Posted on 03/04/2007 4:27:50 AM PST by abb
You have every right to be one of those dupes that keeps the Dims from reforming.
I certainly hope so! It's the gop's that need reforming!!LOL! ;) (If you had actually read some of my prior posts instead of just foaming at the mouth because I wrote them, you would see that I think ALL politics needs reforming, hun.)
I don't know about the vast majority of dims being "socialist, unpatriotic, venal or are dupes" but I do know most of their leadership is.
The fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans can be illustrated in the case of two very corrupt congressman, Duke Cunningham and William Jefferson. Jefferson has played every card in the deck not to protect his rights but to game the system. The Democrats have a criminal mentality built into their politics. Because it is the party of ambulance chasers and trial lawyers, they appreciated good lawyering in which the guilty dodge the legal consequences of their criminal acts. Before there was OJ, there was Teddy Kennedy. Hillary looted Lincoln Savings and Loan and Webb Hubbell took the fall. McCain is not embraced on this site and a lot of that has to do with the Keating Five. The mistakes people make should not automatically make them targets for condemnation, but it may disqualify them for serious consideration for higher office. In the Democrat Party, gaming the criminal justice system enhances your chance for office. Clinton got away with rape not because of good lawyering but because he was a Arkansas Attorney General, and he knew he was legally untouchable and as he told Juanita Broaderrick, you had better put a little ice on that. Gore was not heartily embraced because he did not have much of a criminal past to illude to, all he had going for him in that regard was that he smoked a little weed in Nam. Republicans serve time in the big house, Democrats serve more time in office.
No, she hasn't been raped. Even though she didn't get paid, she nevertheless consented.
Under most circumstances, non-payment/default of an oral contract to pay or perform would be a civil court matter, but a contract for an illegal service or good isn't enforceable, so the hooker is SOL. Her only recourse would be to try to sic her pimp on the john, but if he's John long gone, too bad. That's why hookers get their payment first.
It would be breach of a contract if the contract was made in a jurisdiction where a contract for the service was legal (such as Nevada) and made in a manner that conformed to the law of the jurisdiction in which it was made.
As for a criminal charge for theft of services in a jurisdiction in which the service is not illegal, intent to defraud the hooker before the service was performed would have to be proved, and that would be extremely difficult to prove because all he would have to say is that the service was not performed satisfactorily or as described or promised. There would have to be some evidence that he entered into the contract in bad faith and never intended to pay her before the service was performed. I don't think that original intent not to pay could be inferred simply from the eventual act of non-payment in such a case.
Why don't you just stick to making your point, whatever it may be, and leave out the "hun" (did you mean "hon"?) and snarky political comments.
I meant hun.
"Republicans serve time in the big house, Democrats serve more time in office."
Perhaps the Republicans should have hired the Democrat's attorneys...
... just sayin'.
I'm not here to try to change anyone's mind. And I'm not here to trash talk. I have never commented on the truly hateful way some here speak about their fellow Americans. I really do believe that most Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, are good people who mean to do the right thing. I don't believe any particular party or other societal box defines a person's heart, as it seems many of you do. And I do judge a person by the color of their heart. I'm sure some of you find that offensive. No biggie. Your problem, not mine. I consider myself a conservative liberal - we have a Republican governor in our state that I voted for because the Democrat that was running for office is a crook. I also voted for Gore. I tend to support conservative fiscal policy; but I also feel that government does have a responsibility to help those less fortunate - but not those who refuse to work. I am not a criminal - I am probably more honest than most of you. Ask my Republican employer. He has rewarded me handsomely for my ethic. And, he knows I'm a Democrat. Do you suppose Mr. Bush would stop asking him for money if he knew that? I had to laugh. Got a call from Tom Cole's office last week telling me Rep. Cole had nominated me for a Businessperson of the Year Award. Was I going to be able to come to Washington, DC for the awards banquet? I said that I don't understand why Rep. Cole would have nominated me. She says, "Aren't you a Republican?" I say, "No." oops. click.
Agreed. That's exactly what I was trying to get at with em2vn, with the additional proviso that in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal, the hooker would be out of her mind to even attempt to file a civil suit, as it would expose her to criminal prosecution.
Also agreed; I think your legal analysis is impeccable. I would only add that even in a jurisdiction where making a contract for sexual services was legal, a civil action for breach of contract would likewise present substantial difficulties, as the Johnny-go-lately would also be able to argue that the service was not performed satisfactorily or as described or promised. All in all, I think the lesson is: neither a hooker nor a John be, because you can get "screwed" either way.
Gang-related trial ends with split jury
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Mar 7, 2007 : 12:19 am ET
DURHAM -- A gang-related homicide trial against Tyrone Dean of Durham ended with a hung jury Tuesday as at least one panelist expressed fear of possible harm.
The last reported split among jurors was 8-4, reportedly in favor of guilty, after about two full days of deliberations in Durham County Superior Court.
Prosecutor David Saacks said he intended to try Dean again for the May 2004 fatal shooting of 22-year-old Reginald Diondras Johnson on Weaver Street.
Evidence indicated that Johnson, an unintended victim, was mistakenly gunned down as Dean and three co-defendants lay in wait for a gang rival.
Before a mistrial was declared Tuesday, jurors had sent four notes to Judge Orlando F. Hudson, either expressing fear or implying they were concerned about people in the courtroom audience. The panelists stopped short of saying they had been threatened.
According to lawyers, such concerns probably arose from the ostentatious presence of suspected gang members on some days, a development that prompted police and deputies to beef up security dramatically.
"Part of the problem was that you had 20 deputies in there, plus members of the police gang unit wall-to-wall," defense lawyer John Fitzpatrick said after Tuesday's mistrial. "That changed the atmosphere quite a bit."
Fitzpatrick said he was "glad the jury did not allow emotions to dictate a verdict. They stuck to their convictions and made decisions they thought were best individually, not just collectively. That's why we have 12-person juries."
Dean faced an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole if convicted of first-degree murder. The death penalty was not being sought, and the lesser offense of second-degree murder was not on the table. .
Dean did not testify in his own defense and presented only one alibi witness, his sister, who said he was home with her when the shooting occurred.
A key prosecution witness was Philipe Antonio Parker, who faces an unrelated murder charge of his own, although he was not accused in Johnson's death despite being the admitted getaway driver.
Identifying Dean as one of the shooters, Parker testified that bullets began flying from at least three handguns when Johnson appeared on the night in question.
But Fitzpatrick pointed out that Parker faced five felony charges at the time he agreed to help authorities against Dean: two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, possession of a weapon of mass destruction, shooting into occupied property and homicide.
Parker acknowledged he had received probation for all his charges except murder.
"You wanted to do whatever you could to save your butt?" the defense lawyer demanded on cross-examination.
"No, sir," Parker replied.
"Sweet deal, wasn't it?" asked Fitzpatrick, not getting an answer.
It was not alleged that Dean fired the fatal bullet. But prosecutor Saacks contended he was guilty of murder anyway, since he was shooting at the time and "acting in concert" with other gunmen.
Homicide charges in the case remain pending against Deshaun Moshea Mitchell, Joshua Lamont Johnson and Mario Pier Fortune.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-826665.cfm
Lawyer says client's convictiion "legally impossible"
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Mar 8, 2007 : 12:19 am ET
DURHAM -- Making the bold claim that a conviction is "legally impossible" in a murder case against one of his clients, defense lawyer John Fitzpatrick asked Wednesday that the District Attorney's Office be prohibited from trying the matter next week.
Fitzpatrick said in a written motion that "justice and judicial economy" mandated a dismissal of the charge against Thomas Bennett, who is accused of killing another man at a gasoline station on Avondale Drive five years ago.
Fitzpatrick made the request in a rare "petition for writ of prohibition" filed in Durham County Superior Court.
"It's not done very often," the defense attorney said in an interview. "It's definitely not trivial. It's fundamental. It's central to our system of justice. I believe there is no chance of a conviction in this case. But because the jury system is not perfect, the facts and circumstances do not support exposing my client to potential loss of liberty for the rest of his life. The case needs to be dismissed."
Bennett faces an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole if convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Carl Cary.
Fitzpatrick's petition wasn't filed until a few minutes before court closed for the day Wednesday, and attempts to reach Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline -- who is prosecuting Bennett -- were unsuccessful.
Other lawyers agreed that writs of prohibition aren't often seen in Durham.
"It's a very rare duck, but it can be quite effective," said veteran attorney Bill Thomas.
Thomas said another lawyer in his firm, Jay Ferguson, successfully obtained such a writ in a serious felony case about a decade ago. Other than that, he said he had not seen the obscure litigation tool used locally.
According to the petition filed by Fitzpatrick on Wednesday, Cary solicited Bennett to buy marijuana from him, and the two began arguing inside the victim's car on Avondale Drive. Cary then attempted to drive away, Bennett pulled a .45-caliber gun to keep from being kidnapped and the two struggled over the weapon, according to the petition.
Fitzpatrick cited reports indicating that a third man, Decarl Sanders, soon approached and shot Cary in an apparent attempt to help Bennett.
Bennett and Sanders finally left the scene together, and Cary collapsed with a fatal wound, Fitzpatrick's petition said.
The petition argued that Bennett clearly was not the shooter, and that he could not be convicted under a legal theory known as "acting in concert" because he and Sanders had no "common scheme or purpose" to kill Cary.
Sanders "could have reasonably believed that [Bennett's] life was in danger, thereby allowing him to exercise a defense of a third party," the petition added. "It would be considered a justified killing."
Under the circumstances, "a conviction is legally impossible in this case," the petition concluded.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-827061.cfm
* More fun and games in the Durham Halls of Justice.
---- ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the Hoax, Election Fraud and Hostage Shakedown ----
Lacrosse case weaves a heated legacy
By BRIANNE DOPART and JOHN STEVENSON : The Herald-Sun, Mar 11, 2007 : 12:08 am ET
A year after the team party that made "Duke lacrosse" a household phrase across the nation, the cottage at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. stands empty.
The shutters hang slightly askew and the white paint is dingy, the same as on the night of March 13-14, 2006 -- when two exotic dancers arrived to perform.
But what seemed destined to be just another raucous student bash near East Campus rocketed to the forefront of national news after one of the hired dancers told police three players gang-raped her in a bathroom.
For the past 12 months, what happened -- or didn't -- that night has fueled a raging debate that spans continents and oceans thanks to TV talk shows, e-mail and Internet blogs.
The emotional currents run strong.
The accused players are white men who attend one of the nation's most prestigious and expensive universities. They come from well-heeled families who live near Washington, D.C., and New York City. And they belonged to a team with a history of off-campus misbehavior.
The accuser is a single black mother from a modest background who at the time of the alleged attack attended historically black N.C. Central University in Durham. She has a criminal record and repeatedly has changed her account of what she contends happened to her at the party.
As the two dancers left the Buchanan Boulevard house early on the morning of March 14, there was allegedly an exchange of racial slurs.
Details of the incident made headlines on a Friday, more than a week after the alleged attack.
A hint of what lay ahead came the next night.
About 100 people, most from the surrounding Trinity Park neighborhood, held a prayer vigil outside the party house. It was a somber, quiet, candle-lit gathering like those typically held for Durham murder victims. Some wept.
But by early that Sunday morning, a larger, louder crowd gathered -- dotted with student and community activists. For nearly two hours, they chanted, sang and banged pots and trash cans to deliver "a wake-up call" to the players who lived in the house and in other nearby rental houses.
Some spoke using a megaphone. And several strayed from the alleged rape into speeches about fair wages, sweatshops and other social and political issues on the Duke campus and in Durham.
In the days and weeks after, a swift succession of rallies and vigils followed at the Buchanan Boulevard house -- as local and national media attention mushroomed.
The single alleged attack -- one among about 100 reported rapes in Durham every year -- exploded from concern about sexual violence into a highly charged debate about racial, social and gender issues; sexual politics; the accuser's credibility; the district attorney's honesty; and Duke University's mission as an institution of higher learning and athletics, now under intense self-scrutiny.
A year after the party that made "Duke lacrosse" a household phrase across the nation, "why?" remains a hotly debated question.
Duke spokesman John Burness calls the case a "perfect storm" of race, class, perceived privilege, politics and other issues.
And he concedes the lacrosse team had a reputation for inappropriate behavior.
But Burness, Duke's senior vice president of public and government relations, said much of the community reaction also was inappropriate.
Some of the most vocal members of groups who plastered 610 Buchanan Blvd. with signs like "Get a conscience, not a lawyer" were people with long-standing beefs against Duke, he said.
"There were people in the community upset with Duke students in general over a pattern of behavior they found to be offensive," Burness said.
Long before police Cpl. David Addison and District Attorney Mike Nifong -- an election campaign on his horizon -- spoke out against the team, "a foundation of anger" existed that spurred some people at Duke and in Durham to "rush to judgment," Burness said.
"That was the tone of it all," he said, citing early chatter on the Trinity Park neighborhood e-mail message board that he said sparked the first protests outside 610 N. Buchanan. "A lot of people working off of history, not willing to step back."
Those people, Burness said, made "a leap from a perception of what I would call boorish behavior to believing something as significant as a gang rape had occurred."
On March 18, 2006 -- nearly a week after the alleged attack -- then-police investigator Mark Gottlieb posted a note on the message board announcing the police investigation.
Lots of people responded. But some focused not on the alleged attack, but on past problems with Duke students living in the neighborhood.
Typical was one response that cited trash, smashed beer bottles, parking on sidewalks, graffiti and drunkenness, and called the Duke students "disgusting people" who should leave the neighborhood.
Burness said he thinks relations between Duke and Durham "are good." But when people gathered in large groups and loudly proclaimed their issues with the college, their sheer volume became "newsworthy" and in some sense, gained credibility, he said.
Duke employee Kelly Jarrett, who participated in protests and frequently wrote about it on a community message board, said it was the other way around.
Media coverage of the alleged attack is what drew 100 people to the first protest at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., said Jarrett, who lives in Old West Durham several blocks west of Trinity Park. The rally came a day after the story started making headlines.
Jarrett pointed to lack of coverage, and lack of protests, about the other 99 rapes reported to Durham police in 2006, 11 of which the Durham Crisis Response Center said were gang rapes.
"Where was the press on those?" she asked.
Duke law professor James Coleman said the year has been filled with turmoil.
"The city, the university and students on the lacrosse team have suffered some hard body blows," he said.
Coleman said a lot of what happened was unnecessary, beginning with the party itself and continuing with Nifong -- who, he said, hung onto the case too long before stepping aside in favor of special prosecutors from the state Attorney General's Office.
The whole affair, Coleman said, comes across like a tawdry novel.
"You've got a Southern university, you've got race and you've got sex," he said Friday. "Then you've got a DA who kind of portrays himself as the Lone Ranger, riding in on his white stallion to save the poor black people. He kind of set it up as a latter-day 'Gone With the Wind.' Then he tried to shake the case his way rather than let the facts shake it. He trimmed everything to match his preconceptions."
UNC professor Joe Kennedy said it would be a mistake to focus too much on money and ethnicity.
"People who look at this case mostly through a prism of race or class risk missing a lesson about the enormous power prosecutors have in the criminal justice system," Kennedy said. "This case underscores the fact that a defendant's rights aren't technicalities. They need to be taken seriously. Nifong has not taken seriously the possibility that these [lacrosse] defendants might be innocent."
The three defendants, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, remain free on bond awaiting a trial on sexual-offense and kidnapping charges -- both felonies. No trial date has been set.
Meanwhile, Nifong faces a June N.C. State Bar hearing on allegations that he withheld evidence from the players' defense attorneys that might have bolstered their case, then lied about it, and that he made inappropriate comments to the press, including calling the alleged attackers "hooligans."
Nifong could be cleared, warned or disbarred. He declined to comment for this article.
One of the attorneys defending him, David Freedman of Winston-Salem, said he had "confidence in the bar's ability to hear cases fairly and come up with a just result."
"Anytime you represent an attorney before the State Bar, where one's ability to practice law is in jeopardy, it's very serious," Freedman said.
In a recent response to the bar, Nifong denied he did anything wrong.
Freedman predicted Nifong would accept no deals, would admit no fault and would battle it out in "a fair and impartial hearing" before the State Bar.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-828117.cfm
---- ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the Hoax, Election Fraud and Hostage Shakedown ----
The Virtual Support Team
Rob Copeland, The Chronicle, Posted: 3/8/07
By day, Mike McCusker is just another suit in midtown Manhattan, a civil lawyer working for a large, faceless firm.
At night, though, he steps into his metaphorical telephone booth and emerges as NDLax84, proprietor of the aptly named "Crystal Mess" blog, which has offered commentary on the Duke lacrosse case since last June.
Posts range from the serious to the sophomoric. One day it's an analysis of Steve Monks' decision to run against Lewis Cheek. Another day it's a heavily edited image of South Park's Eric Cartman in a Duke Lacrosse jersey, screaming "Mike Nifong Sucks Ass!" Or a picture of a clown spinning a top to demonstrate McCusker's opinion of the mainstream media's impartiality.
As national attention to the scandal wanes and The Drudge Report returns to covering Britney's latest stint in rehab, blogs are some of the only places still providing regular commentary on the case. Their writers have become the mini-celebrities of the whole episode, and now they're reaping the benefits, with thousands of daily readers boosting their profiles and a book deal in the works for one prominent commentator.
"I think in the end it's all good for democracy, for a nation that touts itself as a government of the people, by the people and for the people," says McCusker, a Notre Dame alum with a Blue Devil wife. "The rise of the Net-and the blogosphere in general-has so clearly demonstrated how a concerned citizenry intent on ascertaining the truth is ultimately a much more powerful force than the mainstream media."
As a lawyer, McCusker was motivated by the "egregious" conduct of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, adding that the indicted players deserve compensation from the city.
"As they press the flesh with people they are coming to meet for the first time, they will always be remembered as the kids who supposedly raped that poor black girl in Durham," he says. "Each and every one of those kids should own 1/3 of Durham County."
But the dean of the lacrosse bloggers is unquestionably KC Johnson, a 39-year-old history professor from low-profile Brooklyn College, whose "Durham-in-Wonderland" website boasts more than 15,000 page views per day-with more than a handful from the Duke campus, according to online readership statistics.
Johnson has become an unlikely hero for those who believe the indicted players have suffered injustice. His last book, on Congress during the Cold War, was considered a massive success because it was one of the top 100,000 books on Amazon.com's sales ranking for a few days, he says.
He's likely to do a little better for his next effort, a book about the lacrosse case he is co-writing with Stuart Taylor of National Journal.
"I continue to view the blog as an academic enterprise," Johnson explains. "I have the freedom to speak on some of the academic issues that someone who is a professor at Duke wouldn't have, because there is very little that the Group of 88 can do to retaliate against me."
Johnson is referring, of course, to the group of much-criticized professors who published an advertisement in The Chronicle last April which featured anonymous quotes from students and asked, "What Does a Social Disaster Look Like?"
It hasn't been a smooth ride since then, as much of the blogging community has made it a mission to hold those professors accountable for their ostensible rush to judgment. Some blog readers have posted vicious comments on online message boards, and several Duke professors have reportedly received racist, threatening e-mails from anonymous strangers.
