In an Anne Blythe article in Friday’s July 8, 2011 The News & Observer titled “Judge throws out murder charge,” Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner dismissed murder charges against 31 year-old Mario Antonio Smith. Prosecutors accused Smith of killing Dwight Lee Dean at a night club after a disturbance there. According to prosecutors, their witnesses gave statements after the incident that significantly differed from testimony given on the witness stand in court. (This is similar to a case involving the conviction of Shan Carter, which I will be highlighting in the future.) Furthermore, the prosecution’s one witness who linked Smith to the crime, described a perpetrator -who did not match the defendant in stature or hair style. (Not unlike the Erick Daniels case.)
Since the incident took place in July 2010, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Smith was incarcerated for a year prior to his weak case being dismissed by Judge Gessner. The fact that the prosecution even brought such a merit-less case to trial was not surprising to defense attorney Jeff Cutler. Cutler stated about prosecutors, “That’s what they do. They don’t want to take heat for not trying the case. They’d rather let a judge or jury make the decision. I’m not surprised the judge dismissed it.” The prosecutor lacked credible evidence! Without forensics tying Mario Antonio Smith to the crime or a consistent and credible eyewitness, prosecutors plodded forward in preparing a flawed and flimsy case while the defendant cooled his heels in the cooler. (Similar to the Carletta Alston case, Smith essentially served a year sentence on a charge so weak that a judge threw it out before it could be brought before a jury… in Alston’s case the prosecutor avoided that humiliation by dropping charges against her himself.)
In their zeal, the Wake County prosecutors also charged Gregory Mecos Lee Watkins with accessory after the fact because he allegedly drove Smith from the nightclub stabbing scene. The article made no mention of whether or not he endured a lengthy pre-trial incarceration, or was released on bond. Regardless, due to actions from the bench on Smith’s case, the “accessory” charge against Watkins was dropped, as well.
I applaud Judge Gessner for his actions in this case, as it supports justice that is much too often denied the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Because prosecutors in the Tar Heel state have a propensity to charge people from the disadvantaged and “not-so-privileged” classes with crimes despite the paucity of evidence against them, they can usually count on a jury, with a mindset to please the prosecution, to deliver a verdict against the defendant. It happens time and time again, when defendants are convicted without a shred of credible evidence. Most of the time these cases pass public attention because the media does not cover them… it is only when the advantaged and privileged are snagged in the cogs of the criminal justice system that the media-types jump on criminal cases.
Unfortunately, it is only in high profile cases involving defendants from the upper echelons of society that jurors take their oaths seriously. In the Jason Young case, for example, the jurors fought to a standoff in a murder trial that was declared a mistrial after several days of deliberation. Holdouts against conviction in that group of twelve, did not feel that the prosecution presented a case without reasonable doubt. In most trials, however, with defendants lacking status or media appeal, jurors tend to reach verdicts not by analyzing the facts, evidence, and presentations of the barristers but instead rely on their visceral emotions… ready to convict when a crime victim is young and innocent or to assuage the grief of victims’ friends and relatives.
Jurors in the Erick Daniels case were not presented with a compelling case for his guilt, yet those dozen who sat in judgment reached a unanimous decision against him. The same can be said for the jurors in the Gregory Taylor case. Indifferent juries are responsible for many innocent people being convicted and given lengthy sentences in this state… the majority of wrongly incarcerated being the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
The second to the last paragraph in the article revealed the identity of Smith’s prosecutor as being Melanie Shekita… only to say that efforts to reach her were unsuccessful. I am glad to see the staff of the newspaper taking baby steps away from its ensconced PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. Although prosecutors may feel pressure to convict someone of an especially heinous crime such as murder, it behooves them to take pains to see that their priority is to convict the guilty party. All too often they bring charges and prosecute knowing that the defendant is innocent (such as the Gregory Taylor case and the Erick Daniels case).
Until North Carolina prosecutors become true “Ministers of Justice,” prosecuting only those cases which have merit, it is incumbent upon judges to assure that the rights and liberty of the innocents are protected by dismissing those cases brought by prosecutors in which there is not enough evidence to convict… as did Judge Paul Gessner in the Mario Antonio Smith case. Unfortunately juries cannot be relied upon to use sound reasoning and impartial objectivity instead of sympathy and raw emotions in reaching a fair verdict… especially when it comes to the lives and futures of defendants who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
I believe I speak on behalf of all Tar Heelians when I state that we are all in Judge Paul Gessner’s debt.
Showing posts with label Minister of Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Minister of Justice. Show all posts
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
A simple question that Nifong detractors cannot answer
As I have so frequently stated, the Grievance Commission of the North Carolina State Bar used all of the creative juices it could muster to come up with an excuse for disbarring former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. They are so elaborate and nonsensical that not even Nifong bashers can make sense of them. The problem stems from the fact that no one can explain why Mike Nifong was disbarred… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. He certainly did not withhold discovery from defense attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He had his staff deliver more than a thousand pages of discovery in three sets to attorneys for the defendants within 24 hours of the defense’s motion. What the media doesn’t want the public to know is that defense attorneys did not reciprocate when prosecutors sought discovery held by defense.
Unlike other prosecutors, Mr. Nifong did not fabricate confessions, arrange for eyewitnesses to appear out of the woodwork, or make plea deals with jail house snitches to provide perjured testimony. Mike Nifong acted honorably and in good faith in prosecuting the complaint of sexual assault in the Duke, and assumed the mantle of “Minister of Justice” by initiating the dismissal of the rape charges when the standards required for a charge were not deemed to be met in his opinion.
Some may say that Mr. Nifong made some statements before the media that were inappropriate, inflammatory, or denied the defendants of a fair trial. The only problem with this argument is that these statements were made early on in the investigation and well before any defendants were indicted. The generalized statements were made in an attempt to flush out any courageous and conscientious partygoers into voluntarily coming forward and cooperating with the police investigation. No way was there anything within the statements made to the media that should warrant any action against Mr. Nifong.
Finally, there is the issue about so-called lies Mr. Nifong made to the court. I have been trying to find out what lies were told. One commenter referred me to a transcript by the State Bar Grievance Commission head, which, no doubt included a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo which was an attempt to pull the old Jedi mind-trick on the gullible, naïve, and mindless. The explanation is so convoluted that not even blog commenters can recite in a clear and cogent manner what lie(s) Mr. Nifong is alleged to have told which resulted in his disbarment and contempt of court judgment.
One needs to keep in mind that making a statement which may be inaccurate or contain misstatement of facts, does not constitute telling a lie. A lie requires mental consciousness of making a statement that is false. It would appear that F. Lane Williamson, who was the head of the Grievance panel responsible for Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, has mind-reading capabilities as he has determined that Mike Nifong prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants in order to court that black vote in Durham to enhance his chances of winning election to the D.A. position to which he had been appointed. If you just give it a scintilla’s worth of thought, you could tell that that is the perfect prescription for losing an election… any election. The way for Mike Nifong to assure a victory would have been for him to drop all charges and the investigation immediately… as he was pressured to do by the Powers-That-Be. And because he acted independently in following the principles of “equal justice for all,” the state set out to make sure that he was made an example of. Their campaign was most effective, as Rowan County District Attorney Bill Kenerly, in handling the prosecution of former Governor Mike Easley with kid gloves and giving him a rare deal, stated that he was not going to make a “Mike Nifong mistake.”
You can bet that no other prosecutor will make the “Mike Nifong mistake” because it could definitely cost him/her their law license… even though he/she may do nothing to warrant such action. That is no comfort as the State Bar head honchos are very creative and can come up with a creative reason for disbarment, like they did in the Mike Nifong case.
Creative reasons are commonly used to defend unjust actions. Case in point has to do with my ouster and near arrest on the Duke University campus. Although I was at the campus on an invitation to an event open to the public, I was kicked off the campus for no reason other than being a Nifong supporter. When I pressed the university for a reason for my ouster, the creative response I got was that I was asked to leave because I was “soliciting” which was defined as handing out my business card and asking them to visit my website. (I handed out but a half dozen cards to individuals with whom I had engaged in conversation while awaiting for the event to take place.)
In case you may have missed it before, I will provide a link below to the audio and transcript of the dialogue that I had with the security guard.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB4.htm
Unlike other prosecutors, Mr. Nifong did not fabricate confessions, arrange for eyewitnesses to appear out of the woodwork, or make plea deals with jail house snitches to provide perjured testimony. Mike Nifong acted honorably and in good faith in prosecuting the complaint of sexual assault in the Duke, and assumed the mantle of “Minister of Justice” by initiating the dismissal of the rape charges when the standards required for a charge were not deemed to be met in his opinion.
Some may say that Mr. Nifong made some statements before the media that were inappropriate, inflammatory, or denied the defendants of a fair trial. The only problem with this argument is that these statements were made early on in the investigation and well before any defendants were indicted. The generalized statements were made in an attempt to flush out any courageous and conscientious partygoers into voluntarily coming forward and cooperating with the police investigation. No way was there anything within the statements made to the media that should warrant any action against Mr. Nifong.
Finally, there is the issue about so-called lies Mr. Nifong made to the court. I have been trying to find out what lies were told. One commenter referred me to a transcript by the State Bar Grievance Commission head, which, no doubt included a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo which was an attempt to pull the old Jedi mind-trick on the gullible, naïve, and mindless. The explanation is so convoluted that not even blog commenters can recite in a clear and cogent manner what lie(s) Mr. Nifong is alleged to have told which resulted in his disbarment and contempt of court judgment.
One needs to keep in mind that making a statement which may be inaccurate or contain misstatement of facts, does not constitute telling a lie. A lie requires mental consciousness of making a statement that is false. It would appear that F. Lane Williamson, who was the head of the Grievance panel responsible for Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, has mind-reading capabilities as he has determined that Mike Nifong prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants in order to court that black vote in Durham to enhance his chances of winning election to the D.A. position to which he had been appointed. If you just give it a scintilla’s worth of thought, you could tell that that is the perfect prescription for losing an election… any election. The way for Mike Nifong to assure a victory would have been for him to drop all charges and the investigation immediately… as he was pressured to do by the Powers-That-Be. And because he acted independently in following the principles of “equal justice for all,” the state set out to make sure that he was made an example of. Their campaign was most effective, as Rowan County District Attorney Bill Kenerly, in handling the prosecution of former Governor Mike Easley with kid gloves and giving him a rare deal, stated that he was not going to make a “Mike Nifong mistake.”
You can bet that no other prosecutor will make the “Mike Nifong mistake” because it could definitely cost him/her their law license… even though he/she may do nothing to warrant such action. That is no comfort as the State Bar head honchos are very creative and can come up with a creative reason for disbarment, like they did in the Mike Nifong case.
Creative reasons are commonly used to defend unjust actions. Case in point has to do with my ouster and near arrest on the Duke University campus. Although I was at the campus on an invitation to an event open to the public, I was kicked off the campus for no reason other than being a Nifong supporter. When I pressed the university for a reason for my ouster, the creative response I got was that I was asked to leave because I was “soliciting” which was defined as handing out my business card and asking them to visit my website. (I handed out but a half dozen cards to individuals with whom I had engaged in conversation while awaiting for the event to take place.)
