Duke's Rush To Judgment (Durham, The Massachusetts Of North Carolina Rape Injustice Case Alert)

Frontpage Interview's guest today is KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. With a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University, he specializes in 20th century U.S. political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. He writes a blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, which offers comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case.

FP: Kindly summarize briefly for our readers what this case involving the three Lacrosse students is about.

Johnson: This is the story of how a case virtually devoid of evidence, constructed upon a tissue of procedural irregularities, nonetheless has lurched forward. At a March team party at an off-campus house rented by three lacrosse captains, one captain hired two exotic dancers to perform. After leaving the party, which ended sourly, an African-American dancer with a criminal record and a history of false allegations (including an unpursued claim that three men raped her a decade ago) claimed to have been raped to prevent being involuntarily committed at Durham Access Center. After going through multiple stories, the accuser eventually settled on a claim of a violent gang rape by three players (with three others, who were never charged or in any way identified, serving as accomplices). The rape, she alleged, lasted a half hour; and at least two of her attackers, who she said didn't wear condoms, ejaculated.

Although the second dancer contradicted her account in virtually every way; the team captains gave statements to police, without their lawyers present, denying the allegations and voluntarily turned over to police DNA samples and their e-mail account passwords; and although the team captains offered to take lie detector tests (an offer the police spurned); and no DNA matches of any sort between any player and the accuser's DNA appeared; and although an original photo line-up of the players found the accuser unable to identify her alleged attackers, D.A. Mike Nifong eventually indicted three players, including one, Reade Seligmann, whose attorney produced a videotape of him more than a mile away, at an ATM machine, at the time of the alleged crime.

FP: Let's talk about District Attorney Mike Nifong's conduct. What is your angle on it and why has the legal community and most of the media been so quiet about it?

Johnson: Nifong's conduct in this case is the most unethical of any district attorney I have ever seen; I cannot recall a case in the last 15-20 years in which this many procedural violations were known at this stage of the process.

This is a man who violated multiple provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct simply to get a case. His most damaging violation was ordering the Durham Police not to follow their own procedures in the line-up that resulted in the identification of the three players charged. The procedures required five filler photos per every suspect; Nifong told police to confine the line-up to suspects—members of the lacrosse team.

The media, of course, were not initially quiet: led by the New York Times, early coverage all but had the players tried and convicted. The case fit into a comfortable narrative for a liberal media elite of out-of-control wealthy white athletes violating a poor African-American woman. As the case has collapsed, most media—with the crucial exception of the Raleigh News & Observer and CBS's 60 Minutes—abandoned interest in the affair, rather than revisiting their early flawed reporting. The New York Times, meanwhile, published a widely ridiculed August article that read more like a public relations piece for Nifong than a piece of journalism. The article contained four out-and-out errors of fact, all of which tilted the story in favor of the prosecution, and all of which the Times refused to correct.

FP: What has been the overall reaction of the Duke faculty and administration? What is your take on it?

Johnson: In the first week of the investigation (March 16-23), Duke administrators actively assisted the state. Without informing President Richard Brodhead, administrators demanded from the captains a candid account of the evening's events, allegedly citing a non-existent "student-faculty" privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any criminal activity. Multiple sources told me that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry. Meanwhile, Dean Sue Wasiolek arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a "facilitator" in arranging for a group meeting with police.

After Nifong began his publicity barrage on March 27, faculty leftists became involved. Houston Baker, a professor of English and Afro-American Studies, issued a public letter denouncing the "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us" and demanding the "immediate dismissals" of "the team itself and its players." Then, on April 6, 88 members of Duke's arts and sciences faculty signed a public statement saying "thank you" to campus demonstrators who had distributed a "wanted" poster of the lacrosse players and publicly branded the players "rapists." To date, not a single member of what has become known as the "Group of 88" has retracted his or her signature or publicly criticized Nifong's procedural violations.

(I started my blog as a response to the Group of 88's statement, which I considered a betrayal of the signatories' duties as faculty members, and only expanded to the case itself as the magnitude of Nifong's procedural misconduct became clear.)

