| Ruling could free man from prison; Another false prosecution; Frankie Washington case - Durham | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 2 2008, 11:00 AM (2,542 Views) | |
| abb | Sep 3 2008, 05:11 AM Post #16 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-985616.cfm Man sentenced to 44 years freed BY DAN E. WAY : The Herald-Sun dway@heraldsun.com Sep 3, 2008 DURHAM -- North Carolina's Court of Appeals has dismissed all charges against a man serving at least 44 years in prison in connection with a Durham home invasion, and one Durham judge plans to examine criminal case backlogs to avoid a repeat. "There are probably other examples," said Orlando Hudson, Durham's senior resident Superior Court Judge. "North Carolina is one of those states that has paid lip service to defendants' rights to a speedy trial, but this case is an exception, it looks like, and it might be the start of a new trend. You never know, it may take several other cases for us to see what they mean," he said of the Appeals Court's blistering ruling. "Clearly the district attorney's at fault," Hudson said, and errors went beyond just the amount of pretrial time that elapsed. "It would seem to me there should be some soul-searching" in that department. In their ruling Tuesday, appellate judges also blamed prosecutors for a nearly five-year pretrial delay, saying it deprived Frankie Delano Washington the right to a speedy trial and prejudiced the case. But assistant Durham district attorney Tracey Cline said prosecutors were ready to go to trial on several occasions and delays were caused by other factors, including a victim that was traumatized and a request from the defendant to have more evidence tested. "The court system made a ruling based on the evidence they had, and I think the victim's family is understandably upset. We realize that delays in cases do sometimes happen," Cline said. "We accept the court's opinion, but will continue to seek whatever remedies we can," she said. Washington was found guilty of burglary, kidnapping, robbery, assault and attempted sex offense after a trial in February 2007. He was arrested in May 2002 after a Durham family reported a home invasion. "I don't know what we're going to do to get the cases tried faster," but clearly something must be done, Hudson said. "One of the things about Durham is that for several years we've been a in a position where we haven't had any real direction from the prosecutors," he said. "When Mr. [Mike] Nifong [former district attorney] was here he concentrated on the Duke lacrosse case and not the rest of them ... and ultimately over several years we built up a backlog." That 2,500-case backlog is what concerned Hudson and other judges when they implemented a new, higher bond structure for serious felony cases, he said. "One of the things that concerned us about raising the bonds was the ability of the state to get the cases tried on time" and whether the jail population or pretrial defendants would increase, he said. "We didn't mind increasing the bonds, but we wanted them to get tried" and for the speedy trial law to be followed more closely, Hudson said. He plans to begin seeking a remedy. "I'm really thinking about having my trial court administrator work with me to determine what are the oldest criminal cases in Durham County and determine whether those cases are at risk" of being dismissed by the Court of Appeals, Hudson said. "That means literally going through the most serious cases and determine whether or not people have been in jail for a year, and I'm sure there are cases where that is the case." While he is "really sorry it happened in Durham," Hudson said, "Because of that we need to make sure we are up on it." Staff writer Keith Upchurch and The Associated Press contributed to this report. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 3 2008, 05:28 AM Post #17 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/durham/durham/story/1204256.html Published: Sep 03, 2008 12:30 AM Modified: Sep 03, 2008 04:23 AM 4-year wait for trial nullifies convictions Anne Blythe, Staff Writer Comment on this story A man sentenced to more than 60 years on charges of burglary, robbery, kidnapping and attempted sexual assault could be freed from prison after the state Court of Appeals ruled the Durham District Attorney's Office violated his right to a speedy trial. The three-judge panel unanimously tossed out convictions Tuesday against Frankie Delano Washington, 47, an auto mechanic who waited four years and nine months to go to trial in Durham County Superior Court in February 2007. The delay "could have been avoided if the state had exercised even the slightest care during the course of this prosecution," Judge Douglas McCullough wrote in the court's decision. The state Attorney General's Office has 20 days to challenge Tuesday's ruling. Efforts to reach Tracey Cline, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, and James R. Parish, the Fayetteville lawyer who handled the appeal for Washington, failed Tuesday. Police arrested Washington in May 2002 and accused him of a home invasion in Trinity Park, just east of Duke University's East Campus. Court records show an intruder entered an unlocked glass door at a Gregson Street home about 3 a.m. May 30, 2002, and traumatized two adults and two children inside. The intruder, who wore a bandanna over his nose and mouth and had a dark head covering, wielded a sawed-off shotgun and