffey does a superb job in subtly molding the minds of the public in generating sympathy for the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, and overt hostility against their prosecutor, Mike Nifong. For those who are not knowledgeable about the case, who are not fair-minded, who accept what the media spews out as truthful without question, and who are not objective when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case, the Jedi-mind trick is working… and it is very effective.
Although the column did not go into depth about Mike Nifong’s role in the Duke Lacrosse case, he begins with a zinger by labeling the prosecution as being one about a “bogus sexual assault.” The media has gone out of its way to portray the alleged sexual assault as being “bogus” despite the fact that the accuser/victim has always maintained that it did occur. The media has never used the term bogus to describe the prosecutions of Alan Gell (for a murder which he could not have possibly committed), James Arthur Johnson (who solved a heinous murder), and Erick Daniels (a 14 year old prosecuted for an armed robbery based on the shape of his eyebrows from a photo in a school yearbook). The bogus tag is used to discredit the prosecution against the three Duke University students who come from families of wealth, status, and privilege, and the media, in general, has definitely assumed a biased position in favor of the student defendants.
Mr. Coffey then makes a statement that is both true and false. He accurately states that the main excuse used by the North Carolina State Bar to disbar Mr. Nifong is because of his “failure to promptly disclose DNA (results)…” Unlike the majority of media types and Nifong detractors, he did not follow the universally accepted mantra that Mr. Nifong withheld DNA evidence. To his credit, Mr. Coffey stated that the excuse used was that Mr. Nifong did not turn DNA evidence over to the prosecution quick enough. Never mind, that when all DNA evidence was received by the defense team on October 27, 2006, a trial date had not even been set. The Duke Lacrosse defense had adequate time to mount a defense utilizing those DNA results. Compare this with Prosecutor Jim Hardin who withheld from defendant novelist Mike Peterson’s defense team the knowledge of the existence and testing performed on a possible murder weapon. Such lack of disclosure by the prosecution caused irreparable damage in building the best possible defense on Mr. Peterson’s behalf.
Secondly, Mr. Coffey refers to the delayed DNA evidence provided by Mr. Nifong to the Duke Lacrosse defense team as being “testing that exonerated the defendants.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Lack of DNA test results from the accuser’s rape kit exam being linked to any of the Duke lacrosse players was not exculpatory… its absence did not rule out the possibility that a sexual assault occurred. This is unlike the exculpatory evidence withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke from Alan Gell’s defense attorney. In that case, seventeen independent eyewitnesses gave statements that they saw the murder victim alive during a period when his suspect, Mr. Gell, was incarcerated on an unrelated charge, and could not possibly have committed the crime. Although these exculpatory statements were available well before trial, their existence was never disclosed by Prosecutor Hoke, and it never came to light until nine years after the defendant was convicted and served time in prison, half on death row.
Next, Mr. Coffey writes that Mr. Nifong was convicted and served a day in jail for failing to deal honestly with the court. If you’re looking for a bogus charge, the contempt charge against Mr. Nifong is about as fitting as one can find. Mr. Nifong’s explanation about a statement (which had no bearing on the case) was ignored by the judge, who sided with the defense team’s interpretation of the innocuous statement made by Mr. Nifong in court… “This is the first that I’ve heard of this situation..” It is apparent that the situation he is referring to is the complaint of withholding evidence lodged against him by the defense. Instead, the defense claimed that Mr. Nifong was referring to the first that he heard of certain DNA test results. Such a claim doesn’t make sense, and for him to serve jail time because of it is a travesty of justice.
Again, going with the media, Mr. Coffey refers to the Duke Lacrosse defendants as being “falsely accused.” I presume this is based on Attorney General Roy Cooper’s proclamation that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.” Such a pronouncement coming from a prosecutor, much less an attorney general, is unheard of. Attorney General Cooper definitely overstepped his boundaries, yet the media, including Attorney Kendall Coffey, gives credence to Cooper’s judgment instead of questioning its appropriateness and validity.
Mr. Coffey ponders “whether Nifong’s high-profile disaster is sufficient to give other prosecutors a chill.” It will if they, like Mike Nifong, believe in following the principle of “equal justice for all,” instead of the current North Carolina tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color”… the latter which was reinforced by the persecution of Mike Nifong. To put things in perspective, the ethics complaint was filed by the North Carolina State Bar to create a conflict of interest for the purpose of forcing Mike Nifong off the case. Mr. Nifong was too independent, and would not let the charges against the Duke students to be swept under the rug, as was standard protocol prior to his appointment as Durham district attorney. As a result, he, like the independently minded Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II, suffered the consequences at the hands of the state and the media. Likewise, he was used to set an example for other prosecutors. Lessons learned for North Carolina prosecutors to maintain their law license in good standing would be as follows: follow the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color;” don’t defy protocol or positions of the state; and don’t go against the North Carolina State Bar, the unregulated agency that is capable of arbitrary, selective, and unjust disbarment.
In prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Nifong was honorably performing his duties as district attorney. The assertion that his actions in doing so were politically motivated is nothing but baseless speculation. To make this reckless promulgation is to suggest that while running for re-election, Mr. Nifong or any incumbent candidate for district attorney should suspend all professional activity on grounds that his/her acts could be construed as pandering to the public for votes.
Finally, CNN’s special observer Kendall Coffey concludes that Mike Nifong makes a good poster-boy for prosecutors who pursue baseless charges. Obviously, I strongly disagree, and instead would offer the following nominees: Prosecutor David Hoke (who withheld from defense attorneys exculpatory evidence which clearly exonerated the defendant, Alan Gell); Prosecutor Bill Wolfe (who, without probable cause, charged James Arthur Johnson with murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery even though Johnson heroically supplied information to police which solved the crimes); and Prosecutor Freda Black (who without probable cause convicted a 14 year old boy on armed robbery charges based on the shape of his eyebrows from a school yearbook, despite the fact he did not fit the victim’s description and another inmate who was later jailed and fit the description confessed to the crime).
By using wording such as “falsely accused,” “bogus sexual assault prosecution,” “testing that exonerated the defendants,” and “politically motivated, baseless charges,” Kendall Coffey does a superb job in subtly molding the minds of the public in generating sympathy for the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, and overt hostility against their prosecutor, Mike Nifong. For those who are not knowledgeable about the case, who are not fair-minded, who accept what the media spews out as truthful without question, and who are not objective when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case, the Jedi-mind trick is working… and it is very effective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
