So whatever happened to the constitutional right to a speedy trial? Charges were first leveled against them more than 17 months ago, and now another month long delay.
Lawyers in Jena 6 case seek judge's ouster
By Howard Witt | Tribune correspondent
8:40 AM CDT, May 31, 2008
OUSTON—Lawyers for the five remaining defendants facing trial in the racially divisive Jena 6 incident in Louisiana presented evidence Friday of what they said was bias on the part of the judge presiding over the cases and sought his removal.
After four hours of testimony, a visiting judge appointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to hear the recusal motion against LaSalle Parish District Judge J.P. Mauffray asked for more evidence and postponed a ruling until at least July.
Defense attorneys have long asserted that the white-dominated justice system in the small central Louisiana town was biased against their African-American clients: six high school students who were initially charged with attempted murder in the December 2006 beating of a white classmate...
According to some of those present during Friday's hearing, defense attorneys testified that Mauffray had made prejudicial comments to them about their clients on multiple occasions. David Utter, who represents defendant Jesse Ray Beard, said Mauffray had labeled the Jena 6 defendants "a violent bunch" and had asserted that "crime has gone down" in the months after the youths were jailed on the beating charges.
When he was called to the witness stand, those present said, Mauffray appeared to concede that he had made such statements, testifying at various points that "I probably said that" and "I might have said that." But the judge maintained that he had not formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused youths.
Mauffray "has proven through his testimony that he does harbor prejudice and prejudgment in these cases," said Derwyn Bunton, an attorney for Theodore Shaw. "We want a fair trial with a fair judge, and the hearing illustrated we cannot have that with Judge Mauffray."
Chicago Tribune article
Showing posts with label Jena Six Hearings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jena Six Hearings. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Louisiana Court To Hear Arguments on Recusing Jena 6 Judge Mauffrey
I told you about the motion to have Judge Mauffrey removed in my last post on May 8th. It Appears arguments will finally be heard on this on May 30th.
Lawyers accuse judge in ‘Jena 6′ trial of racial bias
(CNN) — A Louisiana appeals court has agreed to a request by attorneys for four of the “Jena Six” defendants to hear arguments that the trial judge in the case should be recused because of alleged racial prejudice.
District Judge Thomas Yeager will hear arguments next Friday for the recusal of Judge J.P. Mauffrey Jr., according to court documents released this week.
One of the attorneys, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the case in the small town of Jena, Louisiana, said the lawyers must prove “substantial bias” in their effort to have Mauffrey removed.
Lawyers accuse judge in ‘Jena 6′ trial of racial bias
(CNN) — A Louisiana appeals court has agreed to a request by attorneys for four of the “Jena Six” defendants to hear arguments that the trial judge in the case should be recused because of alleged racial prejudice.
District Judge Thomas Yeager will hear arguments next Friday for the recusal of Judge J.P. Mauffrey Jr., according to court documents released this week.
One of the attorneys, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the case in the small town of Jena, Louisiana, said the lawyers must prove “substantial bias” in their effort to have Mauffrey removed.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
March Update on the Jena Six
There's an absolute dearth of information on the Jena 6 these days, but I'm still working sources to find out the latest.
Abby Brown of TheTownTalk.com informs me that the March 24th trial of Braynt Purvis is not happening.
I will be contacting more sources about other facets of the Jena 6 in the coming days, and will report back when I have other information.
Abby Brown of TheTownTalk.com informs me that the March 24th trial of Braynt Purvis is not happening.
- She states that:
"None of the Jena Six defendants have trial dates yet. The next hearing is May 6 and it is change of venue motion hearing for 3 of the defendants and the DA has also presented a motion to use Purvis' Texas arrest in the Jena Six case."
I will be contacting more sources about other facets of the Jena 6 in the coming days, and will report back when I have other information.
Monday, December 3, 2007
In Jena 6 Case Mychael Bell Makes Plea Deal
I reported earlier today on The Jena 6 Blog that Bell was probably near a deal; now it seems official.
According to this CNN article the deal should have him out by june of ’09 – a far cry from the 100 plus years district attorney Reed Walters initially wanted, and even from the 22 years he wanted when he was forced by lack of a case to drop the conspiracy to commit murder; but still illegally prosecuted Bell as an adult.
Bell was convicted of felony aggravated battery by an all white jury containing members with alleged ties to the Judge and the DA, back in July. While waiting on sentencing, facing 22 years, the conviction was overturned by the 3rd circuit court of appeals because Bell was not eligible to be tried as an adult, but they ruled he could be retried as a juvenile.
After Judge Mauffrey, the same Judge who allowed Bell to be illegal tried in the first place, tried to deny Mychael Bell a release on bail for a week; he was then freed 13 days after the overturning of his conviction.
