Posted on 07/28/2006 4:52:22 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM -- Raleigh police have charged two Durham Police Department officers in connection with an incident that occurred July 20 outside a Glenwood Avenue sports bar.
The officers, Gary Powell Lee, 38, of 3588 Copper Creek Lane, Franklinton, and Scott Christian Tanner, 33, of 2516 Hiking Trail, Raleigh, both face counts of simple assault. Conviction on the misdemeanor carries with it, for someone with no prior offenses on their record, the possibility of a maximum 30-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine.
Lee and Tanner are accused of assaulting Rene Dennis Thomas, a cook who works at Blinco's Sports Restaurant and Bar, 6711 Glenwood Ave., Raleigh. The charges stem from a parking-lot altercation that occurred late on July 20 as five current and two former Durham Police Department officers were leaving a going-away party for a departing officer.
A criminal summons issued Thursday alleged that Lee, a member of the department's Special Operations Division, tried to strike Thomas and tackled him, causing the cook to fall to the ground. A second summons alleged that Tanner, a motorcycle officer who works in the department's Traffic Services Unit, kicked Thomas in the head.
Thomas has told television reporters that as many as six men participated in the assault, which began with an exchange of racial slurs. But Raleigh Police Department spokesman Jim Sughrue said detectives in that city don't intend to charge anyone else in connection with the incident, or add later to the charges they've already filed.
"It's been extensively investigated, and we're confident that the responsible individuals have been charged," Sughrue said.
But Lee and Tanner -- and three of their colleagues -- could still face sanctions from the Durham Police Department. An internal investigation is continuing and should conclude in two to three weeks, Police Chief Steve Chalmers said at a news conference Thursday.
The Durham probe is focusing on a wider range of issues that include the alleged use of racial slurs. "The alleged conduct is something that is certainly deplorable to us, and something we don't want to be consistent in the way we operate and conduct ourselves," Chalmers said. "The entire allegation is disturbing."
Lee and Tanner had previously been restricted to administrative duties, and remain so. The other three officers in the case -- Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Officer Richard Clayton and Officer James Griffin -- had also been restricted but on Thursday were allowed to resume their normal duties.
The decision doesn't mean the three have been cleared, but does indicate that based on "the facts we've already uncovered ... there's no reason we can't put these officers back on full duty," Chalmers said.
Asked later if that meant the three had played only a minor role in the incident, Chalmers said, "At least we can say it wasn't a major role."
All of the officers have the right to a lawyer's help, and two, Gottlieb and Lee, have retained the Durham firm of Clayton Myrick McClanahan & Coulter to represent them as the internal investigation and criminal case unfold.
A lawyer there, Allen Mason, confirmed Thursday that senior partner Jerry Clayton had spoken to Gottlieb and that another of his colleagues, former Assistant District Attorney Freda Black, had spoken to Lee.
One of the two former Durham officers involved in the case, James Kennedy, has also retained Clayton's firm and has talked with Mason. Kennedy is a former motorcycle officer who left the department late last year. The other former Durham officer who was present remains unidentified.
Asked if the lawyers and their clients would speak up to offer their version of what happened, Mason said there's "not a chance in the world" of that happening outside formal channels.
"We're not Duke lacrosse lawyers," Mason said alluding to the year's most highly publicized Durham Police Department case, one that Gottlieb and Richard Clayton, who's no relation to lawyer Jerry Clayton, have both worked on. "We don't practice that way. We don't comment about pending cases, we don't do interviews, we don't make statements."
The Raleigh charges were notable for the fact that they didn't address what Thomas has said was the first act of the confrontation, a move by one of the men involved to poke him in the shoulder with a finger. The charge against Lee addressed an act Thomas alleged was committed immediately afterward by a second man, and the charge against Tanner addressed something that happened after Thomas fell to the ground.
The shoulder poke was likely a criminal act under North Carolina law, given court decisions that have held "the merest unauthorized touching of another [person] is an assault," said Barry Winston, a criminal-defense lawyer in Chapel Hill.
