Lawyers say condemned man delusional
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Nov 22, 2006 : 11:31 pm ET
DURHAM -- Death row inmate Guy Tobias LeGrande apparently couldn't care less about the efforts of two Durham lawyers working feverishly to save his life, which the state plans to snuff out by lethal injection Dec. 1.
The attorneys, Jay Ferguson and Duke University law professor Jim Coleman, say LeGrande is so delusional that he expects an automatic pardon from his 1996 murder-for-hire conviction in Stanly County.
He also believes he is due money -- and lots of it -- because state officials falsely imprisoned him, according to Ferguson and Coleman.
Ferguson, who has done appellate work for years, said he has never before encountered such a situation.
"He won't talk to me," the veteran attorney said of LeGrande. "He doesn't think he needs me. He thinks he is either being pardoned or has already been pardoned. It's too bad. There are a lot of facts in his case that point to innocence. But it's hard to investigate them without his cooperation."
Coleman said that he, too, was shunned when he last met with LeGrande.
"He decided I was working for the prosecutor, and he went berserk," said Coleman. "He wanted me out of there. He was banging on the walls. The suddenness and violence of his reaction was startling."
The way Ferguson and Coleman see it, such delusional behavior is evidence of a mental illness that should suffice to gain gubernatorial clemency or a judicial stay of execution for LeGrande. They say the illness was present during LeGrande's trial a decade ago, prompting him to fire his lawyers and represent himself with unparalleled amateurishness.
For weeks, the Durham attorneys have scurried around the state in their bid to save LeGrande, remaining motivated despite their client's lack of helpfulness.
A clemency petition was presented to the governor on Nov. 14. New legal documents have been filed. Now, Ferguson and Coleman are prepared to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Someone's got to stand up for people like Guy LeGrande," said Ferguson. "He doesn't understand he is going to be executed, but I do. He fully believes he has been pardoned, is going to be released and will receive a large sum of money from the government."
According to Ferguson, LeGrande already has written his family with the news, "I'm getting out soon."
Ferguson and Coleman received court appointments for their work on behalf of LeGrande, who has been diagnosed as psychotic, reportedly suffering from a "delusional disorder with grandiose and persecutory delusions."
Another last-ditch mental evaluation is now in progress.
LeGrande was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to die for the slaying of Ellen Munford -- a killing that was arranged by the woman's estranged husband, Tommy Munford.
Evidence indicated that Tommy Munford plotted to kill his spouse for insurance money and hired LeGrande to pull the trigger.
The husband was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree murder and is eligible for parole next year.
Although he fired his lawyers and represented himself at trial, LeGrande had standby counselors in the courtroom. But he ignored them and didn't let them participate in the proceedings, saying he received his guidance from Oprah Winfrey and Dan Rather.
When the standby lawyers filed a written motion suggesting LeGrande was mentally ill and legally incompetent, LeGrande tore up the paperwork.
A judge allowed the case to go forward anyway.
LeGrande wore a Superman T-shirt on most days and verbally harassed jurors, telling them to kiss his behind and calling them the anti-Christ, according to Ferguson, who was not one of the standby attorneys.
There was no physical evidence to link LeGrande to the murder.
"Nothing," said Ferguson. "Not a hair, not a fingerprint, not a drop of blood. Absolutely nothing."
Ferguson said only two witnesses were able to incriminate LeGrande.
One was Tommy Munford, the estranged husband who plotted his wife's murder and later received a generous plea bargain.
"He's certainly biased," Ferguson said.
The other witness was a woman named Barbara Taylor, who testified that LeGrande had confessed to her. She reportedly received $3,500 in reward money.
Racial issues play a center-stage role in the clemency efforts being mounted by Ferguson and Coleman.
LeGrande is black but had an all-white jury. The Munfords were white.
The prosecution of LeGrande was spearheaded by District Attorney Ken Honeycutt, who succeeded in getting at least three other black men sentenced to death by all-white juries in the 1990s.
Honeycutt gained notoriety for wearing a gold lapel pin shaped like a noose, and for awarding such pins to assistant prosecutors who won death-penalty cases.
However, two of Honeycutt's death verdicts were overturned because he allegedly withheld critical evidence.
All of which leads Coleman, the Duke law professor, to think LeGrande might not be a killer.
"His claim of innocence is not frivolous," Coleman said in an interview. "It is possible he really is innocent."
It is true that LeGrande knew about the plot to murder Ellen Munford, Coleman acknowledged.
But that was only because Tommy Munford "shopped around" the idea to various people -- including LeGrande -- as he sought a triggerman, the professor said.
