Mangum v. Bond, et al.: Malicious Prosecution in Federal Court

Crystal Mangum's Appeal Brief

Mangum v. Bond: Motions Hearing on August 15, 2018

Crystal Mangum's Motion for Default and Summary Judgment

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

Part One

Part Two

LINK to Interactive Flog below:

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

Transcribed Text

Word count: 2,126

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click on link at end to view directory. 

To return to the blog, use browser return arrows.

Word count: 1,004

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the Tar Heel justice system burns, the courts, politicians, and the media fiddles

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012, H. Wood Vann, Crystal Mangum’s current attorney, arrived in court long after Mangum’s status was to be heard and asked for a continuance… which was set for around September 27, 2012. Evidently it will take him that long to review what little new evidence and discovery he may have received.

The defendant, Crystal Mangum, was not present for her hearing, which lasted (I have been told) about three minutes, at most. To date, Mr. Vann has been twiddling his thumbs, without any sign of urgency, while his client continues to languish in jail… this posting date being day 494 of her unjust incarceration.

Since the March 2012 hearing before Duke Lacrosse Judge Osmond Smith III, in which he quickly denied Chris Shella’s request for Mangum’s bond to be lowered from a ridiculously high $200,000.00, there has been no further motion for bail reduction. This is problematic in light of the fact that Judge Osmond Smith, who a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts, would not consider him capable of being impartial when it comes to Crystal Mangum. Since Mr. Vann has taken over Mangum’s case, he has done essentially nothing for his client. His inaction is making his predecessor Shella look like Perry Mason in comparison.

Also, on Tuesday, August 7th, I filed two petitions with the court in Mangum’s case, but as a Pro Se petitioner… therefore, not lawyering. One was a Petition for Writ of Mandamus for petitioners Durham District Attorney Leon Stanback and Durham prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks, requesting that the Courts issue a writ of mandamus instructing the respondents to dismiss the Larceny of Chose in Action charge against Crystal Mangum due to lack of credible evidence and lack of probable cause. To begin with the two cashier’s checks at the heart of the issue were given to Mangum, having been filled out by Reginald Daye, and she was listed as neither the payee nor remitter. Secondly, she made no attempt or showed any intent to illegally convert them for her benefit. Thirdly, no where in the police reports that I had access to did Reginald Daye or his nephew Carlos Wilson claim that Mangum took cashier’s checks… they only referred to money, or rent money. For example, Wilson did not say to officers that he heard Daye shout, “Give me back my cashier’s checks” or “Give me back my money orders.” The Larceny of Chose in Action requires that cashier’s checks, money orders, bank notes and other certificates other than money or currency be stolen… and this did not happen.

Finally, a look at the timeline will confirm that had the larceny charge been serious, Mangum would have been indicted for it a day or two following the self-defense stabbing incident… it would not have taken prosecutors a couple of weeks later before making the charge against her. The fact that the larceny of chose in action charge was attained by a grand jury at the same time as the first degree murder charge makes it plain that the charge was trumped up in order to kick in the “felony-murder rule” to upgrade the murder charge to first degree. (Note: this is the same tactic that Andrew Curliss of The News & Observer criticized former Durham D.A. Tracey Cline of employing in his biased and scathing series about her just months ago… yet when it comes to Prosecutor Coggins-Franks using them on Mangum, the newspaper is conveniently muzzled… no complaints… no outrage.)

I believe that prosecutors initially planned to use the first degree murder charge to railroad through a life sentence for Mangum. However, due to the backlash of Mangum supporters, including members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, the prosecution is now going to try and use it to eventually wring out a plea deal for “time served in order to let the prosecutors and the city of Durham off the liability hook for malicious prosecution and unjust incarceration.” (Similar to what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case.)