A judge "who strictly interprets the law would, I suspect, hold that North Carolina law requires him to convict someone who walks up to someone and in an antagonistic fashion pokes that person with his finger," although that's "not what the average person thinks of as assault," Winston said.
Raleigh detectives filed Thursday's charges after consulting prosecutors in Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby's office, a move Sughrue said is standard in officer-involved cases. The spokesman declined to say why there wasn't a charge addressing the alleged shoulder-poke.
"Based on the investigation of the case, and facts present, it was determined that these two charges were the appropriate charges to bring," Sughrue said.
Thomas was surprised Thursday to hear that the charges involved the officers they did. "Lee and Tanner? Huh. OK. Check that again and call me back," he said before cutting off a brief interview. "I don't think you have the right guys."
The cook did not elaborate, and did not return a call placed to his cell phone late Thursday afternoon.
The Raleigh department's decision to issue a criminal summons for each of the officers, rather than an arrest warrant, saved Lee and Tanner an appearance before a magistrate and possibly the need to post bail to avoid detention. Sughrue said the officers didn't receive any special treatment.
"That is very typically the way a simple assault case is handled," he said. "That's very consistent with the way we'd handle the same case if the suspects had not been law enforcement officers."
Also routine was the Raleigh department's decision to assign detectives from its own internal-affairs unit to work the case. No matter what agency they work for, when police are "suspect in a case in Raleigh, the case is investigated by internal affairs," Sughrue said.
Elected officials said they're watching how the criminal case plays out.
Mayor Bill Bell said the allegations, if true, are unfortunate. "If in fact it did happen, I'd hope they'd be prosecuted to the fullest extent," he said.
City Councilman Eugene Brown agreed. "It's always problematic when you have those hired and paid for enforcing the law breaking the law," he said. "I want to withhold judgment, but so far, this is just embarrassing."
Lee has worked for the department since 1999. Tanner joined the force in 1997, and was recently the beneficiary of a department-organized fundraiser intended to help him and another officer pay for cancer treatments. He suffers from Hodgkin's
Could it be this instead:
The article I read said the ONLY DA that would try a major case in front of someone other than Hudson was Mike Nifong.
That was in the article on Judge shopping I was referencing.
The article that JLS pointed out to me didn't indicate that Nifong didn't go or try cases with Hudson, but only that he would go before other Judges too. The other guys just got Hudson because his rulings were so favorable.
The boss - Hardin - set the tone, he was making comments saying it would be irresponsible (basically) to not utilize that tool he had of scheduling the Prosecution-friendly Judge. So, if the Boss is stating that publicly, I guess it only makes sense that the people working for him would follow through similarly.
I REALLY struggle with those stats. I wonder if Nifong is calling TRYING when he goes before a Judge and gets approval for a pre-arranged agreement. My understanding was that Nifong was known as the Master of the Plea deal. I'm sure he was persuasive in those back rooms in convincing defendants and sometimes their counsel that they wouldn't be very successful if they opted for a Trial.
I've been wrong before though.
What link are we talking about?
Help me out.
I see, I'll get it. DUH
It might be...I could very well be wrong. I'll have to do some searching on my hard drive.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-755093.html
ABC applicant alleged nepotism and corruption -
I think if you read that N&O arhives article on Orlando Hudson, you'll change your mind.
Hardin was zealous, and he used Hudson like a Hammer. He consistently went back to Hudson because of his prosecution-friendly rulings.
A lawsuit was filed. To file a lawsuit against a D.A., that's extraordinary.
Let me look to grab some verbage from that archives.
I can't do a link to it though.
-- Is an independent local political subdivision of the state.
-- Operates retail liquor stores.
-- Has a law enforcement division that investigates violations of liquor laws.
