Posted on 12/03/2010 5:15:44 AM PST by abb
Attorneys worked Thursday to keep the Duke lacrosse case out of accuser Crystal Mangum's current criminal troubles.
Prosecutor Mark McCullough and defense attorney Mani Dexter agreed that if Mangum takes the stand in her own defense, McCullough will not cross-examine her about false allegations of rape she made against three Duke University athletes four years ago.
Mangum faces trial on charges of arson, injury to personal property, contributing to the delinquency of her three children and resisting arrest. Police say she set the clothes of live-in boyfriend Milton Walker afire in a bathtub while the children and two officers were in her home responding to a domestic disturbance call.
Jury selection began Thursday with 17 jurors - more than one-third of the initial jury pool - excusing themselves, saying they couldn't impartially try the case.
Most of the others acknowledged they knew of Mangum through the lacrosse case but said they could still fairly determine her guilt or innocence on the current charges.
"I'm going to take it at face value that you can do that," Superior Court Judge Abe Jones told them. "I can only trust your solemn oath on that."
McCullough and Dexter then spent most of Thursday questioning remaining jurors. They were questioning the eighth juror when Jones sent everyone home for the day just after 5 p.m.
The judge had already dismissed three potential jurors: one for her belief that the courts favor women over men in domestic violence cases, one who admitted searching the Internet for information about Mangum on Wednesday night against the judge's order and one who said what he knew about the Duke case might affect whether he believed Mangum'.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
ping
a couple of years ago she might have got a not guilty verdict. But time has not been kind to her, so I say guilty.
More evidence that Duke can burn to the ground and take “Coach K” with it. I really wouldn’t care.
These charges are the result of an arrest back this past spring, not the lacrosse thing.
She also got away with stealing a taxi and trying to run down a police officer with it a few years ago (before the lacrosse case); with charges of child endangerment, etc.
Might be a good strategic tactic for the prosecution, depending on the mood in the community.
Remember that Mr. Nifong opened that whole Duke Lacrosse can of worms because he thought it would help him in the election to get votes and he was right on that.
Bringing up the Duke Lacrosse case again might awaken the sympathy of the people on the jury.
Why does the state let a pig like this keep her children??
They don’t want the DukeLax bogeyman in the trial because there’s still a jillion dollars of lawsuits out there not settled.
I am not sure that they have much of a case against her, if the story is correct and she set her boyfriends clothing on fire in a bathtub. I would say:
1. Arson is probably going to be hard to prove as a bathtub is a pretty safe place to burn something.
2. Contributing to the delinquency of her three children is hard for me to see too. Child endangerment or neglect would make more sense, but even that might be a reach with the cops in the house and the likely failure of the arson charge.
3. They probably have her on distruction of property.
4. Hard to know about resisting arrest since the article does not address that.
Again if the paper described what she did accurately, I could see her walking on the entire deal if the jury is willing to ignore the destruction of property charge.
I am not sure that they have much of a case against her, if the story is correct and she set her boyfriends clothing on fire in a bathtub. I would say:
1. Arson is probably going to be hard to prove as a bathtub is a pretty safe place to burn something.
2. Contributing to the delinquency of her three children is hard for me to see too. Child endangerment or neglect would make more sense, but even that might be a reach with the cops in the house and the likely failure of the arson charge.
3. They probably have her on distruction of property.
4. Hard to know about resisting arrest since the article does not address that.
Again if the paper described what she did accurately, I could see her walking on the entire deal if the jury is willing to ignore the destruction of property charge.
What is it with this woman? She has a rap sheet a mile long and I bet she will walk this time too.
She stole a taxi, tried to run down a policeman, lied about being raped by a bunch of guys a few years before she lied again about being raped by the Duke lacrosse players.
Somehow charges get dropped and she is deemed too psychologically impaired to stand trial. She has an aura of protection around her. I’m betting she is ‘somehow’ related to the police chief or one of the town fathers.
She will not be found guilty. You’ll see.
The Mangum support crowd has also been busy intimidating the state’s key witness, the boyfriend she tried to kill.
He’ll fold like a venetian blind.
When was the last time a DA agreed not to try and impeach the credibility of a defendant’s testimony?
And that no testimony which might embarrass or
cause legal and/or political problems for the
establishment will be asked in the court?
Talk about “privileged persons”...
WTF is wrong with the prosecutors down there? Perjury is admissible on cross as a prior bad act showing lack of truthfulness 99.9% of the time.
Even in New York, it came in. The only reason not to use it would be if the prosecutor WANTED her on the stand to cross. But he’d have to be sure of the conviction if she didn’t. I would just as soon keep her off.
Think back to nearly five years ago - to the spring of 2006 when the DukeLax Frame was in full roar. We followed it here on FR and in many blogs and boards elsewhere.
The Power Structure in Durham tried - and almost succeeded - in lynching three innocent people. There’s a battery of lawsuits still pending concerning that behavior.
That’s why they don’t want to talk about it.
Comments section in the NandO.
No comments listed.
Deletions?
Look in the tab labeled comments.
yeah I know that, my comment was that she used to be hot and therefore not guilty.
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.