| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,658 Views) | |
| chatham | Dec 6 2010, 09:17 AM Post #151 |
|
http://twitter.com/charlottelocal |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 6 2010, 09:35 AM Post #152 |
|
Is there a trial going on? Can you imagine how the media would have covered jury selection for a trail in the lax case? Every detail about every juror would be known and reported; every quirk; every question posed by the defense would be analyzed and dismissed as being merely what defense attorneys do. If any of the defendants had shown up with a bruise on their forehead, that would have been a major topic of the day--accompanied by commentary on their alleged lifestyle. The defense attorneys would be followed by cameras everywhere and badgered with questions and remarks intended to provoke. Ditto for the defendants. Now, however, there is a blackout on news, and the excuse will be that there is not sufficient public interest. (Where are all those reporters who are so zealous in the pursuit of truth, no matter where it leads? Are journalists the biggest hypocrites in the world, or not?) |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 6 2010, 09:53 AM Post #153 |
|
Reporters report on what they're told to report on by their editors who are in turn told by their publishers. "News is what your editor says it is unless the publisher says it isn't." Carl Liberto (b. 1949), US Journalist. Interview, Tuesday, February 3, 2009. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 6 2010, 09:57 AM Post #154 |
|
Must have shaken them loose, lol! http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/06/846883/jury-selection-continues-in-crystal.html Published Mon, Dec 06, 2010 09:46 AM Modified Mon, Dec 06, 2010 09:48 AM Jury selection continues in Crystal Mangum case DURHAM Jury selection continues today in the arson case against Duke lacrosse accuser Crystal Mangum. After two full days of jury selection, attorneys have approved half the jurors in the case, which stems from a domestic disturbance at Mangum's home in February. Out of 17 potential jurors interviewed last week, Superior Court Judge Abe Jones has excused five, three of them because their knowledge or opinions about the Duke lacrosse case might have influenced their decisions. The prosecutor and defense attorney each used half of their peremptory challenges on a total of six others. Jones said he hoped to complete the jury and start the trial by Tuesday afternoon. Nine people remain in the original jury pool. Lawyers must select six more jurors plus two alternates. More than one-third of the original pool of 45 removed themselves before interviews began because they said they couldn't try Mangum's case impartially. A second group of potential jurors is available today in the likely case that the first pool runs out. jesse.deconto@newsobserver.com or 919-932-8760 |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 6 2010, 10:52 AM Post #155 |
|
Good work! Seems to have got a response! |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 6 2010, 11:10 AM Post #156 |
|
It's even difficult for me to fully appreciate the implications of your very important observation. Having Mangum convicted and put in jail for starting a fire in her place of residence thereby jeopardizing the lives of her own children!!! ... That just absolutely shatters the entire Grand Illusion. The State does not charge her for false rape allegations AND she is given a degree with honors from NCCU in criminal psychology -- THAT IS, they desperately wanted her to start a "new life" to justify how they held her up to the world as an ... that metanarrative phrase that was repeated over and over and over by every news organization around the world: "an exotic dancer who was working her way through college and supporting her young children." Her handlers have worked hard to rehabilitate her image. BUT Mangum doesn't want to work. Her whole life is a scam and a sham. She's pond-scum. Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 6 2010, 04:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 6 2010, 12:15 PM Post #157 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
I went this morning. Never seen anything so slow. As of 11:55 -still 6 jurors. |
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 6 2010, 12:16 PM Post #158 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
Don't look for things to start in the next couple of days.
|
![]() |
|
| LaDukie | Dec 6 2010, 01:17 PM Post #159 |
|
Any chance the trial be televised since cameras are allowed? Or will a TV station stream it live on their website? Am I dreaming? |
![]() |
|
| Rusty Dog | Dec 6 2010, 04:38 PM Post #160 |
|
Here is the answer I received (it came this morning, but I just got home and found it): "Yes - check the website later this morning for an update and tomorrow's paper for more." |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Dec 6 2010, 06:40 PM Post #161 |
|
Earlier today, Abb quoted a post by Steven Matherly which included an interesting discussion beginning with “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. …” that examined Defense Attorney Ms. Mani Dexter’s likely trial strategy. According to Mason, Crystal faces the following six counts: 2027 Felony FIRST DEGREE ARSON 14-58 3805 Misdemeanor CONTRIBUTING DEL OF JUVENILE 14-316.1 3805 Misdemeanor CONTRIBUTING DEL OF JUVENILE 14-316.1 3805 Misdemeanor CONTRIBUTING DEL OF JUVENILE 14-316.1 2912 Misdemeanor INJURY TO PERSONAL PROPERTY 14-160 5310 Misdemeanor RESISTING PUBLIC OFFICER 14-223 So let’s explore the individual counts, beginning with the First Degree Arson charge.
