| Blog and Media Roundup - Thursday, March 13, 2014; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2014, 04:38 AM (99 Views) | |
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 04:38 AM Post #1 |
|
If anyone has a subscription, we need the full article. Mar. 12, 2014 @ 07:46 PM Questions surface about Durham police informant payments A group that’s led recent criticism of the Durham Police Department now claims police have illegally paid “conviction bonuses” to informants who’ve helped them jail people for drug offenses. The practice was not disclosed to prosecutors or defense attorneys, and may have contributed to a number of defendants taking plea deals, leaders of the FADE Coalition alleged to reporters on Wednesday. The group – its acronym stands for Fostering Alternatives to Drug Enforcement – wants the department to stop all use of “conviction or contingency” payments and discipline officers who used them in the past. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 04:43 AM Post #2 |
|
Mar. 12, 2014 @ 05:19 PM DA: No charges in downtown standoff death No charges will be filed against a Durham police officer in the death of a man during a downtown standoff last fall. District Attorney Leon Stanback said in a media release Wednesday that after reviewing more than 38 eyewitness interviews, 911 calls, statements by EMS workers and other evidence, no probable cause was found to seek charges in Derek Walker’s death. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 04:45 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2014/03/12/3696864/durham-da-clears-police-in-walker.html Durham DA clears police in Walker shooting From staff reportsMarch 12, 2014 DURHAM — The Durham County district attorney has cleared police of any criminal wrongdoing in the shooting of a man who pointed a gun at officers and himself during a downtown standoff last September. “After reviewing over 38 eyewitness interviews, numerous 911 calls, statements by Emergency Medical Services personnel, the Medical Examiner's notes, crime scene photos and sketches, interviews with people who knew and cared for Derek Walker, and Mr. Walker's Facebook postings, the Durham district attorney has found there is no probable cause to charge a crime in this matter,” District Attorney Leon Stanback said in a statement. Wednesday’s announcement marked the third time in recent months that Stanback has found no basis for criminal charges in a fatal officer-involved shooting in Durham. Stanback earlier cleared police in the shooting of Jose Ocampo, a stabbing suspect who was shot four times in July outside his home in Old East Durham when police say he failed to heed instructions to drop a knife, and also in the death of Jesus Huerta, a 17-year-old high school student who police say shot himself in November while handcuffed behind his back in the back seat of a patrol car. The State Bureau of Investigation and Police Department also investigated all three incidents, with the SBI giving its report to Stanback as is routine in such incidents. The district attorney recently announced he was reopening the Huerta case to investigate possible new evidence neither he nor the Huerta family’s attorney has yet described. In the Walker case, police responded to a possible suicide threat Sept. 17 in CCB Plaza in downtown Durham. They found Walker holding a black semi-automatic pistol. according to Stanback’s statement. “Some officers took tactical positions and another officer engaged Mr. Walker in negotiation. The standoff went on for over 45 minutes.” Walker was alternately calm and crying, according to witnesses. He raised his gun in his right hand and pointed it toward his head several times, according to the statement. “An officer was heard repeatedly encouraging Mr. Walker to put the weapon down. Mr. Walker raised the gun to his head one last time and then lifted it to almost shoulder-height, pointing it directly at law enforcement,” the statement continued. Although several officers reported having engaged the trigger of their service weapons, one officer fired a shot from his city-issued rifle, according to the statement. Walker suffered a single penetrating wound to the chest and died on the way to Duke Hospital. In a post on his Facebook page before the standoff, Walker had said he was ready to die because of a five-year custody dispute with the mother of his son. “If there is really a true and living God and Jesus he wouldn’t put me through this … all I know is that I am a DEAD MAN WALKING,” Walker, 26, wrote. “I’m done … don’t call me and don’t talk to me because I am not responding. I hope I die very soon and a fast death because this world I am living in is sorry …” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 04:45 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.wral.com/no-charges-filed-against-durham-officer-in-shooting-death/13472640/ No charges filed against Durham officer in shooting death Posted 1:18 p.m. yesterday Updated 2:58 p.m. yesterday Durham, N.C. — The Durham County District Attorney's Office said Wednesday that no charges will be filed against a police officer in the fatal shooting last fall of a Durham man during a standoff on CCB Plaza. Derek Deandre Walker, 26, was waving a gun and shouting on the downtown plaza on Sept. 17, police said. WRAL News video from the scene showed what appeared to be Walker repeatedly saying "shoot me" while pointing his gun at officers or at his head. Walker had posted on his Facebook page earlier in the day that he was upset about a custody dispute over his 5-year-old son and that he hoped to die soon. Police surrounded Walker on the plaza and tried to persuade him to drop his gun, but negotiations failed. After an hour-long standoff, Walker again pointed the gun at officers, and Cpl. R.C. Swartz shot Walker in the chest with a rifle. Walker died on the way to Duke University Hospital. District