In order for the prosecutors to force a plea deal from Mangum, it will be necessary for them to have the cooperation of her defense attorney, and they are counting on Mr. Vann to come through for them, in my opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Vann’s priorities are in the following order: (1) Protect the reputation of Duke University Hospital, which was responsible for Daye’s death – not Mangum; (2) Protect the city of Durham from any civil liability for its malicious prosecution of Mangum; and lagging a distance behind (3) Possibly trying to see that Mangum doesn’t spend too long in jail.

The second petition filed on Tuesday was against respondent H. Wood Vann, requesting the Court to issue a writ of mandamus for him to turn over the entire prosecution discovery and all evidence to his client Mangum. Since her incarceration on April 3, 2011, she has never seen photographs from prosecution discovery, despite repeatedly asking her attorneys for them. Ms. Mangum has also not seen the report from Dr. Christena L. Roberts who reviewed the autopsy report of Reginald Daye that was submitted by Orange County Medical Examiner. By depriving Ms. Mangum of access to discovery and evidence, she is being denied the ability to best help in her own defense. It is bad enough when prosecutors withhold evidence from the defense, but when the defense attorney withholds it from his client, that is the height of professional misconduct.

Because of the aforementioned acts of withholding evidence from Ms. Mangum and his propensity to ignore Mangum’s request to see him, I filed a complaint with the North Carolina State Bar against Mr. Vann on Wednesday, August 8, 2012. Needless to say, I do not expect it to take any action.

I can understand why politicians, such as Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr., and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall are mum on this great injustice… it is because they learned from the example that was made of Mike Nifong by the state and the media. They saw what happened when a man of integrity took a stand on principles and acted independently on moral conscientiousness regarding a justice issue that was contrary to the position held by the Powers-That-Be… Mr. Nifong was horrendously persecuted by the state and crucified in the media. For the same reason, civil rights organizations such as the NAACP and the ACLU have shied away from the injustice towards Ms. Mangum… it’s certainly not due to ignorance of what has been sadly transpiring.

It takes courage to take a stand against an unpopular position, and even though the cause in support of Mangum is one of justice and is sound morally, community leaders, members of the North Carolina General Assembly, and clergy, are afraid to take a stand. It is a rare courage that only Mangum and Nifong supporters are bringing against a justice system that is selectively and overtly bias, racist, cruel, and inhumane in its treatment of Ms. Mangum… Joan of Arc received better treatment by the British courts.

What I find most disheartening about all of this injustice towards Crystal Mangum is the fact that the mainstream media is actively involved in the corruption and conspiracy swirling around this case. The media’s priorities are not unlike Vann’s… to first protect Duke University (which heavily advertises, especially on WRAL and The News & Observer), secondly to protect the city of Durham from civil liability due to its misdeeds and malfeasance, and finally, to carry out the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda to destroy everyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case (that includes Mangum, Nifong, and their supporters… and yours truly).

Despite the best efforts of the media (using its selective, skewed and one sided reporting) to keep the gross wrongdoings against Mangum hidden from the public, the stench is starting to leak out… and the cover-up in this case can not go on in perpetuity. It’s time for the media to start questioning and investigating the following:
(1) the problems with the autopsy report by Dr. Clay Nichols;
(2) what grounds does Durham prosecutors have for their larceny charge against Mangum;
(3) why is Mr. Vann keeping discovery and evidence from his client Mangum;
(4) why has a judge not been assigned to Mangum’s case;
(5) what role did Duke University have in Reginald Daye’s death; and
(6) why is Governor Bev Perdue and Attorney General Roy Cooper standing on the sidelines.

I believe that if Durhamians and Tar Heelians knew the truth about the injustices against Crystal Mangum, they would not allow it to continue… the truth will set Crystal Mangum free. The question I have is how long will the mainstream media attempt to keep it hidden from the people.  