As Brodhead failed to resist his faculty's assault on due process, his actions, whether intended or not, fortified a public image of guilt. On March 25, in an unprecedented move, the president cancelled (at the last minute) the lacrosse team's game against Georgetown, citing underage drinking at the party. Then, on April 5, Brodhead demanded Pressler's resignation, cancelled the lacrosse season, and issued a statement anchored by a lament on the evils of rape—at a time when the players were firmly denying any sexual contact, much less rape. These moves enjoyed enthusiastic support from Board of Trustees chairman Robert Steel. The president later issued a statement urging a trial, on the grounds that it would give the accused players an opportunity to be "proved innocent," in effect turning on its head 220 years of American constitutional history.

Based on the actions and statements of both the faculty and administration, a fair-minded neutral observer could only conclude that Duke's administrators and most outspoken professors believed that a rape occurred.

Johnson: In Nifong's case, the political motivation was straightforward. An appointed district attorney, he was running in the May Democratic primary against two challengers: a well-known white woman, Freda Black, whom he had fired as an assistant district attorney in one of his first acts in office; and a weak black candidate, Keith Bishop. The party's electorate was about evenly divided between white and black voters.

Black was much better known than Nifong (she had helped prosecute a high-profile murder case in 2003), and in mid-February, she seemed on the verge of putting the race away. Nifong started having trouble raising money—he attracted only $1150 in contributions for all March—and, to keep his candidacy alive, he loaned his campaign nearly $30,000. (A lifetime bureaucrat whose wife is a "victims' rights" advocate, Nifong isn't personally wealthy.)

Then came the lacrosse allegation. Nifong took control of the police investigation, gave over 50 interviews that highlighted (in misleading fashion) an alleged racial motive for the alleged crime, and soared in polls. He captured the primary by 881 votes, thanks to robust showings in black precincts.

In the fall campaign, two unaffiliated candidates ran against him: with minimal support from the white community, Nifong again squeaked through, with less than 50%, thanks to overwhelming backing in black precincts. By the fall, he had abandoned all pretences that his motives were anything other than political, stating at one point that his trying the case would address Durham's "underlying divisions," and wildly claiming that his critics considered his prosecution "a threat to their sense of entitlement and that they do not trust a jury of Durham citizens to decide" the case.

FP: How do you think the Duke/Nifong case will turn out? Crystallize for us the main lessons we must all draw from it.

Johnson: Legally, the outcome of the case very much depends on the judge, Osmond Smith. Any judge with integrity would have to suppress the procedurally improper line-up ordered by Nifong and then used to indict the three players; without the results from that line-up, Nifong has no case. There are two other key decisions the judge could make: (1) He could grant a defense motion to force Nifong's refusal from the case, which in effect would dismiss the charges, since it's inconceivable any other prosecutor would try this case; or (2) he could grant a motion for a change of venue, which would effectively ensure an acquittal, since Nifong has constructed his whole case around appealing to biases with Durham's community.

There are myriad lessons we should draw from events of this case, including the following:

Rape law needs modification. Until the 1970s, rape law was far too friendly to the defendant; now it is the reverse. Nifong has done many unethical things in this case, but he has been correct in one assertion: under North Carolina law, a jury can convict solely on the testimony of the accuser and her identifying her alleged assailants. That means that, as a matter of law, Reade Seligmann could be convicted—even Seligmann has electronic and physical evidence that can definitely prove his innocence (he's on videotape a mile away at the time of the alleged crime).

Duke, as an institution, has revealed a hollow moral core. Seven months into a case of what might be the highest-profile example of prosecutorial misconduct in the last decade, two Duke law professors and two Duke arts and sciences professors have publicly criticized Nifong. Meanwhile, Group of 88 members continues to defend their actions, even to the point of making demonstrably false public assertions about the players. Meanwhile, Brodhead has shown himself unwilling or unable to lead the institution, allowing what amounts to a "separate-but-equal" system to be established in Durham, under which Duke students are second-class citizens.

The silence of North Carolina's political and legal establishment regarding Nifong's misconduct is stunning.

The media needs to reconsider how it covers rape cases. To a greater extent than any crime other than child abuse, a presumption of guilt exists.

The next time the NAACP speaks up on behalf of standard procedure in a criminal justice case, the media should ask why the organization betrayed 70 years of its principles on criminal justice issues to give Nifong a pass in this case.