In case you may have missed it before, I will provide a link below to the audio and transcript of the dialogue that I had with the security guard.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB4.htm
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
SBI agent Duane Deaver is fired
North Carolina SBI agent Duane Deaver, who testified on behalf of Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby and prosecutor Tom Ford against Gregory F. Taylor’s bid for freedom after 17 years of wrongful incarceration, was fired on January 7, 2011. Before the three judge panel of the Innocence Commission which heard the appeal, Deaver testified about the SBI lab and its long-standing policy of withholding and/or skewing data and lab results from a criminal investigation which might be beneficial to defendants. Such was the case in Gregory Taylor’s case, as Deaver stated the SBI lab, according to policy, allowed the jury hearing Taylor’s case to be misled into believing that blood was on the bumper of Taylor’s vehicle (which prosecutor Tom Ford maintained came from a murder victim Jacquetta Thomas). Fact was that although a presumptive test was positive a confirmatory test for human blood was not. Deaver’s testimony under questioning by defense attorney Mike Klinkosum exposed how the SBI lab purposely and systematically tilted the playing field against defendants in hundreds of cases. This revelation, in part, no doubt played a role in Greg Taylor’s subsequent exoneration.
Christine Mumma, executive director of the NC Center on Actual Innocence, who also represented Taylor, aptly referred to Deaver’s termination as the SBI’s “throwing the employee under the bus while those responsible for giving the employee direction and approving his work walk away unscathed.” Her assessment is right on the money. Deaver, the good soldier who was following orders to help prosecutors with their weak cases by providing hocus-pocus lab results and misleading testimony on the stand, was given the shaft by the very people who had earlier depended upon and lauded his devious work. His firing, however is cold comfort for the many innocents who have spent years wrongfully behind bars, dependent mainly on their Class and Color.
The fortuitous exposure and downward spiral of the reliability in the SBI’s past prejudicial lab work on criminal evidence was a self-inflicted wound. Hubris of Taylor’s original prosecutor Tom Ford enabled him and the Wake County district attorney to fight the overwhelming evidence which strongly supported Greg Taylor’s innocence. According to the January 11, 2011 article in The News & Observer, which per PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy did not mention Tom Ford’s name, Deaver plans to appeal his firing. This is a good thing… not so much in that it could possibly lead to Deaver’s reinstatement, but rather for the light it will shed on the conduct, attitudes, and culture of prosecutors statewide.
As I have religiously maintained, the prosecutors (such as Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others) are at the crux of the injustice that has been meted out by the North Carolina justice system. For the most part they are intelligent, diabolical, and cunning, and have no qualms about orchestrating lab techs and agents in order to obtain convictions in weak cases without credible evidence. To suggest that prosecutor Tom Ford was unaware of the underlying deceit in Deaver’s testimony in the case against Taylor is not credulous. Ford knew that the SBI lab’s statements about alleged blood on the bumper of Taylor’s SUV was as credible as the plea deals he brokered to acquire false testimony against Taylor in retaliation for Taylor’s refusal to implicate a black man, Johnny Beck, who he knew to be innocent of a murder.
The solution to North Carolina state’s woeful justice system is to institute a policy following the principle of “equal justice for all” and to abandon its current tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” A tall order indeed. Prosecutors need to become something that few of them have ever been… Ministers of Justice. As was clearly evident in the Duke Lacrosse case, however, doing so can be hazardous to one’s professional and private lives. Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was honorably executing his prosecutorial duties in that case and was exemplifying the very concept of “Minister of Justice.” As a result, he was disbarred, tossed in jail, deprived of professional immunity, denied representation before the State Bar, and crucified in the media – both locally and nationally.
Until the North Carolina State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions, the state’s system of justice will never take a step on the road to recovery.
Christine Mumma, executive director of the NC Center on Actual Innocence, who also represented Taylor, aptly referred to Deaver’s termination as the SBI’s “throwing the employee under the bus while those responsible for giving the employee direction and approving his work walk away unscathed.” Her assessment is right on the money. Deaver, the good soldier who was following orders to help prosecutors with their weak cases by providing hocus-pocus lab results and misleading testimony on the stand, was given the shaft by the very people who had earlier depended upon and lauded his devious work. His firing, however is cold comfort for the many innocents who have spent years wrongfully behind bars, dependent mainly on their Class and Color.
The fortuitous exposure and downward spiral of the reliability in the SBI’s past prejudicial lab work on criminal evidence was a self-inflicted wound. Hubris of Taylor’s original prosecutor Tom Ford enabled him and the Wake County district attorney to fight the overwhelming evidence which strongly supported Greg Taylor’s innocence. According to the January 11, 2011 article in The News & Observer, which per PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy did not mention Tom Ford’s name, Deaver plans to appeal his firing. This is a good thing… not so much in that it could possibly lead to Deaver’s reinstatement, but rather for the light it will shed on the conduct, attitudes, and culture of prosecutors statewide.
As I have religiously maintained, the prosecutors (such as Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others) are at the crux of the injustice that has been meted out by the North Carolina justice system. For the most part they are intelligent, diabolical, and cunning, and have no qualms about orchestrating lab techs and agents in order to obtain convictions in weak cases without credible evidence. To suggest that prosecutor Tom Ford was unaware of the underlying deceit in Deaver’s testimony in the case against Taylor is not credulous. Ford knew that the SBI lab’s statements about alleged blood on the bumper of Taylor’s SUV was as credible as the plea deals he brokered to acquire false testimony against Taylor in retaliation for Taylor’s refusal to implicate a black man, Johnny Beck, who he knew to be innocent of a murder.
The solution to North Carolina state’s woeful justice system is to institute a policy following the principle of “equal justice for all” and to abandon its current tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” A tall order indeed. Prosecutors need to become something that few of them have ever been… Ministers of Justice. As was clearly evident in the Duke Lacrosse case, however, doing so can be hazardous to one’s professional and private lives. Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was honorably executing his prosecutorial duties in that case and was exemplifying the very concept of “Minister of Justice.” As a result, he was disbarred, tossed in jail, deprived of professional immunity, denied representation before the State Bar, and crucified in the media – both locally and nationally.
Until the North Carolina State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions, the state’s system of justice will never take a step on the road to recovery.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Panthers and people of Durham County have no one to blame but themselves
In the November 11, 2010 sports section of The News & Observer, writer Caulton Tudor opined what everyone who follows the NFL already knows… the Carolina Panthers are terrible. Titled “Panthers are awful, and no fun to watch: Even worse, there’s not much hope for the future,” Tudor whines about how depressing it is to watch the 1-7 team which appears to be struggling mightily to win. He is especially critical of the Panthers’ quarterbacks, stating that they lack any hint of promise or improvement… and that they are unable to get the ball with an accurate throw to the team’s most exciting player Steve Smith. Mr. Tudor ranks another 1-7 team, the Dallas Cowboys, as being better than Carolina. Even winless Buffalo Bills are placed in a more enviable position than the lackluster Panthers.
Now, there is not much that I disagree with in the Tudor evaluation, including his prediction that Coach John Fox will not be able to retain his position as head coach. Although I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Tudor is equally accurate in his assessment that John Fox will not be at the team’s helm next season, that doesn’t mean I have to like it. It seems that whenever a team goes into a tailspin, the solution all too often is to release the coach. With the Carolina Panthers, it is the owners who are responsible for the dire situation in which they find themselves. First they were too quick to rid themselves of the veteran quarterback (Jake Delhomme) whose play was admittedly streaky at times, with no quarterback of substance to step in immediately and take over the position. Matt Moore and Jim Clausen may very well develop into first rate quarterbacks, but that usually requires experience to back up talent. Secondly, and more importantly, the owners of the Carolina Panthers had the opportunity to pick up, for a song, one of the best and most exciting quarterbacks in the league… Michael Vick. But they didn’t.
After Vick was released from incarceration after serving a two year sentence for his role in a dog-fighting venture, he was available to play for all of the teams in the league. Carolina could have made an offer to Mr. Vick, which I am sure he would have taken. As it was, no team showed any interest in having Michael Vick on their team. Carolina definitely did not. Philadelphia Eagles was the only team willing to give Vick any consideration, and this only after its star quarterback McNabb pleaded with the Eagles to give Vick a chance. So, it was only with reluctance that Michael Vick landed on an NFL team as a backup QB. This is hard to comprehend when one considers the talents of Vick… he has a rifle for an arm, the southpaw is accurate with his throws, he runs like a deer, and he has the ability to escape from a collapsing pocket and turn a big loss into a big gain. Talk about an exciting tandem of Vick and Steve Smith… makes your mouth water. Not only that, but Vick has been playing in the league for years, so he brought with him to Philadelphia on-the-field experience, as well a maturity that was honed in prison.
Panther owners passed on the opportunity to have Michael Vick quarterback the Carolina franchise, and now to make amends for their lack of foresight they will most likely sack their head coach, John Fox. Had the owners made the logical and intelligent decision to immediately pick up Vick the moment he was available, there is little doubt that the Panthers’ record would more likely than not be better than .500. There is no doubt that it would be better than it is currently. An attempt to obtain Vick was not a coaching decision, rather it was a ownership one, and because the ownership messed up by not at least trying to acquire Vick, it appears as though the Panthers, Coach Fox, Panther fans, and Sports commentator Caulton Tudor will suffer.
The reason the Panthers owners did not go after Vick is not a mystery. They were in cahoots with the other owners to blacklist Michael Vick. He was not supposed to be picked up by any NFL team, but the Philadelphia Eagles owner, it seems, would much rather have a chance at bringing home a championship trophy than engaging in a loosely knit cabal to put a premature end to a talented professional’s career. Not so, the Carolina Panthers owners (who needed a quality quarterback much more than Philadelphia which had Hall of Fame-bound quarterback Donovan McNabb at the time), and as a direct result, the Tar Heel state team is now suffering the consequences.
The media has kept quiet about the debacle with NFL teams not pursuing Michael Vick, especially those in need of a quality player in the game’s most important position. Mr. Tudor did not even mention the fact that Carolina passed on the opportunity to obtain Vick. And, of course, since Michael Vick landed with the Eagles, the media has consistently tried to stir up a quarterback controversy in Philadelphia... even after Vick’s spectacular play was interrupted by a rib cartilage injury. I did not buy into the media’s QB controversy hype for a minute because I knew that when Vick recovered that he would be playing… and he would be playing because the Eagles want to win more than they want to punish a man who has served his time with dignity.
As I have stated before, this same sort of blacklisting can be compared to legal events in the cash-strapped city of Durham. Another Michael, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, represented the finest prosecutor, in my opinion, that the state of North Carolina will ever have the fortune to have. He had nearly three decades of prosecutorial experience under his belt when the Duke Lacrosse case fell into his lap, and he had built a reputation of being a prosecutor who was fair and who had integrity. One thing that set Mr. Nifong apart from other prosecutors is the fact that he was independent in seeing that justice prevailed. Very much like Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II and followed strong-held religious principles much to his detriment, District Attorney Nifong defied the wishes of the Powers-That-Be when he proceeded to prosecute the three Duke Lacrosse defendants based on statements made by an alleged sexual assault African American victim. When the defense attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants filed a motion for prosecutorial discovery, Nifong’s office responded within 24 hours with approximately 1,500 pages of documents, plus CDs and DVDs. The media has never mentioned that Mr. Nifong has always maintained an open file policy when it came to sharing evidence with defense attorneys… doing so 25 years before it became mandated by law. Finally, Mr. Nifong demonstrated his dedication to the principle of acting as a “Minister of Justice” when, after later statements by the alleged accuser did not meet standard for rape, he immediately dropped those charges against the Lacrosse defendants.