LINK:  http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/cgm/manusAB/masMen.htm

The only thing Crystal Mangum took from Reginald Daye was a beating

Click on Link below to view the Flog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog19/flog19.html

Word count: 3,273

As problematic as the first degree murder charge is against Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, the two count charge of larceny that she also faces stretches the already excessive bounds of incredulity even further by using a little known, rarely used law… North Carolina General Statute § 14-75 Larceny in chose of action.
 First, to review the abject flaws in the first degree murder charge… Crystal Mangum was arrested on the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, hours after Reginald Daye, a man in his mid-forties with whom she had cohabitated for approximately one month, sustained a non-fatal stab wound to his left torso.

Durham Police, whose investigation into the stabbing resulted solely from accounts given by Mr. Daye and his nephew Carlos Wilson, suggested that Daye and Mangum were arguing over money, that Mangum stabbed Daye with a kitchen knife, grabbed his money, and then fled.

Investigators did note at Daye’s apartment, where the incident took place, that clumps of hair most likely belonging to Mangum were deposited at two sites, and that the bathroom door was kicked in.

Objective information readily accessible also included the fact that Daye had a stuporous alcohol blood level of 296 mg/dL, and a background check would have yielded that he had a lengthy past criminal record that included assault of a female.

Review of the EMS evaluation of Mangum would have brought forth the fact that she had a swollen lower lip, a small laceration around her left eye, and a lesion to the back of her left hand.

Investigators never interviewed Mangum for her side of the story before placing her under arrest for assault with intent to kill Reginald Daye.

Had authorities bothered, they would have learned from Ms. Mangum the truth behind the incident of April 3, 2011… events unfolding as follows:

Reginald Daye was a heavy alcoholic, who according to Crystal would drink up to a case of beer during a weekday, and consume a gallon of whiskey on weekends. He had been drinking the evening of Saturday, April 2, 2011, when they attended a birthday party arriving about an hour before midnight. Daye drank at the party, and then after a couple of hours, he drove himself and Crystal back to the apartment they shared.

In the parking lot nearby the apartment, Crystal saw a police officer she knew and began a conversation with him. Reginald Daye became jealous over the attention she gave to him and demanded that she accompany him to the apartment. When she lingered, Daye became enraged and began shouting at her, which led to an argument. Money, rent, and finances were not discussed or the subject of the argument.

Frightened and concerned about Daye’s outburst, Mangum asked the officer to give her a ride to a friend’s residence, whereupon the officer instructed Mangum and Daye to take their argument inside. Mangum complied and went with Daye to the second floor apartment… sustaining a cut to her knee when being dragged up some stairs.

Once inside the apartment, the intoxicated Daye punched her, spit on her, and pulled out her hair. When she retreated to the bathroom and locked the door behind her in seeking refuge from her abuser, Daye kicked in the door, knocking it off its hinges. The terror inside the apartment, which Mangum estimates at lasting an hour, included Daye bringing in steak knives from the kitchen and throwing them at her. Finally, when Daye was atop Mangum with both of his hand around her neck choking her, she desperately grabbed a knife that was lying within reach, and stabbed Daye once in the left side.

Daye got up off of Mangum after the stabbing and she jumped to her feet, grabbed her purse, which contained two cashier’s checks, and fled the apartment… with Daye giving short pursuit.

Mangum walked to a friend’s apartment close by, and was given shelter for the remainder of the morning… until police arrived and immediately handcuffed and arrested her. A statement given by the woman, Ms. Howard, to police recorded that upon answering the door, a sobbing Mangum said, “He beat me.”

Two days later, on Tuesday, April 5, 2011, police returned to Ms. Howard’s apartment and retrieved the two cashier’s checks that had been in Mangum’s purse. These two cashier’s checks would be the basis for the larceny charge against Mangum.

Reginald Daye’s condition on arrival to the emergency department at Duke University Hospital was stable enough to undergo a diagnostic CAT scan prior to emergency surgery. Findings at surgery revealed a laceration to the colon, which was repaired with sutures, and a small lesion to the spleen which was treated with electrocautery and Surgi-cel. Daye tolerated the successful surgery and had a prognosis for a full recovery.