In Durham, North Carolina, a robust constituency exists for the politics of revenge and prosecutorial misconduct.

Freelancer calls for probe into arrest

BY BRIANNE DOPART, The Herald-Sun
November 16, 2006 9:09 pm

DURHAM -- Freelance photographer Julian Harrison and his lawyer want an internal investigation into his arrest for alleged "disorderly conduct" while taking pictures at the scene of a shooting earlier this month involving a Durham police officer.

Harrison, who occasionally sells photos to The Herald-Sun, was thrown up against a private car and arrested for alleged use of "abusive language" Nov. 3 while taking pictures in the parking lot of the Target store on Renaissance Parkway near Southpoint mall.

Capt. D.L. Dowdy initiated the arrest while Harrison was standing several feet beyond police crime scene tape.

The incident, which resulted in about $500 in damage to the car, occurred just two days after front-line supervisors, including lieutenants and sergeants, underwent training to learn how to deal with members of the media.

Harrison was taken downtown for booking. But Magistrate Eric Van Fleet declined to charge Harrison with a crime and immediately released him, saying the photographer was doing his job.

The Durham Police Department has said it is not conducting an internal investigation into Dowdy's conduct, and his immediate supervisor has dealt with the matter, said police spokeswoman Kammie Michael.

Dowdy was not involved in the media training, Michael said. She declined to provide more information, citing state personnel privacy laws.

Harrison and his attorney, Fred Battaglia, say they plan to request an internal investigation in hopes of showing a trend of ongoing abuse.

Harrison claims to have five videotaped incidents of himself allegedly being harassed and abused by Durham police officers while he was attempting to photograph or film breaking news in the past two years.

Harrison has been arrested at least eight times since 1994 and charged with 16 offenses, ranging from disorderly conduct to parking within 100 feet of a squad car, according to court records. He was found guilty of two. Harrison said he and Battaglia fought the rest, which were dismissed by the courts, at least one for insufficient evidence.

Harrison said he intends to fight this "assault and attack" with more intensity because he feels his right to work has been threatened.

Officer B.D. Schnee, who shot suspects Mikel and Kimberly Mobley in the Target parking lot as they allegedly moved their vehicle in an attempt to flee arrest for alleged pharmaceutical fraud, remains on paid administrative duty.

The State Bureau of Investigation and the Durham Police Department's Professional Standards Division are investigating -- normal procedure for a shooting involving an officer.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-789530.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/511242.html

Editorial:
Published: Nov 17, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Nov 17, 2006 03:52 AM

A painful past
The uprising by white North Carolinians against black residents in Wilmington was a tragedy. The N&O, sadly, shares the blame

From its earliest colonization, the history of North Carolina tracks the grand arc of American history writ large. Along the way have come accomplishments that are proud pillars of our heritage -- the victories on Revolutionary battlefields, the rise of a great public university, the first powered flight. Although their cause was profoundly flawed, North Carolinians fought bravely and with great sacrifice in the national cataclysm that was the Civil War.

The South's defeat tragically did not spell an end to the country's great racial divide that had been manifested in slavery. Many white citizens remained convinced of their superiority and their entitlement to a privileged place in society. They resented the modest gains in status and civil rights accorded to newly freed African-Americans.

That resentment, and political opportunism magnified to a devilish degree, led to another milestone in North Carolina's history. This time, it was a milestone of shame.

The story of the 1898 racially charged uprising in the port city of Wilmington is told once again, and in painstaking detail, in the special section published in today's News & Observer.

Again we confront the role played by the press in firing the hatreds that led white vigilantes to overthrow Wilmington's elected municipal government and wantonly to kill black residents. This newspaper was a leader in that propaganda effort under editor and publisher Josephus Daniels. Although the paper no longer is owned by Daniels' heirs, an apology for the acts of someone whom we continue to salute in a different context on this page and for the misdeeds of the paper as an institution is perfectly in order, and so we offer that apology today.

As explained elsewhere, the special section arises from the report of a legislative commission into the causes and consequences of what became known as the Wilmington race riot. That investigation was spurred by observances of the event's centennial in 1998.

