| CRYSTAL MANGUM TRIAL; December 2010 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 29 2010, 12:59 PM (56,664 Views) | |
| Mason | Dec 2 2010, 01:35 AM Post #61 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. Crystal Entering Court Today
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 2 2010, 06:32 AM Post #62 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/02/837888/mangum-trial-jurors-could-be-sequestered.html Published Thu, Dec 02, 2010 02:00 AM Modified Thu, Dec 02, 2010 04:58 AM Mangum trial jurors could be sequestered DURHAM Prosecutor Mark McCullough may move to sequester the jury after a potential juror exchanged waves of greeting with Crystal Mangum supporter and formercity Councilwoman Jackie Wagstaff in the courtroom Wednesday. "I have to be satisfied that this trial is going to be had in here and not outside," McCullough said. Mangum's trial will begin this week after Superior Court Judge Abe Jones ruled Wednesday that police can testify about what they saw and heard after entering Mangum's home without her permission on Feb. 18. Jury selection begins today, when Jones and the lawyers will interview each potential juror individually as in death-penalty trials to ensure that each juror answers independently without hearing what other jurors say. Jones said he will personally question potential jurors about any biases they may have regarding Mangum, who famously accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape four years ago. Mangum faces charges of first-degree arson, injury to personal property, contributing to the delinquency of her children and resisting arrest. Police say she assaulted her live-in boyfriend Milton Walker, damaged his car and set his clothes on fire in a bathtub while Mangum's three children and two officers were in the duplex apartment. Mangum is a cause célèbre among residents who question the fairness of Durham's criminal justice system. Wagstaff, along with activists Victoria Peterson and Steven Matherly, has sat through hours of pretrial hearings this week. After jurors had left the courtroom Wednesday, McCullough asked Jones to consider housing them together over the next week as the trial proceeds. The assistant district attorney may make a formal motion to sequester this morning. The judge also spoke directly to Wagstaff. "You absolutely cannot have any conversation with any juror," he said, asking her to share that message with Peterson. "Believe me," Wagstaff told the judge, "we know the rules." jesse.deconto@newsobserver.com or 919-932-8760 |
![]() |
|
| abb | Dec 2 2010, 06:33 AM Post #63 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10503376/article-Judge-dismisses-motion-to-suppress-Mangum-evidence?instance=main_article Judge dismisses motion to suppress Mangum evidence The Herald Sun 12.01.10 - 09:57 pm By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- Crystal Gail Mangum, who is accused of first-degree arson and other charges, has been rebuffed in a bid to exclude evidence against her. Mangum in 2006 falsely accused three then-Duke University lacrosse players of rape. The three players were later exonerated. During a pretrial hearing in Durham County Superior Court Wednesday, Judge Abraham Jones denied a motion to suppress evidence police obtained when they arrested Mangum at her home. Defense lawyer Mani Dexter argued that police unlawfully entered her home when they responded to a 911 call from one of her children who said Mangum and her boyfriend were fighting. Dexter said Mangum didn't tell officers to come inside, and that they didn't leave when she told them to, violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But Assistant District Attorney Mark McCullough said police responded appropriately, and that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. Jones agreed, which means the jury will be able to hear testimony from the arresting officers. Jury selection begins today. The judge also denied a request by the defense and prosecution to ban cameras in court during Mangum's trial, arguing that it would be distracting and might deny her a fair trial. But Jones decided to allow still cameras and one television camera, which would provide a life feed that could be shared with other news organizations. After the jury is selected, the trial will move to another courtroom on the same floor that will accommodate a video camera in the back of the room that can't be seen by the jury. During Wednesday's hearing, Mangum sat quietly for most of the day, but tried twice to speak and was advised by the judge that she should express her views through her attorney. At one point when she appeared to voice her opinion about cameras in the courtroom, the judge called a recess so Mangum and her attorney could discuss the matter in private. Most of the day Wednesday was spent debating the motion to suppress evidence, but late in the afternoon, the judge called in a group of prospective jurors. He told them jury selection would begin today and probably continue through Friday. He said he expects the trial to last all of next week. Mangum was arrested in February after police said she set fire to her boyfriend's clothes in a bathtub at a house they shared. In addition to the arson accusation, she is charged with injury to personal property, resisting a public officer and, because her children were in the home, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of juveniles. She has pleaded not guilty. |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Dec 2 2010, 06:43 AM Post #64 |
|
Parts unknown
|
That's exactly why they wanted a Durham Jury Trial. . Edited by Mason, Dec 2 2010, 06:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Dec 2 2010, 07:45 AM Post #65 |
|
Crystal has become a political prostitute for Jackie Wagstaff, Victoria Peterson, Steven Matherly and the rest of the Friends of Crystal mangum and Justice4 Nifong crew. These "activists" are using and absuing her as much as her former "clients" when she was at the strip club and going to their hotel rooms. It is a shame there are no strong figures in her family to protect her from these vultures (and from her own bad instincts). |
![]() |
|
| Bill Anderson | Dec 2 2010, 07:57 AM Post #66 |
|
I agree, Sceptical. This is what happens when a society becomes politicized, as is the case in Durham. Notice how so many people there speak of political symbolism on just about anything. Likewise, what we heard from much of the Duke faculty was symbolism of this and that. So, the Karla Holloways of Duke are long on symbolism, but very, very short on the truth. A sign of the times.
|
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 2 2010, 08:04 AM Post #67 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
Wagstaff, along with activists Victoria Peterson and Steven Matherly, has sat through hours of pretrial hearings this week. Nothing else can be said!