Although Daye had received treatment for alcohol withdrawal, his signs and symptoms worsened with agitation, tachycardia, and high blood pressure to the point where he was transferred to the surgical intensive care unit.

On the third postoperative day, in preparation for a diagnostic study, contrast agent was introduced into Daye’s stomach via an n-g tube. Sometime shortly thereafter he vomited.

Concerns about protecting the airway from aspiration and to administer high concentrations of oxygen, the decision was made to intubate Daye. After receiving paralytic medication to facilitate the process, Daye was intubated with an 8 mm tube. However, the end tidal CO2 value, which indicates proper placement, was negative and tube placement was then reassessed visually and deemed to be correctly positioned.

Sometime thereafter, Daye went into a cardiac arrest, at which time cardiopulmonary resuscitation was begun. The endotracheal tube was removed and Daye was re-intubated with a smaller 7.5 mm tube. This placement gave a positive value for the EtCO2.

According to records, CPR lasted twenty minutes before the heart was resuscitated and began pumping oxygenated blood throughout the body. Unfortunately, the brain is extremely sensitive to oxygen deprivation and the brain cells died leaving Daye in what doctors considered to be an irreversible coma. After a week without any neurological improvement, the medical staff, with approval of Daye’s family, removed Reginald from life support after which he shortly succumbed.

Dr. Clay Nichols, the medical examiner, later produced an autopsy report which included findings not substantiated and contradicted by other medical records and logic… such as injuries and repairs to organs and tissues not mentioned in the operative report. Also Dr. Nichols concluded that the cause of death was due to complications of a stab wound to the chest… omitting mention that the proximate cause of Daye’s death was his elective removal from life support, not mentioning that Daye was removed from life support due to a diagnosis of irreversible brain death, not mentioning that esophageal intubation led to a cardiac arrest and brain death, and producing no nexus between Daye’s stab wound and his brain death or actual death.

Using this fraudulent and faulty autopsy report of April 14, 2011 as its basis, Prosecutor Kelly Gauger charged Crystal Mangum with first degree murder.

The first degree murder charge has a sentence that includes the death penalty and life in prison… and a life of imprisonment for Crystal Mangum would be the goal of the Durham prosecutor’s office. A requirement for charging a defendant with murder in the first degree is that the act be premeditated… something that would be impossible for the prosecutors to prove, so they get around this by using an insidious and draconian statute called the “felony-murder rule.”

The felony-murder rule enables prosecutors to upgrade charges of second degree murder where they cannot prove premeditation to first degree if they can show that the murder was linked to the commission of another felonious criminal act… such as robbery, rape, or burglary.

So the Durham District Attorney Leon Stanback and assistant D.A.s Kelly Gauger and Charlene Coggins-Franks are counting on their two count larceny charge to represent the related felonious action that would advance the murder charge from second to first degree.

However, the larceny charge is totally bogus on all accounts, and to charge Ms. Mangum with it is deceitful, malicious, and unethical. The relevant issues and facts regarding the basis of that charge are as follows:

Around the beginning of March 2011, Crystal Mangum and her three children moved into Reginald Daye’s apartment at his invitation. Within weeks, Mangum and Daye were involved in an intimate relationship. Reginald Daye worked as a house painter on weekdays during the hours when the apartment office was open. On Friday, March 25, 2011, Daye obtained a cashier’s check for $300.00 made out to Country Scene Apartments… the amount a little less than half of the monthly rent. That day he gave the check to Crystal so that she could drop it off at the rental office while he was at work on Monday, April 4, 2011. Crystal put the check in her purse for safekeeping.

The following Friday, April 1, 2011, Daye procured another cashier’s check listing Country Scene Apartments as the payee in the amount of $400.00. That day he also handed the check over to Mangum so that she could deliver it, along with the check for $300, which would cover the rent of $700, to the rental office the following Monday, April 4, 2011. As before, Crystal put the check in her purse, and gave it no further thought.