All of the bloggers interviewed for this story said they delete unconstructive comments and discourage readers from sending hateful e-mails.
But it's a political issue for some, including William Anderson, who writes at lewrockwell.com, which does not have a message board attached directly to its articles.
A self-described Libertarian and a professor at Frostburg State University in Western Maryland, Anderson says he was alarmed by the "storm trooper tactics" occurring in Durham.
"Every single editorial writer in this country, including The News & Observer and The Herald Scum [sic] were all parroting the same thing," Anderson says, adding that he has sought out personal confrontations with any individual faculty members.
Having written about general issues of crime and justice for many years, Anderson says he became alarmed when he perceived three men on the brink of a prison sentence, with no outcry or support from the public.
"I thought, it's us versus them," Anderson says. "I get fired up about this sort of thing.... Those guys had a lynch mob against them."
And though most of the commentary has been in support of the lacrosse players, the blog "Justice 4 Two Sisters" called for a new focus on the alleged victim before its authors stopped writing Nov. 7, 2006. The author did not respond to a request for comment.
In a late-October post, the blog suggested that the indicted players take advantage of their bully pulpit to speak out against racism.
"I've said from the start of this case, if the public feels these guys have been treated unfairly and stereotyped, well congratulations, you now know what it feels like to be African-American and be prejudiced against," the author wrote.
Regardless of which side they take, for many bloggers on the lacrosse case, it's a labor of love, rather than a means for profit, because they say accepting advertisements would risk their independence.
But LaShawn Barber is different from most of the online commentators, and not only because her site is ringed by advertisements. As a black, female, Christian conservative, Barber naturally attracts attention in a case dominated by issues of race.
She has made a profession out of blogging, spending up to four hours per day on her own site-which receives 4,000 hits per day-and offering her consulting services to others.
"I'm not a feminist, and I don't shout racism at the drop of a hat," Barber says. "I'm very open about my faith and my politics, and that tends to make a lot of people mad-it makes a lot of black readers angry."
With her picture and contact information directly available on the site, Barber stands in contrast to blogs written anonymously, such as John-in-Carolina, who will only identify himself as a Duke alumnus.
McCusker says it is important to him that he stands behinds his words to maintain credibility.
"The bottom line is I'm not really a blogger; I'm a husband, a dad and a lawyer," he explains. "I don't make it my daily waking chore to write because I must."
Indeed, Crystal Mess has been updated infrequently lately, and McCusker says he is feeling the heat.
"I feel like a conscripted slave or employee of my readership, but it's certainly been by-and-large a very rewarding endeavor," he says, noting that he has been in communication with many of the other online commentators.
"I have an amicable and very wry, witty ongoing e-mailing with KC," he adds. "It's nice to know that for each of the ideologues out there like [the Group of 88], there are individuals who will point out the hypocrisy and call them on their lies."
For Johnson, in spite of his book deal and newfound celebrity status, he can only hope that he has made an impact on the indictments handed down last April.
"If the work that I've done ends the case one day earlier than it would have otherwise, I could consider all the work to be worth it," he says.
© Copyright 2007 The Chronicle http://www.dukechronicle.com/home/index.cfm?event=
displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=27788bae
-18b1-4f70-a167-30980d875854
Ex-lacrosse coach, reporter team up on book
Mar 12, 2007 : 10:05 pm ET
DURHAM -- Former Duke University lacrosse coach Mike Pressler and Sports Illustrated magazine investigative reporter Don Yaeger are cooperating on a book about the Duke lacrosse sexual-offense and kidnapping case called "It's Not About The Truth."
The book, called "an explosive insider account" of the case by Pocket Books' executive Louise Burke, will be published in June by Pocket Books' Threshold Editions.
Pocket Books and Threshold Editions are imprints of Simon & Schuster.
Pressler resigned as head coach of the Duke men's lacrosse team under pressure after news first broke about the rape allegations -- since dismissed -- against several members of his nationally ranked team.
