Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,659 Views)
cks
Member Avatar

Locomotive Breath
Dec 5 2010, 10:53 AM
There will be at least one crypto-supporter juror who will ignore all evidence and vote "not guilty". The jury will hang and she'll walk. Count on it.
I would like to believe that a jury will be seated that will be intelligent enough to evaluate the evidence, sift throught the legal posturings, and render a just verdict. That being said, such a belief about justice in Durham falls into the same category as belief in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Locomotive Breath
Dec 5 2010, 10:53 AM
There will be at least one crypto-supporter juror who will ignore all evidence and vote "not guilty". The jury will hang and she'll walk. Count on it.
There's a reason the Durham police chief had to "care for his Mother" and get out of Dodge during the Hoax. There's a reason this civil case is a-mouldering away. This trial is a total waste of taxpayer money...Mangum cannot be convicted of anything in Durham. She knows too much.

It will never happen.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/voir-dire-vwa-deer.html

Sunday, December 5, 2010
VOIR DIRE (vwa deer)
In American jurisprudence, voir dire is an important part of the jury selection process. During voir dire, prospective jurors are asked a series of questions to determine whether or not they are fit to serve on the jury. Lawyers for both sides and the trial judge may ask questions and dismiss jurors, and it is hoped that the end result of voir dire is an impartial jury which will sit fairly in judgment on the case. In some cases, voir dire may be brief, but in complex or highly publicized trials, it can be a lengthy process

JURY SELECTION BEGINS - SIX JURORS SEATED SO FAR

As of 5:00 pm on Friday, December 3rd, six out of a total of possibly 14 (12 plus a couple of alternates) jurors had been selected in Crystal's trial. Having sat through trials and the Voir Dire process before I expected it to be tedious...and it was. However, as slow as it was most of the time the process in its entirety is interesting.

I didn't count exactly but every fourth potential juror was actually selected by both sides. Interviewing each potential juror took (I'm estimating here) more than an hour. Then there's the absurdly long lunch break from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm. Then things wrap up right at 5:00 pm or, if they are in the middle of an interview, as soon as they are through with that person.

The Prosecutor, Mark McCullough, asked the standard questions. The one that I always remember is whether the potential juror understands and can hold the state to a standard of proof that is "reasonable doubt" and not something higher like "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

The Defense Attorney, Ms. Mani Dexter, went into excruciating detail about whether a potential juror recognized Crystal and/or her name. All of them did to one extent or another. She then queried each of them on whether they had formed an opinion about Ms. Mangum's truthfulness. She didn't use that word, she danced around it, but that was what she was getting at. She wanted to weed out, I assume, potential jurors who had already formed an opinion about Ms. Mangum's truthfulness. As we all know Crystal has been pillaried in the press for having even dared to accuse those young men from Duke of having raped her. You can imagine that, with the slanted reporting and general hateful rhetoric that has been shown toward her, it is difficult to find someone (despite there never having been a finding of fact in a court of law that she lied) who hasn't been influenced to believe that she lied. No matter your own feelings (and that's all they are, even mine for that matter) about her truthfulness in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case I think it is safe to say that MOST people in the potential jury pool will have something negative to say about Crystal and whether not she is a person who tells the truth. This is important because she has the right to a fair trial (as did those young men from Duke had they gone to court).

At several points Judge Abraham Penn Jones asked the potential juror to step out of the room while he discussed things with the lawyers. One potential juror in particular had a great many ties to Duke - degrees from there, worked there in the past, family members who worked there, child that goes there, etc. Ms. Dexter tried to have this guy excused "for cause". Judge Jones repeatedly refused and Ms. Dexter had to eventually use one of her six "preemptory" challenges. "Preemptory" simply means that she (the prosecution has six as well) has six times that she can choose not to seat a juror for which she doesn't have to even give a reason. The trick is to not use them all up because you never know when you'll need them so Ms. Dexter was loathe to spend one on this guy who, it seemed clear to everyone but the judge, had too many ties to Duke to be unbiased. The gentleman kept saying that he felt he could be impartial and that was good enough for the judge.

