Replies

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-761191.html
Group urging votes for Cheek

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 14, 2006 : 7:34 pm ET

DURHAM -- A loosely organized group of voters is attempting to oust District Attorney Mike Nifong by urging people to vote in November for Lewis Cheek, even though Cheek has said he would not serve as Durham's chief prosecutor if elected.

Calling itself the "Committee to Recall Nifong -- Vote Cheek," the group said in a Monday news release it intends to "ensure that the opportunity to restore trust to the office of District Attorney will not be lost."

Beth Brewer, a Verizon accountant, described herself Monday as a leader of the Committee to Recall Nifong. She said the nonpartisan group was small, although she expected its efforts would be supported by most of the 10,000 people who signed Cheek's June petition.

But write-in candidate Steve Monks said he could not support a movement to get rid of Nifong at any cost, particularly a movement that would place the district attorney selection in Gov. Easley's hands.

"I can't embrace that," said Monks, the local Republican Party chairman running an unaffiliated race for the chief prosecutor's chair. "I'm not saying those who embrace it are bad people. I'm just saying I can't get behind an effort to circumvent the voters. ... My own campaign has never been to get rid of Mike [Nifong] at all costs. It's simply to give the voters a choice. That's called democracy."

Nifong had no comment Monday.

According to the committee's news release, the Duke University lacrosse rape case isn't the only reason for the movement to get rid of Nifong, although it is an important factor.

Nifong obtained indictments against three lacrosse players after an exotic dancer claimed she was raped and sodomized during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.

The suspects, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans, are free under $100,000 bonds as they await a trial that is expected to begin during the first half of next year.

Many national television pundits and Nifong critics have complained that the district attorney rushed to judgment, seeking indictments before properly investigating the dancer's allegations.

The Committee to Recall Nifong realizes, according to Monday's news release, that its "unique approach to this election may be seen in some quarters as a response simply to the drama surrounding the much-maligned prosecution of the Duke lacrosse players.

"The Committee and its mission are not, however, only about the Duke case," the news release said.

A vote for Cheek in November would be a vote for someone unknown, since Cheek has said he would not serve even if he won. Gov. Mike Easley would have to appoint someone to serve in his place.

But the Committee to Recall Nifong indicated it was not daunted by that prospect.

"By voting for Mr. Cheek, Durham will effectively be placing trust in Governor Easley to appoint a new District Attorney that would serve this community with honesty, integrity and professionalism," Monday's news release said.

Brewer said she knew there was nothing to prevent Gov. Easley from re-appointing Nifong. She said she believed it was unlikely he would do so, however.

"My personal opinion is that if the voters of Durham spoke loudly enough that they don't want Mike Nifong, I think the governor would listen," she said.

Monks' name does not appear in Brewer's news release or on her committee's Web site.

"I don't know Steve Monks," Brewer said Monday. "I don't know him as a lawyer. I don't know him as a person. I like his energy, but I frankly don't think he has a chance."

Monks must run on a write-in basis because an insufficient number of voters petitioned the Board of Elections to place his name on the November ballot.

Monks reiterated in an interview Monday that he would not be campaigning if Cheek had agreed to serve if elected.

For his part, Cheek said Monday he was totally uninvolved in the district attorney election, even though his name is in the title of the Committee to Recall Nifong -- Vote Cheek.

"Just because it has my name on it, it doesn't carry with it the implication that I am campaigning in any way," said Cheek.

Still, Cheek said he didn't believe a vote for him would be irresponsible or wasted.

"It's a vote for the governor to be able to choose somebody," he added. "Sure, it's an unknown, but you're depending on the governor to seek advice and put a qualified person in that position. I don't think there's anything irresponsible about that."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-761189.html
Judge wipes out murder conviction, allows manslaughter plea

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 14, 2006 : 7:05 pm ET

DURHAM -- Durham's senior judge wiped out a murder conviction for Jacinto Barr and slashed his punishment, even though a prosecutor contended three years ago that Barr gunned down another man "like a dog in the street."

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson left Barr with a prison sentence of seven to nearly 10 years for the 2002 fatal shooting of Ronald Sherman Johnson, less than half the 23- to 28-year term he had been serving.

The sentence was reduced after Hudson, acting Friday on a request from defense lawyers Jay Ferguson and Dan Shatz, erased a conviction Barr had received for second-degree murder and allowed him to plead guilty instead to the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.

In a written motion, Shatz said Barr deserved the concession because prosecutor Tracey Cline reneged on a plea bargain at the last minute in 2003, forcing Barr to go to trial even though his attorney wasn't ready.

Cline could not be reached for comment Monday.

According to Shatz, Judge A. Leon Stanback compounded the problem and violated Barr's constitutional rights by denying the trial lawyer's repeated requests for time to prepare.

As a result, Barr went before a jury with only one day's notice, and at least two witnesses who might have helped him were not subpoenaed, Shatz wrote.

In addition, Shatz argued that Stanback improperly boosted Barr's punishment by finding as a so-called aggravating factor that Barr was free on bond for another alleged crime when the murder occurred.

Shatz noted that, under the current state of the law, juries rather than judges are supposed to decide aggravating factors.

Durham lawyer Jay Ferguson was prepared to argue those and other points on Friday when Hudson, without conducting a full-blown hearing, eliminated Barr's murder conviction and reduced his prison term.

Cline reportedly did not object to Hudson's ruling.

The then-22-year-old Barr had been found guilty of second-degree murder after about three hours of jury deliberations in September 2003.

Jurors also had the option of first-degree murder, but they apparently rejected the prosecution's contention that Barr premeditated the slaying of Johnson. Premeditation is a necessary legal element of most first-degree murder cases.

Johnson, 23, was shot on South Street. He tried to run to his house, then fell to the ground and died of two bullet wounds to the chest, police said at the time.

Barr did not testify in his own defense. In a written statement to police, he admitted being at the crime scene, but blamed the slaying on someone else.