The N&O, through past articles and commentaries, has shared the story of that fateful time with its readers and acknowledged its role. But now the events of 1898 have received a definitive examination. It is in the spirit of fully confronting this ugly chapter of this state's and this newspaper's past that we present, in the special section, the account by historian and author Timothy B. Tyson.

While North Carolina was by no means the only state to experience a white backlash against African-American gains during Reconstruction, the violence in Wilmington is regarded as having led to a singular episode in this country -- the armed overthrow of an elected governing body.

The uprising also coincided with the ascendance into power of white supremacists, acting through the Democratic Party, who went on to impose the repressive, segregationist legal code known as Jim Crow. These were the laws that disenfranchised black voters and relegated them to second-class citizenship, the Constitution's guarantees of equality notwithstanding.

In this climate, the scourge of lynching spread across the South. And cynical, ruthless politicians rose to authority by fanning white fear and loathing of blacks. This, sadly, was Josephus Daniels' stock in trade during those years in which he used The N&O to further the white supremacist cause and advance his party's fortunes.

It is not a history we can undo, even though the newspaper's principles under the Daniels family's leadership eventually came to embrace and even champion "equality and justice to the underprivileged." Rather, it is a history that must be recognized as we remember those whose lives were destroyed in Wilmington in 1898, and those whose rights were stripped away in the years thereafter.