The media, egged on the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, flagrantly devoted its energies to destroy Mike Nifong. One outstanding example was the fabrication by MSNBC Legal Analyst Susan Filan that Mr. Nifong requested that his son attend his hearing. Using this false statement, she then lambasted Mr. Nifong for using his son, when she is the one, in fact, who was using Mr. Nifong’s son. Another example of media bias was the rigged Primary Poll sponsored by ABC-11 News in an attempt to establish a pitiful and diabolical motive for Mr. Nifong’s decision to prosecute the Duke boys. Another egregious act by all media was the misleading and false statements that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated, cleared, and determined to be not guilty… all based on Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation.” Although the state persecuted Mr. Nifong, it was the media that crucified him, and turned the unwitting public against him.
In comparison of the cases of the two Michaels, the owners of the Carolina Panthers went along with the overriding consensus of the majority of other NFL owners… only at their detriment when giving up the golden opportunity to have on their roster one of the game’s most exciting and talented players. The people of Durham County, who did not rally behind their unjustly beleaguered district attorney, are the ones who suffer by not having as district attorney the man who epitomizes “equal justice for all.” Furthermore they lack the services of a prosecutor who has the courage to go it alone in truly fulfilling his role as a “Minister of Justice.” Whereas the people of North Carolina should be well aware of the blunder by the Carolina Panther owners, it may take some time before the people of Durham County realize theirs.
Now, there is not much that I disagree with in the Tudor evaluation, including his prediction that Coach John Fox will not be able to retain his position as head coach. Although I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Tudor is equally accurate in his assessment that John Fox will not be at the team’s helm next season, that doesn’t mean I have to like it. It seems that whenever a team goes into a tailspin, the solution all too often is to release the coach. With the Carolina Panthers, it is the owners who are responsible for the dire situation in which they find themselves. First they were too quick to rid themselves of the veteran quarterback (Jake Delhomme) whose play was admittedly streaky at times, with no quarterback of substance to step in immediately and take over the position. Matt Moore and Jim Clausen may very well develop into first rate quarterbacks, but that usually requires experience to back up talent. Secondly, and more importantly, the owners of the Carolina Panthers had the opportunity to pick up, for a song, one of the best and most exciting quarterbacks in the league… Michael Vick. But they didn’t.
After Vick was released from incarceration after serving a two year sentence for his role in a dog-fighting venture, he was available to play for all of the teams in the league. Carolina could have made an offer to Mr. Vick, which I am sure he would have taken. As it was, no team showed any interest in having Michael Vick on their team. Carolina definitely did not. Philadelphia Eagles was the only team willing to give Vick any consideration, and this only after its star quarterback McNabb pleaded with the Eagles to give Vick a chance. So, it was only with reluctance that Michael Vick landed on an NFL team as a backup QB. This is hard to comprehend when one considers the talents of Vick… he has a rifle for an arm, the southpaw is accurate with his throws, he runs like a deer, and he has the ability to escape from a collapsing pocket and turn a big loss into a big gain. Talk about an exciting tandem of Vick and Steve Smith… makes your mouth water. Not only that, but Vick has been playing in the league for years, so he brought with him to Philadelphia on-the-field experience, as well a maturity that was honed in prison.
Panther owners passed on the opportunity to have Michael Vick quarterback the Carolina franchise, and now to make amends for their lack of foresight they will most likely sack their head coach, John Fox. Had the owners made the logical and intelligent decision to immediately pick up Vick the moment he was available, there is little doubt that the Panthers’ record would more likely than not be better than .500. There is no doubt that it would be better than it is currently. An attempt to obtain Vick was not a coaching decision, rather it was a ownership one, and because the ownership messed up by not at least trying to acquire Vick, it appears as though the Panthers, Coach Fox, Panther fans, and Sports commentator Caulton Tudor will suffer.
The reason the Panthers owners did not go after Vick is not a mystery. They were in cahoots with the other owners to blacklist Michael Vick. He was not supposed to be picked up by any NFL team, but the Philadelphia Eagles owner, it seems, would much rather have a chance at bringing home a championship trophy than engaging in a loosely knit cabal to put a premature end to a talented professional’s career. Not so, the Carolina Panthers owners (who needed a quality quarterback much more than Philadelphia which had Hall of Fame-bound quarterback Donovan McNabb at the time), and as a direct result, the Tar Heel state team is now suffering the consequences.
The media has kept quiet about the debacle with NFL teams not pursuing Michael Vick, especially those in need of a quality player in the game’s most important position. Mr. Tudor did not even mention the fact that Carolina passed on the opportunity to obtain Vick. And, of course, since Michael Vick landed with the Eagles, the media has consistently tried to stir up a quarterback controversy in Philadelphia... even after Vick’s spectacular play was interrupted by a rib cartilage injury. I did not buy into the media’s QB controversy hype for a minute because I knew that when Vick recovered that he would be playing… and he would be playing because the Eagles want to win more than they want to punish a man who has served his time with dignity.
As I have stated before, this same sort of blacklisting can be compared to legal events in the cash-strapped city of Durham. Another Michael, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, represented the finest prosecutor, in my opinion, that the state of North Carolina will ever have the fortune to have. He had nearly three decades of prosecutorial experience under his belt when the Duke Lacrosse case fell into his lap, and he had built a reputation of being a prosecutor who was fair and who had integrity. One thing that set Mr. Nifong apart from other prosecutors is the fact that he was independent in seeing that justice prevailed. Very much like Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II and followed strong-held religious principles much to his detriment, District Attorney Nifong defied the wishes of the Powers-That-Be when he proceeded to prosecute the three Duke Lacrosse defendants based on statements made by an alleged sexual assault African American victim. When the defense attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants filed a motion for prosecutorial discovery, Nifong’s office responded within 24 hours with approximately 1,500 pages of documents, plus CDs and DVDs. The media has never mentioned that Mr. Nifong has always maintained an open file policy when it came to sharing evidence with defense attorneys… doing so 25 years before it became mandated by law. Finally, Mr. Nifong demonstrated his dedication to the principle of acting as a “Minister of Justice” when, after later statements by the alleged accuser did not meet standard for rape, he immediately dropped those charges against the Lacrosse defendants.
The media, egged on the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, flagrantly devoted its energies to destroy Mike Nifong. One outstanding example was the fabrication by MSNBC Legal Analyst Susan Filan that Mr. Nifong requested that his son attend his hearing. Using this false statement, she then lambasted Mr. Nifong for using his son, when she is the one, in fact, who was using Mr. Nifong’s son. Another example of media bias was the rigged Primary Poll sponsored by ABC-11 News in an attempt to establish a pitiful and diabolical motive for Mr. Nifong’s decision to prosecute the Duke boys. Another egregious act by all media was the misleading and false statements that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated, cleared, and determined to be not guilty… all based on Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation.” Although the state persecuted Mr. Nifong, it was the media that crucified him, and turned the unwitting public against him.
In comparison of the cases of the two Michaels, the owners of the Carolina Panthers went along with the overriding consensus of the majority of other NFL owners… only at their detriment when giving up the golden opportunity to have on their roster one of the game’s most exciting and talented players. The people of Durham County, who did not rally behind their unjustly beleaguered district attorney, are the ones who suffer by not having as district attorney the man who epitomizes “equal justice for all.” Furthermore they lack the services of a prosecutor who has the courage to go it alone in truly fulfilling his role as a “Minister of Justice.” Whereas the people of North Carolina should be well aware of the blunder by the Carolina Panther owners, it may take some time before the people of Durham County realize theirs.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
SBI’s rule not just bad, but unfair!
As SBI Agent Duane Deaver testified at Gregory Taylor’s February 2010 hearing before the three judge panel, he was merely following established protocol by withholding from the 1993 jury, blood test results that would have been favorable to murder defendant Gregory Taylor. This revelation spewed forth from the front page of October 13, 2010 edition of The News & Observer in an article titled “SBI vet wrote bad rule for tests.” Whoever wrote that headline was generous towards the SBI director by merely stating that the rule written for the lab test was "bad." The truth of the matter is that it was downright unfair. The rule, which had been in practice for decades, and put in writing in 1997, embraced the practice of reporting positive lab results and withholding negative results… a practice which placed defendants at a definite disadvantage.
Prosecutors were aware of this policy and the general mindset in the lab, and in all likelihood, pushed for it. The SBI lab, instead of being an honest broker when it came to analyzing evidence, was instead a biased arm of the prosecution engaging in approved hocus-pocus with evidence in order to help the prosecution win a conviction. The 25 year veteran SBI agent who wrote the policy, Mark Nelson, retired from the SBI in 2002, and is currently a senior program manager at the National Institute of Justice in Washington, DC. The written policy put in place by Mr. Nelson was approved by officials in the Attorney General’s Office.
To suggest that prosecutors were unaware of the prejudicial and misleading policy and practices of the SBI lab, is not within the realm of belief, especially in light of the existence of 1997 policy. It was the prosecutor’s drive to win convictions at all costs that resulted in such a policy being implemented in the first place… especially the more inept prosecutors like Tom Ford who heavily relied on winning a conviction by using perjured testimony in exchange for promises of leaner sentences.
For a specific example of the gross injustice of the practice, consider the following. If a presumptive test for blood was positive (indicating that blood, along with other substances might be present), but the confirmatory test was negative (meaning that no blood was present and that the positive presumptive test was due to a non-blood agent), then the lab report was to read that the tests “revealed chemical indications of blood.” This would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance tested contained blood. The scenario just mentioned is exactly what transpired in the Gregory Taylor case. And the so-called “blood on the bumper” evidence was a significant piece of the pie that resulted in Gregory Taylor’s conviction.
What is truly disheartening is the observation by Bob Gaesslin, a professor of serology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He acknowledged that such incomplete and misleading reporting of test results is “not completely forthcoming, but people have always done it.” Mr. Gaesslin, who has written authoritative serology books used by law enforcement, I believe, is accurate in his assessment of prevailing practices in courts nationwide.
My eyebrow is raised with his comment about why juries are not told about negative confirmatory tests when presumptive tests for blood are positive. He states: “I don’t know whether we think that people aren’t going to understand the report if we put them in, or if it’s an effort to not give the cross examiner a lot of cannon fodder…” The answer is negative with regards to the first part of the statement. A person of average intellect should have no difficulty understanding the difference between a presumptive and confirmatory test and their implications. Laboratory techs should be able to satisfactorily explain this to the people seated in the jury box. Regarding the second part of his statement, he is absolutely right on… the person testifying about lab results unfavorable to the prosecution try to hide the truth from the defense attorney. By misleading the defense attorney, there is no doubt going to be very little in the way of cross examination. That is the sole reason why the court does not hear about negative confirmatory test results, when presumptive ones are positive… to mislead the defense, the judge, and the jury.
Regarding the misleading practice, Mr. Gaesslin concludes, “but everyone does that and they still do it.” This statement is sad but true. And the reason for this has to do with the "win-at-all-costs" attitude of many prosecutors, which has supplanted and made a complete and total mockery of its supposed “minister of justice” role.
As a proximate result of the uneven playing field, many innocent people are languishing behind bars at taxpayer expense, while funneling hard earned taxpayer dollars into corporations with financial interests in the correctional system and maintaining full occupancy. The politicians and media, alike, have no qualms about the unjust incarceration of innocents because they are in very large measure the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color… those within a capitalistic society who are expendable… a society with a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” which pampers the well-heeled and crushes the downtrodden who are caught up in the criminal system.
Prosecutors were aware of this policy and the general mindset in the lab, and in all likelihood, pushed for it. The SBI lab, instead of being an honest broker when it came to analyzing evidence, was instead a biased arm of the prosecution engaging in approved hocus-pocus with evidence in order to help the prosecution win a conviction. The 25 year veteran SBI agent who wrote the policy, Mark Nelson, retired from the SBI in 2002, and is currently a senior program manager at the National Institute of Justice in Washington, DC. The written policy put in place by Mr. Nelson was approved by officials in the Attorney General’s Office.
