According to Lady Liberty some students at Rowan Cabarras Early College High School received some condoms in their welcome bags! Oh the horror! Please, say it isn't so. Let's be serious folks, high school students are sexually active. According to the CDC 46.8% of high school students have had sexual activity and 34% of high school students have had sexual activity within the last three months. Stop distributing condoms in error and start doing so intentionally.
Walt-in-Durham
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
Ray Rice and spousal privilege
The NFL has suspended, indefinitely, Ray Rice for spousal abuse. First and foremost, the NFL and the NFL Players Association have bargained punishments and the collective bargaining agreement appears to give the Commissioner the discretion to impose penalties for violations of the good conduct clause. That is not what this post is about.
Further, the Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc. has cut Rice and cancelled his contract. That too, is not the subject of this post.
What I do want to discuss, briefly, is the question raised by a poster to the NY Times story referenced above. The poster asks why did the prosecution end up with such a weak case? Especially when they had video tape evidence. That is a very good question. In this day and age of surveillance everywhere, how did this case go so badly for the prosecution?
The simple answer is Rule 501 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Rule 501 says: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States, the privileges of a witness, person, government, state, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with the common law. The United States Supreme Court has recognized two different forms of marital privilege: (1)Testimonial, and (2)Communications.
(1) The testimonial privilege extends to the witness spouse. The spouse may refuse to testify against his/her spouse in a criminal or civil case. The spouse party does not hold the privilege, only the witness. That means the witness can refuse and cannot be compelled, even by a waiver from the non-witness spouse. This is the privilege problem prosecutors ran up against in the Ray Rice case. They could not compel Mrs. Rice to testify as long as she refuses. (Now of course the state has gotten a minor conviction against Ray Rice so jeopardy has attached and no further criminal punishment is possible.)
(2) The communications privilege belongs to the non-witness spouse. That is, as to what one spouse said to the other, the non-witness holds the privilege and can stop the witness spouse from testifying. This part of the privilege is not the subject of the video at least.
The question then becomes, why can't some custodian of the records for the surveillance company authenticate the video? They can. The problem is the custodian of the records cannot positively identify Ray Rice (not HD quality, or not of sufficient resolution) and certainly cannot positively identify Mrs. Rice.
The final question, why can't CSI identify Rice and Mrs. Rice? The simple answer, CSI with their bag of tricks was not called to the scene.
Walt-in-Durham
Further, the Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc. has cut Rice and cancelled his contract. That too, is not the subject of this post.
What I do want to discuss, briefly, is the question raised by a poster to the NY Times story referenced above. The poster asks why did the prosecution end up with such a weak case? Especially when they had video tape evidence. That is a very good question. In this day and age of surveillance everywhere, how did this case go so badly for the prosecution?
The simple answer is Rule 501 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Rule 501 says: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States, the privileges of a witness, person, government, state, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with the common law. The United States Supreme Court has recognized two different forms of marital privilege: (1)Testimonial, and (2)Communications.
(1) The testimonial privilege extends to the witness spouse. The spouse may refuse to testify against his/her spouse in a criminal or civil case. The spouse party does not hold the privilege, only the witness. That means the witness can refuse and cannot be compelled, even by a waiver from the non-witness spouse. This is the privilege problem prosecutors ran up against in the Ray Rice case. They could not compel Mrs. Rice to testify as long as she refuses. (Now of course the state has gotten a minor conviction against Ray Rice so jeopardy has attached and no further criminal punishment is possible.)
(2) The communications privilege belongs to the non-witness spouse. That is, as to what one spouse said to the other, the non-witness holds the privilege and can stop the witness spouse from testifying. This part of the privilege is not the subject of the video at least.
The question then becomes, why can't some custodian of the records for the surveillance company authenticate the video? They can. The problem is the custodian of the records cannot positively identify Ray Rice (not HD quality, or not of sufficient resolution) and certainly cannot positively identify Mrs. Rice.
The final question, why can't CSI identify Rice and Mrs. Rice? The simple answer, CSI with their bag of tricks was not called to the scene.
Walt-in-Durham
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Habeas Corpus
Well friends, Sid Harr is at it again. Now he has filed, so he says, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of Crystal Gayle Mangum. Readers will recall that Crystal is the infamous false accuser of the lacrosse fiasco and more recently was convicted of killing the man she lived with, Reginal Daye.
North Carolina provides for the remedy of Habeas Corpus in our constitution (Const. art. 1 s. 21) and in statute NCGS §§ 17-1 and 17-2. § 17-3 provides: "Every person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty within this State, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, or on any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in G.S. 17-4, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, according to the provisions of this Chapter, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and, if illegal, to be delivered therefrom."
There are a couple of problems for Sid and Crystal, NCGS § 17-4 provides: When application denied. Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases:... (2) Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree."
In other words, the North Carolina Writ of Habeas Corpus does not apply after a person is convicted. Oops. Again, Sid fails to do his legal research before he filed something.