So LeGrande's knowledge of the scheme was not conclusive evidence of guilt, Coleman added.
At one point, LeGrande offered to tell a Stanly County newspaper who murdered Ellen Munford if the paper would pay him $50,000, reports indicated.
"He clearly was trying to make money for what he knew," said Coleman. "But is that plausible behavior for a person who actually did the killing? It doesn't prove he didn't do it, but it does raise questions. Those questions should have been investigated."
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-791730.html
**The Durham hoax, fraud, extortion scam was nailed by these folks within 7 days.
Eight months later, an election fraud has been perpetrated upon the citizens of Durham County.
The citizens continue to be lied to, misled, and purposely confused by the local hierarchy.
Was is all a setup would now be better asked, who is guiding the ongoing conspiracy?
'Scarborough Country' for March 30 MSNBC TV
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET March 31, 2006
Guests: Eddie Thompson, Michael Cardoza, Nicole Deborde, Stacey Honowitz, Melissa Caldwell, Jack Benza, Butch Williams, Kerry Sutton, Stacey Honowitz, John Patrick Dolan, Steve Sax, General Wayne Downing
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, duped at Duke. Suggestions that that college gang rape was all a hoax. Lawyers for two university Duke lacrosse players, at the center of horrific allegations mount a furious counterattack. They say no rape. They say no sex. They say no crime. Was it all a setup? - cut-
But first the investigation of a possible gang rape involving the Duke University lacrosse team. It‘s split that campus and the community in two bitter camps. Police say an exotic dancer was raped, but the players continue to deny the allegations. Did members of the lacrosse team rape and brutalize a young, exotic dancer, or was it all, as their lawyers are suggesting tonight, an elaborate hoax? We‘re going to hear from two of the attorneys from the players in a minute. But first, with us live from the campus of Duke is NBC‘s Michelle Hofland. What‘s the latest there?
MICHELLE HOFLAND, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, tonight it appears that the district attorney here is backpedaling a little bit. When I spoke with him late today, he says that he still is confident that the woman was raped, and that she was raped at that off-campus apartment.
But now he says that he‘s not so sure that it was a lacrosse player after all, that he‘s really not sure. He‘s waiting for the DNA results. Now, I said how can that be, when you told me that everyone inside that party was a lacrosse player? And this is what he said, is that all he knows about who was inside that apartment came from the lacrosse players, and maybe all of them omitted three other people who could have been at that party. A little bit confusing and we‘re waiting now.
Interestingly this all comes the same time that the attorneys for the lacrosse players are coming out and saying, hey, these people, they did not do anything wrong.
They did not touch these women. There was no sexual contact. We want these DNA test results to be done. We want them to come out, because it will prove our innocence. That‘s what the attorneys are saying. So it‘s a very interesting time. Things are shifting a little bit here, and we‘re waiting for the test results, expected to be out sometime next week.
SCARBOROUGH: You know Michelle, over the past 24 hours, the dynamics of this case seem to have changed so much. Twenty-four hours ago anger was growing on that campus. I know it still is in some quarters. Then everybody in the media and in the D.A.‘s office was suggesting this was an open-and-shut case. Now the D.A., like you said, is backing off. Plus we hear that he‘s saying, even if these DNA tests come back, and all the lacrosse players are cleared, there‘s a possibility that maybe they didn‘t leave any evidence on them, because they were wearing condoms. Is this a D.A., and is this a department, that‘s furiously backpedaling tonight?
HOFLAND: You know that‘s what it appears. I have not heard actually about the condoms. That I have not heard in this case. It may be that that‘s just what hasn‘t been—what we haven‘t heard here at the scene. But, yes, it does appear that there is some backpedaling going on.
Something else also is that he is saying, oh well, you know what? What I don‘t understand here, according to the district attorney, is that these guys just haven‘t been very cooperative. None of these lacrosse players are being cooperative. And their attorneys are saying, hey wait a minute, all these guys, they gave them their DNA evidence.
And the district attorney says, yes, but they‘re not being cooperative, because none of them are coming forward and saying this is what happened inside the party. This is what these men did to this poor girl. But the attorneys are saying, hey, these guys can‘t come forward and say that, because it didn‘t happen. So a lot of interesting things, and shuffling, and interesting facts that are happening here in Duke right now.
SCARBOROUGH: It is fascinating, and it‘s a fast-moving story. NBC‘s Michelle Hofland, as always thanks a lot for being with us. We really appreciate it.