To suggest that prosecutors were unaware of the prejudicial and misleading policy and practices of the SBI lab, is not within the realm of belief, especially in light of the existence of 1997 policy. It was the prosecutor’s drive to win convictions at all costs that resulted in such a policy being implemented in the first place… especially the more inept prosecutors like Tom Ford who heavily relied on winning a conviction by using perjured testimony in exchange for promises of leaner sentences.
For a specific example of the gross injustice of the practice, consider the following. If a presumptive test for blood was positive (indicating that blood, along with other substances might be present), but the confirmatory test was negative (meaning that no blood was present and that the positive presumptive test was due to a non-blood agent), then the lab report was to read that the tests “revealed chemical indications of blood.” This would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance tested contained blood. The scenario just mentioned is exactly what transpired in the Gregory Taylor case. And the so-called “blood on the bumper” evidence was a significant piece of the pie that resulted in Gregory Taylor’s conviction.
What is truly disheartening is the observation by Bob Gaesslin, a professor of serology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He acknowledged that such incomplete and misleading reporting of test results is “not completely forthcoming, but people have always done it.” Mr. Gaesslin, who has written authoritative serology books used by law enforcement, I believe, is accurate in his assessment of prevailing practices in courts nationwide.
My eyebrow is raised with his comment about why juries are not told about negative confirmatory tests when presumptive tests for blood are positive. He states: “I don’t know whether we think that people aren’t going to understand the report if we put them in, or if it’s an effort to not give the cross examiner a lot of cannon fodder…” The answer is negative with regards to the first part of the statement. A person of average intellect should have no difficulty understanding the difference between a presumptive and confirmatory test and their implications. Laboratory techs should be able to satisfactorily explain this to the people seated in the jury box. Regarding the second part of his statement, he is absolutely right on… the person testifying about lab results unfavorable to the prosecution try to hide the truth from the defense attorney. By misleading the defense attorney, there is no doubt going to be very little in the way of cross examination. That is the sole reason why the court does not hear about negative confirmatory test results, when presumptive ones are positive… to mislead the defense, the judge, and the jury.
Regarding the misleading practice, Mr. Gaesslin concludes, “but everyone does that and they still do it.” This statement is sad but true. And the reason for this has to do with the "win-at-all-costs" attitude of many prosecutors, which has supplanted and made a complete and total mockery of its supposed “minister of justice” role.
As a proximate result of the uneven playing field, many innocent people are languishing behind bars at taxpayer expense, while funneling hard earned taxpayer dollars into corporations with financial interests in the correctional system and maintaining full occupancy. The politicians and media, alike, have no qualms about the unjust incarceration of innocents because they are in very large measure the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color… those within a capitalistic society who are expendable… a society with a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” which pampers the well-heeled and crushes the downtrodden who are caught up in the criminal system.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Captain Ahab has nothing on Prosecutor Tom Ford
Many consider Captain Ahab’s obsession to kill Moby Dick, the great White whale that took his leg, to be the height of obsessive behavior. Well, you’ll need to push that aside and make room for Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford’s obsession to convict Johnny Beck, the African American drug partner of Gregory Taylor the night that Jacquetta Thomas was murdered in 1991. As has been stated previously, Tom Ford did not care a whit about the black prostitute who was murdered, and therefore had no desire to solve the crime. He was only interested in convicting someone for it, and if he could sentence a black male to spend the rest of his life in jail, so much the better. He pinned his hopes on charging and convicting Beck on perjured testimony of Gregory Taylor. However, things did not work out as planned for the wily prosecutor who had the art of perjury-based convictions down to a science. Mr. Taylor, to the dismay of Ford, was a man of principles and integrity, and he refused to commit perjury and implicate a man who he knew to be innocent of committing homicide. So, Ford, using his trademark m.o. of perjured testimony in exchange for lesser sentences, along with fantasy forensics, convicted an obviously innocent man for the murder of Jacquetta Thomas… and it carried a life sentence.
While serving this life sentence, Ford approached Taylor in prison, and offered the promise of a lighter sentence if only he would lie under oath in order to enable him to charge Beck with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Even under these conditions, Greg Taylor held firm to his convictions… prepared to spend the rest of his life in jail rather than falsely finger an innocent man. And Taylor languished in jail for seventeen years until his case was finally heard by the Innocence Inquiry Commission, which led to his freedom and exoneration by Governor Bev Perdue in 2010.
According to an article in The News & Observer, dated October 6, 2010, Wake County prosecutors, led by District Attorney Colon Willoughby are focusing on Johnny Beck as the primary suspect in the 1991 Thomas homicide. The Mandy Locke article, titled “Taylor’s companion still investigated,” did break with tradition by mentioning Tom Ford’s name (in violation of the PAPEN Policy). And it was a powerful paragraph at the end of the article which bears repeating: “Charges against Beck were dismissed in August 1993. A month earlier, Wake County Assistant District Attorney Tom Ford wrote to Taylor and told him that he could persuade the governor to adjust Taylor's sentence if he would testify against Beck. Taylor refused.”
Charges were dismissed against Beck in 1993. So, what has changed in the subsequent seventeen years to make Wake County prosecutors focus their investigation on Beck now? I can think of only two things: (1) Gregory Taylor has been completely exonerated; and (2) Prosecutor Tom Ford, his prosecution against Taylor, and the SBI lab has been totally discredited. It was not only obvious to the three judge panel and the media that Gregory Taylor was innocent, but it is also obvious to the public. If Taylor is innocent of the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, then by all rationale, Johnny Beck, his companion of that fateful night, is innocent as well.
By pursuing Beck as a suspect, D.A. Willoughby and his team are essentially saying that the public is stupid. The N&O reported as follows: “Willoughby said in the motion that any evidence showing contact between Thomas and a white vehicle may be relevant to prosecutors or defense attorneys should anyone be prosecuted for Thomas' death in the future.” I fail to comprehend the logic therein. Personally, I am insulted by Willoughby’s reasoning for wanting to hold on to property of Taylor and Beck. It is almost as insulting to my intelligence as was the statement by Duke University’s Michael Schoenfeld that defined “solicitation” as handing out business cards.
The obsessive targeting of Johnny Beck for a murder he could not have committed not only insults the intelligence of Tar Heelians and wastes taxpayer money, but goes contrary to the supposed role of prosecutors acting as “Ministers of Justice.” A true minister of justice would have dismissed Gregory Taylor and Johnny Beck as suspects in the Thomas murder back in 1991 or early 1992 (at the latest). Alas, Tom Ford, and Colon Willoughby are no ministers of justice by their actions in this case. Neither was the Attorney General’s Office acting as a minister of justice when it re-tried Alan Gell after it became apparent that Prosecutor David Hoke withheld from defense attorneys 17 eyewitness statements that proved beyond doubt that Gell could not have possibly committed the murder for which he was sentenced to die.
A shining example of a true Minister of Justice can be found in the way former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case. After initially charging the three Duke Lacrosse defendants with multiple offenses, Mr. Nifong dismissed the charge of rape when he felt that statements by the alleged victim no longer supported it. He, however, continued to pursue other charges against the defendants, including sexual assault. This is the action of a prosecutor with an open mind who is determined to aggressively seek a conviction, but with the priority of first and foremost attaining justice. Mr. Nifong never tried to solicit perjured testimony or false statements as did Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the Gregory Taylor case. Mr. Nifong never harbored personal ill-will or a vendetta against the defendants… he just merely executed his job to the best of his abilities and within acceptable standards.
Hopefully the judge hearing the motion filed by Willoughby, to hang on to evidentiary property that is no longer of value, will deny his request. Enough is enough. Johnny Beck is innocent… just like Gregory Taylor. It is past time to put an end to this Tom Ford foolery.
NOTE: Link provided below tells of interesting event featuring Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Eugene Robinson. (Click the botton featuring that headline)
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/newsDirec/news.htm
While serving this life sentence, Ford approached Taylor in prison, and offered the promise of a lighter sentence if only he would lie under oath in order to enable him to charge Beck with the murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Even under these conditions, Greg Taylor held firm to his convictions… prepared to spend the rest of his life in jail rather than falsely finger an innocent man. And Taylor languished in jail for seventeen years until his case was finally heard by the Innocence Inquiry Commission, which led to his freedom and exoneration by Governor Bev Perdue in 2010.
According to an article in The News & Observer, dated October 6, 2010, Wake County prosecutors, led by District Attorney Colon Willoughby are focusing on Johnny Beck as the primary suspect in the 1991 Thomas homicide. The Mandy Locke article, titled “Taylor’s companion still investigated,” did break with tradition by mentioning Tom Ford’s name (in violation of the PAPEN Policy). And it was a powerful paragraph at the end of the article which bears repeating: “Charges against Beck were dismissed in August 1993. A month earlier, Wake County Assistant District Attorney Tom Ford wrote to Taylor and told him that he could persuade the governor to adjust Taylor's sentence if he would testify against Beck. Taylor refused.”
Charges were dismissed against Beck in 1993. So, what has changed in the subsequent seventeen years to make Wake County prosecutors focus their investigation on Beck now? I can think of only two things: (1) Gregory Taylor has been completely exonerated; and (2) Prosecutor Tom Ford, his prosecution against Taylor, and the SBI lab has been totally discredited. It was not only obvious to the three judge panel and the media that Gregory Taylor was innocent, but it is also obvious to the public. If Taylor is innocent of the murder of Jacquetta Thomas, then by all rationale, Johnny Beck, his companion of that fateful night, is innocent as well.
By pursuing Beck as a suspect, D.A. Willoughby and his team are essentially saying that the public is stupid. The N&O reported as follows: “Willoughby said in the motion that any evidence showing contact between Thomas and a white vehicle may be relevant to prosecutors or defense attorneys should anyone be prosecuted for Thomas' death in the future.” I fail to comprehend the logic therein. Personally, I am insulted by Willoughby’s reasoning for wanting to hold on to property of Taylor and Beck. It is almost as insulting to my intelligence as was the statement by Duke University’s Michael Schoenfeld that defined “solicitation” as handing out business cards.
The obsessive targeting of Johnny Beck for a murder he could not have committed not only insults the intelligence of Tar Heelians and wastes taxpayer money, but goes contrary to the supposed role of prosecutors acting as “Ministers of Justice.” A true minister of justice would have dismissed Gregory Taylor and Johnny Beck as suspects in the Thomas murder back in 1991 or early 1992 (at the latest). Alas, Tom Ford, and Colon Willoughby are no ministers of justice by their actions in this case. Neither was the Attorney General’s Office acting as a minister of justice when it re-tried Alan Gell after it became apparent that Prosecutor David Hoke withheld from defense attorneys 17 eyewitness statements that proved beyond doubt that Gell could not have possibly committed the murder for which he was sentenced to die.
A shining example of a true Minister of Justice can be found in the way former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case. After initially charging the three Duke Lacrosse defendants with multiple offenses, Mr. Nifong dismissed the charge of rape when he felt that statements by the alleged victim no longer supported it. He, however, continued to pursue other charges against the defendants, including sexual assault. This is the action of a prosecutor with an open mind who is determined to aggressively seek a conviction, but with the priority of first and foremost attaining justice. Mr. Nifong never tried to solicit perjured testimony or false statements as did Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford in the Gregory Taylor case. Mr. Nifong never harbored personal ill-will or a vendetta against the defendants… he just merely executed his job to the best of his abilities and within acceptable standards.
