Bar calls ex-DAs' actions felonies - Evidence withheld (Hoffman spent 7 1/2 years on death row)

The News & Observer ^ | Jan 13, 2006 | Joseph Neff

[Former Military Chick]

The N.C. State Bar has challenged the dismissal of disciplinary charges against two former Union County prosecutors, saying they committed felonies to win a death penalty conviction. Kenneth Honeycutt and Scott Brewer were charged with lying, cheating and withholding evidence in the 1996 murder trial. Honeycutt, the former district attorney in Union County, has since returned to private practice; Brewer is now a District Court judge in Richmond County. Last week, the bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission cited a missed deadline in dismissing the case against them.

But the bar's lawyers say there is no deadline to bring charges because the alleged misconduct of the prosecutors includes multiple felonies.

Honeycutt was once president of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys. On Thursday, the current president said the charges shouldn't be dismissed on technicalities -- and called for a criminal investigation.

"It's extremely distressing to us that these issues are not resolved," said Branny Vickory, Wayne County district attorney. "The allegations are so serious that, for public confidence in the system, they need to be dealt with on the merits, not on procedural grounds. ... This only adds to public distrust."

Lawyers for Honeycutt and Brewer did not return phone calls Thursday.

Lane Williamson, a Charlotte lawyer who chaired the three-member disciplinary panel that heard the case, has declined to comment. Last week, he called the deadline rule "hopelessly ambiguous" and asked the state bar to submit Wednesday's memorandum.

He said last week that the memorandum could affect the written ruling but that it was unlikely.

The case stems from the trial of Jonathan Hoffman, who was sentenced to death for the robbery and murder of Danny Cook, a jewelry store owner in Marshville, southeast of Charlotte. Hoffman's case was the subject of a November 2003 article in The News & Observer.

In April 2004, Hoffman won a new trial after 7 1/2 years on death row. The key evidence against Hoffman was provided by a cousin, Johnell Porter, who was facing long prison terms in South Carolina and in federal prison.

The bar said that Honeycutt agreed to reward Porter for his testimony at trial with immunity from state and federal prosecutions, money and a reduction in his federal sentence.

Porter said in a recent interview that he made up the testimony about Hoffman in order to get the deal.

Porter's prison sentences were reduced by at least 15 years. He was not prosecuted for at least a dozen serious crimes in Charlotte. And he pocketed several thousand dollars in reward money.

Bar's reaction

The bar charged that Honeycutt and Brewer hid the deal from the jury, the trial judge and Hoffman's lawyers, lied to Judge William Helms and concealed the deal by altering documents they gave to the judge.

State Bar Counsel Carolin Bakewell wrote in a memo filed late Wednesday that those acts were obstruction of justice -- and a felony because the prosecutors acted with deceit and intent to defraud.

Honeycutt and Brewer intentionally caused Porter to commit perjury on the stand, another felony, Bakewell wrote. The prosecutors allowed Porter to lie on the witness stand about the extent of his favorable treatment, she said.

The State Bar only has the power to suspend or revoke law licenses; it cannot start a criminal investigation or bring criminal charges.

Vickory said that would be up to Attorney General Roy Cooper. Union County District Attorney Michael Parker would likely have a conflict of interest because he worked for Honeycutt for years, including the time when Hoffman was tried.

"This goes to the heart of how the public perceives the court system," Vickory said. "The charges deserve a criminal investigation."

In an e-mail statement, a spokeswoman said Cooper was out of the office: "We typically initiate investigations at the request of local law enforcement or the local district attorney."

Staff writer Joseph Neff can be reached at 829-4516 or jneff@newsobserver.com.

[Former Military Chick]

One of those cases that it appears the system has been working ... and if folks broke the law then they should be held accountable.

[Former Military Chick]

PING

[jim_trent]

I think that prosecutors who put innocent people in jail, should spend as much time in jail themselves.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

In addition to disbarment, they should get at least as much time in the slammer as the person they feloniously convicted. This is the kind of behavior which aids the promoters of 100% privatization of the death penalty.

Murder by judicial process has a long and checkered history. See the gospels, and Acts 7-9 for examples.

Prosecutors and witnesses whose felonious behavior and lies leads to the execution of a person not guilty of the crime charged should suffer the same penalty they inflicted. Perhaps even the attempt deserves a similar sanction, as in:

for perjury: Deuteronomy 19:15-21 states in part (with reference to a murder trial) ....if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother.... That is, a perjurer would himself be killed.

THAT would put some tight quality control into the process.

[AlexandriaDuke]

I got half way through this before I realized they weren't referring to the Alan Gell case!

This is attempted murder. These prosecutors are low life thugs. In a free country, this couldn't happen. But, these guys will be probably be running for governor someday.

[middie]

It is not unusual, indeed, it's fairly commonplace, that prosecutors ignore their mission as commanded by the law and their oath of office to ''see that justice is done,'' not simply obtain convictions. A prosecutor's duty differs from that of a defense counsel whose job is to assure that the defendant's rights are protected and that, if he/she is to be convicted, it is done consistent with the rules mandated by the constitutions of the state and the United States and the local rules of evidence. Thus, the defense counsel fulfills his obligation to the lawyers' oath of office if the state fails in its requirement to meet the above standards and the defendant walks out of the courthouse.

A prosecutor who abuses his office, the power granted to him under his state's law and his oath to his licensing body (the state supreme court) should be removed from office, disbared and perhaps prossecuted himself for what might be a crime in the state. There is absolutely no justification for a prosecutor to lie, deceive the court, withhold exculpatory evidence or allow known false testimony to be presented to the court.

We all become complicit in lawlessness and tyranny when we close our eyes to such dispicable and wrongful conduct by those we entrust with enforcing law and to whom we grant such enormous powers as a prosecutor possesses.

[PAR35]

Maybe I'm missing it in the story, but what happened at the new trial. Was the defendant acquitted, or was he convicted but sentenced to a lesser penalty?