| Blog and Media Roundup - Sunday, October 31, 2010; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 31 2010, 05:22 AM (188 Views) | |
| abb | Oct 31 2010, 05:22 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10110388/article-District-and-Superior-court-hopefuls-can-t-hide-their-feelings-under-those-black-robes?instance=main_article District and Superior court hopefuls can't hide their feelings under those black robes The Herald Sun 10.30.10 - 08:52 pm By John McCann jmccann@heraldsun.com; 419-6601 DURHAM -- Durham could have its first female Superior Court judge Tuesday if the county's Chief District Court Judge, Elaine Bushfan, is one of Tuesday's top three Superior Court vote-getters. Bushfan certainly wants to make history. That's her hope. Yet it's the lack of hope among many of Durham's young people that bothers her. The judge has in mind youths with no vision of achieving the American dream, no sense of making their own history. "You cannot duplicate what you do not see," Bushfan told N.C. Central University law students and others Tuesday during a forum at NCCU's School of Law. Part of the problem is middle-class black folks have separated themselves from black folks who financially aren't as well off, Bushfan said. "We've lost our sense of community. And that's playing out in the court system." Personal feelings can get hidden under judicial robes and nice suits of clothes befitting attorneys. But during the forum, sponsored by NCCU's Black Law Students Association, some of the candidates for both District Court and Superior Court judgeships wore their feelings on their sleeves. District Court Judge Nancy Gordon is unopposed for re-election. But she saw fit to come to the forum and challenge the law students, especially the males, particularly the black ones, to consider going into family law. Family court over the years has become feminized, she said. Earlier in the day -- before coming to the forum -- Gordon said she made four custody decisions that would keep her from getting a good night's sleep. It's tough work, the judge suggested. "Get in touch with your feminine side. We need you," Gordon challenged the men. District Court Judge Brian Wilks also is running unopposed for re-election and made it his business to attend the forum. His passion for the robe spilled over when he interjected to answer a question directed at other candidates about whether the court system is unbiased when disciplining minorities who weren't disciplined at home as youths. Wilks said it's not his job to be a father to defendants, but there are times he'll call them to the bench for a little "prayer meeting" and explain he wasn't always a judge, that he made certain positive choices that have afforded him the opportunities he's blessed with now. "You reach people," Wilks instructed the law students. A societal breakdown in morals and values has a lot to do with what's wrong with youths, said lawyer Pat Evans, a District Court judicial candidate. "You have grandmothers partying," said Evans, who made the point kids are like sponges absorbing what's around them, including music even mature audiences should find offensive. Lawyer Brian Aus, who's challenging Evans for Bushfan's seat in District Court, said some young people don't have a chance to do right because their parents aren't around to raise them. Substance abuse and poverty are contributing factors to that problem, Aus said. The other contested District Court judicial race has lawyer Freda Black and Durham County Assistant District Attorney Doretta Walker trying to outpace each other for the seat that will be vacated by retiring District Court Judge Ann McKown. They were at the forum, where Walker said the court system sure would work a whole lot better if there were more resources -- more clerks, more prosecutors, more judges. Black spoke up for attorneys. She said the negative perception of practitioners of law is way off. You don't hear people picking at teachers and doctors, she said. Lawyers are the punch lines of jokes, Black said. Attorney Chris Shella, a Superior Court judicial candidate, took issue with unqualified lawyers who have no business defending clients in Superior Court. That's not justice, he said. Lawyers James Hughes, Mike O'Foghludha and Dan Read are Superior Court judicial candidates who were at the forum along with Bushfan. Superior Court Judge Jim Hardin Jr. was away speaking at a law-enforcement event. He's seeking election after being appointed to his post after Superior Court Judge Leon Stanback retired. There's more room on the Superior Court bench with the upcoming departures of Superior Court judges Kenneth Titus and Ronald Stephens. Voters may vote for three Superior Court judicial candidates. Read said society is operating in way that steers minorities toward trouble and into courtrooms. As for those minorities receiving biased treatment once they get in court, "the judge doesn't pick their cases. The cases come to the judge," Read said. O'Foghludha noted methods of discipline such as house arrest and probation as alternatives to defendants getting caught up in the prison cycle. But sometimes prison is required. Hughes was asked whether youths receiving long stints behind bars, including lifetime sentences, makes sense. He said he's generally opposed that sort of punishment, but cases must be decided individually. The other District Court judicial candidates running unopposed are District Court judges Marcia Morey and Jim Hill. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 31 2010, 05:23 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/editorials/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1288503278322350.xml&coll=1 Editorial: Cover-up on tape Sunday, October 31, 2010 Five former New Orleans Police Department officers have confessed to crimes related to the shooting of innocent civilians at the Danziger Bridge post-Katrina and the subsequent cover-up of the incident. Their testimony is expected to figure prominently when six other current and former officers face trial in June for their alleged role in the shooting and cover-up. But prosecutors now say they have something else: allegedly incriminating statements from some of the accused, secretly recorded by cooperating officers. Judging by a glimpse offered in a government court filing, the tapes appear to be as disturbing as previous details of how officers killed two innocent civilians and wounded four others at the bridge. NOPD Sgt. Kenneth Bowen, Sgt. Robert Gisevius and Officer Anthony Villavaso, as well as former Officer Robert Faulcon, are awaiting trial in June on civil rights charges related to the shooting and cover-up. Two others, Sgt. Arthur Kaufman and former Sgt. Gerard Dugue, are accused of helping in the cover-up. The government's filing claims that officers who were helping investigators recorded Sgt. Gisevius elaborating on his role in the conspiracy and on ways to maintain the cover-up. The filing quotes him as saying investigators "could link a lot of people" to the conspiracy and that "everyone might be sunk." Sgt. Gisevius also called Sgt. Kaufman "f---ing dumb enough to put the report" about the incident on his computer, which federal agents later seized. Sgt. Gisevius also vowed that "the seven of us won't talk," in reference to the seven officers originally charged in an unsuccessful state case related to the shootings. Sgt. Gisevius' attorney, Eric Hessler, said he's not concerned about the government tapes. Sgt. Kaufman's attorney, Stephen London, said the government's filing is trying to taint the jury pool in its favor. The government's filing also alleged that Mr. Dugue and Officer Villavaso made statements incriminating themselves. The filing said Mr. Dugue, after initially standing by the NOPD's probe that deemed the shooting justified, drastically changed his tune during a second interview with the FBI that took place in September 2009. According to the filing, Mr. Dugue wondered whether two alleged eyewitnesses existed and called it "fishy" that they were never taken to a station to give statements. Mr. Dugue also questioned whether Ronald Madison, one of the civilians killed at the bridge, had ever shot at police, as officers on the bridge claimed. He also told investigators he was "uncomfortable" that Sgt. Kaufman had altered a police report used to justify the arrest of Lance Madison, the brother of Ronald Madison. Mr. Dugue's attorney, Claude Kelly, said the filing shows his client "did nothing wrong." A jury will determine whether Mr. Dugue committed a crime or not. But there's no indication that Mr. Dugue did anything to voice his suspicions of a police coverup to authorities -- and even stood by it, according to the government filing -- until his second interview with the FBI four years after the killings at the bridge. At the very least, that surely violated Mr. Dugue's oath to protect and to serve the innocent. As for Officer Villavaso, prosecutors said he told FBI agents that Mr. Dugue and Sgt. Kaufman "put stuff in the report that we didn't do," referring to the NOPD report on the bridge shooting. The filing also said that Officer Villavaso told a cooperating witness that Sgt. Bowen had used a handgun to shoot one or two rounds into the stomach of a wounded victim lying on the bridge. That's one of the most disturbing allegations made in the government's filing. That assertion evokes the cruelty described by Michael Hunter, one of the former NOPD officers who's pleaded guilty in the case. Mr. Hunter's confession in April said that as innocent civilians huddled behind a barrier on the bridge, an NOPD sergeant "suddenly leaned over the concrete barrier, held out his assault rifle, and, in a sweeping motion, fired repeatedly at the civilians lying wounded on the ground." Mr. Hunter's confession did not identify the sergeant, but it said the sergeant kicked and stomped Ronald Madison as the mentally handicapped man lay dying from gunshot wounds to the back. Another officer had shot Mr. Madison, who was not armed and was not a threat to officers. When she accepted Mr. Hunter's plea in April, U.S. District Judge Sarah Vance said she was "sickened by the raw brutality of the shooting and the craven lawlessness of the cover-up." That remains true for almost every detail that surfaces more than five years after these awful crimes took place. It has taken a while for prosecutors to build their case and for the officers' shameful wall of silence to unravel. But it's never too late to make sure that all officers who broke the law at the bridge that day and during the years-long cover-up face the consequences of their actions. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 31 2010, 05:32 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/31/771445/state-law-may-shield-easley-in.html Published Sun, Oct 31, 2010 02:00 AM Modified Sun, Oct 31, 2010 03:46 AM State law may shield Easley in investigations A state law may give former Gov. Mike Easley some cover from state investigations. Last year, the State Board of Elections' inquiry into Easley's campaign produced testimony that showed Easley did not pay for more than $11,000 worth of repairs to his home in Raleigh in 2004 and 2005. An associate of Easley's alleged that the campaign picked up the bills but that the spending was disclosed to the public as covering the cost of flights. Other testimony showed that Easley received roughly $60,000 worth of free air travel, that his campaign rented his home for $14,000 during an unspecified period, and that a vehicle was provided free for six years either to Easley's campaign or to his son. Elections board members said they had heard evidence of possible crimes by Easley and others. The board referred the case to a state prosecutor. Easley denied wrongdoing, but because of the statute, which applies to state elections law only, he could be immune from prosecution simply because he was subpoenaed and testified. The prosecutor overseeing the criminal case, William Kenerly of Rowan County, confirmed that he is studying the immunity question. "I am aware of the statute," he said, "and am considering it, along with other information." Kenerly, a Republican, is not seeking re-election and plans to retire when he finishes this case. He declined to elaborate about the case, but he has previously said he expected to reach decisions soon. Lawyers for Easley declined to comment. Easley, a Democrat, was a two-term governor who left office early last year. The law in question is a single sentence running 165 words. A similar, longer version is in another section of the elections law. It was last updated in 1973 as part of Watergate-era campaign finance reforms. A key point is whether a witness - such as Easley - subpoenaed by the elections board has any option to decline to testify. The law appears to say that people subpoenaed: Can't be excused from "attending or testifying" before "any court" because the testimony or evidence required may incriminate them. Can't have that compelled testimony used against them in "any criminal proceeding." And are "immune from prosecution" with respect to what they say under oath about their own actions. Michael Crowell, an elections law expert who works at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Government, said the law is "not as clear as one might like." He and others said lawmakers might have been striking a balance between getting information and prosecuting people. He said there are valid questions about the law: Does the elections board qualify as a court? Does issuing a subpoena grant immunity? Crowell said there are no precedent-setting court cases that help sort it out. "As of now, it's for lawyers to debate," he said. Past cases Records and interviews show that state elections Chairman Larry Leake took steps in other recent cases before the board that likely removed the immunity issue. One instance was the inquiry that led to charges against former House Speaker Jim Black. Leake made clear to witnesses in the Black case, and in another hearing since, that they were not being compelled to testify. But Leake, a Democrat, didn't do that in the Easley hearing. In an interview, Leake said that he couldn't discuss the issue in detail. Leake said the steps he took in past cases were "solely out of an abundance of caution." He said he didn't think it was necessary in the Easley case. Willoughby's position But Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby, a Democrat who has handled most of the cases the elections board has referred to a prosecutor in recent years, disagrees. He said his view has been that the law in question does grant immunity to someone who is subpoenaed and then called to testify before the elections board without any discussion of waiving immunity. Willoughby said that he and Leake have discussed the issue over the years as various cases started with the elections board and ended up with prosecutors. Willoughby recused himself from the Easley matter because of his ties to the former governor, including a previous appointment for Willoughby's wife to a state position. Willoughby said he played no part in the Easley case before or after the elections hearing. Former state Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps raised the immunity question before a lower-court judge after she was charged with state crimes related to perjury. Willoughby said the immunity statute was a factor in deciding to bring charges that were not tied to the substance of Phipps' elections board testimony. And officials said Phipps' legal challenge did not prevail because she was charged with perjury and not offenses, such as fraud, that she had testified about. Perjury charges generally require two witnesses. Black, who was House speaker for a record-tying