In the early morning hours of Sunday, April 3, 2011, an intoxicated Daye began arguing with Mangum because he perceived her to be flirting with a police officer. The argument had absolutely nothing to do with money, cashier’s checks or rent. Inside Daye’s apartment the argument turned violent and after approximately an hour of torment and terror, Mangum stabbed Daye in self defense, and before fleeing she grabbed her purse, which contained the two cashier’s checks.

Without obtaining her version of the events that transpired early that morning, Mangum was immediately arrested and charged with assault with intent to kill Reginald Daye. Two days later, police returned to Ms. Howard’s apartment to retrieve the two cashier’s checks.

Prosecutors charged Mangum with two counts of larceny (one count for each check) even though Daye gave both of the cashier’s checks to Crystal Mangum, Daye never asked for Crystal to return them, Crystal never took them from Daye, Crystal could not have converted them for her use as she was neither the payee nor the remitter, and that Daye always had the ability to redeem the value of the cashier’s checks as long as they were not claimed by the payee.

The fact that a cashier’s check can only be converted by the payee or remitter is so universally understood, that the State Employees Credit Union, upon which the cashier’s checks were drawn, have no written policy that explains what happens when a remitter loses a cashier’s check or has it stolen. It is understood by everyone that if unclaimed by the payee, a cashier’s check can be redeemed by the remitter without problem.

Therefore, although Daye may not have been in physical contact with the cashier’s checks, he always retained the value of them… they were of no fiscal value to Crystal Mangum. Consequently, it would make absolutely no sense for him to argue to take possession of the checks, for him to fret over not having physical possession of the checks, or for Mangum to covet the physical possession of them and refuse to turn them over to Daye upon his request. The case made by prosecutors for larceny involving the two cashier’s checks is absurd and defies not only the facts and evidence, but common sense and logic.

Prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks is using a little known – rarely used law in charging Mangum… North Carolina General Statute § 14-75 Larceny of chose in action. It begins as follows: “If any person shall feloniously steal, take and carry away, or take by robbery, any bank note, check or other order for the payment of money issued by or drawn on any bank or other society or corporation within this State or within any of the United States, or any treasury warrant, debenture, certificate of stock or other public security, or certificate of stock in any corporation, or any order, bill of exchange, bond, promissory note or other obligation”… This does not apply to Crystal’s case as the cashier’s checks were voluntarily given to her by Daye with the intention of her handing them over to the manager in the rental office.

It concludes: .. “either for the payment of money or for the delivery of specific articles, being the property of any other person, or of any corporation (notwithstanding any of the said particulars may be termed in law a chose in action), that person is guilty of a Class H felony.” This part of the rule is not applicable either because Mangum was in possession of one cashier’s check for nine days and the second one for two days, and she made no attempt to alter or convert them for her own use.

The importance of saddling Mangum with this larceny charge is for the purpose of bringing the felony-murder rule into play in order to upgrade the murder charge to first degree, as the prosecution is planning to try and have Mangum sentenced to life in prison.

The felony-murder rule in North Carolina’s homicide law reads as follows: “A murder which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree, a Class A felony, and any person who commits such murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment in the State's prison for life without parole.”

The first degree murder charge is without basis on many aspects. First and foremost, Daye did not die as a result of the stab wound… he was electively removed from life support after a botched intubation by Duke University staff left him brain dead.

More importantly, Crystal Mangum stabbed Reginald Daye in self-defense.

Secondly, the underlying “larceny of chose in action” is bogus itself, as the cashier’s checks were given to Mangum by Daye and because she made no effort and had no intent to convert them to cash.

District Attorney Leon Stanback is wasting taxpayer money by allowing Prosecutor Charlene Coggins-Franks to proceed with this vendetta prosecution against Mangum as payback for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Taxpayer dollars are also going down the drain for her unjust incarceration in the Durham County Detention Center which is well over a year now.