-- Has a five-member board appointed by the county commissioners. Board members are E'Vonne Coleman, chairwoman; Emily A. Page; Kimberly Shaw; Charles D. Watts Jr.; and Charles T. Wilson Jr.
-- Source, Durham County ABC Web site: http://www.durhamabc.com//durham/new/board.htm
Okay, the Judges are supposed to rotate through the ciruit, but Orlando Hudson remained in the circuit longer than any other Judge - and he heard far more criminal cases in Durham than any other Judge. At one point, an official request was made to leave Hudson in the district, for the most part, it was granted. So, the District Attorney keeps going back to the same Judge - keeps going back to the well. Defense attorneys in Durham openly state that Hudson routinely and consistently made prosecution friendly rulings (like a rubber stamp). Later, if you remember, wasn't it Hudson that was selected for the High Profile Peterson case also.
That was a long time after this article was written too.
This is from the N&O archives - and credit goes to JLS as he pointed me in that direction some time ago.
May 19, 1999
Durham DA gets 'judge-shopping' reputation
Author: JOHN SULLIVAN; STAFF WRITER
Edition: Final
Section: News
Page: A1
Index Terms:
Jim Hardin
Orlando Hudson
Durham
judicial
Estimated printed pages: 5
Article Text:
(snip)
"Judge-shopping is legal in North Carolina, the only state in the country where district attorneys decide when and where a case goes to trial."
(snip)
"Jim Hardin doesn't put himself at a disadvantage," Hudson said. "I don't know of any official that puts his office at a disadvantage. I think the DA has a lot of power, and when the legislature leaves scheduling in the hands of the DAs, you have sanctioned judge-shopping."
(snip)
"I believe Jim Hardin is punishing judges who rule against him," Durham Public Defender Bob Brown said. "The obvious consequence will be the judge who will want to rule fairly and in accordance with the law will not be given a chance to do so but will simply not be assigned any more cases."
(snip)
Superior Court Judge Abe Jones rotated through Durham.
Jones ruled against the state in several cases, allowing evidence to be suppressed. After the ruling, Brown and Jones went to lunch.
"I told him he wouldn't hear another criminal case," Brown said.
"I ruled in the defense's favor, but I never got back to criminal," Jones said. "I can't say the two were tied; all I can say is it happened."
"Durham Civil Trial Court Administrator Kathy Shuart said Jones was scheduled to return to criminal court, but many of the lengthy civil cases he heard kept him in civil court. "
(snip)
"HUDSON, with Mitchell's permission, has spent more time in the district than any other resident judge. He also has been ALLOWED to come back to the district to hear major cases, including the controversial case of Timothy Blackwell, the second person in the United States to be tried on first-degree murder charges for killing someone in a drunken driven case.
The other cases HUDSON has handled are a who's who of Durham's most notorious crimes. He heard the murder trials of Todd Boggess, Shamar Rasheed Hines and Rodney Eugene Leak. He negotiated pleas in the first-degree murder cases of Broadus Crabtree and Charles Castleberry and is handling the murder case of Eric Crutchfield, accused of fatally shooting his daughter in the back and wounding his son. And he was handling the capital murder case of Gregory Gibson until Gibson hanged himself in
"Hardin says at least one of his prosecutors, Mike Nifong, has tried murder cases before other judges, including a trial this year before visiting Judge Robert Hobgood. Defense attorneys say Nifong is the only assistant district attorney who will try a case in front of another judge, and HE USUALLY DOESN'T TRY HIGH PROFILE CASES. "
Durham "Justice": Political And Intimidating,
NOT Colorblind And Fair
By Michael J. Gaynor
Jul 29, 2006
-excerpts-
"In the sensational, but said, soap opera that is
the Duke case, the right question is not whether
the Duke Three will escape justice (their indictments
were unjust and their continued prosecution is an
egregious abuse of prosecutorial power), but whether
their accuser and prosecutor will escape justice. "
"...the Duke Three are the ones under indictment,
but now Mr. Nifong and the Duke establishment
are the ones under examination, in need of purification
and due to be punished,..." [add Durham public officials]
"A local establishment is loathe to admit that its
District Attorney is a rogue and is tempted not only
to overlook prosecutorial misconduct, but to help cover it up."