four terms until he resigned in 2007, ultimately pleaded guilty to state and federal charges, so the immunity issue wasn't contested. Even so, Willoughby said, Leake had likely "side-stepped" the immunity issue when he affirmatively told witnesses in the Black hearing before questioning them that the elections board wasn't compelling them to talk. Witnesses can be willing In one exchange with a lawyer for multiple witnesses during the 2006 Black hearing, Leake said that "although this board has the authority to grant immunity and compel testimony, these witnesses will not be compelled." In a 2007 hearing dealing with former state Rep. Thomas Wright, Leake made the same point with two witnesses. "Although we have compelled your presence," Leake said at the time, "you understand that we are not going to compel you to testify." Leake said that the law gives the elections board wide-ranging authority to investigate "including the ability to immunize individuals and compel their testimony" but that it's not automatic. Leake acknowledged that Willoughby and others might take a different position. Experts disagree Over the years Leake has allowed witnesses to assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and then excused them. That included former Easley aide Ruffin Poole, who fought his subpoena in the Easley hearing and ultimately declined to testify. But Jim Cooney, a prominent Charlotte lawyer who has represented the Democratic Party, said that a plain reading of the law doesn't appear to allow a witness such as Poole to back out on his own. Richard Myers, a UNC law professor and former federal prosecutor, said his reading of the law is that the subpoena requires a witness to appear but doesn't automatically require the witness to testify. "So if you're subpoenaed, that means show up and testify," he said. But he said a witness must still invoke his right against self-incrimination - and then be compelled to testify - to receive immunity. In the Easley case, none of the witnesses were advised orally about whether their testimony was being compelled, transcripts show. But the law in question is printed on the subpoenas. Irving Joyner, an N.C. Central law professor, said that prosecutors could still pursue charges based on information they developed outside the elections hearing and would have to exclude any testimony from Easley. He said his view is that it doesn't affect federal authorities who have repeatedly issued subpoenas related to Easley since last year. Easley's testimony Easley testified for about five hours on Oct. 28, 2009, and did not publicly raise any concerns about the immunity issue. Easley and a former associate, McQueen Campbell, differed over the purpose of $11,000 in payments the Easley campaign made to Campbell. Easley said he thought the money was for flights on Campbell's plane, including flights that would be taken in the future. Campbell said he was being repaid for tree-trimming, water damage and other repairs he arranged and had paid for on Easley's home on Lake Drive in Raleigh. Separately, Easley received a $5,400 insurance reimbursement check related to part of the repairs. Two days later, the elections board members unanimously referred the case to the state prosecutor, saying in interviews that they did not believe all of what Easley had told them. They also fined the Easley campaign $100,000, an amount tied to unpaid air travel and the cost of the board's investigation. The fine has not been paid. Easley's lawyer at the time, Thomas Hicks, had requested that the case be reviewed by a prosecutor, and he acknowledged that potential charges that could arise from the case included conspiracy, fraud or possibly perjury. Hicks said that Easley wanted a prosecutor to decide on the possible charges. "No matter what happens, the public is going to question, 'Did Mike Easley slip one over on the board?'" Hicks said at the time. "He's saying refer it. That's his position." acurliss@newosbserver.com or 919-829-4840 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 31 2010, 05:34 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/31/771537/rookie-with-tea-party-support.html Published Sun, Oct 31, 2010 03:31 AM Modified Sun, Oct 31, 2010 01:03 AM Rookie with tea party support takes on Judge Elmore RALEIGH Baby-faced and soft-spoken, Steven Walker doesn't look his age. Even if he did, that still wouldn't convince many in the state's legal community that he's ready to take a seat at the N.C. Court of Appeals, a job usually filled by lawyers with decades of experience. At 30, Walker has been a lawyer for five years, most of them clerking for state Supreme Court Justice Edward Thomas Brady. Walker is squaring off against Rick Elmore, an incumbent and a former longtime criminal defense lawyer from Greensboro. It's a contest no one predicted. Before the primary in May, few took Walker's candidacy seriously. Lawyers and those paying attention to the race considered Leto Copeley, a lawyer from Hillsborough and a Democrat, as Elmore's threat. But voters surprised judicial insiders. Walker scored more votes than any candidate running for the Court of Appeals. He claimed 39 percent of the votes in his four-person race, outpacing Elmore by 10 percent. Though judicial races are