attempted a sexual assault The News & Observer is not identifying the family, in keeping with its policy of generally not identifying people who have reported sex crimes. The intruder fled after taking a purse containing $150, according to court documents. On his way out of the neighborhood, the documents show, the intruder struck a relative who had gone for help. Washington was in jail, awaiting trial for 366 days, before his bail was reduced to $37,500 and he was able to post it. During that time, the Durham District Attorney's Office sought to postpone scheduling a trial, according to the ruling, saying it was waiting for State Bureau of Investigation lab tests on evidence. From May 2002 to October 2004, according to the appeals court ruling, Washington asked the court twice to compel SBI analysis of the evidence. The trial court granted that motion March 18, 2004, according to the court documents, but the SBI was not immediately notified. The SBI analysis was not completed until Jan. 30, 2006, according to court documents, nearly six months after Washington asked the court to dismiss all charges against him because he had been denied a speedy trial. The wrong man? In the court's written decision, McCullough suggested police might have gotten the wrong man. The accusers originally described their assailant as younger and taller than Washington, the documents show. They identified Washington from about 20 feet away in the dark, as police held him outside a police car. McCullough pointed out that another man was arrested in similar home invasions in and near Trinity Park after Washington's arrest. Durham police never sought a comparison of the man's fingerprints with unidentified prints taken in Washington's case. Prosecutors in court filings blamed the delay in Washington's trial in part on the length of time required for the SBI to analyze evidence in the case. As it turned out, the ruling shows, fingerprints and DNA evidence did not match Washington. The delay made it harder to challenge the identification, caused the loss of circumstantial evidence and made it more likely that witnesses could have been mistaken when they identified him in court five years after the crime, McCullough wrote. anne.blythe@newsobserver.com or (919) 932-8741 |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 3 2008, 07:58 AM Post #18 |
|
That "trend" started with the adaption of the Bill of Rights, back in 1789. North Carolina can't just decide that it will enforce those rights whenever it feels like it. This is a ridiculous remark for a judge to make. And if this indeed represents the official opinion of the NC law establishment, then the feds ought to be in NC immediately, bringing suit to defend the right of all US citizens to have a speedy trial. (Does anyone in NC think the Bill of Rights is only a bunch of "suggestions"?) |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 3 2008, 08:05 AM Post #19 |
|
Judge Orlando "Big O" Hudson is a goddamned buffon. We should be eternally grateful to Beth Brewer for exposing him for all to see. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 3 2008, 08:15 AM Post #20 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Is Tracey trying to figure out what else he can be charged with...? |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 3 2008, 08:56 AM Post #21 |
|
Absolutely Quasi This is ridiculous when you realize just how medieval NC is in the administration of criminal justice. One really wonders how could a state that has Duke Law, UNC, Wake Forest be so back-ass-wards? What we saw in Durham was a justice system that allowed a false accusation to be used by a corrupt DA, Police Officers, local government leaders, activists, ministers, press, and college professors to trample civil rights of the three young men and their teammates while a Judge stood by and worse, threw gasoline of the fire of bigotry. Scottsboro has nothing over Durham! One and a half years after NC AG's declaration of innocence what has been done to reform this deeply corrupt system? Edited by Baldo, Sep 3 2008, 08:58 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| jmoo | Sep 3 2008, 02:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Those laws are merely suggestions don't ya know... judges get to do whatever they darn well please if they consider it a fair administration of justice. The public just doesn't understand. |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Sep 3 2008, 02:51 PM Post #23 |
|
Blame the victim, Tracy!!!!! How proud of her, all of Durham must be! BTW: This procedure is in the unwritten Durham DA/PD handbook we have discussed before: If a DA/cop gets caught or is called out in public for mistakes, delays, or even criminal behavior, - always claim the victim is/was/will be too traumatized to move the case forward while the case is developing you can intimidate the other witnesses, hide or destroy evidence, and/or later on, force a plea bargain or retrial. The former DA's will probably be the judges, now, anyway. They know how the system works. Also: Seems Orlando Hudson is shucking and jiving again. What a loser! |
![]() |
|
| Bill Anderson | Sep 3 2008, 03:17 PM Post #24 |
|
Yeah, just the same way that Crystal was soooo traumatized that she was unable to answer any of Nifong's questions. I really am getting sick of the lies that come from the Durham DA's office. Is anyone in that office capable of telling the truth, or are all of them liars?
