Posted on 11/28/2006 6:00:47 AM PST by f zero
Death behind bars Harold Ledet Jr. was jailed Nov. 21. Five days later, he was dead. His family wonders how, why.
By KIM GILLILAND Record Staff Writer Tuesday, November 28, 2006
NEWTON - Harold James Ledet Jr. was awake in his jail cell shortly before 3:30 a.m., prompting a jailer to ask if he was OK.
Ten minutes later, he was no longer breathing.
A transcript of a 911 call made about 3:36 a.m. shows Ledet was unresponsive and not breathing before being taken from his cell to Catawba Valley Medical Center. He was later pronounced dead.
Ledet, 28, died five days after being jailed on charges of attempted armed robbery and conspiracy. His death sparked outrage from a grieving family and prompted an investigation by the National Action Network, a civil rights organization headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. Family members met with sheriff’s officials before noon Monday. “This needs to be looked into,” said David Taylor, Ledet’s uncle. “We’ve come here for some answers, and we leave here with more questions.” He added, “This is not a death sentence when they (inmates) come here (to the jail).” Ledet did not die from a blow to the head or any other use of force, according to preliminary results from the autopsy. Officials await toxicology reports. Meanwhile, the Ledet family has requested a second autopsy. Suspicions about how the case was handled were raised at a news conference Monday outside the jail. “The doctors should have never released Ledet,” said John Barnett, state chairman of the NAN. “Why didn’t a doctor from the hospital follow up on his condition while he (Ledet) was incarcerated? How is it that a man with a broken leg dies in jail five days later?” Jailers at the Catawba County Detention Center are state certified, Lt. Roy Brown said Monday. A N.C. Department of Justice Web site lists certification requirements for jailers. The state requires 162 hours of training, including 10 hours for first aid and CPR training, and six hours of medical care instruction. “The training is similar to Basic Law Enforcement Training instruction, but geared toward detention officers,” Brown said. More answers are needed before the Ledet family is satisfied. “If he died from natural causes, let that be known,” Barnett said. “Still, he was a friend, a semi-pro football player, a father and an uncle. We will not let his death be in vain.”
"spinning cobwebs out of their own substance" Now not only God but race-baiters and newsies can engage in creation ex nihilo.Terrific ... not.
I went through a few of the pages and here are some highlights. Better?
Name
LEDET,HAROLD JAMES JR Case Number
2002CR 066181 County Code
350 County Name
GASTON
Address 1
806 MEMORY LANE Address 2
City
GASTONIA State
NC
Zip
280520000 Race
B Gender
M Date of Birth
Apr 14 1978
Citation Number
Alias Name(s)
none found
Offenses
Case Number
2002CR 066181 County Code
350 Offense Sequence Number
01 Charged Offense Code
2214
Charged Offense Type
Misdemeanor Charged Offense Description
BREAKING OR ENTERING (M) Charged Offense Statute Number
14-54(B) Arraigned Offense Code
2214
Arraigned Offense Type
Misdemeanor Arraigned Offense Description
BREAKING OR ENTERING (M) Arraigned Offense Statute Number
14-54(B) Convicted Offense Code
Case Number
2002CR 066181 County Code
350 Offense Sequence Number
01 Charged Offense Code
2214
Charged Offense Type
Misdemeanor Charged Offense Description
BREAKING OR ENTERING (M) Charged Offense Statute Number
14-54(B) Arraigned Offense Code
2214
Arraigned Offense Type
Misdemeanor Arraigned Offense Description
BREAKING OR ENTERING (M) Arraigned Offense Statute Number
14-54(B) Convicted Offense Code
Convicted Offense Type
Case Number
2002CR 010964 County Code
350 Offense Sequence Number
02 Charged Offense Code
5446
Charged Offense Type
Traffic Misdemeanor Charged Offense Description
RECKLESS DRIVING TO ENDANGER Charged Offense Statute Number
20-140(B) Arraigned Offense Code
5446
Arraigned Offense Type
Traffic Misdemeanor Arraigned Offense Description
RECKLESS DRIVING TO ENDANGER Arraigned Offense Statute Number
20-140(B) Convicted Offense Code
Convicted Offense Type
none found
Convicted Offense Description
Convicted Offense Statute Number
Called and Failed Date