nonpartisan, both Walker and Elmore are Republicans. "None of us thought he'd make it through the primary ...," Copeley said. "I don't think most people had any idea they were voting for someone with so little experience." North Carolina forces its judges to be politicians. Court of Appeals judges must hit the campaign trail every eight years, shaking hands at Rotary Clubs and county fairs by weekend and writing some of the state's most important legal decisions come Monday. In the hands of voters, judicial elections can yield surprises. Walker's success has, in part, been buoyed by the support of tea party members, who have mobilized impressively for the fall election and endorsed candidates in just about every contest. "The tea party adopted me, and I was glad to be adopted," Walker said in an interview. "You've got a group that wants to get back to founding principles, and that's what I'm about." Naysayers will tell you Walker cleaned up in the primary because of a false but positive association with other judges who share his last name. Walker will tell you he worked hard and that voters like his politics. Elmore, 59, admits Walker is a legitimate threat, though he regards Walker's challenge, and criticisms of his work, as audacious. "I don't choose to defend my opinions against someone who has never written one," Elmore said in an interview. Judges voice concern Many in the state's legal establishment say it's untenable for a rookie to step into a position typically claimed by lawyers with years of litigation or judicial experience. Over the years, legislators have tried to tighten the requirements for those seeking to be judges. The legislature required that judicial candidates be lawyers; now, there's talk of a screening committee to weed out inexperienced candidates before they are put on the ballot. This summer, four former chief justices of the state Supreme Court issued a letter on behalf of Elmore, calling Walker's candidacy unusual and concerning. Burley B. Mitchell Jr., a former Supreme Court Chief Justice and one of the authors of the letter, said Walker is a nice guy who needs time to ripen. "You are judging judges on how they run proceedings in court," Mitchell said. "Real litigation experience is important." Mitchell said he's impressed, though, with how Walker flourished on the campaign trail. "And if he winds up being as good at judging as he is campaigning, it may be all right," he said. Walker's zeal On the bench, Walker is untested. On the campaign trail, he is sellable. Walker is a pastor of a Baptist church in Selma. At campaign events, he sometimes holds his 4-month-old son while his oldest two children trail behind with his wife, his former high school sweetheart. He tells voters he reads the Constitution like he reads the Bible: literally. Since he stepped into the race in February, Walker has put 32,000 miles on his Toyota Yaris, traveling to community events across the state. James F. Davis, chairman of the Clay County Republican Party in Western North Carolina, is a tea partyer who latched onto Walker this spring and has been spreading the word. "Judicial candidates typically parse their words," Davis said by phone. "Steven is outspoken. He said he was a conservative who believes in the Constitution. So do I." Elmore's reserve Elmore tells voters the same thing: He's a longtime conservative who says he applies the Constitution and case law when making decisions. Elmore is reserved. He holds long pauses before answering, and when he does, he offers few words. He is studious, often taking home case briefs and law books to read at night to prepare for the next day. On the campaign trail, those virtues often fall flat. His children are grown; he is not married. He hedges when asked how he feels about issues that may find their way to his court, refusing, as most judicial candidates do, to predict how he'd decide any case. Elmore spent time this campaign season addressing groups of lawyers, which have endorsed him. But he's unsure how that will resonate. Davis, the Clay County Republican, predicts Elmore's support from the legal community will rub voters the wrong way. "People aren't terribly fond of lawyers and will take that as a sign," he said. News researcher Brooke Cain contributed to this report. mandy.locke@newsobserver.com or 919-829-8927 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 31 2010, 05:46 PM Post #5 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/31/772913/woman-injured-in-domestic-shooting.html Published Sun, Oct 31, 2010 05:42 PM Modified Sun, Oct 31, 2010 05:44 PM Woman injured in domestic shooting DURHAM Durham police say a man was arrested Sunday afternoon after shooting his girlfriend several times. Around 2:20 p.m., police received a call about a domestic dispute in the 3200 block of Ivey Wood Lane, off South Miami Boulevard in East Durham. When officers arrived, the shooter had fled the scene on foot, but police quickly captured him, Sgt. R.L. Hunter said. Hunter said the incident is still under investigation and no charges have been filed against the shooter. His name has not been released. The victim, whose name also hasn't been released, was taken to Duke Hospital. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






9:14 AM Jul 11