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 6 2008, 03:33 AM Post #25 |
|
Published: Sep 06, 2008 12:30 AM Modified: Sep 06, 2008 01:42 AM Speed it up The case of a Durham man shows why a speedy trial is crucial. At least he won't spend the next 60-some years in prison Comment on this story Should we celebrate a splendid stroke of fairness and common sense on the part of three North Carolina judges? Or should we castigate a criminal justice system that required a man to wait nearly five years to go to trial, then convicted him despite flimsy evidence of his guilt and despite evidence pointing to someone else? To do both sounds about right. Frankie Delano Washington was the beneficiary of the judges' ruling this week. And it was he who had been sentenced to prison for 60-plus years for crimes connected to a home invasion robbery in Durham. Convicted and sentenced after a delay that clearly violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. In an opinion written by Judge Douglas McCullough and joined by Judges John Tyson and Donna Stroud, the state Court of Appeals threw out Washington's conviction and dismissed the charges against him. The reason, boiled down: Waiting so long to be tried amounted to a perversion of the judicial process in exactly the fashion that the Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee was designed to prevent. The crime occurred early one morning in May 2002. An intruder went through a sliding glass door in a house in Durham's Trinity Park neighborhood. Wielding a sawed-off shotgun, the man forced family members to give him money and belongings and attempted to sexually assault a mother of two. Soon afterward, Washington was apprehended, identified as the assailant and charged. From there, the case became a fiasco. Washington was kept in jail for a year until he could post bond. The case dragged on and on, through neglect and failures of communication on the part of Durham prosecutors and police. An SBI evidence analysis wasn't completed until January 2006. And when it was, DNA and fingerprints did not implicate Washington. Still, when he went to trial in February 2007 he was convicted. Meanwhile, another man with a similar description had been arrested and convicted in connection with similar crimes in the Trinity Park vicinity. But the Durham police never asked that evidence in the case involving Washington be compared with evidence that might have implicated the second man. When Washington's trial finally came, witnesses were understandably fuzzy about the details of what had occurred four years and nine months before and about identification of the perpetrator. Judge McCullough correctly pointed out the unfairness to a defendant and, for that matter, to victims when the value of testimony is diluted by such a delay. The appellate panel delivered a lengthy ruling, carefully explaining its conclusion that Washington's rights were violated and the harm done when trials aren't held within a reasonable time frame. There is no absolute standard for what constitutes a "speedy" trial, they noted, but in Washington's case, every factor weighed in his favor -- including what has to be characterized as disgraceful laxity by the Durham authorities. The public should be heartened that McCullough and his colleagues did their duty and outraged at what happened to Frankie Washington. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 6 2008, 11:43 AM Post #26 |
|
In a fit of enterprise this morning, I put this in the mail. Hon. Roy Cooper Attorney General State of North Carolina 9001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-9001 Re: State v. Washington Dear Mr. Cooper: Once again, the Durham "Justice System" has been caught trying to frame an innocent person. This time they succeeded and took away four years of a man's life. And, just as in the Duke Lacrosse Frame, the U. S. Attorney for the Middle District of North Carolina - Anna Wagoner - was asleep at the switch. The world wonders when North Carolina will do away with a legal system based on the Scottsboro Boys model. I'm from Louisiana and I know what political/legal corruption looks like. You all in North Carolina have us beat hands down. Cc: Anna Wagoner, US Attorney John Martin, Chief, NC Court of Appeals Sarah Parker, Chief Justice, NC Supreme Court James Beaty, Chief District Judge, US District Court |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 12 2008, 04:47 AM Post #27 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/opinion/columnists/guests_ch/110-988453.cfm Stanley Peele: Every N.C. DA should know this case Sep 12, 2008 I urge every district attorney in the State to read the case of State vs. Frankie Washington. At issue was whether the defendant had been denied his right to a speedy trial. The facts are: At 2:45 a.m. on May 30, 2002, a 16-year old girl, who we will call "K" returned to her home in Trinity Park, Durham. She left the door unlocked. Her mother