Failure to Appear Date
Sep 20 2002 Order for Arrest Date
Convicted Offense Class
Plea Code
Verdict Code
Method of Disposition Code
VL Offense Disposition Date
Feb 8 2005 Fine Amount (whole dollars)
Case Number
2006CR 054359 County Code
170 Offense Sequence Number
01 Charged Offense Code
5716
Charged Offense Type
Misdemeanor Charged Offense Description
DOMESTIC CRIM TRESPASS(M) Charged Offense Statute Number
14-134.3(A) Arraigned Offense Code
5716
Arraigned Offense Type
Misdemeanor Arraigned Offense Description
DOMESTIC CRIM TRESPASS(M) Arraigned Offense Statute Number
14-134.3(A)
Case Number
2006CR 058517 County Code
170 Offense Sequence Number
01 Charged Offense Code
9918
Charged Offense Type
Felony Charged Offense Description
FELONY CONSPIRACY Charged Offense Statute Number
14-2.4(A) Arraigned Offense Code
9918
Arraigned Offense Type
Felony Arraigned Offense Description
FELONY CONSPIRACY Arraigned Offense Statute Number
14-2.4(A) Convicted Offense Code
From another article, looks like his femur was OK
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Yeah just forget about that innocent until proven guilty thing right?
Well, I'd like to see it applied to the police and Corrections Officeres as well.
I think the relevance of the rap sheet is that NAn is presenting this guy to us as a fabulous, warm AND fuzzy human being, heck, a "semi-pro" football player! Wow! And a Father! and as if theat weren't enough, he is also an UNCLE! A Paragon!
A guy dies in his cell. It's sad. It's usually sad when a man in his twenties dies. But that's no excuse for NAN and The Reverend Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton to rare back on his hind legs and get all excited.
No it's not but the Dept of Corrections are responsible for all inmates under their control. Now I don't know what happend but then again none of us do and blaming the victim is just ignorant.
I agree. We should take this opportunity to instead blame Whitey.
We're left with an unexplained death. We're going to need a cause of death and maybe a history of his last hours before we can even tolerate Revrund Al. People die. People die without warning. An unexplained death is not prima facie evidence of CO neglect.
Forget about Al, he's irrevelent. In determining guilt or innocence however the record IS irrelevant. Yes he was probably guilty but that doesn't matter, until convicted he was an innocent man with the responsibility of the safety intrusted to the corrections. They were responsible therefore the burden is on them.
In determining guilt or innocence however the record IS irrelevant.
(a)Are we trying the guy? I thought we were trying the Department of Corrections.
(b) It depends on the record. A defendant's record can be brought up in some jurisdictions if he testifies in his trial and if he's been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Character can be part of evidence if the defense brings it up, and the record is a part of character. So it's not necessarily irrelevant.
However this defendant won't be testifying at his trial, I guess.
Yes he was probably guilty but that doesn't matter, until convicted he was an innocent man with the responsibility of the safety intrusted to the corrections. They were responsible therefore the burden is on them.
SO you're saying the corrections department IS liable until proven innocent by a preponderance of the evidence -- or guilty until ditto beyond a reasonable doubt? That's a new one on me. May I ask what your basis is for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering.
That's a Rap Sheet longer than the transcontinental railroad.
It would fall under an 8th amendment protection. The Government has an affermative duty to prevent cruel and unsual punishment. A prison is not the outside world, when a person is brought in he becomes the responsibility of that prison to punish. If there is a internal risk, say coming from another prisoner, the prisoner has no chance to flee or to protect himself. The prison has removed those options from him and thus they are responsible for substituting for them.
What are the facts here? A guy with a record and a broken leg dies in prison. He was awake at or before 3:30 AM and a jailer asked him if he was okay. He was dead ten minutes later.