Attorney Leon Stanback said in a statement Wednesday that he reviewed a State Bureau of Investigation report on the shooting – it included 38 eyewitness statements, transcripts of 911 calls, interviews with people who knew Walker and his Facebook posts – and determined there was no probable cause to charge Swartz in the shooting. Swartz, who joined the Durham Police Department in 2001 and is assigned to the Special Operations Division, was on administrative leave with pay for several weeks after the shooting. He returned to regular duty in November. The report was the third and final SBI investigation of police-involved shootings in Durham since last summer. No charges were filed in the July shooting death of Jose Ocampo or the November death of Jesus Huerta in police custody, although investigators are taking a second look at Huerta's death after receiving an anonymous tip. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 04:48 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.cotwa.info/2014/03/dartmouths-disturbing-hostitlity-to.html Wednesday, March 12, 2014 Dartmouth's disturbing hostitlity to the rights of young men accused of sex offenses Dartmouth College is cracking down on sexual assault. It is reasonable to expect that the reforms eventually enacted will be consistent with Dartmouth's hostility to the rights of young men accused of sex offenses. Its Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator Amanda Childress recently asked, "Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation [of sexual assault]?" The question is unworthy of any, much less a serious response, but instead of distancing itself from the remark, the administration defended it. A couple of years ago, Dartmouth's Associate Dean of College for Campus Life April Thompson was talking about sexual assault hearings when she said this: "We are a college, a place of learning and teaching, so we have to think about what gives the accused the opportunity to learn." The mindset that the "accused" needs to be taught a lesson before an adjudication suggests a bias antithetical to the presumption of innocence, consonant with Dean Childress' rush-to-judgment mentality that assumes guilt based on a sexual assault accusation. In 2011, while an investigation was ongoing over a sexual assault that police eventually determined "never happened," Dartmouth's Director of Safety and Security and College Proctor made problematic statements suggesting that an assault, in fact, occurred: “We want people to know when something like this happens so that they’re aware and can take precautions. Any time there’s an incident like this — any place on the campus — we have the same level of concern." (When "something like" what occurs? A false rape claim?) In 2011, Dartmouth welcomed Jackson Katz to campus to tell anyone who cared to listen that when it comes to sexual abuse, cautioning women to take the well-lit route back to their dorm doesn't get at the root cause of the problem. "The root cause," he said, "is men." Not "men who rape," just "men." Katz's shtick is that men need to raise their standards and stop being mere "bystanders"--men with "moral integrity" are needed "to break complicit male silence." You see, men who would never dream of raping another human being are unindicted co-conspirators to rape. It is little wonder that Dartmouth's procedures in sexual assault cases are appallingly insensitive to the accused. Unless simultaneous criminal charges have been filed, the accused student cannot have a lawyer participate in the proceedings. (Tellingly, the college itself does have the right to have an attorney present during the hearing, to offer "procedural or legal matters necessary to ensure a fair proceeding"; the college does not explain why this right is denied to the accused student.) The accused student doesn't have the right to cross-examine the accuser. The accuser has the right to close the proceedings to the public, even if the accused student wants it public to clear his name. Perhaps most chillingly, guilt is determined by a preponderance of evidence and a majority vote of the five-member (two students, two professors, and one administrator) disciplinary panel. As a result, if three of the panelists conclude that the accuser is ever-so-slightly likelier than not to have told the truth, the college will brand the accused student a rapist, even if the other two members of the panel are 100 percent convinced that he was innocent. So now, Dartmouth is looking to get even tougher on sexual assault, if that's possible. Dartmouth's Panhellenic Council, a student body overseeing sororities, is leading the charge. It has made the following demand: "All sex offenders found guilty of rape by the Committee On Standards must be expelled from the College immediately with absolutely no exceptions. . . . Additionally,the past offenses of accused perpetrators must be taken into account when determining the guilt of someone accused of rape or sexual assault." The problems with the demand are numerous. We'll focus on three: First, automatic expulsion for college students found guilty of sexual assault at colleges isn't going to curtail rape. It isn't going to keep a rapist from abusing women somewhere else, or even in the same place where the offense that led to his expulsion occurred. In a country where the majority of college students are commuters, booting a rapist out of school isn't going to stop him from frequenting the same off-campus hangouts where he committed his misdeeds as a student. If we were really serious about protecting women from rape, we would insist that every report be turned over to the professionals in law enforcement. Second, a rule to stiffen the penalty for sexual assault likely will result in fewer adjudications of guilt, an effect not intended by its advocates. Where schools mandate extreme punishments for sexual assault, triers