The publisher said Pressler's book will reveal for the first time what really happened after the off-campus lacrosse party and how a rush to judgment affected the lives of those associated with the incident.
The book reportedly will recount the vilification and ostracization of the team members, Pressler's forced resignation and the subsequent cancellation of the remainder of the team's season and death threats aimed at the players by some of the Durham community.
Mike Pressler spent 16 seasons at Duke, where he compiled a 153-82 record that included three Atlantic Coast Conference championships, 10 NCAA tournament berths and an appearance in the 2005 NCAA title game. Pressler was voted ACC Coach of the Year three times and honored as national Coach of the Year in 2005.
He is now the head coach of the Bryant University men's lacrosse team.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-828666.cfm
Man arrested day after plea bargain
BY JOHN STEVENSON AND BRIANNE DOPART : The Herald-Sun, Mar 12, 2007 : 9:19 pm ET
DURHAM -- Just one day after successfully avoiding jail time for his role in the March 2006 shooting death of 24-year-old Alvin Jones, Nicholas Alexander Mack was back behind bars.
Mack, 18, of 9 Carin Court, was arrested Friday for carrying a concealed weapon, possession of marijuana and assault on a female. The charges came 24 hours after Mack pleaded guilty to a charge of being an accessory after the fact to Dontae Jones and Thomas Earl Kithcart Jr., who were also tried last week.
Prosecutors had argued that Mack, Kithcart and Dontae Jones were traveling with Alvin Jones when Alvin Jones was mistakenly hit by gunfire.
The Joneses were not related, but were friends.
Mack was out on bond for a marijuana charge when the slaying occurred, according to court records.
Prosecutor Jim Dornfried expressed anger and disappointment over the situation Monday, vowing to seek indictments on the new charges against Mack as early as possible.
But Dornfried also said last week's plea bargain probably was the best result obtainable, since a murder charge against Mack would have been difficult to prove, and Mack had only a minimal adult record: a 2006 conviction for giving false information to a law-enforcement officer.
Dornfried said all the evidence indicated someone other than Mack, specifically Dontae Jones, was the actual killer in the case in question.
In fact, Jones has pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and has received a prison sentence of 44 to 62 months.
"If the evidence is there in a case, it is," said Dornfried. "If it's not, it's not. I've got to deal with what I have. If I've got a strong case and someone needs to be incarcerated, that's the approach I take. But it's foolishness to prosecute a case for which there is no evidence. In the Mack case, all the evidence pointed to someone else as the killer."
Dornfried said Mack's plea deal last week was approved by the murder victim's family.
If probation didn't get Mack's attention, the new charges will provide a serious wake-up call, he predicted.
"Some people out there just don't seem to realize the seriousness of felony charges," Dornfried added. "It just doesn't seem to sink in. But I think it will sink in soon for Mr. Mack."
Last week's plea bargain was accepted by Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson, who theoretically could have rejected it.
But Hudson said Monday it is rare for North Carolina judges to turn down deals negotiated by prosecutors, who are in the best position to evaluate evidence from any given case.
When cases are weak, it is sometimes better for prosecutors to make generous plea offers instead of going to trial and possibly losing, according to Hudson.
That way, defendants get at least some punishment instead of none, the judge said.
"Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion," Hudson said. "What they don't have is a crystal ball. They have to use their best judgment. They can never know if a person placed on probation might commit another crime the next day, or even the same day. Sometimes things backfire."
Hudson said he was aware the Mack situation might contribute to a public loss of confidence in the judicial system.
However, he defended plea-bargaining as a necessary tool that prevents the system from breaking down under "overwhelming" caseloads.
"The general public might not like it, but they're kind of stuck with it," Hudson added. "The public must be aware of the realities. Not many plea bargains are rejected. Some are, but the vast majority are accepted. Otherwise, we could not get our business done."
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-828650.cfm
* * * ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE HOAX * * *
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.