This incident and another one lead me to reconsider my initial assessment of Judge Jones. He comes off as serious and thoughtful most of the time but this incident showed his bias toward the state. The other thing that got me thinking was when he was telling a story, something he is prone to do, where he said that he grew up in the segregated south and that he himself believed that police told the truth 99.9 percent of the time. This was in response to a line of questioning by the defense lawyer. I don't know about you but I find that more than a little hard to swallow. He must have been the only black man of his age in the south that the police didn't lie about while interacting with him. The recent cases where people are being released from death row after decades behind bars proves that a good many police do in fact lie. Anyone, of any background, who has had to go to court and deal with police testifying on the stand knows that they invariably "shade" the truth to support the charges they have brought. It is absolute "willful ignorance" on the part of anyone, especially a judge, to say that police don't lie. So, I am rethinking whether or not I can believe that this judge can be impartial. The jury (in my mind) is still out on the subject!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

abb
Dec 4 2010, 03:48 PM
http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/despite-what-many-people-in-this-city.html

Saturday, December 4, 2010
Crystal Mangum's Arson Trial
Despite what many people in this city, state, and country seem to think Crystal Mangum is a human being, a child of god (for those of you who are religious) and a citizen of this country and, as such, is entitled to a fair trial. Also, Ms. Mangum has never been convicted (or for that matter even been charged) with any crime resulting from her accusations against the Duke Lacrosse players. NC Attorney General Roy Cooper cannot legally declare those young men “innocent” nor can he legally claim that Ms. Mangum’s accusations were/are “false”. The accused in the “Duke Lacrosse Case” were never tried in a court of law and therefore cannot be found innocent or, as the court would have put it, “not guilty”. The events of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case should not intrude on Ms. Mangum’s current legal difficulties but we all know that the mere mention of her name inflames passions in many people’s minds.
Having said all that, it is abundantly clear that there is a lot of ill-will against Ms. Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. Nonetheless, in this case, the one in which Ms. Mangum is charged with First Degree Arson (among other things) Ms. Mangum is entitled to the presumption of innocence – no matter how many degrading, insulting, inflammatory, racist, and incorrect statements members of the public may hurl at her on blogs such as this, on television, or in the newspapers.
I happen to think that Ms. Mangum is innocent of these charges. Therefore, as is my right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (that’s the one the guarantees our freedom of speech) I am, by writing this blog, exercising my right to speak out about this case.
I invite the public to engage in (hopefully) civil discussion about this trial. I’ll tell you right now that I set the bar pretty low as to what I consider “civil”. I can usually take a lot of abuse on this and other unpopular topics. However, I do reserve the right to not publish, for any reason whatsoever, anything that might be sent in.
Posted by Steven Matherly at 3:36 PM
Let's call him Steve "Blatherly":

So let's follow through on his logic bold-faced above:

Several of the charges that were initially filed against Mangum after
THE current incident were eventually dropped.

THUS: Mangum can NEVER be declared innocent of those charges
because they were never heard at trial and decided upon by a jury.

Of course, this guy is a blathering idiot (hence the nickname Steve "Blatherly"):

He talks about the presumption of innocence. AG Cooper dropped the charges.
Certainly, if the charges are dropped, then there is surely a presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is legally maintained even for
charges that are NOT dropped until a jury decides innocent or guilty.

That is, think of the contradictory argument that "Blatherly" is trying to make here:
he demands a presumption of innocence for Mangum for the charges that she will be tried on.
BUT there is no presumption of innocence for the (bogus) charges that were dropped against RCD.


I guess it's all part of Durham justice.
Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 5 2010, 01:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
MikeZPU
Dec 5 2010, 01:38 PM
abb
Dec 4 2010, 03:48 PM
http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/despite-what-many-people-in-this-city.html

Saturday, December 4, 2010
Crystal Mangum's Arson Trial
Despite what many people in this city, state, and country seem to think Crystal Mangum is a human being, a child of god (for those of you who are religious) and a citizen of this country and, as such, is entitled to a fair trial. Also, Ms. Mangum has never been convicted (or for that matter even been charged) with any crime resulting from her accusations against the Duke Lacrosse players. NC Attorney General Roy Cooper cannot legally declare those young men “innocent” nor can he legally claim that Ms. Mangum’s accusations were/are “false”. The accused in the “Duke Lacrosse Case” were never tried in a court of law and therefore cannot be found innocent or, as the court would have put it, “not guilty”. The events of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case should not intrude on Ms. Mangum’s current legal difficulties but we all know that the mere mention of her name inflames passions in many people’s minds.
Having said all that, it is abundantly clear that there is a lot of ill-will against Ms. Mangum for her role in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. Nonetheless, in this case, the one in which Ms. Mangum is charged with First Degree Arson (among other things) Ms. Mangum is entitled to the presumption of innocence – no matter how many degrading, insulting, inflammatory, racist, and incorrect statements members of the public may hurl at her on blogs such as this, on television, or in the newspapers.
I happen to think that Ms. Mangum is innocent of these charges. Therefore, as is my right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (that’s the one the guarantees our freedom of speech) I am, by writing this blog, exercising my right to speak out about this case.
I invite the public to engage in (hopefully) civil discussion about this trial. I’ll tell you right now that I set the bar pretty low as to what I consider “civil”. I can usually take a lot of abuse on this and other unpopular topics. However, I do reserve the right to not publish, for any reason whatsoever, anything that might be sent in.
Posted by Steven Matherly at 3:36 PM
Let's call him Steve "Blatherly":