If he was crying for help and the jailer wouldn't get it, if he was where he could be attacked (at 3:30 in the morning?) then maybe there's some liability here.
But that the jail must prove that no jailer killed the guy or allowed him to die? I think that's unreasonable to the point of impossible.
I guess I am now lost here. What exactly is it that you contend and what should be done?
Do please bear in mind that you were mistaken about the relevance of a record to a finding of guilty. So maybe you are articulating your contentions with a certainty they do not deserve?
Looks like Al's going to be busy.
Sounds like a drug overdose to me.
No, the prison is definatly responsible for an imates safety but not necessarly cupable in his death (or injury).
From FARMER v. BRENNAN (part (a) is the important one)
1. A prison official may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment for acting with "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety only if he knows that inmates face a substantial risk ofserious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Pp. 5-21.
(a) Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to provide humane conditions of confinement. They must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners. However, a constitutional violation occurs only where the deprivation alleged is, objectively, "sufficiently serious," Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, and the official has acted with "deliberate indifference" to inmate health or safety. Pp. 5-7.
(b) Deliberate indifference entials something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result. Thus, it is the equivalent of acting recklessly. However, this does not establish the level of culpability deliberate indifference entails, for the term recklessness is not self defining, and can take subjective or objective forms. Pp. 7 9.
(c) Subjective recklessness, as used in the criminal law, is the appropriate test for "deliberate indifference." Permitting a finding of recklessness only when a person has disregarded a risk of harm of which he was aware is a familiar and workable standard that is consistent with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause as interpreted in this Court's cases. The Amendment outlaws cruel and unusual "punishments," not "conditions," and the failure to alleviate a significant risk that an official should have perceived but did not, while no cause for commendation, cannot be condemned as the infliction of punishment under the Court's cases. Petitioner's invitation to adopt a purely objective test for determining liability--whether the risk is known or should have been known--is rejected. This Court's cases "mandate inquiry into a prison official's state of mind," id., at 299, and it is no accident that the Court has repeatedly said that the Eighth Amendment has a "subjective component." Pp. 10-13.
(d) The subjective test does not permit liability to be premised on obviousness or constructive notice. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, distinguished. However, this does not mean that prison officials will be free to ignore obvious dangers to inmates. Whether an official had the requisite knowledge is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, and a factfinder may conclude that the official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that it was obvious. Nor may an official escape liability by showing that he knew of the risk but did not think that the complainant was especially likely to be assaulted by the prisoner who committed the act. It does not matter whether the risk camefrom a particular source or whether a prisoner faced the risk for reasons personal to him or because all prisoners in his situation faced the risk. But prison officials may not be held liable if they prove that they were unaware of even an obvious risk or if they responded reasonably to a known risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted. Pp. 13-19.
(e) Use of subjective test will not foreclose prospective injunctive relief, nor require a prisoner to suffer physical injury before obtaining prospective relief. The subjective test adopted today is consistent with the principle that "[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief." Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553. In a suit for prospective relief, the subjective factor, deliberate indifference, "should be determined in light of the prison authorities' current attitudes and conduct," Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. ___, ___: their attitudes and conduct at the time suit is brought and persisting thereafter. In making the requisite showing of subjective culpability, the prisoner may rely on developments that postdate the pleadings and pretrial motions, as prison officials may rely on such developments to show that the prisoner is not entitled to an injunction. A Court that finds the Eighth Amendment's objective and subjective requirements satisfied may grant appropriate injunctive relief, though it should approach issuance of injunctions with the usual caution. A court need not ignore a prisoner's failure to take advantage of adequate prison procedures to resolve inmate grievances, and may compel a prisoner to pursue them. Pp. 19-21.
I think we're closing in on a meeting of minds here. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Of course, I remember arriving on one of my assigned floors when I was a hospital chaplain only to find a nurse coming out of a room with a funny look on her face. One of her patients had just, uh, shuffled off the old mortal coil without warning. It happens.
Let's hang back and see what the autopsy says, if we ever can find out. Thanks for finding that information.
np
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.