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21231136.shtml
BLINCO'S
BLINCO'S
And if the offiers WERE lying when they said they didn't know the other group of DPD were there too - then that's obstruction of justice or something along those lines.
You can't lie when questioned in an offical investigation, not with impunity anyway.
This morning's articles...
Cheek, Leary deny any advising
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-756880.html
Chalmers is right to investigate slur
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756593.html
Cheek says 'no' to challenge, sort of
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756589.html
Rough times at Duke
Keep Nifong on the job
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#756586
Nothing at all in the NandO today. Nothing...
Thanks abb! CHECK THIS OUT!
From Ruth Sheehan's Metro Blog:
07/29/06 at 13:01
Ms, Sill,
I'm Walter Abbott and I live in Ruston, LA. I'm in the phone book, if you want to contact me.
I have a question. Is this why you are scared of the Durham PD? This was uncovered earlier today.
Published: November 18, 2004
Last Updated: November 18, 2004
Printer-friendly version
Mr. James E. Hardin Jr.
District Attorney
Durham Co. Judicial Building
201 East Main Street, 6th Floor
Durham, NC 27701
Dear Mr. Hardin,
On behalf of the American Society of Newspapers Editors, I am writing to protest the recent arrest of Raleigh News & Observer reporter Demorris Lee.
As you know, Mr. Lee was charged with making harassing telephone calls after leaving two voice messages on the home answering machine of an individual from whom he sought comment for a news story. If the facts in this case are as we understand them, it is Mr. Lee who is being subjected to harassment by legal authorities as a result of doing his job as a reporter. Surely it cannot be illegal for a journalist to make a good faith effort to seek fair comment for a news story.
We also find the timing of Mr. Lee's arrest curious. Ruth A. Brown, employed by the Durham Police Department, filed her complaint against Mr. Lee and an arrest warrant was issued on Oct. 22. But Mr. Lee was not arrested until Sunday, Nov. 14, which was several days after he had filed a request with the Durham Police Department seeking additional public records in a case involving one of its employees, Ms. Brown.
Speaking for the hundreds of member editors of ASNE, we condemn this arrest in the strongest terms. Based on the facts as we know them, it is an affront to the First Amendment and constitutes an unwarranted attack on a reporter who was seeking to interview an individual to ensure accuracy and fairness.
We insist that these charges be dropped immediately.
Sincerely,
Karla Garrett Harshaw
ASNE President
Editor, Springfield (Ohio) News-Sun
cc: Chief Steven W. Chalmers
Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr.
http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=5307
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=a_few_responses&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Sorry if this has already been posted.
From abb's links:
"If one of the officers is found to have hurled a racial slur at Thomas, it is difficult to see how he could continue on the job in a town that places such a high value on racial diversity. Such behavior erodes the public's confidence in the department. It also tears down trust in predominant black neighborhoods, and especially in those where the residents don't feel they get a fair shake from the police."
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756593.html
The BALD Officer is the one accused of the racial slurs and Boy comments (along with alleged assault)
Another officer was charged with the reported Racial intimidation and assault, Officer Richard Kimble.
Officer Richard Kimble: Are you suggesting that I assaulted the Cook?
How dare you. When I came home, there was a BALD man in my house. I fought with this man. He had a BALD head. You find this man! You find this man!
Anybody heard anything lately from the Blinko's cook? I predict here and now he's already left the area and WILL NOT show up for trial. He wants to live...
Thank you for taking the time to do some A-Class Freep Sleuthing.
FWIW, in Durham, Alston is another one of those common names like Mangum. Alston Ave. is a major N-S route (NC 55) that runs down the eastern boundary of NCCU
This just in...
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/
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.