As Matherly correctly points out, arson as defined at common law is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another person. But just what does this mean? This is what the NC Court of Appeals has to say: From State v. Scott (2002): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The common law definition of arson is still in force in North Carolina, State v. Barnes, 333 N.C. 666, 677, 430 S.E.2d 223, 229 (1993), and has been stated as “the willful and malicious burning of the dwelling house of another person.” State v. Allen, 322 N.C. 176, 196, 367 S.E.2d 626, 637 (1988). “Further, since arson is an offense against the security of the habitation and not the property, an essential element of the crime is that the property be inhabited by some person.” State v. Vickers, 306 N.C. 90, 100, 291 S.E.2d 599, 606 (1982). Thus, the Supreme Court has held “that 'dwelling house' as contemplated in the definition of arson means an inhabited house.” Id. (emphasis in original). Further, in Vickers, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the “defendant's attempt to equate inhabit with occupy.” Id. (emphasis in original). Accordingly, “common law arson results from the burning of a dwelling even though its occupants are temporarily absent at the time of the burning.” Id. In 1979, “in order to give more protection when a dwelling house is occupied by a person at the time of the burning,” Barnes, 333 N.C. at 677, 430 S.E.2d at 229 (1993), the General Assembly amended N.C.G.S. § 14-58 to create two degrees of arson: There shall be two degrees of arson as defined at the common law. If the dwelling burned was occupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the first degree and is punishable as a Class D felony. If the dwelling burned was unoccupied at the time of the burning, the offense is arson in the second degree and is punishable as a Class G felony.N.C.G.S. § 14-58 (1999) (emphasis added). Combining the common law definition of arson with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 14-58, we find the elements of first- degree arson to be: (1) the willful and malicious burning (2) of the dwelling (i.e., inhabited) house of another; (3) which is occupied at the time of the burning. The elements of second-degree arson are: (1) the willful and malicious burning (2) of the dwelling (i.e., inhabited) house of another; (3) which is unoccupied at the time of the burning. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us:80/www/public/coa/opinions/2002/010096-1.htm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Matherly notes that the house was not the "dwelling of another”, because Crystal lived there. But, so did her boyfriend (the owner) and her children. Indeed, Crystal’s three children were inside the house at the time in question. That takes care of elements two and three. The real question involves element one, “the willful and malicious burning of the dwelling.” However, before going any further, we must stop and examine the following alternative charge.
If Crystal set the fire, was she trying to destroy her boyfriend’s clothes or burn down his house? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 6 2010, 08:31 PM Post #162 |
|
OTOH, if this was an apartment building with more than one unit, and there were others living there, perhaps arson is indeed a proper charge? |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 6 2010, 09:36 PM Post #163 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Yes, they are attached units Quasi. She definitely put those other residents/owners in Danger. . Edited by Mason, Dec 6 2010, 09:38 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Dec 6 2010, 10:58 PM Post #164 |
|
So far, three days of jury selection in the Mangum arson trial, but still no jury. What gives? In most jurisdictions, how many cases like this (single felony and several misdemeanor charges) ever make it to trial? And if they do, how often do they go to a jury? And if they do go to a jury, how long does it take to choose a jury in a relatively minor case like this? It would be interesting to find out what percent of people charged with felonies in Durham County end up before a jury. Most cases are plea bargained or go before a judge. The point is that Crystal is being treated with kid gloves. She either knows too much, or has too much support in the community, or has become a celebrity (more than just "15 minutes of fame"). I doubt the usual criminals in Durham receive such consideration, but this is Durham where justice is not part of the landscape. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 6 2010, 11:10 PM Post #165 |
|
I assume she doesn't own the property, but is renting it. In that case, she did indeed set fire to someone else's property. I think the main thing the prosecutor should focus on is the fact that she put her own children's lives at risk by setting the fire. If she puts herself on thae witness stand, she should be asked questions like: "didn't you have any concern about the safety of your own children?" "There should have been a grave concern about them getting severe burns, but also what about smoke inhalation? weren't you worried about that?" |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:32 AM Jul 11