Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Joyner's Jurisprudence

One of the most troubling aspects of the lacrosse case has been the decision of the state NAACP to adopt positions at odds with a 70 years’ legacy on criminal justice matters, on issues ranging from changes of venue in racially charged cases, to skepticism about suggestive witness lineups, to opposing victims’ rights efforts.

The extent of this transformation becomes particularly stark in examining the legal opinions of Irving Joyner, a law professor at NCCU who the state NAACP designated as “case monitor” on April 19. Until this case, Joyner had a reputation as a civil rights lawyer, suspicious of state power in general and police misconduct in particular. Yet in the last 10 months, he has embraced a pro-prosecution view with the fervency of a convert.

Joyner, traditionally a critic of the Durham Police Department, had represented two African-American men who (unsuccessfully) sued the department in 1995, alleging civil rights violations. In that case, Joyner portrayed the department as too characterized by lingering racial animosities—of the type evidenced last year in the racially charged argument at Blinco’s Restaurant between a black cook and several Durham officers. Mark Gottlieb and Richard Clayton were present at the scene, but were not charged or disciplined in any way.

Joyner also had a record of demanding that the state provide more clear-cut evidence in rape cases. In a 1984 case, North Carolina v. Randolph and Sanders, Joyner represented a black couple accused of carjacking and then raping a woman. Before the North Carolina Supreme Court, Joyner argued for overturning the guilty verdict on the grounds that the prosecution had not provided a bill of particulars. Yet in the lacrosse case, where the timeline was absolutely critical (unlike the Randolph/Sanders case), Joyner appeared to have no problem with Mike Nifong’s denying a bill of particulars.

In a 2006 case, North Carolina v. Mitchell, Joyner appealed a guilty verdict of second-degree rape. His central claim? That a SANE nurse with 32 years’ experience gave a medical opinion at trial. Yet in the lacrosse case, when the Gottlieb notes claimed that SANE nurse-in-training Tara Levicy gave a diagnosis of “blunt force trauma” consistent with rape, Joyner gave the state a pass.

Joyner’s zeal for his clients occasionally produced questionable character judgments. In 2005, he represented Matthew Lawrence Taylor, a black Durham teenager convicted of murdering Sean Owen, a white, gay man who he had met in a chat room and then lured to a remote location by promising a sexual rendezvous. Taylor’s two accomplices wanted to steal Owen’s car, but Taylor went further. At his trial, an accomplice testified that “Taylor pulled the revolver, cocked the hammer and put the gun to Owen’s head . . . Taylor fired. Owen was hit in the head but did not fall.” Each of the three men ran down Owen and kicked him, before Taylor pushed his body into the Eno River.

Before the trial, Joyner publicly dismissed the prosecution’s case as weak; even after conviction, Joyner maintained that Taylor “was not a knowing participant” in the crime and publicly hailed Taylor’s good character. “This was not Mr. Taylor’s character,” Joyner told the Herald-Sun. “He was trying to move on with a good life as best he could,” and erred by displaying “blind loyalty” to his cousin, one of his accomplices in the murder.

In the last several months, this same figure who affirmed Taylor’s good character has joined forces with people such as Cash Michaels, who has repeatedly described a party with drinking and strippers as “perverted,” and NAACP Legal Redress chairman Al McSurely, who published a memorandum of law describing underage drinking as “Crimes and Torts.” Some might wonder about the apparent double standard in character analysis.

Joyner’s suspicion of prosecutors’ intentions was not confined to cases to which he was a party. In the 2002-2003 murder trial of former Durham mayoral candidate Michael Peterson, then-D.A. Jim Hardin was slow to turn over discovery material to the defense. (North Carolina did not have an open discovery law at that point.) Joyner was openly skeptical. He told the N&O, “In a high-profile case like this, I would expect that the DA is getting information in a timely manner . . . Some of it is gamesmanship, but the delay could be because the prosecutor is being overburdened with so many cases. But in a high-profile case like this, that’s unlikely.” He added that the production of evidence “has to be done in a timely manner, or as soon as practically possible.” The defense needed sufficient leeway to develop trial strategy, Joyner said; delay always was harmful.

Yet in interviews about the Nifong-Meehan conspiracy to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence, Joyner adopted a position of “no harm, no foul.” The defense had received the evidence, he suggested to the Herald-Sun in late December; it didn’t matter that Nifong had attempted to conceal it in violation of state law.

---------

I e-mailed Joyner to ask about the relationship between his case record and his comments in the lacrosse case. He replied, “I hope that you understand and appreciate the fact that I was the attorney who represented the clients in the several cited cases . . . I hope that you see the difference between the different roles that I have assumed as an attorney/advocate in some cases and as a commentator in the Duke-Lacrosse case.”

Joyner failed to say why his comments about the Peterson case conformed to his background as a criminal defense attorney while his lacrosse case commentary has gone so far in the other direction. Moreover, the positions that Joyner took in the cases mentioned above (with the possible exception of his hailing the good character of Matthew Lawrence Taylor) fell in line with the viewpoint of the civil rights movement as a whole on criminal justice matters.

Based on his comments in the lacrosse case, however, it appears that Joyner’s personal preferences on criminal justice issues actually resemble the positions of not the national NAACP but of Clarence Thomas. Some might find it a little . . . unusual . . . that it has taken around three decades as a lawyer for Joyner’s vehement pro-prosecution standpoint to suddenly emerge.

For instance, Joyner aggressively defended Mike Nifong’s involvement in the April 4 lineup, when the district attorney, in his role as supervisor of the investigation, ordered Durham police to violate their own procedures and confine the lineup to suspects. “You would expect the prosecutor to consult with the Police Department,” Joyner told the Herald-Sun in late February. “That is a normal role and function of the district attorney.”

It’s not my impression that it is “a normal role and function of the district attorney” anywhere in the country, even in North Carolina, to order police to violate their procedures. But, Joyner informed me over the summer, this issue needed to be evaluated by a jury, not a judge. “The written procedure which was adopted at some point by the Durham Police Department is not constitutionally required,” he stated. “Whether a jury will accept its validity is another question, but that has nothing to do with constitutional infirmities.” Both the NAACP and ACLU have long supported the basic principles behind the exclusionary rule, which holds that judges should shield from juries evidence obtained through violations of due process.

Joyner’s view of due process and eyewitness identifications also strongly conflicts with that of the Actual Innocence Commission—and also with the position the state NAACP had adopted before March 13, 2006. Carried to its logical conclusion, Joyner’s argument would render irrelevant all written procedures for eyewitness ID’s—prosecutors and police could do whatever they wanted, and the jury could sort it out months later at trial.

I have been unable to find other instances in which Joyner publicly defended a procedurally improper lineup.

Joyner also has vehemently opposed any change of venue. In the summer, he told Sports Illustrated that the district attorney “still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham.” He subsequently explained to me, “The Durham jury will probably have more African-Americans on it than would be involved in most other counties in North Carolina.” Joyner added, “This case originated in Durham and should be tried here.” Carried to its logical conclusion, the Joyner viewpoint would suggest that change of venue motions always must fail; it would be hard to argue for a more polarized community than Durham on this question.

Joyner maintained his position in early January, remarking, “I don’t think that there is any evidence of bias which can be presented of those African-Americans who live in Durham and who might be called for jury service . . . the Durham African-American community has conducted itself in an exemplary manner and is to be commended for the public restraint which it has shown.” Harris Johnson? Chan Hall? Victoria Peterson? The lack of any public rebuke for the racist comments of the former two?

From the start, Joyner expressed confidence in the basic case. In mid-June, the Herald-Sun asked him about revelations by the defense, which included Reade Seligmann’s alibi; the procedurally flawed lineup; Kim Roberts’ statement contradicting the accuser; the lack of DNA; and the accuser’s inconsistent statements. Joyner’s characterization of the defense case? “At this point, I don’t think it’s all that strong. A lot will depend on the fortitude of Mike Nifong and his faith in his case. If he believes in what he is doing, it could go all the way.”

I asked Joyner what he would consider a strong” defense case; he did not respond to the question. It is worth noting that while he described the defense revelations in the lacrosse case as not “all that strong,” in conversations with reporters, he was very confident in the strength of the defense case in the Matthew Taylor murder trial. But, as he suggested, at that point he was an attorney of record, and therefore the analysis he offered to reporters could not be taken at face value. Since, in this case, he is working on behalf of the NAACP, it is unclear why his analysis of the defense case was entitled to any greater consideration.

Even to the end, Joyner has tried to get the case to trial. Almost alone among observers, he contended that the dropping of rape charges made it more likely to get convictions: “The prosecution has tightened up the case rather than diminish [it] because it’s a lot easier to prove sexual offense charges than it is to prove rape.” In theory, perhaps. In this case, the dropping of the rape charge was necessitated by the accuser making up a wholly new story, one that contradicted every other version she had told.

Moreover, Joyner has done what he can to repay Nifong now that the disgraced D.A. is besieged. He dismissed the complaint filed by Beth Brewer: “What they will have to present is evidence of malfeasance—more than just a personal disagreement, a disagreement with legal strategy, which is within the province of the district attorney. I’ve not seen anything that would warrant a judge doing that.” The state bar’s ethics charges claimed that Nifong broke three laws in handling the lacrosse case. Most people would consider such a record “evidence of malfeasance.”

As the lacrosse case perhaps nears an end, it will be interesting to see if Joyner maintains his newly found disdain for procedure in other cases that cross his path. Historians should not speculate on the future: but if I had to guess, I would predict that Joyner’s pro-prosecution ardor will suddenly cool if or when charges in the lacrosse case are dismissed.

109 comments:

Anonymous said...

The position of the NAACP has been somewhat surprising.

the magnificent matty moose said...

It is a fashion faux-pas. Professor Joyner is trying to wear more than one hat at one time. Social commentary cum legal analysis makes for zealous advocacy of a dogma, not a client.

gs said...

Joyner and the NAACP have become a joke. All they have done in the past was betrayed by their actions in this case.

Think the "group of 88" is engaged in rewritten their history, just wait till you see what these idiots will have to rewrite.

The book, and the movie of this case will make everyone aware of just who easy it is for good people to betray their beliefs for a political goal.

Anonymous said...

Whatever Irv Joyner has to say about this case, his status as a legal scholar is safe forever.

He is hopelessly, deeply, irrevocably uniformed about every aspect of criminal law.

I had the grave misfortune of taking Criminal Law from Prof Joyner at NCCU (evening program), in 1996. Within 2 weeks, it was eminently clear that he had no idea what he was talking about.

At that point, I'd been in law school long enough to know what to do. Get a copy of Emanuel and commit it to memory. And ignore everything Irv Joyner said. And that I did.

In 1999, I graduated with honors from the James E. Coleman, Jr., School of Law at Duke Univ.

Anonymous said...

I am not even sure that Joyner has an opinion of his own. Are his opinions on the Duke Case really his or is he giving the NAACP what he thinks they want?

Anonymous said...

Just like the posts on the G88, this shows yet again what this blog can accomplish within the constraints of "who, what, when and where," in chronicling and illuminating the numerous forms of situational advocacy we've seen in this case.

When the objectively verifiable facts are set out systematically and comprehensively, the deconstruction to "why" pretty much takes care of itself.

Dave

Anonymous said...

NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and that is what Joyner is representing. I think we whites were kidding ourselves in believing it stood for justice. Of course, they want a trial. They know their juriors. Once OJ"s trial was moved out of white Santa Monica to black inner LA, the verdict was assured. Johnny and the other lawyers were great. Monica could not convict a ham sandwich. The America Civil Liberties Union promised much to all Americans and delivered nothing in this case. It looks like they are not for white civil liberities. What a disappointment. Peter Neufeld of the IP disgraced himself.

Anonymous said...

"Joyner’s personal preferences on criminal justice issues actually resemble the positions of not the national NAACP but of Clarence Thomas."

That's an amazing statement. Please elaborate. Is there a clear preponderance in the records of Clarence Thomas's bias in favor of prosecutors? Or against people of color? Why drag Judge Thomas into this particular case?

Color me perplexed. When I've read statements and opinions by Judge Thomas, they don't seem to reflect a lack of reasoned argument based on the facts.

I suppose the contrary might be shown, if the protagonist can muster and present the evidence.

Insufficiently Sensitive

KC Johnson said...

On the Court, Thomas has taken a very strongly pro-prosecution bent in most criminal justice rulings, and the national NAACP has been strongly critical of his jurisprudence in part for that reason.

But, it seems, based on Joyner's arguments, the NAACP doesn't see anything wrong with pro-prosecution jurisprudence when the prosecutor was doing what the group wanted.

Anonymous said...

Professor Johnson continues to inform and dazzle with his wonderland called Durham. Don't forget that North Carolina officials, including Mr. Cooper, the attorney general, continue to drag out this absurd case of the three lacrosse players. Nifong and the accuser have yet to be punished and the players continue to be charged. When will the lawsuits begin?

Vivien Thomas said...

Ok, this might be a good time to recount my first impression of the case once I'd learned most of the particulars. This was somewhere near, but before, the first DNA results. Here is what the initial reports made me think.

Not even one Duke "frathlete" would rape a drunken, drugged up, unattractive, semen-slathered, stripper-prostitutes from Durham. You couldn't find even 4 Duke "frathletes" at any point in Duke's history who'd either rape ANYONE for any reason or keep quite if they knew anything about the rape of ANYONE. Yes, I am saying that there are "frathletes" at Duke who are capable of rape and certainly there are some who have raped before. However, three Duke Lacrosse players could have raped Hitler, Idi Amin, and Osama Bin Laden in the bathroom that night, and some other person in that house would have come forward to tell what they know. The idea of the "blue wall of silence" is so far beyond absurd that I can't accurately describe it.

The undeniable fact seems to be that these boys know nothing about a rape or assault/kidnapping of any kind because no such thing occurred. Why aren't the DA's office and police department bringing all the boys in for interview after interview? I don't notice the legal bills piling up for any but the accused players. Certainly, if we are to believe that the DA's office believed a rape to have occurred, there would have been more interviews with the people at the party. Was the accuser essentially forced/scared into identifying someone by the police and Mike Nifong. What else could she do with an all-lax lineup besides identify lacrosse players? I'd bet that she was praying that she'd identify people who weren't there. That may explain why she twice identified someone who wasn't there.

The fact is that the police and Nifong could have saved their own skin and still have gotten the same negative effect put on the 3 accused by pushing the accuser to say that she couldn't identify anyone with 100% certainty. You really believe that she could have identified any lacrosse player with 3-5 filler photos in between? Hell, the only person she did identify both times with 100% certainty was in Raleigh the entire day and night that the party took place. The condom and/or "magic towel" myth would have persisted among the lunatic fringe. The Durham community and NCCU student body could have continued to think that there is some reason to hate Duke. Nifong could have played the noble prosecutor who was fighting for the rights of CGM. He could have demanded to know who else was at the party. Those people would have presumably been responsible for the 5 or so DNA strands. He could have spent the past year serving surprise warrants on Duke dorm rooms. He could have tipped off the H-S to cover his officers as they boxed up the possessions of Duke students and left their rooms in shambles. He could have perpetuated the "blue wall of silence" myth well through his election. Certainly another sports team was on campus for the break. It used to be an urban legend at the Duke that all traffic/D&D/open container/DWI citations given after New Years held court dates during spring break. There had to be some other group on campus. He could have had Cash Michaels or Victoria Peterson leak a rumor that the baseball team also attended the party or that a couple of ATO's, in town for court dates, had been there too. He could have gotten elected and even avoided an ethics inquiry.

Why didn't he do this? Well, he's probably a very greedy, unscrupulous, stupid man. Of course, there could be another explanation.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: Vivien Thomas

I doubt you are right in your generalization, but I think I am in mine. The Duke Frathlete who would rape Mangum or even have sex with her, would not do it where a bunch of teammates would know about it. This is because the person who raped or had sex with Mangum under the circumstances in this case would be the butt of jokes for the next 40 years.

recondite python said...

Stevenson from the Herald-Sun had this to say: Appreciation luncheon held for beleaguered district attorney

Anonymous said...

KC -

Do you ever get tired of kicking the asses of these clowns?

Anonymous said...

JLS says...

re: 1:17

You can't make this stuff up. DA appreciation week. One event, three nuts claiming other nuts were there and Nifong is too dumb to be embarrassed? Too rich.

Vivien Thomas said...

Victoria Peterson is afraid of a "rising tide of crime from Duke students"? I just don't know what to say to that.

Perhaps if 3 Duke students were held hostage under ridiculously unfounded felony indictments for months on end by a Durham DA and a local prostitute and an 18 year old Duke student was raped by a Durham local, there might be 4-5 students who wouldn't have enough to lose to keep them from randomly laying siege to the worthless hell-hole that is Durham, NC.

reprobate prosecutrix said...


Victoria Peterson is afraid of a "rising tide of crime from Duke students"? I just don't know what to say to that.


I think it is corporate crime that she is afraid of. Nip it in the bud is her approach, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Really going out on a limb with that prediction about Joyner, aren't you KC?

The NAACP has lost whatever credibility it had before this case. They have demonstrated that, for them, race trumps facts, logic, reason, integrity, and justice.

Anonymous said...

"Based on his comments in the lacrosse case, however, it appears that Joyner’s personal preferences on criminal justice issues actually resemble the positions of not the national NAACP but of Clarence Thomas."


Is KC Johnson engaging in another "high tech lynching?"

The quoted comment is especially bewildering given that we know little or nothing about Clarence Thomas' "personal preferences" on criminal justice matters. Or is the fact that they are both black enough to equate Joyner's comments with Thomas' judicial opinions.

If this is the only parallel KC can draw, he either needs to get out more, or take a brief break from writing to think things through more carefully.

Anonymous said...

"On the Court, Thomas has taken a very strongly pro-prosecution bent in most criminal justice rulings, and the national NAACP has been strongly critical of his jurisprudence in part for that reason.

But, it seems, based on Joyner's arguments, the NAACP doesn't see anything wrong with pro-prosecution jurisprudence when the prosecutor was doing what the group wanted."



KC,

Are Thomas's judicial rulings his "personal preferences" or are they reflective of the facts in the cases he is opining on?

james conrad said...

i think what KC is saying is, justice thomas is consistent with his positions and joyner's positions are not

Anonymous said...

As a black person, I find Joyner's blind commitment to Nifong's obvious attempt to railroad innocent men highly disturbing.

Joyner has been an embarassment to the NAACP, and he should immediately cease to identify himself with the organization.

Joyner's willingness to engage in racist behavior is discouraging, and disgusting.

wayne fontes said...

KC; many of your readers have commented on the aptness of your blogs name "Durham in Wonderland" but at this point wouldn't "Banana Republic Of Durham" be more appropriate? I urge a change.

Joyner said: "A lot will depend on the fortitude of Mike Nifong and his faith in his case. If he believes in what he is doing, it could go all the way.”

George Micheal also said "you gotta
have faith" but he isn't known for his legal commentary. Indeed, other than Christofacist Godbags ( hat tip Amanda Marcotte)who bring spurious intelligent design suits, faith is rarely discussed in the court room where time lines and forensic evidence tend to predominate. Sadly Irving Joyner's opinions are more suited to a public restroom than a court of law.

Anonymous said...

"Joyner’s personal preferences on criminal justice issues actually resemble the positions of not the national NAACP but of Clarence Thomas."

Very unfortunate comment.

james conrad said...

re 4.57 agreed

Anonymous said...

I have a friend that donates to the NAACP every year so that he can claim in on his tax return.

He thinks the odds are higher that he'll get audited by an a minority and that the donation helps.

Racist? Nah, pragmatic, I think. But that speaks volumes as to what value the NAACP has delivered.

Anonymous said...

Nifong Florist

"Peterson, Wagstaff, Durham resident Minnie Brown and another woman were the only nonstaff Nifong supporters on hand when a Herald-Sun writer dropped by late into Monday's luncheon -- about 1:15 p.m. Peterson said other members of the public had been there and left. Roughly a dozen others still around the table at 1:15 work for Nifong.

...but Peterson said she hoped more people would participate by sending flowers, cards or any token of support to the beleaguered district attorney."

One wonders who paid for the event? According to Lee Baker, if one follows the money it leads to racists, (especially the Man in the census dept.).

bill anderson said...

The point of K.C.'s comment is that Thomas often has been pro-prosecution in his rulings. There are some things that Thomas has done that I appreciate, and the vicious attacks he receives from organizations like the NAACP are unwarranted, I believe.

However, one of the reasons that the NAACP has attacked Thomas (other than he is a black Republican, which is the same as treason to them) is that he often has given the police and prosecutors more leeway than they (NAACP leaders) believe should be the case. For example, Thomas recently voted with the majority in the decision to uphold the no-knock police raids. Radley Balko of Reason Magazine, a writer who I think is familiar to many DIW readers, has written of the real tragedies that have resulted because of these raids.

Yet, in this case, Joyner has been even more pro-prosecution than Thomas ever would have been. Thomas is perceived as giving the prosecutorial/police side too much discretion, while Joyner consistently has been a critic of such police powers.

But, as we have seen, Joyner now supports actions by police that I would bet that Thomas would not support. In other words, Joyner has been willing to out-Thomas Clarence Thomas when it comes to this case. There is no prosecutorial misconduct that is too outrageous for Joyner, and he suddenly is willing to support procedures that he never would support if the races were reversed.

All K.C. is asking is that Joyner be consistent in how he approaches the law. Instead, Joyner has taken a pure race-based approach. Because he has done that, Joyner loses any moral and legal authority he might have had.

Anonymous said...

Given recent events, Duke/Durham has a very big problem. This is much worse that what's on the surface. The more that comes to light the worse it gets.

1. No way I would my son/daughter to Duke. At any price, the institutional risk is too high.

2. No way I would invest in a Durham project/company, including Duke.

3. No way I will do business in Durham. One can always stay in Raleigh, Cary, Chapel Hill, etc.

4. No way will I pay my children's tuition to take race/gender/class warfare classes.

By the way, one of my partners would never invest in Durham and I never fully understood why, as most of my efforts were in another part of the state. That was fifteen years ago, now I understand.

Anonymous said...

4:57 inre: Thomas comment. Tough crowd, but the comment could have used some clarification.

Wasn't Judge Thomas almost railroaded in harassmnet charges in his confirmation, What was her name? What is she doing now? Did the NAACP et al take care of her?

Back in the day, we'd laugh about the pubic hair on the alledged soda can comment. One of our cooks in college, Ruby, didn't wear a hair net and one would sometimes find one of her hairs in our food. Of course they looked similar to pubic hair and became called "Ruby's". Hair nets are way underrated...Were it not for cheap beer, I would have lost weight in college.

Anonymous said...

Since Joyner now has experience acting as the "commentator" for the NAACP in the Nifong Scandal case, he should be appointed to the same position in the Phi Beta Sigma case. The new DA, whether Wilks or someone else, would, I am certain, appreciate the consistent support a lawyer with Joyner's "stature" could offer for the prosecutor's position in the case.

Meet Irving Joyner, as transparent as a plate glass window.

Anonymous said...

12:10 AM

By surprising, did you mean that one would have expected the NAACP to have taken a more "even handed" position in the case?

On the contrary, the NAACP has been racist to the bone for the last 35 years. Go back and read some of the writings and speeches of leaders of the NAACP, like Julian Bond, and it is obvious.

Maybe you meant it is suprising because they were so obvious about their racism and one would expect that a long-established national organization would make more of an effort to conceal it.

Anonymous said...

Now really, is anyone surprised at Joyner's contortions? It's what the NAACP does, for God's sake.

Anonymous said...

Crazy as it sounds, Duke should consider moving out of Durham.

Despite the outragousness of it, there are some positives.
- Duke programs & students could lead the design and logistic efforts
- Lots of new smart construction projects for both the university complex and housing.
- Tremendous economic stimulus for the new community.
- The relocation plan could become a model for the country if other major relocations were required due to disasters.

Duke without Durham is still Duke
Durham without Duke is what Durham will make of it or destroy it.

Anonymous said...

6:31,

Only contributions to the NAACP national organization are deemed to be "fully tax deductible". As a large portion of local fund raising is used for political lobbying, only part of those contributions is deductible.

Let's be clear the NAACP is an advocacy group.

Anonymous said...

Aren't we getting a little carried away with the revenge fantasies?

Duke is obviously staying put.

Anonymous said...

I was deeply saddened to read your seemingly throw-away reference to Justice Clarance Thomas in characterizing Joyner's current perspective on prosecutorial actions. I've lvoed reading your blog over the past months and you seem to be a straight shooter. In that regard, I feel you owe Justice Thomas an apology or, in the alternative, your readers a complete cite of cases where the type of conduct engaged in by Nifong meets with Justice Thomas' approval from a constitutional basis.

Anonymous said...

Where is the evidence that Clarence Thomas supports prosecutorial misconduct?

Anonymous said...

The comment comparing Clarence Thomas to Joyner is amazing. KC lost my respect in that. There is no truth whatsoever in that. Maybe KC hates him because he is a black conservative who does not believe that the constitution is a living document. I see absolutely no reason to drag Thomas to this mess.

Anonymous said...

1:10 You got that right. Ugh-dirty.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line for the NAACP is the color of your skin. That is it.

Anonymous said...

I was confused by this passage,

“You would expect the prosecutor to consult with the Police Department,” Joyner told the Herald-Sun in late February.

Late February?

bill anderson said...

Again, I have mixed feelings about Clarence Thomas. On some things, he is very good. For example, he did not go with the court majority in the Kelo case, where the court's "liberal" wing said it is just fine for governments to seize private property for whatever reason they may want to do so. That was a tyrannical decision, and Thomas went in what I believe to be the correct way. (One can make a federalism case in Kelo, but since the majority did not go that route, all I can say is that the majority was making the claim that all of our property ultimately belongs to the state.)

However, on some police/prosecution cases, Thomas is more likely to go with the side of the government. He hardly is alone. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, is considered "conservative" and is notoriously pro-government. I had a friend who was railroaded into federal prison and the Fourth Circuit's decision in upholding his conviction was simply laughable, something out of the mind of Michael B. Nifong himself.

For example, as I stated before, I wish Thomas and the other conservatives had been more willing to look carefully at what is happening in law enforcement, as no-knock raids are proliferating, and police forces become increasingly militarized. There are consequences to this, and I wish that Thomas were more willing to examine the trends and be more critical of them.

Ironically, I suspect that Thomas would be on "our" side in this case, and such an opinion would no doubt bring down the ire of the NAACP and the Julian Bonds upon him. Notice that Cash Michaels writes that anyone who believes that Reade, Collin, and Dave are innocent are de facto racists, so I doubt the NAACP would cut Thomas any slack.

John Kaiser said...

I'm not surprised. For a while he happened to be on the right side. But now we are learning it was all about race, not justice.

-J. Kaiser

Michael said...

That a public figure and someone that has actually tried cases would so blatently ignore facts in a case is astounding. Why would anyone want this person as a lawyer when they clearly can't be objective about a case? And then why is this person considered an expert?

When I issue technical opinions on CPU chips, I may have a personal bias on a company but if I don't present an honest analysis of chips and chip architectures out there, then I lose my credibility. I personally don't know how you can lose anything more valuable in your professional life.

Anonymous said...

The Clarence Thomas comment is right on the money. Like Joyner, Thomas is nothing but a hack who has risen far beyond his capabilities.

Gary Packwood said...

James Meredith and Irving Joyner vs.The Feminists (Black Female Victim Gummed Up the Plan)

James Meredith, the first black student at the University of Mississippi(1962), and Irvin Joyner, both believe that liberal whites are the greatest enemy of African Americans.

Meredith and Joyner observed the actions of liberal whites in the Northeast. Meredith at Columbia and Joyner at Rutgers (New Jersey).

Both observed blacks accepting second-class citizenship with the promise that certain good whites were going to treat them better.

Duke University is the poster child for a liberal white institution that needed to be brought down a notch or two via a solid case of white on white rape right in the middle of a 'southern town' with a large black population. Payback on a national level if the Meredith/Joyner crowd can crawl into bed with the feminist crowd...and make civil rights 'whoopee' on a national scale.

Enter stage left. An African America escort service dancer as the victim.

Bad mistake.

As someone observed here yesterday, last year more people alleged that they were abducted by aliens than black women who alleged that they were raped by white boys.

You just have to go with what you got ...says the Meredith/Joyner crowd AND the feminist crowd. And so here we are!

What is missing is a historian to teach the Meredith/Joyner crowd and the feminist crowd that this has been all been tried before with the Jews and the African American Blacks. The assumed collaboration factor is not nearly as strong as one would think.

And now, three young men could very well become the leaders of the next generation of whites who don't advocate for African American Blacks OR feminists ...at all.

Anonymous said...

Clarence Thomas attended Conception Seminary and received an A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974.

The notion that he is a "hack who has risen far beyond his capabilities" is utterly silly.

The notion that he supports prosecutorial misconduct is despicably dishonest.

War Eagle

Anonymous said...

Michael Gaynor on Prof. Bergin

Patent hypocrisy on Mr. Joyner's part, which is really too bad. He could have played a valuable role in this case by helping the black population of Durham understand why this case was not going to be an appropriate vehicle for their desire to air and avenge historical grievances.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Ironically, I suspect that Thomas would be on "our" side in this case

What's ironical about that?
Any sane person, certainly Thomas, would be on our side.
Liberal wing on the supreme court would quite likely side with the democratic party establishment (NAACP, ACLU, Nifongs, Black Panthers ..) in this case.

Anonymous said...

Justice Thomas is another example of the NAACP's prejudice and intolerance. It has viciously attacked him merely because he is a conservative . It is important for purposes of funding and power that the black bloc vote for liberals be maintained at the cost of truth. Consider school choice. Black parents are for it; black congressmen (many of whom send their kids to exclusive private schools in the D.C. area) are against it.Growing numbers of young black male voters are voting conservative. This frightens the black leaders enormously---as it threatens their spoils system courtesy of liberal politicians.Duke Judge

Anonymous said...

KJ's attack on Thomas is truly bizarre diversion on otherwise great work.

Anonymous said...

I read this blog daily but I am rarely ever moved to comment. However, the reference to Justice Thomas out of literally nowhere really surprised me.

KC is treading dangerous territory here. Just as the Edwards campaign is now associated with the lunatic rantings of Amanda Marcotte, KC is risking similarly associating Obama's campaign with his comments here.

Anonymous said...

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0296d.asp.htm
Did the Supreme Court Flush the Fourth?
On May 22, 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "in some circumstances an officer's unannounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment." This is not quite a path-breaking decision — any more so than if the Court announced that "in some circumstances the seizure of a citizen's property might be unreasonable under the Fifth Amendment." The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted: "For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable." The Court essentially punted on the issue — though it did at least avoid swallowing the authoritarian arguments of Arkansas. Unfortunately, the Court did not address the issue of no-knock searches in pursuit of small amounts of drugs.

Katherine Johnston 1914-2006, Atlanta
non-existent informants
no knock raids

Supreme Court gives police more power (June 16, 2006 edition)
Police who burst into a private building without first knocking and announcing their presence can use evidence they discover in a criminal case.

Anonymous said...

10:20 continued
The decision marks a rejection - in the context of knock-and-announce - of a basic safeguard in the criminal justice system established in the 1960s by the high court under then Chief Justice Earl Warren. That court adopted the approach that violations of certain procedural requirements by law enforcement officials could carry the heavy penalty of exclusion of evidence from use at a trial.

Anonymous said...

12:10 AM
"The position of the NAACP has been somewhat surprising."

... NOT!

Anonymous said...

Clarence Thomas is a case study in affirmative action run amok.

Anonymous said...

Great work, KC. It's especially rewarding to see the right-wing nuts turn on you so swiftly once you dared to speak ill of a wingnut icon like Thomas.

Anonymous said...

Since KC's reference to Justice Thomas seems to suggest that the Duke LAX case is a litmus test for bona fide "liberals" lets ask Barack Obama what he thinks.

Does Obama think the FA deserves her day in court? Does he think this case must go to trial?

KC should stick to the known facts and no wander off into politics because the blowback will be immense.

Anonymous said...

Does Justice Thomas believe ?
...that violations of certain procedural requirements by law enforcement officials could carry the heavy penalty of exclusion of evidence from use at a trial.

Anonymous said...

Enough with slagging KC for his Clarence Thomas reference. He explained it well enough in his 12:51 response.

Again, Thomas writes reasoned decisions based on evidence - unlike certain minions of the 'justice' departments of Durham NC, or certain other advocacy groups there.

Insufficiently Sensitive

Anonymous said...

What does Katherine Johnston 1914-2006, Atlanta
believe?

Anonymous said...

KC, please cite references backing up your assertion that Clarence Thomas would would approve or sanction: a prosecutor making pre-arrest prejudicial statements, withholding of exculpatory evidence, railroading a grand jusry with misleading "evidence", taking over a police investigation and "misdirecting" it, and so on? Where is the link between between "siding with the prosecution" and presecutorial abuse ? Where is the proof that he aids and abets criminal behavior by the State?

The fact is, in truth, in reality, it is LIBERAL organizations and advocacy groups that have suppoerted the D.A. in this case, and it is the mainstram media that has enbled this farce to continue, and it is CONSERVATIVES, to a much larger degree, that have supported the TRUTH, at least in this particular instance... So lets keep Justice Thomas out of it, shall we?

Anonymous said...

Clarence Thomas is a case study in affirmative action run amok.

This statement is pure sophistry.

Clarence Thomas is the greatest example of what affirmative action was originally intended to be (before it became a quota system), a program that seeks out QUALIFIED minorities for admission into elite universities. His test scores were extraordinarily high, he did NOT get in to Holy Cross or Yale as a result of lowered standards.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Clarence Thomas is a case study in affirmative action run amok.

10:31 AM


OK, there's one. Got any more?

Anonymous said...

The author of the new book Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court came to a fairly surprising conclusion after reading a retired justice's detailed notes on cases. That it was Thomas who was influencing decisions in the SCOTUS. Conventional wisdom on Thomas is that he is like a puppy to Scalia's arguments, following him around. But Thomas has come to conclusions quicker than Scalia on most cases.

Onwards:
--One shouldn't be surprised that the NAACP is not coming to the aid of white guys.
--Unless fresh material is coming out or being dug up, at this point it may be better to post every other day. Although I do go to this blog everyday, it just seems that lately there has been less and less informative material each day. Or that half the material of a long post is interesting, the other half just beating a dead horse. (Besides, ya gotta leave some new analysis for the book.)
--The silence from the G88 on the new rape allegation is remarkable--but probably good. Although they refuse to admit their mistake on Nifong's hoax, and they probably would not have spoken up in the new incident anyhow, I am sure they will be thinking twice in the future, or at least for a few years into the future.

--M--

Anonymous said...

To 10:50
Please see
10:20 and 10:28
for a start
and then you could look around, maybe at the Supremes (they're not just a singing group anymore) if that is too much, ask Katherine Johnston, though she died in 2006 you might be able to sift through the ashes and come up with something.

Its a pity the world's problems cannot be solved by the time you have your morning coffee.

Anonymous said...

It's especially rewarding to see the right-wing nuts turn on you so swiftly once you dared to speak ill of a wingnut icon like Thomas.

LOL Aside from disputing a single statement, how exactly have these "right-wing nuts" turned on KC?

And how empty is your life that you find it "rewarding" to see conservatives defend Justice Thomas?

Loser.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the post, KC. Because of it, I know more about the case today than I did yesterday.

Anonymous said...

To 10:50

Did your mother ever tell you this one:
"Lack of preparation on your part does not create an emergency on my part."

No, I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

10:58,

Thomas voted for the no-knock provision,but where is the proof that he sanctions presecutorial abuse and criminality? Where are the cases where he would employ the level of sophistry and insincerity that Joyner did ?...

Lets face it, bringing Thomas's name up like that was a cheap shot. (overall, just a small nit on otherwise great work by KC)

Anonymous said...

11;04,

Thomas, noted.. "For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable."

What does this have to do with prosecutorial abuse? I,m not arguing "civil liberties", I'm talking about criminality. How dense can you be?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the post. I subscribe the the idea it is good to review every now and then. And there remains the possibility that SOMEONE in Durham (Irving Joyner, Cash Michaels, any of the GRUMPS, President Broadhead, etc.) might be persuaded to revise his or her views. I would get more done if you did not post every day, but I firmly believe daily posting has been extremely valuable and built huge momentum. Don't forget everyone, this is not over, yet!

Observer

bill anderson said...

Thomas voted for the no-knock provision,but where is the proof that he sanctions presecutorial abuse and criminality? Where are the cases where he would employ the level of sophistry and insincerity that Joyner did ?...

I am not arguing that Thomas "sanctions criminality," but rather am arguing that we are seeing a larger pattern in these military-style raids that I wish the court would address. Granted, this is a much larger issue than can be debated in these small spaces.

Remember, I tend to be more hard-core on civil liberties issues than most people, right and left. I hear the leftist faculty members talking in the halls and they do not mind police and prosecutorial abuses, just as long as the abuse is directed against people they don't like.

There really is not much of a constituency for civil liberties across the board, so I know I am in a very small minority. So be it.

Anonymous said...

For goodness' sakes: Clarence Thomas, bete noire of the NAACP, is a black who makes preponderantly conservative legal decisions. Joyner is a black whose preferences and opinions have always, in the past, been quite the opposite of that.

Joyner has now cynically undergone a temporary conversion to whatever "conservative" interpretations of evidence-gathering, etc. he can dream up in this case, because he believes such interpretations will help railroad the LAX players. (Of course, he will abominate any such views as soon as a case with a black accused comes up, but for now, in this case, he's "conservative" -- well, actually, he sounds Nazi: but he thinks it's conservative. Actually, it'd be an amazing coincidence if Joyner came up with an opinion that Thomas would hold, because Joyner is stupid -- but he's trying.)

In a general way, Joyner begins to sound more like a dime-store Clarence Thomas, than an Al McShurely (who is already dime-store).

My right-wing friends, if you were searching for an example of a black legal mind that was the opposite of Joyner's -- to show the breathtaking falsity of Joyner's sudden conversion -- wouldn't you pick Clarence Thomas?

Anonymous said...

The NAACP was originally a civil rights organization rather than a black advocacy group. There were many whites involved in its leadership.

Soon after the passage of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s SNCC (Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee) purged its white members and CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) took on a black nationalist agenda. The NAACP gradually became a black organization.

The NAACP's major contribution was legal work on behalf of the principle of equality. They did much of the legal work around the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision and in its aftermath made school integration a major priority. Much of their work in the late sixties and seventies was legal work in support of bussing children to promote school integration. It became almost an obsession as it became apparent that in many cases it was very hard on the children and in the end left the schools more segragated than before.

The growth of separatist and black nationalist ideas had an impact on more than the original civil rights organizations. It had a profound impact on the increasing numbers of black students on college campuses. Whereas before white and black college students had worked together to support the civil rights movement in the south and to work in tutoring projects in poor black neighborhoods, the black students now formed their own student organizations. The prevailing message to whites was to work against racism in their own communities.

The radicalized black students promoted the notion that blacks needed to control their own community. This meant discouraging white students from all service work in black communities. This included everything from social work and community organizations to becoming teachers and police in ghetto areas. Many of the people in the black communities who were actually involved in the service work did not agree with this at all but their view was not heard on campuses.

Most white students simply stopped being involved in politics, particularly after the draft was ended. The notion that identity was crucial in learning became the prevailing doctrine. There had to be black professors or black students couldn't learn. There had to be female professors or women students couldn't learn. There was no evidence that good teaching was trumped by identity solidarity in the learning process but it became an axiom of diversity advocates and a prevailing dogma in faculty hiring.

There were numerous sit-ins staged by black student organizations on college campuses in the late sixties and early seventies. These actions were more expressions of group identity and solidarity than a response to oppressive conditions. In the most extreme cases the students asked for resegregation, the creation of separate housing for black students. But the major legacy of this period was the creation of black studies departments. In agreement after agreement, the creation of such departments became one of the crucial concessions that universities made to get students to vacate their offices peacefully.

It is now considered a matter of established wisdom that the absence of some form of African American studies program or department is a form of racism. Without such a department, a university is not considered to be welcoming of black students.

What was never seriously considered was that these programs could never be academic enterprises in the same sense sense as a history or biology department. Minorities feel very vulnerable. To be brutally frank, there is no way that they could ever feel comfortable with a discussion of some of the ideas that have been expressed in the comment section of this blog.

It is almost an axiom among minority communities that they don't air their dirty laundary in public. The Israeli press and public debate is far more self-critical of their state than comparable public discussions of Israel by Jewish groups in the United States. Similarly, blacks are much more self-critical in the privacy of their own groups than they are in faculty senates or predominantly white classrooms. While they might be able to have a private conversation about Shelby Steele's book "The Content of Our Character", it is hard to imagine a professor of African American Studies having a serious discussion of it in a room full of white students.

When white students have engaged in political activity critical of affirmative action, it is taken by most African American students and faculty as an attack on them. In a way this is understandable even if it isn't true. But given the emotional stakes in the discussion of their identity, how could the courses in such identity programs really be open to the opinions and ideas of all the students, many of whom are white.

The problems created by such programs have grown exponentially since other groups began perceiving that victim status could bring themselves advantages within the university. The most important of these were feminist groups but it also has included, various Latino groups, gays and Lesbians, various kinds of disability groups, Asians, Muslims, and now even transgendered groups as well.

To accomodate these groups and to create a "welcoming" atmosphere, there has to be an identity studies program for each identity, there has to be space made available on campus for each identity, there have to be staff hired to support each identity, faculty are advised to make sure their scheduling of exams accomodates all the different religious and ethnic schedules, and there have to be anti-harassment rules to make sure that nobody ever says anything to offend anyone in any of these groups.

It is surreal. There are millions of dollars spent on this stuff and there is no evidence that it has any educational value whatsoever. What's more, it is not clear why the very personal and private questions of identity are really the business of the university. Who told the university administration that they had the right to award franchises to selected individuals to define what it means to be black, or Latino, or female, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or gay.

It is madness. But it is very real on most campuses. And it lies at the heart of why this travesty of justice continues at Duke.

There never should have been an indictment.

There was no reason to suspend the students.

There was no reason to cancel the lacrosse season.

There was no reason to fire the coach.

There was no reason why virtually no faculty memberstepped forward and stated publicly that the charges were an outrage.

There is no reason that the Duke administration hasn't demanded the charges be dropped.

There was no reason for students to parade around with a banner saying "castrate".

There is no reason for a group of 88 faculty members to make insane claims of rampant racism and sexual violence.

And there is no rational reason why the clearly false allegations against the lacrosse players got a giant response while the recent arrest for rape has gotten none.

Anonymous said...

Bill, I agree that Thomas is not a libertarian, but how could anyone equate him to Joyner and his irresponsible statements in defense of of an advocacy group; making disengenuous statements in spite of the law, and not in defense of it? Is that fair to Thomas?

Anonymous said...

To 10:50, 11:19 et al
I have refrained from writing on more than two sides of the paper:

2006 Clarence Thomas, and four other Supremes, signed on to a decision that
..marks a **rejection** that violations of certain procedural requirements by law enforcement officials could carry the heavy penalty of exclusion of evidence from use at a trial.

And IMO Irving Joyner has supported 'violations of certain procedural requirements by law enforcement officials' in the Duke Hoax.

I hope this has helped you 10:50. Maybe if I had a ball of string I could really do a number on this one...

Katherine Johnston was murdered by the Atlanta SWAT police when they executed a no knock raid at her home. The 92 year old woman had a gun for protection and apparently 3 of the police were wounded before she was killed. The informant used for the raid did not exist. Nothing was found in her home. Her gun had been duly registered.

Katherine Johnston's sock puppet

Anonymous said...

Joyner has now cynically undergone a temporary conversion to whatever "conservative" interpretations of evidence-gathering

Prosecutorial misconduct is not "conservative". There is nothing "conservative" about Joyner's race-based "get-whitey-at-all-costs" agenda. Joyner is a scumbag, and the person he is defending is a Democrat scumbag.

Anonymous said...

Katherine Johnston was murdered by the Atlanta SWAT police when they executed a no knock raid at her home. The 92 year old woman had a gun for protection and apparently 3 of the police were wounded before she was killed. The informant used for the raid did not exist. Nothing was found in her home. Her gun had been duly registered.

So now it's Clarence Thomas's fault that the Atlanta SWAT police conducted a raid based on a nonexistant informant?

Good argument.

Anonymous said...

Make that Brodhead, not Broadhead, in my comment.

Anon 11:41,
Interesting review of how we got here.

Anon 11:44,
What was the explanation for the mistake in Katherine Johnston's situation if no informant existed?

Observer

Anonymous said...

11:44 says..

2006 Clarence Thomas.. signed on to a decision that..marks a **rejection** that violations of certain procedural requirements by law enforcement officials could carry the heavy penalty of exclusion of evidence from use at a trial.

Does that include the manufacturing of inculpatory evidence and the hiding and exclusion of exculpatory evidence?? Isn't that what Joyner is supporting? Is that what youre suggesting is a "conservative" position ?

You are truly a dense brick, with a specific gravity of much greater than 1.0.

Anonymous said...

maybe KC is just bored so he has to resort to cheap shots. Liberal activists have been the core of this mess and injustice and conservatives like Thomas (and including lone democratic party supporter KC) have been defending the due process, once again.

gs said...

Too Strange!

Checkout liestoppers
It's Mike Nifong Appreciation Week in Durham.

Mike Nifong Appreciation Week

HS - Nifong Luncheon

Anonymous said...

I too was disappointed in KC's cheaphot reference to Clarence Thomas. I suspect the cheapshot was meant for Joyner's read (who worse for him to be compared to).

It's also consistent with KC's repeated reference to his support for Barack Obamo, which I take as an effort to make it more difficult to categorize him as a "right wing blogger."

gs said...

In general, not a lot of right wing bloggers are democrats. HArd to lump KC in that group.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm.... I foolishly thought this was about right and wrong; not about "liberal" or "conservative, Democrat or Republican. As a black man who leans towards the conservative side, I am offended by KC's unwarranted cheap shot at Justice Thomas.

Anonymous said...

Thanks yet again to KC. Thanks as well to Bill Anderson for his reasoned, independent thought. It is so refreshing to see someone who can think independently and not just buy into some pre-packaged ideology!

Anti-leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

On a related topic, today's "State of Things" (WUNC.org) began with a story about the Winston-Salem city council approving a $1.65 million payment plus apology to Darryl Hunt for his wrongful incarceration (18 years) in a rape-murder. He was exonerated by DNA. A nine thousand page report documented all kinds of police misconduct....

bill anderson said...

To 11:41 AM:

Excellent post, and right on the money. I see this in higher education all the time.

As for Clarence Thomas, I do believe that much of the criticism directed at him is unfair. I would say that I agree with his decisions more than I would disagree; it is just that I take a hard stand on no-knock raids, and realize that my views are in a minority.

Disagreements do not have to be attacks, and I think we understand that in these posts.

Anonymous said...

Im not sure why anyone is surprised. The NAACP is a race centric organization that supports race based policies. In the eyes of the NAACP, Right or wrong, guilty or not guilty is secondary to skin color.

relentless provocateur said...

11:41, that was a very astute posting. However:


It is almost an axiom among minority communities that they don't air their dirty laundary in public. The Israeli press and public debate is far more self-critical of their state than comparable public discussions of Israel by Jewish groups in the United States. Similarly, blacks are much more self-critical in the privacy of their own groups than they are in faculty senates or predominantly white classrooms. While they might be able to have a private conversation about Shelby Steele's book "The Content of Our Character", it is hard to imagine a professor of African American Studies having a serious discussion of it in a room full of white students.


I think you don't have much experience in situations where whites are not in the majority. For example, in China, I do not believe they would air their racial dirty laundry among whites ... and indeed, some of them cannot bear to discuss the unhinged way they behave towards the Japanese on occassion ...

Anonymous said...

We go to Nassau/paradise island every year. Whites are definetely in the minority. The first year it was disconcerting. The blacks there are so courteous, pleasant, educated and well spoken it does not matter.

redolent penguin said...


We go to Nassau/paradise island every year. Whites are definetely in the minority. The first year it was disconcerting. The blacks there are so courteous, pleasant, educated and well spoken it does not matter.


It is amazing what people will do when their economic well-being depends on it.

raging protagonist said...

The difference between this DPD investigation and the other is made transparently clear in: Re: Duke and Durham: The Criminal Cover-up Continues

Anonymous said...

Kudos to 11:41 a.m for the analysis of the exponential growth of identity (victims') studies on campuses. One can only ponder what next new group will claim victim's status and demand first courses on their identity, then programs, then fully funded departments with heads and concommitant support staff. Polanski in his satire of SDS in an earlier blog took the problem to its logical extreme. As a result of what happened ("something happened")at Duke, white privileged males, and unprivileged ones as well, can now claim victim status and begin getting college credit for studying themselves and their grievances.

And kudos to 11:41 for not wandering into the Manichean terminology of liberal/conservative, terms which often muddle rather than clarify ideas in discourse.

Anonymous said...

To 4:20
I am not sure Mr. Joyner is an embarrasment to the NACCP, I believe he is their voice. Both are clouded by race issues over factual issues, and in the long run, it hurts their cause.

BDay MD

Anonymous said...

ANd they wonder why so many people have lost respect for civil rights organzations. They've become no better than the racists the organzation fought againest in the begining. MLK is rolling is his grave

reprehensible paranoia said...

This is another of the "truths" that seem to circulate in the pro-AV camp:


Whatever the police did or did not do, the players' lawyers did not want the players telling what they knew to the police.


From here: Re: Duke Rape Suspect Apprehended

Anonymous said...

12:05 are you a mutt?
12:06 are you 12:05?
12:26 read much?
12:46 is offended?

Joyner is a civil rights lawyer.
Joyner complains when police violate the civil rights of his - clients?

Clarence Thomas is a Supreme.
Clarence Thomas would not make a decision on no knock raids, he sent it back to a lower court.
Clarence Thomas said that police could use evidence gathered in an unlawful manner, tho he did **not** specifically mention the Duke Three.

Joyner, now, this year, last year, suddenly, out of nowhere, thinks it is OK for the police (law enforcement) to use illegally obtained evidence to take to trial in the case of the Duke Three. And remember, Clarence Thomas has said that police could use evidence gathered in an unlawful manner, tho he did **not** specifically mention the Duke Three.
***Looks like they finally agree on something.****

If you cannot abstract "illegally obtained evidence" as it applies to the Duke Three then spoon feeding is no good here, we'll have to resort to tube feeding, or a nourishing enema.

To Observer: What was the explanation for the mistake in Katherine Johnston's situation if no informant existed?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36694.html
The Kathryn Johnston Indictments: A Good Start. A Long Way to Go.


Katherine Johnston's sock puppet

PS Katherine thinks Clarence could have done a better job ruling on no knock raids. After Clarence let the no knock case fall back to the lower court the incidence of no knock raids mushroomed, and the number of non-existent informers has increased 70%, but don't take a little puppet's word for it, do your homework.

Gary Packwood said...

2:26 PM

Said...As a result of what happened ("something happened")at Duke, white privileged males, and unprivileged ones as well, can now claim victim status and begin getting college credit for studying themselves and their grievances.

A resume listing could also work where all three of the guys outline their experiences over two years or so ...of surviving hostile workplace environment harassment.

Anonymous said...

There is much coverage of the black people of the Bahamas due to the Anna Nicole issue. All the blacks I have seen are well spoken, gracious, educated. It is a diservice to them to imply they are behaving this way due to economic reasons. They are what they are.

Anonymous said...

Sock puppet says..

Joyner, now, this year, last year, suddenly, out of nowhere, thinks it is OK for the police (law enforcement) to use illegally obtained evidence to take to trial in the case of the Duke Three

Well, no, you fricking numbnutz, thats not what Joyner believes. He believes that no amount of exculpatory evidence withheld or proof of manufactured evidence could ever exonerate these suspects. All this mumbo jumbo about it being okay for police to use "illegal evidence" is just dissimulation and a means to an end. The end being a Durham lynching for a trio of rich white boys.

You know, its quite amusing; you pretending that its conservatives that want to get rid of due process when its not convenient, and not leftists like the Duke 88 and that cadre of elitists you obviously hang around with, smart guy.

Anonymous said...

To 6:02

I am only a puppet.
Bend over and I will drive you to Kansas.

Katherine Johnston's sock puppet

Anonymous said...

Sock puppet intones..

Bend over and I will drive you to Kansas.

I was going to say "dandy boy", instead of "smart guy", but I didnt want to be rude. Now I see it would have been a mere compliment.

Anonymous said...

To Bill Anderson (6:45AM)--

Thank you for this detailed and crystal clear dissection of what KC was trying to say.

KC did a great job researching so many of Joyner's past positions; however, I used the phrase "what KC was trying to say" because he pulled a similar stunt as did Pat McDonald in her letter to Easley of long ago.

Although I would never put McDonald on KC's level, I always wince when some seasoned Democrat uses code or some obligatory buzz word to let everyone know that they are "good Liberals".......not someone like (gasp!) Clarence Thomas. Ooooooooew! He's a boogy man. :>)

Thomas is too conservative for me on many issues; however, I have always been saddened to see many black people---who, btw, could never reach his level as a human being or his level of professional success---exhibit such irrational hatred toward him.

Your comments were vital in fully.....and patiently......explaining KC's comparison of someone like Joyner to Thomas.

Debrah

M. Simon said...

Thomas on Raich

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

M. Simon said...

What does Katherine Johnston 1914-2006, Atlanta
believe?

10:46 AM

Katherine Johnson is in the police witness protection program and will be unavailable to bear witness against the police.

M. Simon said...

10:50AM,

In the early days this was a conservatve (comments) blog run by a liberal professor.

Even now conservatives of various stripes (libertarian being the most heavily represented) predominate in the comments.

Liberals don't stay long. Facts to them are as anathema as a cross is to Dracula.

Johnson is the rare liberal comfortable with (many) facts. The facts of economics: not so much.

For instance did blacks in America in the 70s live as well as the average citizen of the USSR?

Why is average black income in America (purchasing power parity) greater than the income of the average Swede?

Could capitalism vs. socialism have anything to do with it?

Will we really be better off with communist Obama running the show?

At one time I was a Democrat, then a Communist. By age 36 (after a study of economics) I had that one figured out.