Thoughts on the Jena 6

[Kirk Lazarus]

LYNCHING: Lynching in the second degree. Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person and from which death does not result shall constitute the crime of lynching in the seconddegree and shall be a felony.

MOB: A “mob” is defined for the purpose of this article as the assemblage of two or more persons,without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent ofcommitting an act of violence upon the person of another.

----------

eh this is at least in SC. I don't know Louisiana law well enough to say.

[Miss P]

LYNCHING: Lynching in the second degree. Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person and from which death does not result shall constitute the crime of lynching in the seconddegree and shall be a felony.

MOB: A “mob” is defined for the purpose of this article as the assemblage of two or more persons,without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent ofcommitting an act of violence upon the person of another.

----------

eh this is at least in SC. I don't know Louisiana law well enough to say.

Galt, I know that southern DAs are fond of using lynching laws against groups of black boys and men who are accused of crimes, but I'm kind of surprised to see you adopting this usage.  Lynching has a particular historical connotation, one which is perverse to apply to a situation like this, no matter the extent of the Jena 6's wrongdoing.  Assault and battery seem like the appropriate charges.  Attempted murder was not since there was absolutely no indication of specific intent to kill.

[Kirk Lazarus]

LYNCHING: Lynching in the second degree. Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person and from which death does not result shall constitute the crime of lynching in the seconddegree and shall be a felony.

MOB: A “mob” is defined for the purpose of this article as the assemblage of two or more persons,without color or authority of law, for the premeditated purpose and with the premeditated intent ofcommitting an act of violence upon the person of another.

----------

eh this is at least in SC. I don't know Louisiana law well enough to say.

Galt, I know that southern DAs are fond of using lynching laws against groups of black boys and men who are accused of crimes, but I'm kind of surprised to see you adopting this usage.  Lynching has a particular historical connotation, one which is perverse to apply to a situation like this, no matter the extent of the Jena 6's wrongdoing.  Assault and battery seem like the appropriate charges.  Attempted murder was not since there was absolutely no indication of specific intent to kill.

I agree with you insofar as the attempted murder charges seemed like a perversion of justice. Still, that's why we have checks and balances. The prosecutor abused his discretion and the appeals court in Louisiana ruled that Bell should be tried as a juvenile well before any of the protesters showed up this past week. Is that not justice??

I'm not condoning what the prosecutor in this case did or the way the authorities handled the situation. I'm just inclined to believe that group violence is dangerous and I'm not particularly sympathetic to the way the Jena 6 handled the situation.

[t...]

BUT A FACEBOOK GROUP TOLD ME TO FREE THE JENA SIX!!

Still trolling, TTT?

Love the name change, by the way.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

All the other sketchy aspects aside, I keep hearing stuff form people like  "OMGBAKEDPOTATO SO UNFAIR THE DA CHARGED THEM WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER BECUASE THEY WORE SHOES WHEN THEY WERE STOMPING THAT DUDE!!!"

Just to be clear they were charged with attempted second degree murder for which you dont need to employ a weapon.  Bell was ultimately tried on an aggravated second-degree battery charge and a conspiracy charge.

The aggravated second degree battery statute does NOT require the use of a DEADLY weapon as people are constantly claiming. It requires use of a DANGEROUS weapon.  Which is defined: (3) "Dangerous weapon" includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

The key here being "instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is... likely to produce... great bodily harm."

You stomp some prostrate kid with a shoe on and yes that shoe becomes a dangerous weapon for the purpose of this statute.  Its not hard to break a bone by punting some guy in the ribs with a basketball shoe on, especially if the guy doin the kikcing is a star fullback/linebacker.  It all hinges on how the shoe was used, if they just nudged him with their foot then thats not a manner of use likely to produce great bodily harm but there seems to have been evidence they were kicking him with some force.  Under LA law that qualifies as aggravated battery.  Its not some wild legal theory cooked up by the DA, Judge, and Jury.

That still doesn't justify, legally speaking, the initial Attempted 2nd Degree Murder charge from the DA.  As Miss P and Galt pointed out, "Attempted" murder is a specific intent crime.  Meaning, the conscious object or goal of kicking the kid could not merely have been just to to hurt the guy.  That would only be a Battery, as you described above. (I'm still not conceding the Sneakers as "dangerous weapons" yet, but we can come back to that later) In order for attempted murder to even be a remotely somewhat quasi reasonble charge in this case, the DA would have needed to be able to point to evidence showing that Bell specifically intended to KILL the guy before the fight even took place.  Murder would have had to be the goal from the outset.  The facts don't even come close to supporting that charge here.  This is nothing more than your average school yard fight between high school students mixed in with some racial overtones.  Attempted murder it is not. 

I submit that the facts here demonstrate that the DA has allowed racial bias to color his judgment as an officer of the court and as an agent of the state.  Just like former DA Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse Team prosecution, Reed Walters has abused his discretion as a prosecutor here (in addition to violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for "the pen" incident) and, accordingly, needs to be stripped of his license to practice law. 

[Miss P]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't prosecutors charge people with a much more serious crime than they actually committed all the time in order to produce a plea bargain at a lesser charge?

Yes, and doing so is an abuse of discretion. 

As for the rest, the opinions of a few demagogues about a separate case aren't very relevant, but no, I don't believe Jackson and Sharpton were pressing for lynching or attempted murder charges against the Duke LaX team, though they would have been equally (perhaps more) appropriate in that instance based on the information that was publicly available, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't prosecutors charge people with a much more serious crime than they actually committed all the time in order to produce a plea bargain at a lesser charge?

No that is incorrect. 

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities Of A Prosecutor
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;


Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

[A.]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

[Miss P]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

Yes.  And since the attempted murder and conspiracy to attempt murder charges were not supported, they were (a) an abuse of discretion and (b) not merely a par-for-the-course plea-bargaining tactic.

[Kirk Lazarus]

But his general gist is correct: Prosecutors often bring more serious charges, knowing that they will later try to plead the the defendant to a less serious crime.  There is a difference between bringing unsupported charges and bringing the most severe supported charges.

Yes.  And since the attempted murder and conspiracy to attempt murder charges were not supported, they were (a) an abuse of discretion and (b) not merely a par-for-the-course plea-bargaining tactic.

I wonder if it is such an abuse that it is a violation of the fifth amendment and seen as a non-voluntary confession (the plea) especially in a town like Jena where a Jury is likely to convict based on circumstances other than the elements of the crime.