Now earlier today, I spoke with attorneys for the two captains of the lacrosse team. And what they told me may surprise anybody who‘s been following this story. And I want to underline this. This is so important. And we see this time and time again, where you have a group of people or you have a person who is accused by the media, because they‘re in the wrong place at the wrong time. You know, maybe there are three people on this team that are guilty of brutalizing this young poor lady. We don‘t know.
But at the same time maybe you have an entire team that‘s being slimed, because somebody else committed the crime. You remember the runaway bride? You remember how everybody, when she disappeared, everybody was looking at the husband? We were all sure he was guilty of something. Well, we found out later on, that wasn‘t the case at all.
So we just have to be careful, we have to slow down and just like we don‘t want to jump to the other side and say, hey this thing definitely is a hoax, you certainly have to remember in America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We forget that sometimes in the media. Well I started my interview when I was talking to these lacrosse players‘ attorneys by asking Butch Williams what his client is saying happened on the night in question. Take a listen to what he told me.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BUTCH WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSED DUKE PLAYER: Well he‘s categorically denied, both in writing as well as to anyone that will listen that nothing occurred of a sexual nature that night.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me read you what the police report says about the victim. It says the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Can you tell us what your clients have told you, or what other people on the lacrosse team are saying, about the police suggesting that in fact she was raped that night?
WILLIAMS: Once again, we can‘t. I can speak for my client. And I‘m sure Kerry feels the same way. I can‘t speak on whatever my client has told me, because that‘s privileged information. But, as an overview, I can speak of what some of the outside investigators are bringing up there. I think the police report states that there may have been sex that night, but it doesn‘t necessarily mean—and that‘s where the DNA, to us, is going to prove substantial, as to who she might have had sex with that night.
SCARBOROUGH: So your suggestion, or at least the suggestion of your client and others on the team, is if she had sex, it wasn‘t with anybody on the Duke lacrosse team.
WILLIAMS: Correct.
KERRY SUTTON, ATTORNEY FOR ACCUSED DUKE PLAYER: That‘s right.
SCARBOROUGH: Kerry Sutton, let me bring you in here. Is your client telling you the same thing as Mr. Williams‘ client is telling him, that nobody inside that home had any sexual contact with this exotic dancer?
SUTTON: That‘s what‘s telling me, and that‘s what he told the police when he gave them a voluntary statement in writing and orally. And that‘s what he and teammates have said from the beginning.
SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Williams, I want to play you a 911 call that I suggest many Americans are going to be paying a lot closer attention to in the coming days. Take a listen.
911 CALL AUDIO: It‘s right in front of 610 Buchanan Street. And I saw them all come out like a big frat house, and me and my black girlfriend are walking by, and they called us n-----s. They didn‘t harm me in any way, but I just felt so completely offended, I can‘t even believe it.
SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Williams, talk about some of the inconsistencies in this 911 tape and the other one that occurred about 30 minutes later.
WILLIAMS: Well, if you listen to it in the tapes, first, they say I‘m riding by, then they say we were walking. And then they called out the actual address, 610. There are no numbers on that house. You cannot see that number. You cannot depict the address in the daytime, more less at night. So, you know, that right there was one of the first things glaringly that stepped out to me, that it couldn‘t have been anyone just riding by and randomly getting singled out. The other thing is, you know, for something—I mean if a person calls you a name, you dial a 911, and not being attacked or anything like that. That all too also stuck out in my mind as, you know, being almost contrived.
SCARBOROUGH: So are you suggesting that this may be a hoax? That possibly this exotic dancer and her friend may have set this—may have tried to set the Duke lacrosse team up?
WILLIAMS: I‘m not going to say it‘s a hoax, and I‘m not going to get into setups at this particular point, because we‘re still working on each and every angle of the case. The only thing I say it‘s just mighty coincidental that these calls came in, citing the address, in close proximity in time to the allegations being made.
SCARBOROUGH: And Kerry Sutton, apparently the second call that came reporting the rape 30 minutes later, was at a Kroger grocery store several miles away, when they had opportunities to make calls right there in that neighborhood, correct?
SUTTON: Correct. And the Durham Police Department headquarters is much closer than that Kroger store two and a half miles away.
SCARBOROUGH: What‘s the D.A. doing though—again, talking about getting out in front of this story. Now he‘s even assuming that the DNA evidence may come back and may let both of your clients off the hook, but then says, hey, I still got them.
WILLIAMS: Because quite frankly, if the DNA doesn‘t come back, it‘s definitely not in their favor when they have told everybody in the press, and now it seems like around the world, that all we want to get the DNA, and the DNA is going to show us x, y, and z. This is all what we call premature.
