DUKE CASE: IS CHANGE OF VENUE POSSIBLE?, WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 28-OCTOBER 4, 2006
by CASH MICHAELS
There's an echo in here. :-)
That is an interesting column and containing some new information to me, so interesting quotes and a few errors:
1. Maybe the biggest news is that he reports deep in the column that as we suspected the new discovery adds nothing of consequence to the case.
2. Did either of you ever think in this case you would read Cash Michael quotes Michael Gayner and Robert "KC" Johnons other than to criticize them. He just gives their point of view and moves on.
3. He fails to fully explain to his readers that while Joann Little claimed attempted rape as her defense to homicide, ie self defense, she was the defendent. Mangum is NOT a defendent. She has no right to a fair trial or a jury of her peers. Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann are defendants and do have a right to a fair trial and a jury of their peers.
4. This is the first I have read that the 60 minutes segment is off until 15 October? I wonder if he means due to late breaking developments in this case or other stories 60 minutes wants to cover?
5. How dumb is Nancy Grace? Did she get her law degree over the internet? The defense has only filed motions in court. They have done nothing to harm their case for a change in venue. And had they smeared Mangum, it would not matter. The defendants NOT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS have an absolute right to a fair trial. It does not matter who tainted the jury pool. The Judge may not sanction the defense in any way that abridges the defendants rights to a fair trial.
6. The defense most certainly will request a change of venue. If it is not granted, then that is a reversable error in the event of a nullification conviction. It would be attorney malpractice not to seek a change in venue.
7. I expect this case if it gets to trial to be tried in Greensboro. I believe that is part of Judge Smith's judicial district. I doubt he wants to move the case to one of the small counties in his district like Caswell, but he could.
8. Cash Michael does not seem to understand that the motion to quash Mangum's ID of the three has long ago been filed and is not something that "might" be filed.