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/PrintArticle.asp?id=gaynorm&date=061114 WEBCommentary Contributor Author: Michael J. Gaynor Date: November 14, 2006 Duke Case: "Community Justice" Is Trumping Individual Justice Perhaps Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong's electoral success with the overwhelming majority of Durham County's black votes is in large part the result of the perception of him as a champion of "community justice." But, Mr. Nifong's duty under North Carolina is to be a fair and impartial minister of justice in each case.� He's not entitled to try to railroad anyone to win votes or�to please potential supporters or actual supporters. He is duty-bound not to pursue a case frivoulously, or recklessly, or unconstitutionally, no matter how many voters want him to do so. In its May 1, 2006 issue Newsweek reported the commendably candid, but otherwise contemptible, attitude of North Carolina Central State student Colin Hall:�Duke students should be prosecuted "whether it [the alleged kidnapping and gang rape] happened or not," as "justice for things that happened in the past."� Mr. Hall, 22, who is black, apparently believed that some white Duke lacrosse players should be sacrificed to make up for past injustices to "the black community," whether�their accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, told the truth or lied. Justice seeks the truth, not revenge. In the United States (and that still includes North Carolina), the criminal justice system is supposed to mete out justice on a case-by-case basis, based on the merits of each case, not to use cases to make reparation for past injustices. Wikipedia: "Jury nullification is a jury's refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on other grounds and so asserts the jurors' own view of justice; a consequence of providing a right to trial by one's peers. Although a jury's refusal only relates to the particular case before them, juries are reluctant to pass a verdict contrary to law and therefore jury nullification often has far reaching implications signalling as it does an unwillingness by ordinary people to accept the law....:Historical examples include the revolutionary use by Americans who refused to convict under British law, juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general, the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases; and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case." In the Duke case, there�seems to be�a great temptation to use jury nullification TO CONVICT (or at least refuse to acquit) for a purpose supposedly more important than doing justice in the case: � The�hijacking of�the criminal justice system outrages the vast majority of Americans, but not people like Mr. Hall, who instead are enamored with the idea that the Duke Three are being prosecuted at the instance of Crystal Gail Mangum. People enamored with that idea don't care that each of the Duke Three passed a polygraph test and Ms. Mangum did not.� They say that the polygraph test must have been rigged, or the Duke Three are pathological liars and Ms. Mangum was wise not to take one, because it might�have been rigged. The enamored people have an explanation for everything�that indicates the Duke Three are innocent and Ms. Mangum lied.� Examples: The DNA results were rigged.� It is to be expected that a rape victim would be confused as to whether or not she was raped, and whether there were three, four, five or twenty rapists. The second stripper, Kim Roberts Pittman, should not be believed, the enamored people now say, because she has a criminal record.� But Ms. Mangum should be believed despite her�criminal record (or perhaps because the person she nearly ran down�during her joyride�was a policeman). Many blacks in Durham County, North Carolina apparently believe that instances of the criminal justice system mistreating blacks�constitute a good reason to proceed to trial in the Duke case. Perhaps it is unfair to say that they believe two wrongs make a right, but they�do see to be caught up in a variation of the eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth approach to criminal justice�in which miscarriages of justices involving blacks demand miscarriages of justices involving whites. NCCU Law Professor Irving Joyner, who is monitoring the Duke case for the North Carolina NAACP, yearns for a jury trial of the Duke case in Durham. He seems to believe that a Durham jury may convict when jurors elsewhere would not: "This case originated in Durham and should be tried here"�and Mr. Nifong "still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham." Professor Joyner explained�why he specified a "Durham" jury as giving Mr. Nifong a chance to win: "A Durham jury may see things differently than would an Orange or Wake County jury because the Durham jury will probably have more African-Americans on it than would be involved in most other counties in North Carolina." But,�a verdict should not depend upon the county in which the case is tried or the color of the accuser, the accused, the prosecutor or the jurors. On June 6, Professor Joyner appeared on "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" (MSNBC).� His comments reflected his "community" approach. A few days earlier, the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot� Commission, on which Professor Joyner had served as vice chairman, had issued a report urging North Carolina to provide reparations for the 1898 racial violence that sparked an exodus of more than 2,000 black residents from Wilmington, North Carolina.. Herewith the exchange between Professor Joyner and Tucker Carlson: Carlson: Joining us from Raleigh, North Carolina, tonight...is vice-chairman of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission, Irving Joyner.� Mr. Joyner, thanks for coming on.� �first, let me just say that the more you read about this 1898 massacre, the more horrifying it is.� And I�m not in any way attempting to minimize what happened.� You can�t minimize it. My question that [is] simple, to whom would you pay reparations, since nobody�or pay anything, because nobody who was alive then, the perpetrators or the victims is alive today.� So who gets paid? JOYNER:� Well, we�re not trying to get paid for anyone.� CARLSON:� Good. JOYNER:� What we�re trying to do is to redress�redress a wrong that occurred, a wrong that happened not only to individuals, but to an entire community, and it is the community that deserves to be repaired.� And it is that community that our recommendations are directed toward aiding and assisting in this situation.� CARLSON:� OK.� Now you�re talking about taking public money and giving it to a group of people in repayment, in part, for wrongs that happened long ago to people who are no longer alive, committed by people who are also no longer alive.� And so why should... JOYNER:� That�s one approach.� That�s one approach.� I mean, that�s one way to look at it.� I think the better way... CARLSON:� OK.� That�s factually accurate, I believe.� JOYNER:� We�re taking�we�re taking tax money that these people are putting into the government and redirecting it back to that community, so that that community can be repaired.� So it�s not this money is coming from some third party or from your pockets.� CARLSON:� Wait a second.� Well, it�s coming from everyone�s pockets, including from person who had�I mean, every person it�s coming from had no role in this massacre.� I mean, nobody who pulled the trigger or incited people to riot is still alive.� Why should people who were not responsible for a crime pay for the crime?� How is that fair? JOYNER:� Well, because many people benefited�many people benefited from the wrong that was done, primarily the Democratic Party of North Carolina.� The state of North Carolina itself.� The Raleigh News-Observer and others.� These are individuals or groups that we can document involved themselves in the harm that occurred.� So the state is the only organ left that can provide the redress that is needed to repair this community.� CARLSON:� It�s just so unfair, though.� The state is all of us.� So when you say my tax dollars, you tax dollars.� Our next door neighbors tax dollars.� None of us had anything to do with this. It�s so unfair it seems to me, so contrary to principles of American justice, based of course, on the individual, individual perpetrator, individual victim to do this.� I mean, why not say�I could say, well, my great-great-grandmother was killed by your great-grandfather.� You owe me $15,000 for the mental distress I�ve suffered... and you would say to me, I didn�t have anything to do with this. I�m not responsible for what my great-grandmother did.� And you�d be right. JOYNER:��I [think]�you�re talking about something entirely different [from] what we are dealing with...in Wilmington, North Carolina.�We made a case for a documented overthrow of a legitimately elected government.� It harmed people not only in Wilmington, but African Americans all over the state of North Carolina.� CARLSON:� I believe that. JOYNER:� It has nothing to do with your grandfather being harmed by anyone.� CARLSON:� I believe everything... JOYNER:� We�re talking about, Dan, we�re redirecting�let me job name this prize.� We are talking about redirecting state money into an area that is devastated, that has a lingering impact or effect from this massacre, which occurred in Wilmington, North Carolina and it�s time for the state middle to repair the damage that was done there.� That�s all we ask.� And it�s time .... It should NEVER be time to prosecute innocent people as entertainment! Michael J. Gaynor