and father were inside. Fifteen minutes later an intruder entered the home through the unlocked door. The intruder was a "light complected" black male, wearing blue jeans, and a dark-colored T-shirt with white writing on it. He wore a blue bandana over his nose and mouth and had a dark covering on his head, leaving only a small part of his head exposed. Mom and dad were awakened by the barks of their dog. Dad went downstairs to investigate. When he got downstairs, the intruder pointed a sawed-off shotgun at him and ordered him to give him his money. Mom came out of her bedroom, looked down the stairs and saw the intruder holding a gun to dad's head and screamed. "K" stayed in her bedroom and dialed 911. Dad fled the house, seeking help. The intruder held the gun to mom, threatening that she "was going to give him everything he wanted" or he would kill her. He forced the mother into the den, reached his hand inside her underpants. He then changed his mind; and told her that he wanted all of her money. She gave him her purse, which contained about $150 in cash, a Palm Pilot and accessories. The intruder ran outside, struck dad in the face and then fled. Durham police arrived at the home shortly thereafter. The family said the intruder was taller than five foot seven inches and under the age of 30, with a receding hairline. Later, Officer Bell observed Frankie Washington, who was 41 years old and 5 feet 6 inches in height, walking on a street. Washington was wearing a blue T- shirt with an emblem on the front and white lettering, and blue jeans. He was sweating and appeared nervous. He was dirty and muddy with grass stains. He had a long-handled pair of pliers but no money. Sometime between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m., the police told the mother and father that they had apprehended a suspect fitting the description of the intruder. Police drove them to Washington, who was standing outside of a police car, about half a mile from the crime scene. The mother identified Washington as the man who broke into her home. Washington was arrested. Police later recovered the mother's purse, Palm Pilot and attachments, a sawed-off shotgun, a bandana and a black toboggan; but they had no substantial evidence linking Washington to those items. From August 2002 to May 2003, Washington asked the court four times to reduce his bond, which was originally set at $1 million. With each motion, the trial court incrementally reduced his bond and directed the State to proceed with the testing of the above items for fingerprints and DNA evidence. On May 31, 2003, Washington was released on a $37,500 bond. He had been held in jail 366 days. Approximately four years and nine months after his arrest, on the week of Feb. 19, 2007, Washington was found guilty of first-degree burglary, two counts of second-degree kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, assault and battery, and attempted first-degree sex offense. He was then sentenced to about 44 years in prison. Washington appealed his case to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated Sept. 2, 2008, the Court of Appeals said that the items of evidence should have been submitted to the SBI shortly after August 2002. "According to SBI lab reports, the black purse and black toboggan were not submitted until Aug. 4, 2005, more than three years after these items were collected. "At least 49 months of the delay in this case, from May 2002 to July 2006, is attributable to the State's continuances. "The record contains overwhelming evidence that the reason for the delay in this case was repeated neglect . . . on the part of the Durham County District Attorney's Office. "Given the length of the delay, defendant's repeated efforts to expedite his trial, the overwhelming evidence that the delay could have been avoided if the State had exercised even the slightest care . . . and the fact that this delay actually prejudiced defendant at trial, . . . we have no choice but to conclude that defendant has been deprived of a right affirmed in both our state and federal constitutions. As such, we must vacate defendant's convictions and dismiss all charges." So Washington was freed. This column is not written to condemn the Durham DA's office. They have had to face many problems that are not their fault. I urge all district attorneys in the state to read the Court of Appeals decision in this case! It is clearly written, easy to understand, extraordinary, and downright interesting. It has many vital facts that are not mentioned here because of lack of space. This case can serve as a warning so that this will not happen again! Stanley Peele is a former district court judge. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 22 2008, 04:28 AM Post #28 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/978/story/1225589.html Published: Sep 20, 2008 12:30 AM Modified: Sep 20, 2008 01:41 AM Ruling will show if prosecutors lack conviction in seeking truth John Schwade, Correspondent Comment on this story On Sept. 2, a three-judge panel of the N.C. Court of Appeals unanimously dismissed all charges against Durham's Frankie Delano Washington "on speedy trial grounds," finding that a delay of 4 years and 9 months from his May 2002 arrest to his February 2007 trial, and related circumstances, violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Washington, now 47, was serving essentially a life sentence --the Dept. of Correction Web site listed a projected release date of Nov. 18, 2063 -- after a jury found him guilty of numerous offenses, notably attempted first-degree sex offense and armed robbery, committed during a home invasion. The decision does not exonerate Washington, leaving him subject to derision such as this, posted on the Herald-Sun Web site: "Yes, come on back out Frankie ... You get another chance to terrorize innocent people... ." Meanwhile, assistant district attorney Tracey Cline told the Herald-Sun, "I think the victim's family is understandably upset" while promising to "continue to seek whatever remedies we can." An ideal remedy would be finding a match to the only identifiable physical evidence in the case -- fingerprints inside the recovered purse and hairs in a black toboggan cap found near the scene that did not match Washington's. Judge Douglas McCullough, author of the State v. Washington opinion, called this case "unprecedented" and insinuated that Washington was locked up for another man's crimes. "The State was given notice of evidence tending to establish the guilt of another person already in custody, yet the State failed to request that the SBI make appropriate comparisons of the evidence to this person." Judge McCullough noted the striking similarities between the description of Washington as a black male wearing a bandanna over his face and a black head covering while wielding a sawed-off shotgun, and a man later convicted of committing armed robbery and sexual assaults during a home invasion in the same area. In the latter case, "The State's evidence tended to show that on 7 March 2002, Lawrence Hawes, a black male, wore a maroon bandana over his nose and mouth and pointed a sawed-off shotgun at the victim before raping and robbing her." Nevertheless, "The record shows that despite defendant's 2002 request, the State never submitted a request to the SBI lab that any of the physical evidence in this case be compared to the known fingerprints or DNA profile of Lawrence Hawes, and the trial court denied defendant's motion to compel such testing." Washington's attorney accepted that denial as final, although it need not have been. "We have no explanation," McCullough wrote, "as to why defense counsel did not renew his 2002 request to have the physical evidence compared to the DNA profile and fingerprint impressions obtained from Hawes." And without a court order or a request by the prosecution, SBI policy prohibited comparison of the fingerprint impressions or DNA profiles to against those in available databases. The truth was pursued doggedly only by a dog -- a police dog that tracked a suspect's scent through alleys and back yards. Still, the truth could be found, and justice served, but only if the DA follows the path implied within the admonishment of the Court of Appeals: resuming the search for a suspect whose fingerprints and DNA match the identifiable evidence. If the DA's only responsibility were locking up criminals, then refusing to consider Hawes as a suspect would be justifiable. After all, Hawes, now 47, is already serving a total sentence of 96 to 117 years. Nevertheless, this would be an abdication of the "Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor" specified by the State Bar. "The prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice." Although there is no guarantee of finding another man guilty of the crimes for which Washington was imprisoned, such an outcome would bring solace to the victims and free Washington of the stigma of being considered "guilty, but freed on a technicality." Regardless of the ultimate outcome, reopening -- or completing -- the investigation would reassure the citizens of Durham that their DA is fulfilling the responsibility of a "minister of justice." (Durham resident John Schwade is a psychologist at a state prison.) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 22 2008, 08:00 AM Post #29 |
|
I wonder why he didn't say exactly this in the lax case--after all, if he believed Crystal had really been raped, then Nifong should have followed another path? Or maybe he just recently came to believe in the ability of DNA to establish one's presence at a crime scene?
Amazing. Did he just come around to the view lately? We certainly didn't hear this kind of talk coming from him during the biggest civil rights case in Durham's recent history, "Scottsboro II". (See below)
Did he have the consistency to have said this about the lax case?
