Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010
Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,637 Views)
Walt-in-Durham

MikeZPU
Dec 15 2010, 10:43 PM
Does conviction on arson require intent?
Crystal is charged with First Degree Arson, so yes, it requires intent. The state is rolling the dice, they didn't ask for the lesser included offense of Burning Another Person's Property which is a natural lesser included offense and still a felony. They think they have a strong case. They also did not ask for Second Degree Arson.

Quote:
 
Couldn't she have been charged with child endangerment?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda....she wasn't charged that way.

Quote:
 
If I understood the Judge correctly, Mangum was charged with child abuse
and the Judge will only rule child abuse if the jury convicts on the arson charge.
Arson, specifically the smoke and fire are the acts of neglect in evidence. Thus, to convict on the Child Abuse/Neglect charge the state has to prove Arson. Judge Jones has put himself in a bit of a bind by saying no conviction on Arson and he'll enter a judgment non-obstante verdictum in the event the jury does convict on the Child Abuse/Neglect charges. I think if I'd been presiding I would have kept that option to myself and see what the jury did. But so far, Judge Jones has followed the number one rule for good criminal court judges, he's made all the right rulings for each side, he's avoided any of the wrong rulings and his discretionary ones have been fair and well thought out. (Even if his spoken reasons are sometimes not as clear as they could be.)

HTH
Walt-in-Durham
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

If I were within driving distance I'd be there. Thanks to those who are our ears, eyes, and most of all, our hearts.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

dsl
Dec 15 2010, 11:09 PM
If I were within driving distance I'd be there. Thanks to those who are our ears, eyes, and most of all, our hearts.
Yes, thank you, all reporters and commentators! It was heartwarming to see how many hooligans were reading the posts at the same time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Walt,

Thanks so much! Your explanations are extremely helpful.

You explain things in terms that are very understandable.

It will be interesting to see if the jury asks for clarification on the first degree arson charge.

I assume the jury does NOT have the option to reduce the charge to second (or lower) degree arson.

--thanks again, Mike
Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 15 2010, 11:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Walt-in-Durham
Dec 15 2010, 11:07 PM
MikeZPU
Dec 15 2010, 10:43 PM
Does conviction on arson require intent?
Crystal is charged with First Degree Arson, so yes, it requires intent. The state is rolling the dice, they didn't ask for the lesser included offense of Burning Another Person's Property which is a natural lesser included offense and still a felony. They think they have a strong case. They also did not ask for Second Degree Arson.

Quote:
 
Couldn't she have been charged with child endangerment?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda....she wasn't charged that way.

Quote:
 
If I understood the Judge correctly, Mangum was charged with child abuse
and the Judge will only rule child abuse if the jury convicts on the arson charge.
Arson, specifically the smoke and fire are the acts of neglect in evidence. Thus, to convict on the Child Abuse/Neglect charge the state has to prove Arson. Judge Jones has put himself in a bit of a bind by saying no conviction on Arson and he'll enter a judgment non-obstante verdictum in the event the jury does convict on the Child Abuse/Neglect charges. I think if I'd been presiding I would have kept that option to myself and see what the jury did. But so far, Judge Jones has followed the number one rule for good criminal court judges, he's made all the right rulings for each side, he's avoided any of the wrong rulings and his discretionary ones have been fair and well thought out. (Even if his spoken reasons are sometimes not as clear as they could be.)

HTH
Walt-in-Durham
.
Well, if Crystal is like the rest of us (or if the rules also apply to Crystal), then in the absence of a Unanimous Not Guilty verdict, which looks to be unlikely to the extreme considering the testimony and video, the State can bring the charges again, or bring different charges.

The Case is Brought again.

This ADA passionately argued about the Duty Crystal had to her kids. He then asked, what kind of Mother does that, incredulously.

It's not a stretch for him to see his Duty as seeing those kids are protected and not thrown back into that mess.

.
.
Edited by Mason, Dec 15 2010, 11:36 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

MikeZPU
Dec 15 2010, 11:14 PM
I assume the jury does NOT have the option to reduce the charge to second (or lower) degree arson.
STATE v. BRITT, 132 N.C. App. 173 (1999)
Arson - indictment for arson - improper conviction for burning uninhabited house
The crime of burning an uninhabited house, N.C.G.S. § 14-62, is not a lesser-included offense of the crime of arson. Therefore, a defendant indicted for arson could not properly be convicted of burning an uninhabited house.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Mason
Dec 15 2010, 11:29 PM
Well, if Crystal is like the rest of us (or if the rules also apply to Crystal), then in the absence of a Unanimous Not Guilty verdict, which looks to be unlikely to the extreme considering the testimony and video, the State can bring the charges again, or bring different charges.

The Case is Brought again.

This ADA passionately argued about the Duty Crystal had to her kids. He then asked, what kind of Mother does that, incredulously.