Then, in a surprise to all legal watchers of this case, Bell was put back in jail by yet the same judge for a parol voilation based on the same actions his conviction was overturned on. He was out for only 15 days on house arrest. He went to a routine hearing for his parol in relation to an earlier case than the Jena 6 incident, and Judge Mauffrey surprisingly revoked his parole and put him in jail for 18 months on October 11th.
I spoke with Alan Bean of Friends of Justice, this evening; the social advocacy organization for the falsely accused who pushed the Jena Six story into the public eye. He says from what he's heard from direct contact with people in the court room, he was in Lafeyette today, not in Jena as I had thought; that the CNN reporting that Bell would be out by June sounds about right. He's being told 6 - 8 months. I'll have more of my interview with Mr. Bean in the next day or two either here at The Jena 6 Blog or at BlackPerspective.net
Having recieved conflicting reporting, I'm not sure if it is a misdemeanor deal for the 6 to 8 months, or a felony deal that is adding 6 to 8 months to the 9 plus he's already served from the time he was arrested in December 2006; where he is getting credit for time already served.
According to this CNN article the deal should have him out by june of ’09 – a far cry from the 100 plus years district attorney Reed Walters initially wanted, and even from the 22 years he wanted when he was forced by lack of a case to drop the conspiracy to commit murder; but still illegally prosecuted Bell as an adult.
Bell was convicted of felony aggravated battery by an all white jury containing members with alleged ties to the Judge and the DA, back in July. While waiting on sentencing, facing 22 years, the conviction was overturned by the 3rd circuit court of appeals because Bell was not eligible to be tried as an adult, but they ruled he could be retried as a juvenile.
After Judge Mauffrey, the same Judge who allowed Bell to be illegal tried in the first place, tried to deny Mychael Bell a release on bail for a week; he was then freed 13 days after the overturning of his conviction.
Then, in a surprise to all legal watchers of this case, Bell was put back in jail by yet the same judge for a parol voilation based on the same actions his conviction was overturned on. He was out for only 15 days on house arrest. He went to a routine hearing for his parol in relation to an earlier case than the Jena 6 incident, and Judge Mauffrey surprisingly revoked his parole and put him in jail for 18 months on October 11th.
I spoke with Alan Bean of Friends of Justice, this evening; the social advocacy organization for the falsely accused who pushed the Jena Six story into the public eye. He says from what he's heard from direct contact with people in the court room, he was in Lafeyette today, not in Jena as I had thought; that the CNN reporting that Bell would be out by June sounds about right. He's being told 6 - 8 months. I'll have more of my interview with Mr. Bean in the next day or two either here at The Jena 6 Blog or at BlackPerspective.net
Having recieved conflicting reporting, I'm not sure if it is a misdemeanor deal for the 6 to 8 months, or a felony deal that is adding 6 to 8 months to the 9 plus he's already served from the time he was arrested in December 2006; where he is getting credit for time already served.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Jena Hearings, What Was Accomplished
This is from Alan Bean at Friend's of Justice.
Jena Hearing Postscript
October 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm (Uncategorized)
In the end, what was accomplished? Most committee members aimed their questions at US Attorney Donald Washington, the man who has been consistently unplaying the seriousness of the noose incident since mid-June. Washington initially felt pressured to side with Jena officials in this matter; now, with some pressure coming from opponents of the status quo, the political appointee has adapted his testimony . . . slightly. It is no longer possible for noose apologists to site Mr. Washington as an ally. So far, so good.
Tragically, most of the people interrogating Mr. Washington and his associate, Lisa Krigsten, seem to feel that the noose hangers should have been tried as adults under federal hate crimes law, even if this meant locking them up for ten years without parole (remember, parole has been eliminated from the federal judicial system).
There are two problems: (1) the limp response of Jena officials to the noose incident; and (2) an inept reaction on the part of the Department of Justice that, in the minds of most observers, appeared to validate the inaction of folks like Roy Breithaupt and Reed Walters.
The hearings represent a giant step forward. They would have been more effective, however, if more attention had been paid to the egregious behavior of Reed and Roy. When Mr. Sharpton focuses on the noose boys he lets Jena officials slip into the shadows.
But this is just a matter of emphasis. The significant fact is that hardly anyone, Democrat or Republican, made the slightest attempt to defend the indefensible. The very fact that most Republicans chose to be elsewhere suggests they have no appetite for this fight.
Unfortunately, proponents of a knee-jerk law-and-order, lock-em-up philosophy don’t have to fight–they currently control the public policy agenda. Nonetheless, we congratulate Mr. Conyers for convening an illuminating hearing on a timely topic.