Let's try that, with some formatting:

Duke Case: "Community Justice" Is Trumping Individual Justice

Perhaps Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong's electoral success with the overwhelming majority of Durham County's black votes is in large part the result of the perception of him as a champion of "community justice."

But, Mr. Nifong's duty under North Carolina is to be a fair and impartial minister of justice in each case. He's not entitled to try to railroad anyone to win votes or to please potential supporters or actual supporters. He is duty-bound not to pursue a case frivoulously, or recklessly, or unconstitutionally, no matter how many voters want him to do so.

In its May 1, 2006 issue Newsweek reported the commendably candid, but otherwise contemptible, attitude of North Carolina Central State student Colin Hall: Duke students should be prosecuted "whether it [the alleged kidnapping and gang rape] happened or not," as "justice for things that happened in the past."

Mr. Hall, 22, who is black, apparently believed that some white Duke lacrosse players should be sacrificed to make up for past injustices to "the black community," whether their accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, told the truth or lied.

Justice seeks the truth, not revenge.

In the United States (and that still includes North Carolina), the criminal justice system is supposed to mete out justice on a case-by-case basis, based on the merits of each case, not to use cases to make reparation for past injustices.

Wikipedia:

"Jury nullification is a jury's refusal to render a verdict according to the law, as instructed by the court, regardless of the weight of evidence presented. Instead, a jury bases its verdict on other grounds and so asserts the jurors' own view of justice; a consequence of providing a right to trial by one's peers. Although a jury's refusal only relates to the particular case before them, juries are reluctant to pass a verdict contrary to law and therefore jury nullification often has far reaching implications signalling as it does an unwillingness by ordinary people to accept the law....:Historical examples include the revolutionary use by Americans who refused to convict under British law, juries who refuse to convict due to perceived injustice of a law in general, the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases; and cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as the race of one of the parties in the case."

In the Duke case, there seems to be a great temptation to use jury nullification TO CONVICT (or at least refuse to acquit) for a purpose supposedly more important than doing justice in the case:

The hijacking of the criminal justice system outrages the vast majority of Americans, but not people like Mr. Hall, who instead are enamored with the idea that the Duke Three are being prosecuted at the instance of Crystal Gail Mangum.

People enamored with that idea don't care that each of the Duke Three passed a polygraph test and Ms. Mangum did not. They say that the polygraph test must have been rigged, or the Duke Three are pathological liars and Ms. Mangum was wise not to take one, because it might have been rigged.

The enamored people have an explanation for everything that indicates the Duke Three are innocent and Ms. Mangum lied. Examples: The DNA results were rigged. It is to be expected that a rape victim would be confused as to whether or not she was raped, and whether there were three, four, five or twenty rapists.

The second stripper, Kim Roberts Pittman, should not be believed, the enamored people now say, because she has a criminal record. But Ms. Mangum should be believed despite her criminal record (or perhaps because the person she nearly ran down during her joyride was a policeman).

Many blacks in Durham County, North Carolina apparently believe that instances of the criminal justice system mistreating blacks constitute a good reason to proceed to trial in the Duke case.

Perhaps it is unfair to say that they believe two wrongs make a right, but they do see to be caught up in a variation of the eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth approach to criminal justice in which miscarriages of justices involving blacks demand miscarriages of justices involving whites.

NCCU Law Professor Irving Joyner, who is monitoring the Duke case for the North Carolina NAACP, yearns for a jury trial of the Duke case in Durham. He seems to believe that a Durham jury may convict when jurors elsewhere would not: "This case originated in Durham and should be tried here" and Mr. Nifong "still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham."