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 2 2010, 08:24 AM Post #68 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 2 2010, 08:25 AM Post #69 |
|
More costs for Durham... |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 2 2010, 08:49 AM Post #70 |
|
The black community in Durham is very united behind black issues. Working the polls in south durham showed me exactly how close everyone in the black community was. Everyone knew everyone else, hugged and chatted before going into the early voting polls. Now, not all of them agree with the endorsements of such organizations as "the affairs of black people" and etc., but they all know each other. I was impressed and mentioned that to some of my competition at the poll. That is where and when I realized that the black community was not supportive of mangum. That is where I became aware that the few who are yelling the loudest are also not supported by the community. I believe nifong wanted the trial in Durham because he was a racist. He saw his own political gains coming from the political actions of the progressive black organizations in Durham. He knew that the black community was united politically. What he did not understand about the black community, as a whole, was that blacks are not united about social issues. Nifong tried to make the LAX case a political issue, and he failed, even with political savvy support from Duke and radical groups in Durham. To keep the issues on the front page, the only people who were consistently on the news, in the news, or tried to make the news, were the political radicals. As we now know, they have no interest in mangum herself. Only in their own agenda. IMO, the lack of social unity in the black community was the excuse for Sharpton and Jackson to exit Durham quickly. And again, IMO, barber knew the political gains he could make by supporting the political progressives in Durham. Although many here will not agree with me, I do believe that the LAX players could have received a fair trial in Durham. But as we all know, it was impossible for a trial to ever be held. Therefore, my opinion about this is worth nothing. |
![]() |
|
| MikeZPU | Dec 2 2010, 11:03 AM Post #71 |
|
That is a ridiculous statement for the reporter to make. Fairness? Mangum tried to run down a police officer with a cab that she stole and took on a joy ride AND what did she get? A couple weekends in prison. Fairness? It was unequivocally proven beyond a single doubt that Mangum flat out lied about being raped. Her lies got three innocent people indicted and forced to spend close to a half-million dollars to clear themselves (not to mention the bond they had to put up to stay out of prison) AND her lies almost lead to riots in the city. And what did she get for her criminal offense of lying to police? NOTHING! She was able to just walk away from the maelstrom that she created. If they were really worried about fairness, they would have been on side of the three victims that Mangum tried desperately to frame. You have a very small handful of activists who don't give a hoot about justice in the Durham criminal justice system BUT merely like the publicity and want to exploit Mangum for their own political reasons as laid out here. Edited by MikeZPU, Dec 2 2010, 05:00 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Dec 2 2010, 12:28 PM Post #72 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Dec 2 2010, 12:42 PM Post #73 |
|
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
. Whew! Glad he decided to save us taxpayers some money!! Seems no one knows how much she already cost Durham.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Dec 2 2010, 12:44 PM Post #74 |
|
So this farce continues. As Quasi said , at what cost to Durham? How much has this woman cost Durham and the State of North Carolina? From her first trouble with the law, to her welfare checks, to her health-care costs, to her private taxi drivers, to her hospitalization, to her private R/H. to her lawyers, to the Das office, DPD expenses, Courts costs, NCCU costs, lab costs, "victim" rights advocate, to her Mountain Dews, Duke's & DUMC costs, SP's costs, State Bar costs, and most seriously to the very real costs that this whole fiasco will cost the taxpayers of Durham to settle. I bet we are approaching many tens of millions. Pardon for being skeptical. not sceptical, but just who did she perform for? Edited by Baldo, Dec 2 2010, 02:29 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Dec 2 2010, 01:05 PM Post #75 |
|
What does a fair trial mean? It is not just like how many think the LAX kids would have got. It is also how many of us think crystal will get. If the jury appears not fair in their judgement of crystal with the evidence presented, only then can we judge the fairness of the trial. We will all hear what the evidence is in court. All of us can judge the evidence for ourselves. Time will tell, if what we think the verdict should be, will be. If not, then I will agree that if the LAX case went to trial, the accused could not get a fair trial in durham. We will see how fair jurors are in durham with the evidence presented in this upcoming trial. That is of course, up to the point of a last minute plea deal. As a side note, I am betting that there is a whole bunch of lobbying going on by crystals supports to folks in the durham community if they are selected for this jury. That may be one reason why the reject rate appears so high. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:33 AM Jul 11