The corruption and widespread conspiracy surrounding the cruel prosecution has claimed as conspirators and conspirators-after-the-fact: Governor Bev Perdue, Durham District Attorney Stanback, Prosecutor Coggins-Franks, and all of those who are aware of the injustice while being in positions to do something about it and yet refraining. The criminal justice system in the state is broken, especially in Durham County.

The problems that are currently plaguing Durham’s justice system would not be present if Mike Nifong were still in position as the Durham D.A. Mike Nifong is a man of integrity who represented himself in the truest sense as a “minister of justice”… meting out justice equally and in accordance with the law. A district attorney possessing integrity would not allow an innocent person to remain in custody on bogus charges based on a vendetta prosecution.

Durham District Attorney Leon Stanback knows that the murder and larceny charges against Ms. Mangum are fraudulent, but after witnessing the public crucifixion of Nifong by the state and the media when he dared to stand up and do the right thing by prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case, the present D.A. has learned his lesson and will not challenge the Powers-That-Be… even when justice is on his side.

To recap, prosecutors wanted to have Crystal Mangum sentenced to life in prison for Reginald Daye’s death, which in actuality had nothing to do with the stab wound she inflicted in self-defense. Sentencing guidelines required that a Class A murder, punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole, be premeditated. Because the stabbing of Daye was definitely not premeditated, prosecutors decided to use the “Felony-Murder rule” to bring the charge of murder in the first degree.

The felony-murder rule allows a murder to be classified as first degree if the victim’s death is linked to the commission of another felony crime. Because larceny in the amount of $700 is only a misdemeanor crime as it is less than the thousand dollar threshold needed for a felony, it would not be helpful in bringing the felony-murder rule into play.

The Larceny of Chose in Action charge is a little known-rarely used law that specifically addresses the theft of checks, money orders, and bank notes for their unlawful conversion. This crime is a felony irrespective of the value of the checks or bank notes… and so prosecutors elected to use it to meet prerequisites of the murder-felony rule.

The Larceny of Chose in Action charge is so rarely used that Attorney Woody Vann, who currently represents Ms. Mangum, told me that he couldn’t even recall hearing of such a charge being brought to court.

As a comparison, take the case of Daniel Edward Atkinson, in the Wake County Court for larceny of five checks. The arrest warrant stated that he used the checks to get $936… This would amount to a misdemeanor under the larceny of property NCGS statute § 14-72 …. However, under a charge of Larceny of Chose in Action, this crime would be a felony. This is a case that specifically applies to the crime committed by Mr. Atkinson, yet he was not charged with Larceny of Chose in Action… and he was not charged with five counts, one for each check unlawfully taken.

Ms. Mangum, on the other hand, never stole the checks… they were given to her by Reginald Daye. Unlike Mr. Atkinson, she never altered or attempted to convert the checks for her use. The basic requirements for the charge of Larceny of Chose in Action are never met in the prosecutor’s case against Mangum.

Keeping things in perspective, the value of both cashier’s checks to Mangum was nil. Theft of a roll of bathroom tissue would represent a more legitimate case for larceny than two cashier’s checks that are worthless to her.

Likewise, Reginald Daye, by not having physical possession of the cashier’s checks, always retained their value, and theft of a roll of bathroom tissue would represent a more substantial loss for Daye than the cashier’s checks.

If the larceny charge based on the two cashier’s checks was made in good faith, Mangum would have been charged with it shortly after her arrest on April 3, 2011. As it is, the Larceny of Chose in Action charge was filed on the same day as the murder charge, April 18, 2011, and was used to boost the murder to first degree… all for the purpose of keeping Crystal Mangum behind bars for life without the possibility of parole… a victim of domestic violence who inflicted a non-fatal stab wound to Daye in order to save her life.

D.A. Stanback and prosecutor Coggins-Franks are dearly holding on to the trumped up Larceny of Chose in Action charge for the cruel and inhumane purpose of keeping Crystal Mangum behind bars for the rest of her life.

I repeat… this travesty of justice would not be happening if Mike Nifong was still the Durham district attorney. 