It's not a stretch for him to see his Duty as seeing those kids are protected and not thrown back into that mess.

.
.
That is good to know. Thanks, Tony!

Thanks sdsgo for the prior court case citation.

I feel pretty confident that the jury will not buy the "police revenge" option.

I also feel pretty sure that the jury will not blame the police for what transpired.

But, still, I don't know what to think about the odds of all of the members of the
jury agreeing unanimously to convict Mangum on the first degree arson charge.

I'll just keep hoping for the best. This woman is an absolute menace to society,
especially to her own children.
Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 16 2010, 01:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Outstanding citizen journalism from our crew!
:info:

Court reporting can be addictive. In the 1 1/2 years that I've had my news blog, the most fun was doing a live blog from a trial. I'm dying to do another one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

The first degree arson charge, 5th element was debated for a while before the judge accepted the agreed upon wording of both the ADA and defense. In fact, ADA did read that instruction to the jury during closing. That instruction was in order to fine Mangum guilty f the 5th element I.e. intent then the defendant did burn the dwelling intentionally, defendant did burn it herself to destroy the dwelling, defendant did intentionally and voluntarily set a fire inside the dwelling. The defendant did close the bathroom door so no one else would see it, in that process the placed burned.

After these instruction were given to the jury, and they were out of the courtroom the defense wanted to change them. After much discussion the judge overruled that request.
Edited by chatham, Dec 16 2010, 09:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

MikeZPU
Dec 15 2010, 08:58 PM
chatham: That is exceptional recounting -- I feel like I was there.

Awesome job! Thanks so much!

Absolutely! Thanks to all who braved the courthouse chill and uncomfortable seats to provide us all with a factual account of the proceedings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

The ADA argued at the end of his presentation that according to NC law, because she hid the fact that she set a fire with her children in the house then she is responsible. It was quite a powerful conclusion. Of course it is up to the jury to decide.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acc Esq

sceptical
Dec 15 2010, 10:18 PM
I missed most of the action today at work, but did check in occasionally. I did see that there were up to 23 people watching on-line at times, including some old friends. I also would like to thank our intrepid Blog Hooligan reporters including J, Chatham, Walt-in-Durham and others.

The last line of the N&O blog report by Jesse James DeConto caught my attention-- it deals with the key concept of intent:


Quote:
 
Even if Mangum didn’t mean to set the building on fire, McCullough argued, she’s still responsible for the natural consequences of her actions


Read more: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/bullseye/crystal-mangum-trial-day-5-closing-arguments#ixzz18EzcVv00

Could any of our legal experts comment on this interpretation. and whether it is valid?
This is indeed a valid instruction. The intent element is an intent to perform the act, not the intent to cause the consequences.

Let me add my heartfelt thanks to our on-site reporters --J, Mason, Walt and especially Chatham. I echo what everyone else has said. I feel like I was in the courtroom. And during the holiday season and with adverse weather conditions to boot. As my youngest son would say "You all ROCK1"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Let me do some Monday morning quarterbacking before the game.

(thoughtless ruminations of no probable consequence...)

Quote:
 
This is indeed a valid instruction. The intent element is an intent to perform the act, not the intent to cause the consequences.


It would be hard to argue that she set the fire in order to destroy the building. If that intent was not present,
then does the Arson charge hold?

Wouldn't a better charge have been, destruction of personal property?

Did the State bet the house on getting a larger charge, instead of the (more reasonable?) lesser charge (which is
still a felony)?

Moreover, it is hard to imagine that Tracey Cline's office wanted to see Crystal convicted, or would commit
to running a harsh prosecution.

Ergo, was the entire week's jury selection process, and the entire trial, conducted only with a view
towards public relations--with the expectation that Crystal would not be convicted?

(Remember, this is the office that prosecuted Leon Brown, Tim Malloy, the Duke Three, etc. Manipulations
of trials for public consumption has precedents in Durham, IMHO)

Does anyone in Durham want to see Crystal on the stand, testifying, considering what she knows?

Or convicted, considering what she knows?

(IMHO, no one connected with the frame-up attempt will ever be brought before a court.)

IOW, I'm not convinced the jury will convict on the Arson charge.

And I'm cynical enough, having seen the way Durham operates, to suspect that perhaps
that's how it was intended to come out all along.

(baseless ruminations concluded)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Quasi: I have similar concerns. As chatham points out, the fact that she closed
the door may be the clincher though. We'll just have to see.

The one comforting thought I have it: at least the seriousness of the 1st degree
arson charge lead to an initial high bail, which at least made Mangum sit
in prison for quite a while WHERE SHE BELONGS!!!
Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 16 2010, 11:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

I would like to emphasize something that was addressed in passing:

Mangum, keenly aware that Milton suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,
kept telling Milton that she was going to tell everyone that he had a small
penis and, in fact, she was going to take a picture of it and post it everywhere.

She is one mean witch (or that other word that rhymes with witch.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply