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.

Rewards explored in death row case
Lawyers seek cause for retrial

Andrea Weigl, Staff Writer, N&O, Nov.27, 2006

Barbara Taylor was a key witness at death row inmate Guy LeGrande's 1996 trial: She testified that LeGrande confessed to her about killing his co-worker's wife.

LeGrande's lawyers, who are trying to stop his Friday execution, wonder whether prosecutors withheld information about plans to pay Taylor several thousand dollars for her testimony. They say LeGrande had a right to know there was $5,000 to be doled out to witnesses who testified against him so the jury could consider that when evaluating the witnesses' motive for testifying.

Instead, LeGrande's lawyers say, prosecutors revealed before trial that Taylor received $200. Based on recently obtained documents, it appears she may have been paid $3,500.

"I think jurors would have viewed Barbara Taylor differently if they knew she was going to receive several thousands of dollars in payment," said Durham lawyer Jay Ferguson, who along with Duke University law professor Jim Coleman, represents LeGrande.

The two lawyers are handling LeGrande's last-minute appeals and clemency petition without his consent. LeGrande, described by his lawyers and others as psychotic and delusional, insisted on representing himself at his trial, during which he urged the jury to sentence him to death. While acting as his own appellate lawyer, he has not fully pursued his appeals.

A former Stanly County assistant district attorney who helped prosecute LeGrande denies hiding any information about any deals or payments to witnesses.

This is the latest argument from LeGrande's lawyers about why his execution should not go forward. All of their arguments boil down to this: LeGrande did not get a fair trial, and he deserves a new one or a lesser sentence.

LeGrande, 47, was sentenced to death for the 1993 murder-for-hire of Ellen Munford in Stanly County, east of Charlotte. Munford's estranged husband, Tommy, recruited LeGrande to do the killing for a $6,500 share of a $50,000 life insurance policy. Prosecutors dispute the claim that LeGrande is mentally ill, instead describing him as an intelligent, manipulative killer.

Files LeGrande missed

LeGrande's lawyers' latest appeal is complicated by the fact that while acting as his own appellate lawyer, LeGrande did not request copies of the prosecutors' and investigators' entire files -- files that all death row inmates are entitled to obtain.

Ferguson did not get access until Oct. 30 to more than 6,000 pages of records and documents in LeGrande's case that had not previously been reviewed. Typically, appellate lawyers take up to nine months to read such material, figure out what was known before trial and what was not, and evaluate what might be the basis for an appeal, said Thomas Maher, executive director of the Durham-based Center for Death Penalty Litigation, a nonprofit law firm that handles appeals for death row inmates.

"To do it under time pressure, if not impossible, it is extremely difficult," Maher said.

Based on his review so far, Ferguson believes prosecutors may have withheld information about payments to witnesses. But Ferguson acknowledges that he does not know whether Taylor actually received $3,500, because he is still tracking down payment records.

What Ferguson does know is that former Stanly County Sheriff Joe Lowder sent a letter in 1994 asking the Governor's Office for $5,000 in reward money to help capture Ellen Munford's killer. After Taylor came forward with information, LeGrande was arrested and charged with murder in 1995.

Before LeGrande's April 1996 trial, a judge ordered prosecutors to reveal whether any witnesses received money. In August 1996 -- four months after LeGrande was convicted -- the sheriff wrote to the governor that the $5,000 should be split among four witnesses, including $3,500 to Taylor.

There were three other witnesses that Lowder suggested be paid a total of $1,500 for their assistance. But Ferguson said prosecutors only disclosed one had been paid $100 before trial.

Taylor's testimony was key to prosecutors securing a murder conviction against LeGrande. The only other witness to connect LeGrande to the killing was Tommy Munford, who had a deal with prosecutors to plead to a lesser charge, avoid the death penalty and testify against LeGrande. Munford is eligible for a parole hearing next year.

Beyond Taylor, Ferguson questions whether prosecutors had a deal with another witness that they failed to disclose. Greg Laton, who knew about Munford's plans to have his wife killed, testified against LeGrande but was never charged for providing the murder weapon to Tommy Munford. Ferguson also notes that Laton had two pending felony charges at the time of his testimony. After Laton testified, Ferguson said, he saw one charge dismissed and got probation on the other.

Prosecution's view

The N.C. Attorney General's Office, which is arguing for LeGrande's execution to go forward, had not filed a response to Ferguson's motion before the holiday break.

Michael Parker, the current district attorney in Stanly, Anson, Union and Richmond counties, who did not prosecute LeGrande, said his office has turned over all its records on the case to Ferguson.

"It's my understanding that LeGrande was given information about reward payments prior to the trial," Parker said. "It's my understanding that the other payments were made after the trial -- as much as six months after the fact."

Ferguson counters that prosecutors should have disclosed the existence of the $5,000 in reward money and that witnesses could receive some portion.

The prosecutors who handled LeGrande's case were Kenneth Honeycutt, Parker's predecessor, and David Graham, now an assistant district attorney in Mecklenburg County.

In an e-mail message to The News & Observer, Graham wrote that the legal ethics rules prohibit him from talking about pending cases. "However," he wrote, "I can tell you that I would never have participated in hiding from either the court or the jury any information concerning any reward for, or any 'deal' with, a prosecution witness."

Honeycutt, who is now in private practice in Monroe, could not be reached for comment.

Honeycutt's other case

This is not the first time a death row inmate has claimed Honeycutt withheld information about deals with and money paid to a key witness.

In 2004, Jonathan Hoffman was awarded a new trial because he and his lawyers were not told that his cousin -- the prosecution's star witness -- got a deal with federal prosecutors to avoid further prosecution on the opening day of Hoffman's trial. Hoffman's lawyers also argued Honeycutt failed to reveal that the cousin received immunity from other state charges, help reducing his South Carolina sentence and several thousand dollars in reward money.

Honeycutt and his assistant, Scott Brewer, now a District Court judge, were charged with prosecutorial misconduct by the N.C. State Bar, the state agency that disciplines lawyers. The state Bar accused the pair of committing 23 violations of the rules that govern lawyers in their prosecution of Hoffman. The charges were dismissed on technical grounds.*

If Honeycutt was involved, Michael Howell, one of Hoffman's lawyers, said the courts should closely scrutinize such a claim.

"Anything he has touched, I believe should have special consideration," Howell said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/515141.html

* The system is rotten to the core, from one end of the state to the other. Thank you, Governor Easley.

[Interesting exchanges over at KC blog-
re: NC corruption; federal intervention]

Anonymous said...

Bill,

I agree that the Feds should intervene, they still might.
I discussed this with a former US attorney, now Federal
Judge, who said they have very specific guide lines about
making any Federal Case before an election, that is why
they did not indicte our current NC Speaker of the House
before the election, the Democrat is ahead in his election
by 9 votes and there is a recount. Same thought about
Nifungu, they would not act until the trial is over or dismissed.

You seriously underestimate the power of the Democrat
party in NC in protecting their own. I served in the NC House,
obviously not as a Democrat, and I was amazed at the corruption
(They did give good parties though). We have a congressman
now in prison for bribery, we have a Speaker of the House who's
sec has been indicted and his Legislative assitant has been
found guilty of conspiracy, and a former Republican legislator
turned Democrat that has admitted under oath that he took
$50,000 to change parties, to the Dem's and that the
Speaker was the co-conspirator.

Had enough? It would take too long to list all the corruption,
trust me 2/3 of it is never discovered.

Tammy Hall would be proud!

8:14 PM

https://beta.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32542246&postID=1828091848601699065

* And this is at the state level. Now, who runs the City of Durham
lock, stock and barrel? Maybe Brodhead should have done some
more homework before he stepped foot in the Tarheel State.

Gunmen hold families captive, threaten kids

BY DAN E. WAY : The Herald-Sun, Nov 28, 2006 : 12:07 am ET

DURHAM -- Gunmen forced their way into a Durham apartment, where they held two families captive while threatening to shoot young children, relatives said.

Friday's home invasion robbery at Hampton Forest apartments in the 900 block of Chalk Level Road was one in a series of apartment complex robberies reported to police in a three-day span over the Thanksgiving holiday period.

One relative said her daughter and grandson were in the apartment with the female tenant and her three children during the ordeal. The relative's name is not being disclosed because it could identify the victims. The Herald-Sun does not print the names of victims of crime.

She said the turmoil began when the fiance of one of the women who lived in the apartment arrived with his 18-year-old son. Two men approached them in the parking lot.

The assailants "asked the guys for a cigarette, then they pulled a gun" and made the man lie down in the grass, she said. They ordered his son to get the keys to the apartment and open it. One of the robbers went inside, the other waited outside.

"They didn't get much, they wanted money," but only took a few dollars from each woman, the relative said.

The female tenant came home after the gunman had gone inside her apartment. When she attempted to unlock the door, the gunman opened it, reached out and yanked her inside.

"They wanted her debit card, and when she gave it to them they didn't think she gave them the right pin number, so they threatened her daughter, that he was going to shoot her daughter," the relative of the other woman in the apartment said.

At one point, one of the woman's children made a daring rescue attempt.

"Her youngest son came out with his Power Rangers costume on and was going to save them all," waving a plastic sword at the intruder, the relative said. "I think that kind of scared the guy."

The woman said the level of violence was shocking.

"There's definitely been robberies, but nowhere that it was violent towards children" at the apartment complex, she said.

Police have taken about 85 reports for various crimes at 901 Chalk Level Road this year, according to police spokeswoman Kammie Michael.

In Friday's home invasion, money, credit cards, jewelry and phones were taken, and the gunmen fled on foot in opposite directions, Michael said.

Another relative said she wished police could do something to inform neighbors immediately when crimes occur in their neighborhood so residents could be on the alert.

"I think the public needs to know" for its own safety, she said. "I just don't understand how people get away with this and don't get caught. I'm sick over this, and I want to make sure something's being done to catch these guys."

She has heard official explanations before that there is not as much danger in the streets as residents may believe, that it is more a problem of perception.

"How my grandchildren are seeing this [after witnessing guns and threats in their home], it's not a perception problem," she said. "The violence is out of control."

In a news release late Monday afternoon, Michael said Durham police are seeking information about several armed robberies that occurred in apartment complexes in the past week. Investigators do not know if any of the robberies are connected.

The others were at:

-- 1719 Cornwallis Road at 9:05 p.m., Nov. 22. A male walked out of his apartment and was confronted by three masked males who demanded money. The male told them he had no money and ran back into his apartment. The suspects fired two shots at the victim. The victim was not injured, but one bullet struck an apartment door.

-- 2816 Ross Road at 9:22 p.m. Nov. 22. Two males were standing in a parking lot when they were approached by three males dressed in red with bandanas over their faces. The suspects robbed the victims at gunpoint and fired shots as they fled.

-- 4230 Garrett Road at 10:25 p.m. Nov. 22. Five males were robbed at gunpoint by five suspects. One suspect fired a shot, which struck a parked car. Two suspects fled in a black Nissan Altima and three fled on foot.

-- 5011 South Alston Ave. at 9:28 p.m. Nov. 23. A male and a female carrying an infant left their apartment and were confronted by four males who demanded money. One suspect pointed a gun at the female and tried to take her purse. When she refused, another suspect attempted to grab her baby. The male victim was struck in the head during the struggle. The suspects took the victim's purse and fled in a dark, 4-door newer model Mitsubishi. A shot was fired by one of the suspects during the robbery.

-- 5906 Tattersall Drive at 10:15 p.m. Nov. 23. Four males wearing dark clothing and masks over their faces approached three victims and told them to get on the ground. They robbed the victims of cash at gunpoint. The suspects were last seen running toward Fayetteville Road.

-- 1315 Morreene Road at 6:49 p.m. Nov. 24. Two males sitting in a car were approached by a male armed with a rifle. The suspect demanded money and then fled in a white car driven by a second male.

Officers did arrest several juveniles in connection with an armed robbery Nov. 22 in the 300 block of South Guthrie Avenue. A male was getting out of his red Toyota Camry when four young males dressed in dark clothing and brandishing guns approached him.

The males then pointed the guns at three occupants of the vehicle and told them to get out. The suspects fled in the Camry, which Officer D.D. Colquitt found a short time later on Marlin Drive near Capri Terrace.

Officers tracked the suspects to a house on Condor Place. Three 15-year-olds and a 14-year-old were charged with armed robbery, larceny of a motor vehicle, second-degree kidnapping and first-degree burglary.

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-793129.html

* The authorities certainly have their hands full in the Bull City. Even the Herald-Sun can't help but remind us each morning. The Power Ranger kid had the right idea.
Note that Chalk Level Rd. address again. Why does the Durham establishment want Nifong in office? He goes real easy on the relatives. The Durham Way is very much a family way.

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/

Have we progressed, or still blame rape victims?

I am appalled at the insensitivity in Kerry Paradise's Nov. 24 letter, "Laughing at Durham," and greatly disturbed by ignorance in which she judges other victims possible reactions to rape. How can one person, even one with first-hand experience in surviving trauma, possibly ascertain who is and is not a "true victim" based on secondary sources?

There has been extensive research in the field of memory and traumatic memory, and if someone has such a clear recollection of their rape that it proved consistent through the weeks and months after their attack, they would be in a very small minority of victims. As for returning to her occupation days after the alleged rape occurred, it is very typical for victims to attempt to return to normal daily life immediately after their attack, in what is called the pseudo-adjustment stage.

While it would make the world a lot more black and white if all victims were upstanding members of society, it is unfair and naâ??Øve to believe that a woman must be lying about being raped if she does not fit into your inappropriate preconceived notions of how a "true victim" should behave. Has America really not come that far from the days in which rape victims were considered responsible for their attack if they were wearing sling-back high heels or a low cut blouse? The conduct of a victim while in a traumatized state should not be used to determine their believability, nor their race, their occupation, their drug use, or wardrobe.

MICHELLE STANSBURY
Durham
November 28, 2006

Condemned man gets 2-month break
But shuns doctors evaluating him

Andrea Weigl, Staff Writer, N&O, Nov 28, 2006 05:24 AM

ALBEMARLE - Three psychiatrists have 45 days to decide whether death row inmate Guy LeGrande is too mentally ill to be executed, but he has refused to speak to them. They'll have to make their judgment from afar by watching him eat, sleep and go about his daily business.

On Monday, Superior Court Judge Robert Bell delayed LeGrande's execution at least two months and ordered the doctors to prepare reports. After that, Bell said, he would hold a hearing on arguments about LeGrande's competency. LeGrande, whom some believe is psychotic and delusional, has not willingly talked to a psychiatrist since before his 1996 trial.

Bell acknowledged that his powers are limited. "I can't force LeGrande to talk," he said.

However, Bell did what he could: ordered state officials to allow the psychiatrists to observe LeGrande either at Dorothea Dix mental hospital or in the mental health unit of Central Prison.

"We can't force him to verbally participate," said Jay Ferguson, a Durham lawyer who represents LeGrande. "We can do everything humanly possible to get as much information as we can to make an informed decision and an accurate assessment. There are no do-overs in death penalty cases."

He added: "For the first time in over a decade, he is going to be evaluated so we can present evidence of his mental illness."

But one psychiatrist unconnected to the case said that gleaning a true evaluation of LeGrande's mental state will be a daunting job.