Professor Joyner explained why he specified a "Durham" jury as giving Mr. Nifong a chance to win: "A Durham jury may see things differently than would an Orange or Wake County jury because the Durham jury will probably have more African-Americans on it than would be involved in most other counties in North Carolina."

But, a verdict should not depend upon the county in which the case is tried or the color of the accuser, the accused, the prosecutor or the jurors.

On June 6, Professor Joyner appeared on "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" (MSNBC). His comments reflected his "community" approach.

A few days earlier, the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission, on which Professor Joyner had served as vice chairman, had issued a report urging North Carolina to provide reparations for the 1898 racial violence that sparked an exodus of more than 2,000 black residents from Wilmington, North Carolina..

Herewith the exchange between Professor Joyner and Tucker Carlson:

Carlson: Joining us from Raleigh, North Carolina, tonight...is vice-chairman of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission, Irving Joyner.

Mr. Joyner, thanks for coming on.

—first, let me just say that the more you read about this 1898 massacre, the more horrifying it is. And I‘m not in any way attempting to minimize what happened. You can‘t minimize it.

My question that [is] simple, to whom would you pay reparations, since nobody—or pay anything, because nobody who was alive then, the perpetrators or the victims is alive today. So who gets paid?

JOYNER: Well, we‘re not trying to get paid for anyone.

CARLSON: Good.

JOYNER: What we‘re trying to do is to redress—redress a wrong that occurred, a wrong that happened not only to individuals, but to an entire community, and it is the community that deserves to be repaired. And it is that community that our recommendations are directed toward aiding and assisting in this situation.

CARLSON: OK. Now you‘re talking about taking public money and giving it to a group of people in repayment, in part, for wrongs that happened long ago to people who are no longer alive, committed by people who are also no longer alive. And so why should...

JOYNER: That‘s one approach. That‘s one approach. I mean, that‘s one way to look at it. I think the better way...

CARLSON: OK. That‘s factually accurate, I believe.

JOYNER: We‘re taking—we‘re taking tax money that these people are putting into the government and redirecting it back to that community, so that that community can be repaired. So it‘s not this money is coming from some third party or from your pockets.

CARLSON: Wait a second. Well, it‘s coming from everyone‘s pockets, including from person who had—I mean, every person it‘s coming from had no role in this massacre. I mean, nobody who pulled the trigger or incited people to riot is still alive. Why should people who were not responsible for a crime pay for the crime? How is that fair?

JOYNER: Well, because many people benefited—many people benefited from the wrong that was done, primarily the Democratic Party of North Carolina. The state of North Carolina itself. The Raleigh News-Observer and others.

These are individuals or groups that we can document involved themselves in the harm that occurred. So the state is the only organ left that can provide the redress that is needed to repair this community.

CARLSON: It‘s just so unfair, though. The state is all of us. So when you say my tax dollars, you tax dollars. Our next door neighbors tax dollars. None of us had anything to do with this.

It‘s so unfair it seems to me, so contrary to principles of American justice, based of course, on the individual, individual perpetrator, individual victim to do this.

I mean, why not say—I could say, well, my great-great-grandmother was killed by your great-grandfather. You owe me $15,000 for the mental distress I‘ve suffered... and you would say to me, I didn‘t have anything to do with this. I‘m not responsible for what my great-grandmother did. And you‘d be right.

JOYNER: I [think] you‘re talking about something entirely different [from] what we are dealing with...in Wilmington, North Carolina. We made a case for a documented overthrow of a legitimately elected government. It harmed people not only in Wilmington, but African Americans all over the state of North Carolina.

CARLSON: I believe that.

JOYNER: It has nothing to do with your grandfather being harmed by anyone.

CARLSON: I believe everything...

JOYNER: We‘re talking about, Dan, we‘re redirecting—let me job name this prize. We are talking about redirecting state money into an area that is devastated, that has a lingering impact or effect from this massacre, which occurred in Wilmington, North Carolina and it‘s time for the state middle to repair the damage that was done there. That‘s all we ask. And it‘s time ....

It should NEVER be time to prosecute innocent people as entertainment!

Michael J. Gaynor

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.