| Erick Daniels case | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 19 2008, 08:05 AM (4,574 Views) | |
| abb | Sep 19 2008, 02:41 PM Post #16 |
|
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A259872 Motions favor convicted teen |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 19 2008, 02:42 PM Post #17 |
|
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A257676 Erick Daniels could get new trial |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 19 2008, 03:00 PM Post #18 |
|
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals2007/&invol=060282-1 NO. COA06-282 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 January 2007 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v . Durham County No. 01 CRS 6233-34 ERICK DANIELS, Defendant |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 19 2008, 03:06 PM Post #19 |
|
A great article, and one that shows what the press can do (in this example, the Indy) when it really wants to. But I have to wish they would have covered the lax case like this; or even, the facts behind the suits--the malfeasance in Durham and Duke and the DPD which led to the Duke frame-up. Unfortunately, for all their liberal (in the classic sense) leanings and opposition to the establishment, I don't think they have that in them. They weren't accomplices IMHO as were the N&O and the HS, but they had the chance to make a difference and preferred to remain silent rather than champion the cause of some innocents who came from a background they didn't like. Which is a great missed opportunity; and not only for the three accused, but now for Durham, which needs to be informed of the full truth. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 19 2008, 03:09 PM Post #20 |
|
We need to ride this one hard, along with the Frankie Washington case. It shows a pattern and practice. It gives us (Liestoppers) credibility to stick up for AA's who were Framed for things they didn't do. Plus, it's simply the right thing to do.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 19 2008, 03:23 PM Post #21 |
|
The AA community has to understand that the reforms and the exposure of a corrupt system concern every future defendant in Durham (and NC). The fight for the reforms--which should be being waged by the NAACP, the ACLU, the churches, etc.--is at the heart of the lax suits. These should have the enthusiastic support of the poor and the lower classes, and the pulpits. Instead, the NAACP wants to keep the talk about "1898". The Indy won't breathe a word in support of the suits. The only time the press mentions the suits is to blame the greedy players for wanting more. There is, clearly, no one in Durham who is really going to address the issues of corruption and reform, except for the plaintiffs in the lax suits. And these issues--which the laxers will demand as part of any settlement (meaning, that they hold these as more important than money, and can't be bought off--greedy as they are...) are what is going to mean the most to Durham. But let's just keep on calling them greedy, so as to distract attention from the real issues. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 19 2008, 03:27 PM Post #22 |
|
(Thanks to abb for bringing this one back to the fore. Where is the NC speedy trial law again? Is Rev. Barber agitating for it? Somehow I thought not . . .) : Injustice, Durham stylehttp://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=2822 Posted September 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 PM by Michael Lowrey The N.C. Court of Appeals today overturned the conviction of Frankie Washington, who was convicted in February 2007 of a May 2002 house invasion in Durham. Yeah, the trial was nearly five years after the crime. And exactly that was the problem — the appeals court determined that the delay amounted to a speedy trial violation. Seems the Washington’s trial got pushed back at least four years pending SBI testing of evidence – evidence that the prosecution didn’t submit for over three years, despite a court order requiring them to do so. The state also failed to compare the evidence to that of someone arrested for committing exactly the same sort of crime in exactly the same neighborhood despite a defense request to do so. Ultimately, the evidence did not match Washington (!), but he still was convicted based solely on eyewitness identifications, with the victims and police testified about what happened nearly five years earlier. Memory fades over time, [Unless you are Crystal] and the police remembered little that wasn’t in their notes while the victims’ identifications grew stronger over time. Both of these would, of course, be a problem. Of course, given that it’s Durham, should any of this come as a surprise? |
![]() |
|
| Sydney Carton | Sep 19 2008, 04:55 PM Post #23 |
|
Thanks for the fine thread,Quasi.Snippets of this have been drifting in here for months and it is good to see the whole sorry situation consolidated. abb: We need to ride this one hard, along with the Frankie Washington case. It shows a pattern and practice. It gives us (Liestoppers) credibility to stick up for AA's who were Framed for things they didn't do. Plus, it's simply the right thing to do. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 20 2008, 03:54 AM Post #24 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1225659.html Published: Sep 20, 2008 12:30 AM Modified: Sep 20, 2008 03:34 AM Karen Daniel wraps her son Erick Daniels in a hug Friday after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson threw out the robbery case that kept Daniels in prison for nearly seven years. Staff Photos by Harry Lynch Man walks free after 7 years in prison Judge throws out Durham case that put a youth behind bars By Anne Blythe, Staff Writer Comment on this story DURHAM - Erick Daniels spent nearly a third of his 22 years behind bars for crimes a judge said Friday he did not commit. When he walked free Friday afternoon, one of the first acts as a freed man was something he might have done as a teen: He went to the mall with his mother to buy new underwear and clothes. Then he stepped out with his younger brother and cousin for a haircut and a taste of the life he has missed. "That haircut might take five days," Karen Daniel said. "You should see him. He is so happy." Erick Daniels screamed "Mommy" in December 2001 when bailiffs led him out of a courtroom as a scared 15-year-old convicted of burglary and robbery. Judge Orlando Hudson threw out the case and ordered his release Friday after a day and a half of hearings. Carlos Mahoney, a Durham lawyer who took on the case several years ago, argued that Daniels had ineffective legal representation at the trial and appeals level. Mahoney also said Daniels was the victim of prosecutors who withheld evidence that would have helped his defense, and of police who used a flawed photo lineup to identify him. Daniels put his head on a courtroom table and cried as Hudson announced his decision. "This is a tremendous day," Mahoney said. "I feel regret that the whole process occurred and that he was in jail for seven years. But I'm happy he'll be able to get out today without having to serve four more years." Friends and relatives in the courtroom erupted with wild sobbing and clapping. Tears streamed down the face of Karen Daniel, who fought for seven years to win her son's release. Daniels was 14 when he was charged with being one of two armed robbers who burst into the home of Ruth Brown, a police department employee, on Sept. 21, 2000, and stole her pocketbook containing $6,231 in cash. His case was sent to Durham Superior Court and, at age 15, he was tried as an adult. At trial, a prosecutor relied on Brown's identification of Daniels. She identified him from a middle-school yearbook photo after 30 minutes of study. The state offered no physical evidence or corroborating testimony linking Daniels to the crime. Daniels was found guilty and sentenced to 10 to 14 years in prison. He would have been eligible for release in 2012. Flawed defense Robert Harris, the lawyer who defended Daniels at trial, testified at the hearing this week that, in hindsight, his counsel had been flawed. Harris said he made many mistakes at the trial that could have jeopardized Daniels' case. He had not objected, for example, when prosecutors discussed Daniels' juvenile record or the fact that he had once been shot. Harris also opened the door for this week's hearing. A client told Harris that he committed the burglary and robbery, information that was not available during Daniels' trial. Knowing that put Harris in a difficult spot. The evidence could exonerate Daniels, but under rules that govern attorney-client relationships, the information was privileged and potentially damaging to his client. Eventually, Harris told Freda Black, the prosecutor in the case, that another man had confessed. Black, called to the stand Thursday, testified that she did not pursue the information. No new trial Before freeing Daniels, Hudson said he doubted prosecutors would have tried the case today with as little evidence as they had. Photo-lineup procedures have changed since then and the lineup that was used would not have been allowed into evidence, Hudson said. Hudson could have ordered a new trial, but he said he "had no confidence whatsoever in the jury's verdict that this defendant committed the crime. I think he did not." Daniels was released from the Durham County jail about four hours after the hearing. He had spent the past two nights there after spending most of his time in Warren County Correctional Institute. "I'm free, I'm free," a quiet, but elated Daniels said. Family and friends gathered at the home he had not seen since his teenage years, celebrating with food on the grill. Karen Daniel (who spells her last name without the "s") argued from the time of her son's arrest that he was innocent. She pleaded his case with lawyers, police administrators and reporters. The Independent Weekly did an investigation into the case, publishing a story in May 2007. Mahoney, the lawyer who represented Daniels, said he had not discussed with his client whether to seek compensation for the years he spent behind bars. Soon, Daniel said, she'll take her son to Disney World. She knows the days and weeks ahead will offer challenging times. Daniels got his high school equivalency diploma while behind bars. But much awaits him as a young adult. "This is a good day," she said. "I feel better. I feel seven years younger." Others celebrated the news, too. Lawyers who work to free the wrongly convicted were pleased to see Daniels' release. "It's great the court finally corrected the wrongful conviction," said Christine Mumma, a lawyer and director of the N.C. Center on Actual Innocence. "But it took too long. It takes too long." anne.blythe@newsobserver.com or (919) 932-8741 |
![]() |
|
| Rullie | Sep 20 2008, 07:28 AM Post #25 |
|
Just think, some say it's time to move on, pack it in.. All Liestoppers should be heartened, as the pieces keep crumbling away from the monolith that is the Durham "Legal" system.The unwilling journalists bear a part of the blame in these sham cases the DA office/PD rams through. Power crazed vermin involved, lots of them. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 23 2008, 04:10 AM Post #26 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1228721.html Published: Sep 23, 2008 12:30 AM Modified: Sep 23, 2008 02:23 AM Help him live out of prison Barry Saunders, Staff Writer Comment on this story The responses should be easy to ignore -- that Erick Daniels was let loose on a technicality, that he'll be back in the joint within two years, that he really did rob that lady -- if they could be dismissed as the racist rants of a few polecats who managed to ease their slimy hands onto a keyboard and ooze their reprehensible views into the electronic atmosphere. They would be easy to ignore, that is, if not for the fact that similar views held by some prosecutors and cops led to the kid spending seven years in prison in the first place. In online comments and phone calls, people seem inclined to wager that Daniels, who went to prison at 15 for a crime he didn't commit, will be re-incarcerated. I might've missed it, but, gee willikers, I do not recall any such predictions after the prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players was determined to be the result of identical examples of official ineptitude or political motivation. "Hey, race-baiting Barry, how long is it going to take before you get on your soapbox about what an injustice was done to that poor man in Durham?" asked one caller who declared that I didn't similarly rush to the defense of the Duke 38. Had he been man enough to leave a telephone number -- funny thing about these clowns, they rarely are -- I'd have answered "About five minutes" and "What 38? There were only three lacrosse players unfairly prosecuted: the other 35 are just greedy punks who need to get a job." I asked Daniels' grandmother, Gwen Ettson, if, in her darkest moments, she ever doubted his innocence. "I never, ever, ever thought Erick would do that. I never even considered it," she said. I don't know about you, but I'm more inclined to believe her than someone whose preconceptions spring from what they read or from their own diseased minds. Suppose some of you win your bet and Erick Daniels really does end up back in the slammer: Just whose fault will it be? Ultimately, the responsibility will lie with him, of course, but does a society that sends a child to an institution of higher -- lower? -- learning for criminals have any right to be surprised if he comes out with an advanced degree in raising hell? No. How could somebody not come out angry after pulling a seven-year bid for something he didn't do? I know a dude -- me -- who initially wanted to wreak deadly destruction after doing just a few days in an Atlanta jail for something he didn't do. The main reason I didn't is that school had started while I was confined and I had to register for classes. Believe this: A lot of dudes have no classes to register for once they get out. If Erick Daniels does end up back in prison, the indictment that lands him there will be an indictment not just of him and the injustice system, but of blacks who have "made it" yet who blithely shirk their obligations to those who haven't. You know what needs to happen? Some church in Durham needs to wrap its arms around that kid and walk him through a system that is unforgiving and uncharitable to ex-cons. Help him get his driver's license, register to vote and learn all the things they don't teach you in the joint -- and unlearn the things they do. Other churches should make it their duty to adopt other Erick Danielses, in prison and out, wrongly accused or rightly accused, and let them know that somebody cares, that there's a better way and that bad behavior won't be tolerated -- not by them or cops and prosecutors. barry.saunders@newsobserver.com or (919) 836-2811 |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Sep 23 2008, 07:36 AM Post #27 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1228721.html Published: Sep 23, 2008 12:30 AM
Strange. The only comments I've seen are supportive of Daniels.
[I haven't seen anyone say this, either. (Admittedly, I don't read all the boards on the NET.]
[Just more pushing of the company line. (And now they are "punks", too.) As well, it demonstrates how the players' reputations continue to be damaged.]
[But not inclined to believe lacrosse mothers?]
[How could somebody not be angry if they were accused of rape and a whole town wanted to lynch them because of their race, even if they were innocent?]
[God spare him from any association with any church in Durham. John Wesley said that Christians should always defend, never accuse. Yet not one man of the cloth in Durham, black or white, stepped forward to defend some innocent accused when they were being railroaded to a fraudulent conviction--and that was entirely because of the unpopularity of their gender,race, and class. Some clergy...]
[Barry Saunders can say this with a straight face and a good conscience?] |
![]() |
|
| HSLAXMOM | Sep 23 2008, 09:06 AM Post #28 |
|
So, why did no reporter try to interview Ruth Brown or Freda Black or the officers involved in the lineup about this? The DA at the time must be one of the Durham judges that we all know and love. Didn't anyone try to interview him about this? So, why did no reporter try to contact Tracey Cline [Dem. candidate for DA] or whoever the republican candidate for DA [if there is one] for a comment? How does the DA office plan to make sure something like this doesn't happen again? What happened to investigative reporting? |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 23 2008, 10:12 AM Post #29 |
|
Barry Barry Barry - Only you could twist the release of this man to take another dig at the Lacrosse Team. Oh I am "sure" he has been "flooded" with calls from people concern Daniels will wind up in jail. "What 38? There were only three lacrosse players unfairly prosecuted: the other 35 are just greedy punks who need to get a job." What?? He calls them greedy punks? Of course he gets the number wrong, there is about 53 other ones including family members. No, a punk is someone who makes the fish comment(attack against Catholics) and dismisses the real claims against the City of Durham, Duke, and the other defendants. But who ever facts checks at the N & O? I suppose we will hear another justification from his editors how Saunders is suppose to stir things up. Who has been screaming for reform in Durham's Justice system? The players, blogs, and Hooligans who support them. The more Barry talks the more I suspect he was a part of this travesty. He protests too much. |
![]() |
|
| Jack_Webb | Sep 23 2008, 10:23 AM Post #30 |
|
C'mon, investigative reporting is, like, WORK, man.... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:40 PM Jul 10