Hopefully the judge hearing the motion filed by Willoughby, to hang on to evidentiary property that is no longer of value, will deny his request. Enough is enough. Johnny Beck is innocent… just like Gregory Taylor. It is past time to put an end to this Tom Ford foolery.
NOTE: Link provided below tells of interesting event featuring Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Eugene Robinson. (Click the botton featuring that headline)
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/newsDirec/news.htm
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
DAs on board regarding SBI lab shakeup… Hogwash!
According to The News & Observer editorial of August 31, 2010, the state’s district attorneys understand that clouds over the SBI hurt their ability to make cases. What the district attorneys should be concerned about is that the clouds interfere with the administration of justice. As so-called “Ministers of Justice,” prosecutors should have their priority as the goal of justice before that of winning a case. For many, if not most North Carolina prosecutors, that has definitely not been the case. The recent case exposed in an article by N &O investigative reporter J. Andrew Curliss about Derrick Allen is a prime example of a prosecutor, Freda Black, placing a conviction ahead of seeking justice. Ms. Black is also the prosecutor responsible for winning an armed robbery conviction against a 14 year-old Erick Daniels. There was no credible evidence or forensic findings tying the young Daniels boy to the crime… only the robbery witness’s linking the shape of Daniels’s eyebrows in a school yearbook to those of the assailant. He served more than half of a 14 to 20 year sentence before he was finally released on appeal. Tom Ford, Wake prosecutor responsible for unapologetically stealing seventeen years of a man’s life (Greg Taylor) because Taylor did not implicate an innocent man in a murder, is unfortunately representative of many of the prosecutors who have no qualms about unjustly incarcerating innocents who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
Although The News & Observer would have you believe otherwise, it is the prosecutors and not the people in the SBI lab who are driving the show. The lab people are merely backseat passengers in the prosecutor’s vehicle. It is the prosecutors who benefit from winning a conviction, not the lab technicians. Even the SBI agents don’t get the glory of convicting the defendant in a heinous crime. Therefore, when a prosecutor’s case is weak, he/she has the built-in incentive to lean on people in the lab in order to force them to skew, omit, fudge, tweak, or otherwise manipulate lab results in hopes of improving their odds at trial. Not all prosecutors take this devious avenue; just the unscrupulous ones such as Tom Ford, Freda Black, Bill Wolfe, and Michael Parker.
The fact that justice is a secondary or tertiary concern of prosecutors is best illustrated in the Alan Gell case. Prosecutor David Hoke was in possession of 17 eyewitness statements that proved beyond doubt that defendant Alan Gell could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was charged. Hoke withheld this information from the defense counsel, and won a capital conviction against Gell. Now, The News & Observer wants to blame this wrongful conviction on the lead investigator in the case, Dwight Ransome. However, a decade after Gell’s conviction when the existence of these witness statements came to light, and the Attorney General’s Office was aware that there were 17 witness statements that proved Gell could not have committed the murder for which he had languished in jail (half on death row), the Attorney General’s Office went ahead and prosecuted the case in a second trial. Roy Cooper didn’t issue an “innocent promulgation” on Gell’s behalf. He tried to keep an innocent man in jail. However, once the jury got the case, they immediately found Gell not guilty. How does The News & Observer explain that? The Attorney General’s Office used SBI agent Ransome’s work to support their case against Gell at re-trial. Somehow, it is not the prosecutors at fault… it’s Ransome.
Currently, Alan Gell is incarcerated on a convoluted vendetta charge concocted by a Johnston County prosecutor. His unreasonable and lengthy sentence is nothing more than payback for having the audacity to file a complaint for the malicious and blatant injustice he suffered with his death penalty conviction. Although he wrongfully served ten years, he was convicted on technical trifle and is serving a five year sentence. According to my math, even with the ridiculous five year sentence, he had five years credit. He should never have served one day of this most recent vindictive sentence.
What is truly tragic is that the prosecutors with integrity who prosecute in good faith and act as “Ministers of Justice” are the ones that are targeted, mainly by the Powers-That-Be, and the unregulated North Carolina State Bar. Gregory Butler was a prosecutor in Johnston County, who when he became aware that the defense attorney lacked some of the prosecutor’s discovery, immediately notified the defense. This act, publicized in The News & Observer, resulted in a delay in the court proceedings while the defense was granted time to review the information presented. It also prompted the North Carolina State Bar to initiate a complaint against Mr. Butler, which forced him to remove himself from the case, causing a further delay. Fortunately, there was no bounty on Mr. Butler’s head, and F. Lane Williamson and his band on the Bar’s grievance panel, did nothing more than give Mr. Butler a slobbery tongue lashing.
But what happened to Mr. Butler pales in comparison to the persecution administered to the prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse case, Mike Nifong. This prosecutor, with 27 years experience as a prosecutor, and who was appointed to the Durham district attorney position by Governor Mike Easley, had a stellar reputation as a fair and hard-working prosecutor. Since he first practiced as a prosecutor, Mike Nifong had always maintained an open file discovery policy… that is, he provided the defense attorneys with all of the evidentiary information he had in his file. (This was decades before such policy became mandated in the state.) Most of the ardent defense attorneys who sparred with Nifong in courtroom, gave him high marks when it came to opening his files for them and prosecuting fairly. As it is with individuals who possess both high ethical standards and courage, Mr. Nifong was not swayed by pressure applied by peers and higher-ups. He followed his conscience… which made him too independent… which made him too dangerous. Therefore, he was brought down by the big power machine, with assistance from the biased media. The state, along with the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys set out to make an example of him, and make him pay, every day, for the rest of his life.
When Mike Nifong was taken down, Durham lost the best district attorney it will most likely ever see. He was a prosecutor who prosecuted cases in good faith based on sound evidence and good science. He did not lobby lab technicians for reports or results favorable to his case, and as a result, the lab technicians and agents did not feel the need to help effect the outcome of his cases. Mike Nifong’s priority was to see justice fairly administered, and to see equal justice for all. He did not subscribe to the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” If he did abide by that principle, he certainly would not have prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse defendants… especially when doing so severely compromised his chances of winning the election for Durham district attorney.
The News & Observer editorial did get it right. The state’s district attorneys understand that clouds over the SBI hurt their ability to make cases… and that’s what they’re interested in; making their cases. Unfortunately, unlike Mike Nifong, they are less interested in seeing that equal justice prevails for all.
Although The News & Observer would have you believe otherwise, it is the prosecutors and not the people in the SBI lab who are driving the show. The lab people are merely backseat passengers in the prosecutor’s vehicle. It is the prosecutors who benefit from winning a conviction, not the lab technicians. Even the SBI agents don’t get the glory of convicting the defendant in a heinous crime. Therefore, when a prosecutor’s case is weak, he/she has the built-in incentive to lean on people in the lab in order to force them to skew, omit, fudge, tweak, or otherwise manipulate lab results in hopes of improving their odds at trial. Not all prosecutors take this devious avenue; just the unscrupulous ones such as Tom Ford, Freda Black, Bill Wolfe, and Michael Parker.
The fact that justice is a secondary or tertiary concern of prosecutors is best illustrated in the Alan Gell case. Prosecutor David Hoke was in possession of 17 eyewitness statements that proved beyond doubt that defendant Alan Gell could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was charged. Hoke withheld this information from the defense counsel, and won a capital conviction against Gell. Now, The News & Observer wants to blame this wrongful conviction on the lead investigator in the case, Dwight Ransome. However, a decade after Gell’s conviction when the existence of these witness statements came to light, and the Attorney General’s Office was aware that there were 17 witness statements that proved Gell could not have committed the murder for which he had languished in jail (half on death row), the Attorney General’s Office went ahead and prosecuted the case in a second trial. Roy Cooper didn’t issue an “innocent promulgation” on Gell’s behalf. He tried to keep an innocent man in jail. However, once the jury got the case, they immediately found Gell not guilty. How does The News & Observer explain that? The Attorney General’s Office used SBI agent Ransome’s work to support their case against Gell at re-trial. Somehow, it is not the prosecutors at fault… it’s Ransome.
Currently, Alan Gell is incarcerated on a convoluted vendetta charge concocted by a Johnston County prosecutor. His unreasonable and lengthy sentence is nothing more than payback for having the audacity to file a complaint for the malicious and blatant injustice he suffered with his death penalty conviction. Although he wrongfully served ten years, he was convicted on technical trifle and is serving a five year sentence. According to my math, even with the ridiculous five year sentence, he had five years credit. He should never have served one day of this most recent vindictive sentence.
What is truly tragic is that the prosecutors with integrity who prosecute in good faith and act as “Ministers of Justice” are the ones that are targeted, mainly by the Powers-That-Be, and the unregulated North Carolina State Bar. Gregory Butler was a prosecutor in Johnston County, who when he became aware that the defense attorney lacked some of the prosecutor’s discovery, immediately notified the defense. This act, publicized in The News & Observer, resulted in a delay in the court proceedings while the defense was granted time to review the information presented. It also prompted the North Carolina State Bar to initiate a complaint against Mr. Butler, which forced him to remove himself from the case, causing a further delay. Fortunately, there was no bounty on Mr. Butler’s head, and F. Lane Williamson and his band on the Bar’s grievance panel, did nothing more than give Mr. Butler a slobbery tongue lashing.
But what happened to Mr. Butler pales in comparison to the persecution administered to the prosecutor of the Duke Lacrosse case, Mike Nifong. This prosecutor, with 27 years experience as a prosecutor, and who was appointed to the Durham district attorney position by Governor Mike Easley, had a stellar reputation as a fair and hard-working prosecutor. Since he first practiced as a prosecutor, Mike Nifong had always maintained an open file discovery policy… that is, he provided the defense attorneys with all of the evidentiary information he had in his file. (This was decades before such policy became mandated in the state.) Most of the ardent defense attorneys who sparred with Nifong in courtroom, gave him high marks when it came to opening his files for them and prosecuting fairly. As it is with individuals who possess both high ethical standards and courage, Mr. Nifong was not swayed by pressure applied by peers and higher-ups. He followed his conscience… which made him too independent… which made him too dangerous. Therefore, he was brought down by the big power machine, with assistance from the biased media. The state, along with the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys set out to make an example of him, and make him pay, every day, for the rest of his life.
When Mike Nifong was taken down, Durham lost the best district attorney it will most likely ever see. He was a prosecutor who prosecuted cases in good faith based on sound evidence and good science. He did not lobby lab technicians for reports or results favorable to his case, and as a result, the lab technicians and agents did not feel the need to help effect the outcome of his cases. Mike Nifong’s priority was to see justice fairly administered, and to see equal justice for all. He did not subscribe to the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” If he did abide by that principle, he certainly would not have prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse defendants… especially when doing so severely compromised his chances of winning the election for Durham district attorney.
The News & Observer editorial did get it right. The state’s district attorneys understand that clouds over the SBI hurt their ability to make cases… and that’s what they’re interested in; making their cases. Unfortunately, unlike Mike Nifong, they are less interested in seeing that equal justice prevails for all.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, Wyatt Earp, Eliot Ness, and Mike Nifong
Recently, The Independent Weekly, a Triangle area arts and entertainment publication, which has an aversion to me, featured an article by a “Casual Observer.” The title of the July 14, 2010 article, “Razing questions: The last day of the Duke lacrosse house” by Adam Sobsey, included the following paragraph:
“The next morning, I was sitting in Parker & Otis with a cup of coffee when two men sat down at an adjacent table. One of them turned on a voice recorder and interviewed the other – about the lacrosse scandal, astonishingly. The interviewee vigorously and lengthily attacked the media coverage of the case and defended Nifong. It was even more astonishing to hear him compare Nifong to a cross between Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. The building may have been demolished, but apparently we are still picking through its controversial remains.”