Is this hypocrisy at its finest? When did he say this about Nifong's duties in the lax case? ---------------------------------- http://www.newsobserver.com/978/story/467813.html Published: Aug 05, 2006 12:00 AM Modified: Aug 05, 2006 02:56 AM By staying on the sidelines, Cheek shows no bravado John Schwade, Correspondent (snip) In fairness, Nifong erred within a maelstrom spawned by heated talk of sex, race and privilege. Although he should have gone without saying what goes without saying -- that a DA who asks for an indictment believes, or should believe, the defendants are guilty -- Nifong was obligated to reassure the public that prosecution would not be deterred by the money and influence of the defendants' supporters. Concerns about the determination of the defendants' supporters to forestall prosecution are certainly warranted. A letter from the "Friends of Duke University" to Duke President Richard Brodhead, in language reminiscent of scenes from "The Godfather," included this revealing demand: "We urge Duke to use all its influence and moral suasion to ensure that these three Duke students receive justice through a fair process." [Wow! That's quite a "REVEALING DEMAND". That really reminds me of the Godfather--NOT.] Alluding to the prospective loss of students, each of whom contributes $40,000 annually in tuition, Friends of Duke attempted to make Brodhead an offer he couldn't refuse, cryptically warning that failure to respond "to the district attorney's behavior" could "lead future students to think twice before attending Duke." The group boasted of the influence of its friends in the national news media, notably MSNBC's Duke alumnus Dan Abrams, who they said is convinced "all evidence in the prosecution's discovery file supports the team's unwavering position: no sexual assault occurred." Undoubtedly, Abrams and others have convinced those potential jurors unfamiliar with the law or the savage reality of sexual assaults that a mystical "timeline" proves the defendants had no opportunity to commit a sexual assault, although neither the statutes nor the reality of the alleged crimes include foreplay or satisfaction. [So in AUGUST he still believes there was a rape. Or maybe his own "mystical" version of one. Note : I guess he didn't believe in DNA evidence at this point. ] Thus Cheek cannot be blamed for choosing to stay with his law practice rather than attempting to enter the Duke lacrosse arena, where his every action would be scrutinized by the national news media, answered by the defense team's counterattack against the "false accuser," and questioned in perpetuity by those not satisfied with the ultimate resolution of the case. (snip) Edited by Quasimodo, Sep 22 2008, 08:05 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 25 2008, 04:38 AM Post #30 |
|
http://www.jdnews.com/opinion/trial_59654___article.html/speedy_case.html Courts need to define what ‘speedy' means September 24, 2008 - 7:56PM The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees accused people to "the right of a speedy and public trial." Article I of the N.C. Constitution also has a speedy trial provision. It demands that "justice shall be administered without favor, denial or delay." While both our federal and state constitutions demand speedy trials, neither defines what a speedy trial actually is. The N.C. Court of Appeals recently said that five years is too long. Earlier this month, the state's second highest court threw out the conviction of a Durham man whose case took nearly five years to come to trial. Frankie Delano Washington, who was convicted of a number of charges, including burglary, kidnapping, robbery and attempted sex offense, was arrested on May 30, 2002. His case didn't come to trial until February 2007. The appeals court cited a number of reasons for overturning Washington's conviction and dismissing the charges against him, including a finding that the delays impaired the memories of witnesses at the trial. Shouldn't it suffice to say that a nearly five-year delay was a denial of Washington's speedy trial right on its face? Why do we need to come up with a finding that the delay was prejudicial because it contributed to witnesses having fuzzy recollections? It would be unfair to paint the Washington case as the norm in North Carolina justice. It would also be incorrect to say that such cases are isolated. You may recall a case in Wilson where a young man was held in jail for three years for a murder he apparently did not commit. Charges against James Johnson were dismissed last December after another man serving a life sentence for the murder told authorities that Johnson was not involved in the killing. Our individual freedom is precious. Our Founding Fathers realized that and built safeguards for freedom into our founding documents. They protected us against self-incrimination. They gave us the right to a trial by jury. They said that if we have a right to legal representation, and if we can't afford a lawyer, it's the obligation of the government to provide us one. Speedy trials are necessary for a number of reasons. For one, a victim or a victim's family should not have unnecessary delays in seeing justice served. Swift justice is also good for society at large. Nor should the wrongly accused have to wait for his day in court. We're aware that our judicial system is imperfect. And sometimes, it takes time for the state and the defense to build their cases. But waiting five years for trial, as in the Washington case, or even three years for charges to be dismissed, as in the Johnson case, are way out of line with our Founding Fathers' principles. North Carolina used to have a speedy trials law, which required a case to go to trial within a specified time. It had so many holes in it that it became a joke. Finally, lawmakers repealed the law altogether. Maybe it's time to revisit a speedy trials law. Now, we're not in favor of arresting someone one day, trying him the next day and carrying out the punishment the next. Nor do we believe that wrongly accused individuals should have the burden of waiting years for their day in court. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:37 PM Jul 10