of fact are less likely to find guilt in doubtful cases because they know the consequences for the accused are extreme. In A Separate Crime of Reckless Sex, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 599, 655-56 (2005), Professors I. Ayres and K. Baker explained: . . . if the . . . sanction is too strong, there is not likely to be widespread enforcement. . . . attempts to change a norm by severely punishing that which has previously been unaddressed or underenforced are often unsuccessful. The simple fact is that the public at large often refuses to see the "nontraditional" [acquaintance] rapist as a rapist at all and therefore refuses to either mark him or punish him as such. After an acquittal in a well-publicized college gang rape, one juror explained that the main concern of some jurors was not wanting "to ruin the boys' lives." Decision makers may be willing to ruin the life of a "real rapist," but they will not impose comparable punishment for what they see as a less severe crime. In schools where expulsion for sexual assault is mandated, it is reasonable to assume that even in cases where, technically, it is more likely than not that the accused is guilty, if there exists reasonable doubt about his guilt, most triers of fact will withhold the "death penalty" of expulsion and will find the accused "not guilty." The expulsion policy thus leads to a sort of jury nullification for doubtful sex cases, an unintended, but welcome, antidote for the harsh "Dear Colleague" letter. The get-tough-on-rape crowd has unwittingly struck a blow for the accused. Third, the proposal that prior offenses must be taken into account when determining guilt echoes one of the most dangerous legislative "reforms" enacted by Congress to make getting a rape conviction easier. Federal Rule of Evidence 413 provides that "in a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant." The jury is to be informed of the defendant's prior acts whether or not the defendant takes the stand. For no other crime does the law allow such evidence to be admitted. Rule 413 was widely condemned by the overwhelming majority of lawyers, judges, legal organizations and law professors on the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, but Congress bowed to pressure from law-and-order types and women's groups and passed the law. R. Klein, An Analysis of Thirty-Five Years of Rape Reform: A Frustrating Search for Fundamental Fairness, 41 Akron L.Rev. 981, 1024 (2008). Professor Richard Klein pointed up a stark double-standard in the way this law treats the accused versus the way Rape Shield Laws treat rape accusers: The rationale behind rape shield laws is that prior conduct of the victim should have no impact on an assessment of what occurred as to the incident on trial. But as to the defendant, evidence of prior conduct is to be allowed with the inference that "if he did it in the past, he did it this time as well." Such a determination, one not based on fact or evidence, was exactly what rape shield laws were designed to, and do, guard against as to the alleged victim. The accuser is protected, the accused is not. R. Klein, supra at 1024. We feel like we are arguing with the wind. Anyone who dares to express concern for the rights of the presumptively innocent -- even Brett Sokolow, who has done more to advance the anti-rape agenda on campus than anyone -- is branded a rape apologist or a victim blamer. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 10:23 AM Post #6 |
|
http://collegebasketball.ap.org/article/most-basketball-star-wells-suit-claims-survive Most of basketball star Wells' suit claims survive By AMANDA LEE MYERS — Mar. 12, 2014 7:36 PM EDT CINCINNATI (AP) — Most of the claims in a lawsuit by a former Xavier University basketball player accusing the school and its president of damaging his reputation by expelling him for what he says was a false rape accusation will proceed to trial, a judge ruled on Wednesday. Dez Wells' federal lawsuit, filed in August, included 11 claims against the university and its president, Father Michael Graham, including sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel for injury to his reputation and negligence. After a request by the university and Graham to dismiss many of the claims, federal Judge Arthur Spiegel allowed most of them to remain. Spiegel dismissed a request by Wells to throw out the University Conduct Board's decision to expel him, citing an expired statute of limitations. He dismissed the sex discrimination and deliberate indifference claims only against Graham, but those charges survived against the university. The university is pleased the court dismissed some of the claims and believes Xavier will be vindicated once all the facts are known, Xavier spokeswoman Kelly Leon said in a statement. Xavier kicked Wells out of school in 2012 in the aftermath of a student's accusation that he raped her. Wells said he had consensual sex with the student following a game known as "Truth or Dare" with a group of students, during which he said the girl took off most of her clothes, kissed him, and gave him a lap dance. Court records say that a hospital examination showed no trauma on the girl's body, and she later told police that she didn't want to press charges. A Hamilton County grand jury declined to indict Wells after hearing evidence in the case. Before the investigation was over, court records say that Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters expressed his doubts about the alleged rape to Graham and urged him to hold off on any discipline against Wells until the investigation was finished. At the time, Xavier said Wells was expelled for a "serious violation" of the code of student conduct, and that a board consisting of faculty, students and administrators made the decision following standard procedures for U.S. universities. Wells claims that the university and Graham used him as a scapegoat to demonstrate an aggressive response to sexual assault allegations in the wake of two unrelated federal investigations of the university by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The federal investigations were prompted in part by an allegation that Xavier allowed a student accused of two rapes to remain on campus. Wells, who's from Raleigh, N.C., was a freshman star for Xavier. He subsequently transferred to the University of Maryland, where he became a top player after the NCAA agreed to waive the usual transfer requirement for sitting out. Wells and his team will play in the Atlantic Coast Conference tournament this week. Wells has previously said that since the rape allegation, he has been heckled by fans and faces continued questions about his character. "From the moment this nightmare began, I've told the truth. I am innocent," Wells said in a statement last year. "It's time to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight." ___ Follow Amanda Lee Myers on Twitter at https://twitter.com/AmandaLeeAP |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 10:24 AM Post #7 |
|
March 13, 2014 A First--Accused of Rape, Xavier Student Wins a Round in Federal Court Posted by KC Johnson In something close to a first-of-its-kind decision (in a similar case filed against Holy Cross, the judge sided with the university; comparable cases against Vassar and St. Joe's remain pending), U.S. District Court judge Arthur Spiegel has upheld much of the lawsuit filed by former Xavier basketball player Dez Wells against the university. A gender discrimination and libel case based on an allegation of rigged procedures against Wells will go forward. To review the allegation: after what he claimed was an incident of consensual sexual intercourse, Wells was accused of sexual assault. In a mere 27 days from accusation to judgment, the university concluded that Wells was "responsible for rape" after a process in which Wells couldn't cross-examine his accuser and was deemed a rapist based on a preponderance-of-evidence threshold. All this occurred while Cincinnati authorities determined that there was no basis to pursue criminal charges; prosecutor Joseph Deters deemed the Xavier process "fundamentally unfair." In the Wells case, "justice" was swift--and unjust. So Wells filed a federal lawsuit, claiming gender discrimination and libel, and urging the court to overturn the result of Xavier's disciplinary tribunal, called the UCB. One advantage universities have in these sorts of proceedings is that unjustly expelled students often will shy away from filing a lawsuit, since the mere act of going to court will make public that their former school branded them a rapist. But in Wells' case, he already had been subjected to taunting behavior from opposing crowds--including, most shamefully, from Duke students, who should know something about procedural improprieties and rape allegations--because of the highly-publicized nature in which Xavier handled the claims. Judge Spiegel's order (which you can read here) denied Wells' request to vacate the UCB decision, but solely on procedural grounds (he cited a statute-of-limitations problem). Wells had conceded as much in his final pre-order filing. Spiegel also dismissed another claim, against Xavier president Michael Graham, for technical reasons. On the nine other claims, however, Judge Spiegel allowed the lawsuit to proceed--taking, as he must at this stage of the case, Wells' factual assertions as true. On Wells' Title IX claims, the order held that Wells' allegations plausibly showed that Xavier was "reacting against him, as a male, to demonstrate to the OCR that [university officials] would take action, as they had failed to in the past, against males accused of sexual assault." Spiegel noted that the university ignored warnings from the prosecutor that the sexual assault claim was unfounded, and deemed Wells a rapist anyway. By far the most interesting section of Judge Spiegel's decision came in his discussion of Wells' libel claim--which is based solely on Xavier having publicly stated that the university dismissed Wells for having committed a "serious violation of the Code of Student Conduct." Stepping outside a summary of the back-and-forth claims between Wells and Xavier, Spiegel made his opinions about Xavier's judicial process quite clearly known. Normally, the judge observed, "judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings are entitled to an absolute privilege, so as to encourage witnesses to speak the truth." But not in this instance, as "it appears to the Court that the UCB here, a body well-equipped to adjudicate questions of cheating, may have been in over its head with relation to an alleged false accusation of sexual assault." For this reason, and given that Xavier denied Wells the right to an attorney and the right to cross-examine his accuser, it's at least plausible to credit Wells' claim that the entire process was "invalid." A federal judge suggesting that a major university's sexual assault process might--in its very nature--be "invalid." Remarkable. - See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/03/a_first--accused_of_rape_xavie.html#sthash.iZXpFBVx.dpuf |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 13 2014, 10:25 AM Post #8 |
|
http://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/wells-ruling.pdf |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 13 2014, 10:32 AM Post #9 |
|
What a difference a judge can make... /big] |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 13 2014, 10:38 AM Post #10 |
|
"What they did was bad enough." |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 13 2014, 10:44 AM Post #11 |
|
Again, what a difference a judge makes... (And it didn't take him THREE YEARS to decide the motion..) |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:36 PM Jul 10