Yep, I was the interviewee. A gentleman was working on a project for his doctorial thesis and we met that day in Durham for the interview about how African Americans responded and reacted to the Duke Lacrosse case. As the casual observer accurately observed, I did place well-deserved criticism about biased and unfair coverage on the mainstream media… which is in lockstep with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and anyone considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
A most conspicuous example of slanted media coverage is the utilization of the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy as evidenced in the recent series in The News & Observer which lays prosecutorial misdeeds on SBI agents and its lab. No where in the entire four part series, spread out over a week, did any of the articles, or related articles mention a prosecutor’s name with a case of injustice. For example, Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned, although he was responsible for putting an innocent man prison for 17 years of a life sentence (Greg Taylor). The name of Prosecutor David Hoke’s name was put in print, even though he convinced a jury to place an innocent man (Alan Gell) on death row. Anson County District Attorney Michael D. Parker wasn’t named in the paper’s series even though he was responsible for an innocent man (Floyd Brown) being incarcerated for fourteen years without a trial. Instead, the newspaper placed blame for these and other flagrant injustices on SBI agents and workers in its forensic lab.
Contrast that coverage to what happened when police investigator Linwood Wilson was charged with “obscenity stalking” as a result of marital discord… the headlines blared, “Nifong’s investigator arrested,” “Nifong’s investigator charged with stalking,” etc. You get the picture. The media, unfortunately, is integrally involved in shaping public opinion, and every chance it gets to link Mr. Nifong to a negative story, it will jump at the chance.
Now, I was pleased with the reference in The Independent Weekly by Mr. Sobsey. And, as I have said for some time, Mr. Nifong has the important and positive characteristics of Wyatt Earp, Eliot Ness, and Thomas Beckett. As a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong believed in law, and he set his career to seeing justice carried out, as devoted to law enforcement as Marshal Wyatt Earp. Like the “Untouchables’” Eliot Ness, Mr. Nifong would not be swayed by coercion, peer pressure, public sentiment, or “suggestions” from higher-ups. Finally, Mr. Nifong exhibited the courage and independence of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett in seeking justice… not bending under the force of the Carpetbagger Cabal. And contrary to the lies put forth in the media from the unregulated North Carolina State Bar adjudicator F. Lane Williamson, and others, Mike Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse defendants when doing so presented a definite disadvantage to his being elected to his appointed position of Durham district attorney.
What is truly sad is that the people of Durham have been snookered out of having one of North Carolina’s truly great prosecutors serve their county. Mike Nifong exemplified a “Minister of Justice” who put getting it right ahead of winning no matter what the costs. It is the people of Durham who share in this blame because they remained silent and idle, allowing the travesty against Mr. Nifong to take root and flourish. Unfortunately, as is often the case, a man possessing the admirable qualities of Beckett, Earp, and Ness, was considered too much of a risk for the Powers-That-Be who wanted to have free rein to co-opt their version of justice as opposed to enforcing the sacrosanct principle of “equal justice for all.”
“The next morning, I was sitting in Parker & Otis with a cup of coffee when two men sat down at an adjacent table. One of them turned on a voice recorder and interviewed the other – about the lacrosse scandal, astonishingly. The interviewee vigorously and lengthily attacked the media coverage of the case and defended Nifong. It was even more astonishing to hear him compare Nifong to a cross between Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. The building may have been demolished, but apparently we are still picking through its controversial remains.”
Yep, I was the interviewee. A gentleman was working on a project for his doctorial thesis and we met that day in Durham for the interview about how African Americans responded and reacted to the Duke Lacrosse case. As the casual observer accurately observed, I did place well-deserved criticism about biased and unfair coverage on the mainstream media… which is in lockstep with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda to destroy former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and anyone considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
A most conspicuous example of slanted media coverage is the utilization of the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy as evidenced in the recent series in The News & Observer which lays prosecutorial misdeeds on SBI agents and its lab. No where in the entire four part series, spread out over a week, did any of the articles, or related articles mention a prosecutor’s name with a case of injustice. For example, Wake Prosecutor Tom Ford’s name was never mentioned, although he was responsible for putting an innocent man prison for 17 years of a life sentence (Greg Taylor). The name of Prosecutor David Hoke’s name was put in print, even though he convinced a jury to place an innocent man (Alan Gell) on death row. Anson County District Attorney Michael D. Parker wasn’t named in the paper’s series even though he was responsible for an innocent man (Floyd Brown) being incarcerated for fourteen years without a trial. Instead, the newspaper placed blame for these and other flagrant injustices on SBI agents and workers in its forensic lab.
Contrast that coverage to what happened when police investigator Linwood Wilson was charged with “obscenity stalking” as a result of marital discord… the headlines blared, “Nifong’s investigator arrested,” “Nifong’s investigator charged with stalking,” etc. You get the picture. The media, unfortunately, is integrally involved in shaping public opinion, and every chance it gets to link Mr. Nifong to a negative story, it will jump at the chance.
Now, I was pleased with the reference in The Independent Weekly by Mr. Sobsey. And, as I have said for some time, Mr. Nifong has the important and positive characteristics of Wyatt Earp, Eliot Ness, and Thomas Beckett. As a prosecutor, Mr. Nifong believed in law, and he set his career to seeing justice carried out, as devoted to law enforcement as Marshal Wyatt Earp. Like the “Untouchables’” Eliot Ness, Mr. Nifong would not be swayed by coercion, peer pressure, public sentiment, or “suggestions” from higher-ups. Finally, Mr. Nifong exhibited the courage and independence of Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett in seeking justice… not bending under the force of the Carpetbagger Cabal. And contrary to the lies put forth in the media from the unregulated North Carolina State Bar adjudicator F. Lane Williamson, and others, Mike Nifong prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse defendants when doing so presented a definite disadvantage to his being elected to his appointed position of Durham district attorney.
What is truly sad is that the people of Durham have been snookered out of having one of North Carolina’s truly great prosecutors serve their county. Mike Nifong exemplified a “Minister of Justice” who put getting it right ahead of winning no matter what the costs. It is the people of Durham who share in this blame because they remained silent and idle, allowing the travesty against Mr. Nifong to take root and flourish. Unfortunately, as is often the case, a man possessing the admirable qualities of Beckett, Earp, and Ness, was considered too much of a risk for the Powers-That-Be who wanted to have free rein to co-opt their version of justice as opposed to enforcing the sacrosanct principle of “equal justice for all.”
Saturday, August 14, 2010
NC Justice System: Cruelty without Christianity
To his credit as a columnist, The News & Observer’s Barry Saunders in a recent commentary brought up an issue that is rarely touched upon by the media… the cruelty that seems embedded in our state’s criminal justice system. In his article, Mr. Saunders alluded to Anson County Prosecutor Michael Parker’s treatment of a mentally retarded defendant when he wrote, “Parker spitefully refused Dix workers’ request to take him to the State Fair.” However, Parker carried spite much further by directly interfering with Brown's placement by sabotaging the arrangements at an assisted living facility that had been painstakingly arranged by social workers after his 14 years of wrongful incarceration. Thereafter state employees involved in helping Brown find appropriate housing had to work in secret to prevent District Attorney Parker from intervening.
Is the cruelty exhibited by Michael Parker typical? Yes, and it can be found among police officers serving on the front lines of the urban battlefield to judges sitting behind the benches, and even among ancillary workers in the social/criminal justice field. Is the cruelty exhibit by Parker to be construed as Christ-like behavior? No. People who call themselves Christians and act like heathens are as phony as the currently trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum and those leveled against Mike Nifong by the State Bar. It takes more than attending church to embody the true spirit of Christianity.
The vendetta justice treatment of Crystal Mangum is an example of the cruel and malign attitudes of many in the justice system. The vindictive/retribution motive empowering the backlash by all state officials and staff against Ms. Mangum has its roots in her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Even though she was the victim in that incident, the state, Carpetbagger families, and the media defined her as the villain. Cruelty in the present problems engulfing Ms. Mangum began on the night of February 17, 2010. Police were summoned to her apartment in response to a 9-1-1 call placed by Ms. Mangum’s daughter who feared her mother might be killed after Mangum’s ex-boyfriend began punching her in the face. When Crystal’s true identity became apparent to police, she was designated as the instigator, aggressor, and offender, and her ex-boyfriend, with a past history of physical violence against women, became the vulnerable victim of the altercation. Then the Durham Police Department got creative and manufactured a crime (which they called “arson”) and laid the blame on Ms. Mangum. A specific incident of police cruelty manifested itself by their commands given to Ms. Mangum to “stand up” while she was lying facedown on the floor with her hands cuffed behind her back. Police reports referred to this as Ms. Mangum refusing to follow commands. (Ask yourself, would a true Christian, in emulating Jesus Christ, taunt a helpless woman lying facedown with her hands cuffed in back, by ordering her to stand up? Is that what Christianity is about?)
What is so tragic about this entire incident is that Durham Police harbored unjustified animosity towards Ms. Mangum based solely on her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, and they abused their power by exacting revenge based on fraudulent and trumped up charges. Most serious was the attempted first degree murder charge. No where in the Durham Police reports is there anything to substantiate such a charge. Likewise, the charge of identity theft was a stretch, to say the least. Ms. Mangum was concerned with how the authorities would respond if they knew her true identity and realized her link to the Duke Lacrosse case. The events that transpired that night validated her concerns, as she was hauled off to jail and placed under a $1 million bail, despite being the victim of domestic violence.
Magistrate B. Wakil acted cruelly towards Ms. Mangum by imposing a $1 million dollar bail on someone who was definitely not a flight risk or a threat to society. By issuing that unreachable bail Ms. Mangum languished in jail, unable to report to work at her full-time job. Because of the bail set by Wakil, Ms. Mangum lost her source of income (with its health benefits), which meant she was unable to pay rent for her apartment (which she lost). Behind bars, she was unable to attend classes at NCCU where she was enrolled in the graduate program working towards a Master’s degree; she was dropped from the courses after she obtained a loan to pay for tuition, books, and supplies. In jail, she was unable to take care of her three children, and she lost custody of them.
Wakil was merely a cog in the wheel of the injustice visited upon Ms. Mangum, but her role in unnecessarily and brutally disrupting Mangum’s life was instrumental and cruel beyond measure. Nothing in the police report could support such draconian treatment. While Ms. Mangum struggles, trying to keep her head above water, Magistrate Wakil goes on with her life, without accounting for the wanton damage to that of another.
Of course, Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca holds the lion’s share of cruelty and inhumanity towards Ms. Mangum because she is the prosecuting attorney. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca, as a prosecutor, is charged not only with representing the state, but also with seeking the truth… acting as a “Minister of Justice,” if you will. But she has become the hub in this conspiracy of evil by proceeding with a prosecution which is suspect, lacks merit, and trumped up. Her initial plea offer to Ms. Mangum shortly after her arrest was for Mangum to plead guilty to the false charges (eight in total, including attempted first degree murder, arson, assault and battery, and child abuse) against her and serve a two year prison sentence. What a deal. Her public defender thought she should give it serious consideration stating that if she went to trial and was convicted she could possibly be sentenced to six years behind bars. It was only after the miraculous satisfaction of her $100,000 bail by generous and benevolent bail bondsmen several months later that the prosecution’s plea offer was modified as follows: plead guilty to arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer in exchange for time served (three months). This is quite a drastic departure from the prosecutor’s previous offer, which goes to emphasize the non-existence of the prosecution’s case.