Sid's next problem is, he is subject to an order from the Wake Superior Court to refrain from practicing law. Accroding to NCGS § 17-5, "Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf." According to the unsigned petition Sid posted at: Sid is making the application on behalf of Crystal. Under our law, that constitutes the practice of law and thus, a violation of the Wake Superior Court's previous order.
Once again, Sid does his best to show us why it pays to have a real lawyer do legal work. But, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
North Carolina provides for the remedy of Habeas Corpus in our constitution (Const. art. 1 s. 21) and in statute NCGS §§ 17-1 and 17-2. § 17-3 provides: "Every person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty within this State, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, or on any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in G.S. 17-4, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, according to the provisions of this Chapter, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and, if illegal, to be delivered therefrom."
There are a couple of problems for Sid and Crystal, NCGS § 17-4 provides: When application denied. Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases:... (2) Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree."
In other words, the North Carolina Writ of Habeas Corpus does not apply after a person is convicted. Oops. Again, Sid fails to do his legal research before he filed something.
Sid's next problem is, he is subject to an order from the Wake Superior Court to refrain from practicing law. Accroding to NCGS § 17-5, "Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf." According to the unsigned petition Sid posted at: Sid is making the application on behalf of Crystal. Under our law, that constitutes the practice of law and thus, a violation of the Wake Superior Court's previous order.
Once again, Sid does his best to show us why it pays to have a real lawyer do legal work. But, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Crystal Mangum gives an interview
WTVD reporter Tamara Gibbs interviewed Crystal Mangum. Crystal reveals that she has bought into Sid Harr's fantasy about the autopsy inconsistencies. That's called grasping at straws. Of course she's blaming her lawyer. We knew she'd do that. Every guilty person in prison blames their lawyer, for a while. Rehabilitation is a long process. Fortunately for Crystal, she has at least 12 years of rehabilitation left. Hopefully along the way she will make some changes in her life and start making better choices.
One other point from the interview, Crystal is amazed that the jury didn't believe her. Since at least the spring of 2006 she has had a credibility problem. Mostly brought on by her own words not matching actions that were recorded. Dear readers will recall that her initial story about the lacrosse hoax was less than fully believed by Kim Roberts Pittman who called it a "crock." Crystal herself had an impossible time telling the same story to police twice. To the point that police had to use four different lineups to try and get an identification of some suspects. But, those suspects turned out to have alibis or no match with the DNA. At her murder trial, Crystal is amazed the jury didn't believe her. In her interview, she does not recognize that she contradicted all the other witnesses. Now, it is possible that she told the truth and nine other people lied. But, with no physical evidence to back up her story and a definite interest on her part in telling a story different from what everyone else was saying, it is perfectly reasonable for a jury not to believe her.
One other point from the interview, Crystal is amazed that the jury didn't believe her. Since at least the spring of 2006 she has had a credibility problem. Mostly brought on by her own words not matching actions that were recorded. Dear readers will recall that her initial story about the lacrosse hoax was less than fully believed by Kim Roberts Pittman who called it a "crock." Crystal herself had an impossible time telling the same story to police twice. To the point that police had to use four different lineups to try and get an identification of some suspects. But, those suspects turned out to have alibis or no match with the DNA. At her murder trial, Crystal is amazed the jury didn't believe her. In her interview, she does not recognize that she contradicted all the other witnesses. Now, it is possible that she told the truth and nine other people lied. But, with no physical evidence to back up her story and a definite interest on her part in telling a story different from what everyone else was saying, it is perfectly reasonable for a jury not to believe her.
Friday, February 14, 2014
The plot thickens!
Over at the NC Democratic Party, chairman Randy Voller is trying to move Ben Chavis in as Executive Director. The question has been why. Well, Thomas Mills at PoliticsNC has the inside information. Turns out Chavis is a partner in a political consulting firm with Michael Carmichael whom Voller brought in to the great objection of Dem insiders. Voller backed down and cut Carmichael's contract. But now, he's trying to bring in the other half of the duo. The Dems are a lot of fun.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Thoughts from two very smart Democrats
I recently made fun of the Democrats Randy Voller theater. But, just as soon as I did, two very smart and very thoughtful Democrats chimed in. These guys are a big part of the reason the Democrats ran this state and did it relatively well for so long. They are smart and have the best interests of NC at heart. Even when I disagree with them on policy, there is no doubting their patriotism or their commitment to making NC government work. One thing though guys, Thomas Mills is not right about Randy Voller being a GOP plant, he's yours, all yours.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Voller tries to reorganize the NC Democrats
http://www.wral.com/democrats-back-off-plan-to-hire-chavis-as-director/13382323/
What can I say about this fiasco except to quote Will Rogers: "I'm the member of no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
What can I say about this fiasco except to quote Will Rogers: "I'm the member of no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)