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/jena-hearing-transcript/#comment-2480
Jena Hearing Postscript
October 17th, 2007 at 3:46 pm (Uncategorized)
In the end, what was accomplished? Most committee members aimed their questions at US Attorney Donald Washington, the man who has been consistently unplaying the seriousness of the noose incident since mid-June. Washington initially felt pressured to side with Jena officials in this matter; now, with some pressure coming from opponents of the status quo, the political appointee has adapted his testimony . . . slightly. It is no longer possible for noose apologists to site Mr. Washington as an ally. So far, so good.
Tragically, most of the people interrogating Mr. Washington and his associate, Lisa Krigsten, seem to feel that the noose hangers should have been tried as adults under federal hate crimes law, even if this meant locking them up for ten years without parole (remember, parole has been eliminated from the federal judicial system).
There are two problems: (1) the limp response of Jena officials to the noose incident; and (2) an inept reaction on the part of the Department of Justice that, in the minds of most observers, appeared to validate the inaction of folks like Roy Breithaupt and Reed Walters.
The hearings represent a giant step forward. They would have been more effective, however, if more attention had been paid to the egregious behavior of Reed and Roy. When Mr. Sharpton focuses on the noose boys he lets Jena officials slip into the shadows.
But this is just a matter of emphasis. The significant fact is that hardly anyone, Democrat or Republican, made the slightest attempt to defend the indefensible. The very fact that most Republicans chose to be elsewhere suggests they have no appetite for this fight.
Unfortunately, proponents of a knee-jerk law-and-order, lock-em-up philosophy don’t have to fight–they currently control the public policy agenda. Nonetheless, we congratulate Mr. Conyers for convening an illuminating hearing on a timely topic.
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2007/10/17/jena-hearing-transcript/#comment-2480
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Regarding Jena 6, U.S. Attorney Donald Washington Finally Admits The Hanging of the Noose Was A Hate Crime
In an article by Howard Witt, the writer who broke the Jena Six case nationally; he reports that Washington finally makes this admission in hearings before congress today.
Guess what his porported reasoning for not doing his job and protecting black kids from racial intimidations is according to Witt's writing, "because of the ages of the white youths involved."
Ain't that a bitch!
White kids get off scott free because of their age, but there was no forgoing, or the least bit of measured temperment when it came to prosecuting Michael Bell, Bryant Purvis, Carwin Jones, Theo Shaw, and . I guess no justice for Negroes on either end of the spectrum.
Where are all the annoymous people and others who routinely run here to tell me about how the noose hanging wasn't a hate crime and had nothing to do with the tention's that led to the Barker fight, just because the government says so. The goverment is saying the opposite now.
As I noted in the post The Claimed Facts, Are Not Necessarily the Facts In Jena 6 Case; "in Washington’s case, even though the FBI investigated and recommended the noose hangings be prosecuted as a hate crime; Washington refuses to do so just because the noose hangers don't have a prior record." This is what he said in an interview that aired on CNN on the day of the September 20 march.
The Witt story is here: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/us_official_jena_nooses_were_h.html
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee asked the Uncle Tom, foot shuffling, Bush appointee, "Mr. Washington, tell me why you did not intervene? Six broken lives could have been prevented if you had taken action.”
Rep John Conyers summed up the whole issue of this Jena situation saying, “as we all know, it is illegal under the guarantees of our Constitution and our laws to have one standard of justice for white citizens and another harsher one for African- American citizens,”
Apparently, everybody doesn't know that; or, they simply don't care!
Guess what his porported reasoning for not doing his job and protecting black kids from racial intimidations is according to Witt's writing, "because of the ages of the white youths involved."
Ain't that a bitch!
White kids get off scott free because of their age, but there was no forgoing, or the least bit of measured temperment when it came to prosecuting Michael Bell, Bryant Purvis, Carwin Jones, Theo Shaw, and . I guess no justice for Negroes on either end of the spectrum.
Where are all the annoymous people and others who routinely run here to tell me about how the noose hanging wasn't a hate crime and had nothing to do with the tention's that led to the Barker fight, just because the government says so. The goverment is saying the opposite now.
As I noted in the post The Claimed Facts, Are Not Necessarily the Facts In Jena 6 Case; "in Washington’s case, even though the FBI investigated and recommended the noose hangings be prosecuted as a hate crime; Washington refuses to do so just because the noose hangers don't have a prior record." This is what he said in an interview that aired on CNN on the day of the September 20 march.
The Witt story is here: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/us_official_jena_nooses_were_h.html
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee asked the Uncle Tom, foot shuffling, Bush appointee, "Mr. Washington, tell me why you did not intervene? Six broken lives could have been prevented if you had taken action.”
Rep John Conyers summed up the whole issue of this Jena situation saying, “as we all know, it is illegal under the guarantees of our Constitution and our laws to have one standard of justice for white citizens and another harsher one for African- American citizens,”
Apparently, everybody doesn't know that; or, they simply don't care!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