Ms. Garcia-Lamarca’s cruelty is also responsible for totally destroying Crystal Mangum’s life. Not being a flight risk or threat to society, Ms. Mangum should have been released without bail, so that she could continue to work, pay the bills, attend classes, support her three children, and help take care of her parents. Instead, Ms. Garcia-Lamarca took the toughest position possible to assure that Ms. Mangum would be locked up for a lengthy period of time. Now ask yourself, if Jesus of Nazareth was prosecuting the case against Ms. Mangum, would he proceed as Ms. Garcia-Lamarca? Undoubtedly not… and if he was given the identical case by police, after looking at it, he would dismiss all charges and rebuke police officers for trumping up such garbage.
District Court Judge Claude Allen’s cruelty and animus against Ms. Mangum is evident by his ruling to subject Ms. Mangum to electronic house arrest in the event that she bonded out. Ms. Mangum (who is neither a flight risk nor threat to society) should not have even been placed under bail, much less considered for monitoring and house arrest after making bond. Judge Allen gave no explanation for this cruel, bizarre and unjust ruling. But, he is not held accountable by any person or body. The Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox when confronting a suspected rape defendant who had been placed under similar conditions (requiring house arrest and monitoring if bonded out), reduced the amount of his bail to $300,000, but dropped the condition of house arrest if he bonded out. Surely, one would consider a suspected male rape defendant more of a threat to society than a female victim of domestic violence. But Judge Knox acted honorably and righteously by dismissing the house arrest condition. There is no doubt that in considering the two aforementioned judges that Judge Knox acted in the true spirit of Christianity. The same cannot be said for Judge Allen.
Crystal Mangum, a victim in the Duke Lacrosse case, has been caught up in the vindictive vortex spun in response to the call of the Carpetbagger Jihad. And this malicious fervor against Mangum and surrogates of Mike Nifong has permeated through all walks of life and levels of government… including the Jail Diversion Program. This county agency provides defendants with an alternative to incarceration while awaiting trial. Since her May 18, 2010 transfer from the Durham County Detention Center to house arrest, Ms. Mangum has been under its auspices. Although she achieved limited relief from the courts (unrestricted mobility weekdays from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm), she is still required to be at home in the evenings and on weekends.
Recently, Ms. Mangum requested to have a weekend free in order to go to the beach. Her immediate supervisor authorized her to have the freedom to enjoy this activity. Days later, she learned that the supervisor had been overruled by someone higher up in the pre-trial program’s chain. The excuse given for denying Ms. Mangum’s request is that “it wouldn’t look good.” This mean-spirited denial by the Jail Diversion Program is yet another troubling example of the cruelty that is so prevalent in the state’s criminal justice system that it has been accepted as the norm. But inhumanity was not the only driving force here… the state does not want to do anything that would make Ms. Mangum look vulnerable, innocent, or non-threatening. Keeping her tied to house monitoring on a short leash, solidifies the media created perception that Ms. Mangum is an imminent threat and danger to society… just like the affable and severely retarded Floyd Brown (as determined by Prosecutor Michael Parker). Therefore, because Ms. Mangum and Mr. Brown do not come from families of wealth, power, and prestige, the North Carolina system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” has no qualms with their being subjected to cruel treatment and punishment.
The state does have a mandate to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes they commit. That said, in a civilized society, defendants, whether charged or convicted, deserve to be treated with basic dignity and compassion. To act in a malevolent manner against those disadvantaged by being in the throes of the correctional system is contrary to the very principles upon which Christianity is based. Ask yourself this question: “If Jesus of Nazareth was managing the Durham County Jail Diversion program, and Crystal Mangum (wrongfully charged, wrongfully placed on electronic house arrest, not a flight risk, and not a threat to society) requested to have a weekend free to go to the beach, what would he say?”
Is the cruelty exhibited by Michael Parker typical? Yes, and it can be found among police officers serving on the front lines of the urban battlefield to judges sitting behind the benches, and even among ancillary workers in the social/criminal justice field. Is the cruelty exhibit by Parker to be construed as Christ-like behavior? No. People who call themselves Christians and act like heathens are as phony as the currently trumped up charges against Crystal Mangum and those leveled against Mike Nifong by the State Bar. It takes more than attending church to embody the true spirit of Christianity.
The vendetta justice treatment of Crystal Mangum is an example of the cruel and malign attitudes of many in the justice system. The vindictive/retribution motive empowering the backlash by all state officials and staff against Ms. Mangum has its roots in her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Even though she was the victim in that incident, the state, Carpetbagger families, and the media defined her as the villain. Cruelty in the present problems engulfing Ms. Mangum began on the night of February 17, 2010. Police were summoned to her apartment in response to a 9-1-1 call placed by Ms. Mangum’s daughter who feared her mother might be killed after Mangum’s ex-boyfriend began punching her in the face. When Crystal’s true identity became apparent to police, she was designated as the instigator, aggressor, and offender, and her ex-boyfriend, with a past history of physical violence against women, became the vulnerable victim of the altercation. Then the Durham Police Department got creative and manufactured a crime (which they called “arson”) and laid the blame on Ms. Mangum. A specific incident of police cruelty manifested itself by their commands given to Ms. Mangum to “stand up” while she was lying facedown on the floor with her hands cuffed behind her back. Police reports referred to this as Ms. Mangum refusing to follow commands. (Ask yourself, would a true Christian, in emulating Jesus Christ, taunt a helpless woman lying facedown with her hands cuffed in back, by ordering her to stand up? Is that what Christianity is about?)
What is so tragic about this entire incident is that Durham Police harbored unjustified animosity towards Ms. Mangum based solely on her role in the Duke Lacrosse case, and they abused their power by exacting revenge based on fraudulent and trumped up charges. Most serious was the attempted first degree murder charge. No where in the Durham Police reports is there anything to substantiate such a charge. Likewise, the charge of identity theft was a stretch, to say the least. Ms. Mangum was concerned with how the authorities would respond if they knew her true identity and realized her link to the Duke Lacrosse case. The events that transpired that night validated her concerns, as she was hauled off to jail and placed under a $1 million bail, despite being the victim of domestic violence.
Magistrate B. Wakil acted cruelly towards Ms. Mangum by imposing a $1 million dollar bail on someone who was definitely not a flight risk or a threat to society. By issuing that unreachable bail Ms. Mangum languished in jail, unable to report to work at her full-time job. Because of the bail set by Wakil, Ms. Mangum lost her source of income (with its health benefits), which meant she was unable to pay rent for her apartment (which she lost). Behind bars, she was unable to attend classes at NCCU where she was enrolled in the graduate program working towards a Master’s degree; she was dropped from the courses after she obtained a loan to pay for tuition, books, and supplies. In jail, she was unable to take care of her three children, and she lost custody of them.
Wakil was merely a cog in the wheel of the injustice visited upon Ms. Mangum, but her role in unnecessarily and brutally disrupting Mangum’s life was instrumental and cruel beyond measure. Nothing in the police report could support such draconian treatment. While Ms. Mangum struggles, trying to keep her head above water, Magistrate Wakil goes on with her life, without accounting for the wanton damage to that of another.
Of course, Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca holds the lion’s share of cruelty and inhumanity towards Ms. Mangum because she is the prosecuting attorney. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca, as a prosecutor, is charged not only with representing the state, but also with seeking the truth… acting as a “Minister of Justice,” if you will. But she has become the hub in this conspiracy of evil by proceeding with a prosecution which is suspect, lacks merit, and trumped up. Her initial plea offer to Ms. Mangum shortly after her arrest was for Mangum to plead guilty to the false charges (eight in total, including attempted first degree murder, arson, assault and battery, and child abuse) against her and serve a two year prison sentence. What a deal. Her public defender thought she should give it serious consideration stating that if she went to trial and was convicted she could possibly be sentenced to six years behind bars. It was only after the miraculous satisfaction of her $100,000 bail by generous and benevolent bail bondsmen several months later that the prosecution’s plea offer was modified as follows: plead guilty to arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile, injury to personal property, and resisting a public officer in exchange for time served (three months). This is quite a drastic departure from the prosecutor’s previous offer, which goes to emphasize the non-existence of the prosecution’s case.
Ms. Garcia-Lamarca’s cruelty is also responsible for totally destroying Crystal Mangum’s life. Not being a flight risk or threat to society, Ms. Mangum should have been released without bail, so that she could continue to work, pay the bills, attend classes, support her three children, and help take care of her parents. Instead, Ms. Garcia-Lamarca took the toughest position possible to assure that Ms. Mangum would be locked up for a lengthy period of time. Now ask yourself, if Jesus of Nazareth was prosecuting the case against Ms. Mangum, would he proceed as Ms. Garcia-Lamarca? Undoubtedly not… and if he was given the identical case by police, after looking at it, he would dismiss all charges and rebuke police officers for trumping up such garbage.
District Court Judge Claude Allen’s cruelty and animus against Ms. Mangum is evident by his ruling to subject Ms. Mangum to electronic house arrest in the event that she bonded out. Ms. Mangum (who is neither a flight risk nor threat to society) should not have even been placed under bail, much less considered for monitoring and house arrest after making bond. Judge Allen gave no explanation for this cruel, bizarre and unjust ruling. But, he is not held accountable by any person or body. The Honorable Judge Jennifer Knox when confronting a suspected rape defendant who had been placed under similar conditions (requiring house arrest and monitoring if bonded out), reduced the amount of his bail to $300,000, but dropped the condition of house arrest if he bonded out. Surely, one would consider a suspected male rape defendant more of a threat to society than a female victim of domestic violence. But Judge Knox acted honorably and righteously by dismissing the house arrest condition. There is no doubt that in considering the two aforementioned judges that Judge Knox acted in the true spirit of Christianity. The same cannot be said for Judge Allen.
Crystal Mangum, a victim in the Duke Lacrosse case, has been caught up in the vindictive vortex spun in response to the call of the Carpetbagger Jihad. And this malicious fervor against Mangum and surrogates of Mike Nifong has permeated through all walks of life and levels of government… including the Jail Diversion Program. This county agency provides defendants with an alternative to incarceration while awaiting trial. Since her May 18, 2010 transfer from the Durham County Detention Center to house arrest, Ms. Mangum has been under its auspices. Although she achieved limited relief from the courts (unrestricted mobility weekdays from 8:00 am until 5:00 pm), she is still required to be at home in the evenings and on weekends.
Recently, Ms. Mangum requested to have a weekend free in order to go to the beach. Her immediate supervisor authorized her to have the freedom to enjoy this activity. Days later, she learned that the supervisor had been overruled by someone higher up in the pre-trial program’s chain. The excuse given for denying Ms. Mangum’s request is that “it wouldn’t look good.” This mean-spirited denial by the Jail Diversion Program is yet another troubling example of the cruelty that is so prevalent in the state’s criminal justice system that it has been accepted as the norm. But inhumanity was not the only driving force here… the state does not want to do anything that would make Ms. Mangum look vulnerable, innocent, or non-threatening. Keeping her tied to house monitoring on a short leash, solidifies the media created perception that Ms. Mangum is an imminent threat and danger to society… just like the affable and severely retarded Floyd Brown (as determined by Prosecutor Michael Parker). Therefore, because Ms. Mangum and Mr. Brown do not come from families of wealth, power, and prestige, the North Carolina system of “selective justice based on Class and Color” has no qualms with their being subjected to cruel treatment and punishment.
The state does have a mandate to protect its citizens from criminals and the crimes they commit. That said, in a civilized society, defendants, whether charged or convicted, deserve to be treated with basic dignity and compassion. To act in a malevolent manner against those disadvantaged by being in the throes of the correctional system is contrary to the very principles upon which Christianity is based. Ask yourself this question: “If Jesus of Nazareth was managing the Durham County Jail Diversion program, and Crystal Mangum (wrongfully charged, wrongfully placed on electronic house arrest, not a flight risk, and not a threat to society) requested to have a weekend free to go to the beach, what would he say?”
Monday, November 23, 2009
Duke law professors fear the State Bar... as well they should
It is without doubt that the law professors at the Duke University School of Law fear the North Carolina State Bar. This fear is not borne due to a lack of courage on part of the legal faculty of this prestigious institution of learning, but rather due to an abundance of common sense. They realize that speaking out in behalf of justice on the taboo topic of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's selective and unjust disbarment could net them an outcome similar to his at the hands of the unregulated agency. In disbarring Mr. Nifong, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933, the State Bar sent a strong message to all attorneys licensed to practice in the Tar Heel state: "We have the capacity and the will to take away your legal livelihood on a whim, at our discretion, arbitrarily, and selectively without regard to the merits and justification, or lack thereof, of bogus charges we choose to bring against you." Attorneys throughout the state of North Carolina realized that Mike Nifong was prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case with professional conduct well within acceptable established standards, and that his actions in that case did not warrant his disbarment (or any disciplinary action). Lawyers were also aware that former prosecutor David Hoke, in prosecuting Alan Gell, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defendant's attorney which enabled Hoke to win a conviction and death sentence against the innocent defendant. Justice was definitely denied in this case as Mr. Gell spent more than nine years wrongfully incarcerated because of a prosecutor acting as an antithesis of a "Minister of Justice." Although Mr. Hoke's actions in the Gell case were flagrantly and egregiously afoul of acceptable standards, attorneys witnessed the arbitrariness of the Bar disciplinary arm when it meted out to Hoke a mild reprimand, the weakest action possible. North Carolina attorneys, especially Duke law professors, are able to put two and two together, and they realize that if they cherish their law license, their employment, and their opportunity for advancement in their field, that they must avoid the minefield which is the taboo topic of Mike Nifong's disbarment.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I trolled the halls of the Duke University School of Law seeking professors to take my "Snapshot Survey" (a survey consisting of one question). Using two hypothetical scenarios (A and B), which were thinly veiled cases representing the Alan Gell case and the Duke Lacrosse case respectively, it asked which Prosecutor (A or B) was more deserving of disbarment. Approximately two dozen professors were gracious enough to give me a few minutes of their time and consider the question. However, without exception, they all refused to answer it. The majority gave no specific reason, whereas a few did acknowledge that they were concerned about possible fallout resulting from any participation in the survey. One professor refused to select one prosecutor over the other as being more "deserving of disbarment" using the irrational logic that to do so would suggest the other prosecutor did not deserve to be disciplined. I was surprised at the number of law professors who told me they believed Mr. Nifong should have been disbarred (three or four). When I asked them to specifically tell me what Mr. Nifong did to deserve disbarment, they all responded that they were busy and had to prepare for class. That response is definitely not unreasonable, especially since I dropped in on them unannounced and without an appointment. One professor, who is an outspoken critic of Mr. Nifong, has been challenged on numerous occasions in the past to explain in writing why he feels Mr. Nifong deserved to be disbarred over his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. Although he has repeatedly assured me that he would provide me with a written answer (which I told him I would post on our website, unedited and without direct comment), he as yet to do so, and I doubt that he will find time in the future to get around to doing it.
What I find particularly disturbing is that in an institution for legal learning, like the Duke University School of Law, such a topic of significant importance would be suppressed, and that its professors, out of justifiable fear of retribution (whether academically, professionally, legally, and/or financially) would avoid talking about the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. Currently, I am unaware of any other topic which would garner such a response, but I would imagine that any subject matter that casts an unfavorable light on the North Carolina State Bar would be applicable. For example, law professors have no problem tackling controversial topics such as the First Amendment Right of racists writing inciteful hate-speech on university campus walls, but they are mum when it comes to discussing issues that threaten the sanctity of the almighty State Bar with its absolute power. Often overlooked is the fact that the issue of Mike Nifong's disbarment is not limited to the man alone, but has wide reaching ramifications about the state's social justice system, the issue of whether justice is a commodity that can be bought by the affluent, and the absolute power of the North Carolina State Bar and the influence it welds with the General Assembly and in the courtrooms.
On Tuesday evening, April 21, 2009, at the North Carolina State University campus, the ACLU of Wake County and the North Carolina State University Pre-Law Services presented the Annual Slater Newman Debate, with the topic: "A Debate Exploring First Amendment Rights, Hate Speech and the Free Expression Tunnel." Panelists for this debate included Professor Michael Curtis of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Shannon Gilreath of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Gregory Wallace of Campbell University Law School, and Legal Director Katy Parker of the ACLU of North Carolina. After the discussion/debate which was open to the public, I handed each of the panelists a survey which covered the subject of Mike Nifong's disbarment and the Duke Lacrosse case. I asked Ms. Parker directly if she would participate by filling out the questionnaire and returning it to me. She responded, "It depends on the questions." Well, she must not have liked the questions because I never heard from her. Neither did I hear from the other three law school professors, despite the fact that I enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for each recipient. I followed up with all of the "Free Speech" panelists, sending them letters dated May 8, 2009. These letters sought a response from the panelist, however, again my attempts to engage them in dialog was ignored. This made it very apparent to me that although the First Amendment may guarantee one's right to freedom of expression, it does not protect one from the consequences that may follow. Being intelligent and rational individuals, I have no doubt that the panelists had opinions that were favorable to Mr. Nifong and contrary to the NC State Bar's actions. However, fearing the repercussions that vocalizing their pro-Nifong opinions might generate, they elected to remain silent. As is so often the case, especially when logic flows against the powers that be, freedom of expression is suppressed by freedom of retaliation. There is no doubt in my mind that had the State Bar's position against Mr. Nifong been legitimate, the law professors, legal pundits, ACLU members and others would freely let their opinions on Mr. Nifong's disbarment be known.
Attorneys and law school professors are not the only ones who avoid, like the plague, the taboo topic of Mike Nifong's disbarment. Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton's staff will not even allow me an appointment to meet with him. And although his staff has acknowledged receiving and reviewing contents of a package that I left for the lieutenant governor, they would not affirm that they had forwarded it to him. Most of the politicians, including outspoken ones, such as Representative Paul Stam, refuse to discuss Mr. Nifong's disbarment with me. I have not, as yet, approached Governor Bev Perdue on the topic, but plan on doing so in the future.
I can appreciate the conundrum in which law professors at Duke find themselves when it comes to discussing the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. In the spirit of fairness, I will offer this blog site as a forum for an unedited response by the Dean of the Duke University School of Law. Although the First Amendment guarantees his right to take advantage of this platform, I hope that the prospect of any retaliatory consequences to his statements does not impede it.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I trolled the halls of the Duke University School of Law seeking professors to take my "Snapshot Survey" (a survey consisting of one question). Using two hypothetical scenarios (A and B), which were thinly veiled cases representing the Alan Gell case and the Duke Lacrosse case respectively, it asked which Prosecutor (A or B) was more deserving of disbarment. Approximately two dozen professors were gracious enough to give me a few minutes of their time and consider the question. However, without exception, they all refused to answer it. The majority gave no specific reason, whereas a few did acknowledge that they were concerned about possible fallout resulting from any participation in the survey. One professor refused to select one prosecutor over the other as being more "deserving of disbarment" using the irrational logic that to do so would suggest the other prosecutor did not deserve to be disciplined. I was surprised at the number of law professors who told me they believed Mr. Nifong should have been disbarred (three or four). When I asked them to specifically tell me what Mr. Nifong did to deserve disbarment, they all responded that they were busy and had to prepare for class. That response is definitely not unreasonable, especially since I dropped in on them unannounced and without an appointment. One professor, who is an outspoken critic of Mr. Nifong, has been challenged on numerous occasions in the past to explain in writing why he feels Mr. Nifong deserved to be disbarred over his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. Although he has repeatedly assured me that he would provide me with a written answer (which I told him I would post on our website, unedited and without direct comment), he as yet to do so, and I doubt that he will find time in the future to get around to doing it.
What I find particularly disturbing is that in an institution for legal learning, like the Duke University School of Law, such a topic of significant importance would be suppressed, and that its professors, out of justifiable fear of retribution (whether academically, professionally, legally, and/or financially) would avoid talking about the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. Currently, I am unaware of any other topic which would garner such a response, but I would imagine that any subject matter that casts an unfavorable light on the North Carolina State Bar would be applicable. For example, law professors have no problem tackling controversial topics such as the First Amendment Right of racists writing inciteful hate-speech on university campus walls, but they are mum when it comes to discussing issues that threaten the sanctity of the almighty State Bar with its absolute power. Often overlooked is the fact that the issue of Mike Nifong's disbarment is not limited to the man alone, but has wide reaching ramifications about the state's social justice system, the issue of whether justice is a commodity that can be bought by the affluent, and the absolute power of the North Carolina State Bar and the influence it welds with the General Assembly and in the courtrooms.
On Tuesday evening, April 21, 2009, at the North Carolina State University campus, the ACLU of Wake County and the North Carolina State University Pre-Law Services presented the Annual Slater Newman Debate, with the topic: "A Debate Exploring First Amendment Rights, Hate Speech and the Free Expression Tunnel." Panelists for this debate included Professor Michael Curtis of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Shannon Gilreath of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Gregory Wallace of Campbell University Law School, and Legal Director Katy Parker of the ACLU of North Carolina. After the discussion/debate which was open to the public, I handed each of the panelists a survey which covered the subject of Mike Nifong's disbarment and the Duke Lacrosse case. I asked Ms. Parker directly if she would participate by filling out the questionnaire and returning it to me. She responded, "It depends on the questions." Well, she must not have liked the questions because I never heard from her. Neither did I hear from the other three law school professors, despite the fact that I enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for each recipient. I followed up with all of the "Free Speech" panelists, sending them letters dated May 8, 2009. These letters sought a response from the panelist, however, again my attempts to engage them in dialog was ignored. This made it very apparent to me that although the First Amendment may guarantee one's right to freedom of expression, it does not protect one from the consequences that may follow. Being intelligent and rational individuals, I have no doubt that the panelists had opinions that were favorable to Mr. Nifong and contrary to the NC State Bar's actions. However, fearing the repercussions that vocalizing their pro-Nifong opinions might generate, they elected to remain silent. As is so often the case, especially when logic flows against the powers that be, freedom of expression is suppressed by freedom of retaliation. There is no doubt in my mind that had the State Bar's position against Mr. Nifong been legitimate, the law professors, legal pundits, ACLU members and others would freely let their opinions on Mr. Nifong's disbarment be known.
Attorneys and law school professors are not the only ones who avoid, like the plague, the taboo topic of Mike Nifong's disbarment. Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton's staff will not even allow me an appointment to meet with him. And although his staff has acknowledged receiving and reviewing contents of a package that I left for the lieutenant governor, they would not affirm that they had forwarded it to him. Most of the politicians, including outspoken ones, such as Representative Paul Stam, refuse to discuss Mr. Nifong's disbarment with me. I have not, as yet, approached Governor Bev Perdue on the topic, but plan on doing so in the future.
I can appreciate the conundrum in which law professors at Duke find themselves when it comes to discussing the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. In the spirit of fairness, I will offer this blog site as a forum for an unedited response by the Dean of the Duke University School of Law. Although the First Amendment guarantees his right to take advantage of this platform, I hope that the prospect of any retaliatory consequences to his statements does not impede it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