"I think it's a formidable task," said Seymour L. Halleck of Chapel Hill. "The evaluation would certainly be somewhat limited."

LeGrande, 47, was sentenced to death for the 1993 shooting of Ellen Munford, whose estranged husband recruited LeGrande to commit murder. Tommy Munford, who is serving life for second-degree murder, offered to pay LeGrande $6,500 from $50,000 in life insurance proceeds. In July 1993, LeGrande shot Ellen Munford twice in the back.

At his trial, LeGrande acted as his own lawyer, wearing a Superman T-shirt and urging jurors to sentence him to death. Until recently, he had handled his own appeals.

The U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of the mentally retarded and the insane, but insanity is tough to prove.

Victim's family furious

After the judge issued his ruling Monday, the victim's mother, Gayzelle Simpson of Albemarle, cried and was comforted by relatives. While leaving the courtroom, she said, "All they care about is that black son-of-a-[expletive]."

Ellen Munford's father, Jim Hinson of Albemarle, said, "I think it's a ... shame," noting that psychiatrists could have observed LeGrande already. "Our law is getting weaker and weaker," Hinson said. "They need to go back to a hanging tree -- the day after they commit the crime."

Stanly County District Attorney Michael Parker, who did not prosecute LeGrande, issued a prepared statement: "The state welcomes this evaluation in the hope of resolving the issue of Mr. LeGrande's competency. Judge Bell obviously is taking this very seriously, as have all the courts who have considered Mr. LeGrande's competency."

Parker has said there is "no credible evidence" that LeGrande is mentally ill.

LeGrande in court

Half a dozen armed deputies escorted LeGrande into the courtroom Monday at the Stanly County courthouse, east of Charlotte. LeGrande, whose hands were cuffed and bound to a waist belt, wore a white, button-down shirt and khaki pants. He took a seat at the defense table -- but kept his distance from his lawyers, who are representing him without his consent.

"Good morning, your honor," he greeted the judge. "Just for the record, I'm still representing myself."

Bell informed LeGrande that he had prosecuted a capital murder case with David Graham, an assistant district attorney who also helped prosecute LeGrande. Bell said he believed he still could be a fair and impartial judge for LeGrande.

LeGrande responded, "I'm a conscientious observer. I'm a conscientious objector. I'm not a part of these proceedings. I'm seeking a pardon from the governor. What's going on here, I'm not a party to it." Then citing the correct statute by chapter and number, LeGrande said he didn't believe there were grounds to disqualify Bell.

Prosecutors contend LeGrande is an intelligent killer who took cares to escape arrest and can handle his own appeals.

Psychiatric testimony

Dr. Jonathan Weiner, a psychiatrist at Durham's Veterans Administration Medical Center, testified Monday that LeGrande appears to have bipolar disorder but is not severely mentally ill and is competent. Weiner earlier this month evaluated LeGrande at the request of the N.C. Attorney General's Office; however, LeGrande refused to meet with him.

Based on prison records, Weiner testified, "It appears that he is functioning fine."

Later, Ferguson asked Weiner, "Have you ever known a mentally ill person to deny they are mentally ill?"

"Oh, that's very common," Weiner replied.

Weiner and two psychiatrists whose conclusions so far appear to help LeGrande will observe him at the judge's request: Dr. George Patrick Corvin, who works at Holly Hill hospital in Raleigh, and Dr. Nicole Wolfe of Dorothea Dix.

Corvin concluded LeGrande is psychotic and delusional based in part on his beliefs that he will be pardoned, receive a settlement of up to $3 billion from the state and enjoy a "first meal" with the governor upon his release from death row.

Wolfe concluded in a Nov. 17 report that LeGrande's plan "strongly suggests the presence of a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia." Later, she wrote: "There is a strong possibility that he is not competent."*

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/515448.html

* These 'mental illness' defenses of criminals are increasingly popular in North Carolina. At the current rate, someday the City of Durham will have to be declared a 'psychiatric zone'.

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.