SCARBOROUGH: Butch, make a prediction for us. Do you think your client and the rest of the team is going to be cleared? And if so, how long is it going to take to get all the facts out on the table and get this part of their lives behind them?
WILLIAMS: It‘s not just these young men that are on the front. Duke University, a very fine prestigious university, is being drug through the mud across the United States, as well as these young men. All of them have families, you know, in different parts of the country, that have had to answer questions on this. Just think, if in fact they have been wrongly accused, as we believe that they have, how do you get your life back? How do your family get their name back? So that‘s what we‘re working for. It‘s not just about this rape. It‘s about total vindication for these young men.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Butch Williams, Kerry Sutton, thank you so much for being with us. And this is a story obviously that‘s going to continue. And like I said before, I think we‘re going to be—everybody‘s going to be looking a lot more closely at these 911 tapes in the coming days. Thank you so much for being with us and good luck.
WILLIAMS: Thank you Joe.
SUTTON: Thanks Joe.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCARBOROUGH: And let‘s bring our legal expert. Stacey Honowitz is a prosecutor, and John Patrick Dolan, a criminal defense attorney. Stacey, of course, whenever you have a possible victim like this you have to bend over backwards. I think we‘ve been doing that the past couple nights. But isn‘t it time to stop and say, hey wait a second, if this DNA evidence comes back and it doesn‘t pinpoint any lacrosse player, the D.A. has got to drop the case against them, right?
STACEY HONOWITZ, PROSECUTOR: Listen, Joe, the bottom line is, you know, you don‘t always need DNA to prove a rape case. Everybody knows that. Sometimes you‘re not going to have biological evidence.
SCARBOROUGH: But the D.A. didn‘t know that Stacey. Just a couple of days ago he was saying this DNA evidence is going to prove this case. And now he‘s saying, well, maybe I was wrong.
HONOWITZ: I think what the D.A. was saying was we can definitely say by the credible—we thought that this victim was credible and we saw bruising, we saw vaginal injuries, anal injuries, everything to say to lead to the fact that this was nonconsensual sex. And I think everybody else was bringing up the D.A. It was the defense attorneys that kept saying the D.A. is going to prove it...
SCARBOROUGH: But the D.A. has to prove though...
HONOWITZ: The D.A.‘s going to prove that—the DNA is going to prove that our clients aren‘t guilty, When in fact the DNA wouldn‘t.
SCARBOROUGH: Okay, Stacey, hold on a second though. I mean, there are a lot of people there. They‘re going to have to actually prove that a Duke lacrosse player was responsible for this. The lady could have had sex with somebody else that night, couldn‘t she have?
HONOWITZ: Yes, well we have to wait and see if she made an identification. Certainly the investigation has to move forward. Can she identify the perpetrators that were in the room with her that night? Certainly if she can, and there‘s no DNA, it doesn‘t mean that the D.A. can‘t prove the case. If there‘s DNA, and she picks them out of a lineup, well certainly there‘s a great case there. So the DNA is not going to be dispositive as to whether or not she had nonconsensual sex with any of the lacrosse players in the house that night. And that‘s what we‘re waiting to see.
SCARBOROUGH: John, could this all have been a hoax?
JOHN PATRICK DOLAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It could have been a hoax. It could have been an ill-conceived hoax. And I have to say I disagree with Stacey. If the DNA doesn‘t match one of these players, with the background of these ladies who are credible, exotic dancers, I don‘t think the D.A.‘s going to bring a prosecution. Because there‘s no way that they would get a conviction, unless they had the slam-dunk of the DNA plus the identification. That‘s the only way it‘s going to work for the prosecution.
HONOWITZ: That‘ not right. That‘s not correct.
SCARBOROUGH: John, the D.A. screwed up. He‘s already overpromised, hasn‘t he?
DOLAN: Oh, yes. They‘re way out in front of this case too soon. This is what happens again and again in state prosecutions. They arrest people or they accuse people first and worry about evidence later. They don‘t do that in the federal government by the way.
SCARBOROUGH: Well John, what do you think about them leaking this document to the press a couple days ago about how this lady was sexually abused?
DOLAN: Well, that happens all the time. The prosecution leaks evidence all the time. And by the way, you never hear them prosecuted for doing that. And they get the spin out there early, and then people make all kinds of derogatory comments about the defense lawyers when they come on in...
SCARBOROUGH: ... It‘s going to blow up in their face.
DOLAN: It is.
SCARBOROUGH: John, thank you for being with us. Stacey. Stick around. We‘ll be right back with more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12095352/
[For the record]