So let's follow through on his logic bold-faced above:

Several of the charges that were initially filed against Mangum after
THE current incident were eventually dropped.

THUS: Mangum can NEVER be declared innocent of those charges
because they were never heard at trial and decided upon by a jury.

Of course, this guy is a blathering idiot (hence the nickname Steve "Blatherly"):

He talks about the presumption of innocence. AG Cooper dropped the charges.
Certainly, if the charges are dropped, then there is surely a presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is legally maintained even for
charges that are NOT dropped until a jury decides innocent or guilty.

That is, think of the contradictory argument that "Blatherly" is trying to make here:
he demands a presumption of innocence for Mangum for the charges that she will be tried on.
BUT there is no presumption of innocence for the (bogus) charges that were dropped against RCD.


I guess it's all part of Durham justice.
.
Give the Man a Cigar!

Excellent.

Now try to uncontort your mind after that one.


Someone give me the odds on a indigent defendant getting a lawyer with a Harvard Law Degree and having a third party Bond you out on $100,000 bond?

I'd like to see those odds.

If we are talking fairness, is this typical treatment for Durham Justice defendants? If not, then shouldn't we stamp it out? Doesn't Social Justice demand it?

Remember all the articles comparing NCCU down the road to Duke? Why not compare this Royal Defense of the Queen to the average indigent person facing charges of the State? Would a D.A. give away leverage for nothing in return like he did here with the Durham Queen?


.
Edited by Mason, Dec 5 2010, 04:19 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User


Mason
Dec 5 2010, 04:43 PM

Someone give me the odds on a indigent defendant getting a lawyer with a Harvard Law Degree and having a third party Bond you out on $100,000 bond?

I'd like to see those odds.

If we are talking fairness, is this typical treatment for Durham Justice defendants? If not, then shouldn't we stamp it out? Doesn't Social Justice demand it?

Remember all the articles comparing NCCU down the road to Duke? Why not compare this Royal Defense of the Queen to the average indigent person facing charges of the State? Would a D.A. give away leverage for nothing in return like he did here with the Durham Queen?

Mason, why are you muddying up the waters here by asking salient questions. Don't you know there is no logic in the Land of Oz.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Mason
Dec 5 2010, 04:16 PM
Give the Man a Cigar!

Excellent.

Now try to uncontort your mind after that one.


Someone give me the odds on a indigent defendant getting a lawyer with a Harvard Law Degree and having a third party Bond you out on $100,000 bond?

I'd like to see those odds.

If we are talking fairness, is this typical treatment for Durham Justice defendants? If not, then shouldn't we stamp it out? Doesn't Social Justice demand it?

Remember all the articles comparing NCCU down the road to Duke? Why not compare this Royal Defense of the Queen to the average indigent person facing charges of the State? Would a D.A. give away leverage for nothing in return like he did here with the Durham Queen?


.
And a cigar to you for your excellent points! :)

Let's talk about fairness -- like Joan Rivers used to say: "Can we talk?"

Mangum lies about being raped, initially to avoid being committed, but
clearly later it was all about the money, about "making those white boys pay."

In so doing, she creates a hellish nightmare for three families for a full
year, thinking their respective son is going to prison for 30 years when
every piece of evidence -- and there was plenty of it -- showed that Mangum
had lied through her teeth.

So, what do RCD do when the charges are dropped? They let
AG Cooper know that it's okay with them to not charge Mangum with
making false statements to police and for filing a false police report.

RCD also chose not to include Mangum in their Civil Liability suits.

And how does Mangum repay the AMAZING kindness of RCD to let her
off the hook for the hell that she maliciously put them through?

She writes a book still claiming that they raped her (with a broom.)

Yeah, let's talk about fairness.



Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 6 2010, 10:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

There are many folk on our side who do not to this day fully realize the level of commitment that the other side has.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

abb
Dec 5 2010, 06:41 PM
There are many folk on our side who do not to this day fully realize the level of commitment that the other side has.
Truer words were never spoken.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

So, what do RCD do when the charges are dropped? They let
AG Cooper know that it's okay with them to not charge Mangum with
making false statements to police and for filing a false police report.

The first mistake made post exoneration. I'm sure RDC were relieved that their ordeal was over, but most likely Roy Cooper caught them in a moment of weakness and convinced them that they should take the high road. Not being charged with a crime has been Crusty's trump card ever since Cooper let her off the hook.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Day three of the news blackout of the Crystal Mangum trial by the Durham area state-run media.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top_stories/633691/jury-selection-continues-in-crystal-mangum-case?ap=1&MP4

http://newsoftheweird.blogspot.com/2010/12/news-of-weirdpro-edition-youre-still.html

http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/

http://www.weirduniverse.net/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://democracydurham.blogspot.com/2010/12/comments-on-fourth-amendment-question.html

Monday, December 6, 2010
Comments On The Fourth Amendment Question
When the attorney’s are asking questions of the potential jurors the questions (as much as the answers) can be very revealing.

Ms. Dexter, the defense attorney, for instance asks the following of nearly every prospective judge: (This is an approximation):

“Would you be able to follow the law as it pertains to arson if you knew that one of the elements of the crime of first degree arson was that the building burned had to be one other than the one the accused lived in?”

Similarly there was this question:

Would you be able to follow the law as it pertains to first degree arson if you knew that an element of first degree arson is that the building itself has to be lit on fire?”

I wrote them down as best I could and then I looked up a definition of First Degree Arson in NC:

(This is just something I pulled off the web. I’m looking for more detailed and specific definitions. I anyone has one they think I can use please send me the quote or a link).

Arson was defined at common law as the malicious burning of the dwelling of another, while house burning was burning your own house and endangering the property of others. In most states, arson has been extended to include burning structures besides dwellings, burning your own property for illegal purposes, and damage caused by a fire or an explosion. Now if someone burns his/her home to collect the insurance, since the insurance is higher than the depressed real estate value ,that would be arson. Other examples of arson would be to burn or bomb a place of worship in a hate crime, or burn a building in revenge for a refusal to sell it. If a person burns down his own home as a form of cheap demolition and accidentally sets half the neighborhood on fire, that may or may not be arson, depending on the laws of the state.

It seems from these questions that Ms. Dexter will, in her defense, be focusing on the fact that Ms. Mangum lived at the house that was supposedly burned and since the charge of arson specifically calls for the burning of the house of another person that arson is the wrong charge. In some definitions I have seen it also states that there must be actually fire damage to the house not just smoke damage. If Crystal burned the clothes in the bathtub as she is accused of doing then they will have to prove that parts of the house actually caught on fire not just the clothes in the tub. This is assuming that they can even show that it was Crystal who burned the clothes or that clothes were burned at all.

The defense attorney requested, when she was trying to have the evidence suppressed due to Crystal’s Fourth Amendment Rights having been violated, had the two officers separated so that there would be no question if they were coordinating their testimony. However, it became clear at one point that the male officer caught on to what he needed to say. Ms. Dexter repeated stated that when Crystal told the officers that she was alright and didn’t need their help that they should have left right away. After her questions focused on this for a while the male officer said that at one point they “turned to leave”. He had been under questioning for 45 minutes at that point and had never said anything about even thinking about leaving. To the contrary he and his partner tried to argue that they stayed and were required to stay in order to make sure she was not in any danger. Then all of a sudden the male officer remembers that they had “turned to go” but were stopped by a knock at the door that turned out to be the other party to the fighting, Milton Walker.

All that testimony was given under oath so I assume it can be brought into the main trial. We’ll see if they can keep their story straight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Fourth Amendment To The US Constitution
'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Steven Matherly at 8:12 AM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

http://www.meetup.com/Friends-of-Crystal-Mangum/module/render/?moduleId=2323573&m_nochrome=true

http://www.meetup.com/Friends-of-Crystal-Mangum/venue/?eventId=15645883&popup=true&venueId=1443750
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rusty Dog
Member Avatar

abb
Dec 6 2010, 06:15 AM
Day three of the news blackout of the Crystal Mangum trial by the Durham area state-run media.
I emailed the N&O reporter this morning:


Will the N&O be reporting today on the jury selection situation or if and when the trial of Crystal Mangum will begin in Durham? There hasn't been any news since Thursday.

Thank you,
xxx
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply