Mykal Bell has just been found guilty of aggravated second degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second degree battery. This verdict became a foregone conclusion the moment defense attorney Blane Williams wrapped up his closing arguments. “Mr. Williams made a lot of comments,” DA Reed Walters told the all-white jury, “but none of them were directed at the evidence.” Unfortunately, Mr. Walters’ assessment was bang on target.

There was no indication that Blane Williams gave any meaningful thought to his closing. Mr. Walters has been honing his closing arguments for months now, and it showed. Williams has done nothing but angle for a plea bargain, and, tragically, that also showed.

Everything hinged on whether the three witnesses who identified Mykal Bell as the student who firsdt struck Justin Barker were more credible than the witnesses who saw it differently. When you have one group of witnesses saying Mykal was the hitman, a second group saying he wasn’t, and a third group saying they witnessed the altercation but can’t say for sure who threw the first punch, the case for reasonable doubt should be a no-brainer. You don’t have to argue that the “Mykal-done-it” witnesses are lying. You merely suggest that there is no empirical way to determine who threw the first punch. Since witnesses on both sides of the issue are equally credible, and since many eyewitnesses came away confused, no final verdict is possible. Sometimes you simply have to say, “I don’t know,” and walk away. In the legal system that should translate into a not guilty verdict.

Mr. Williams could have compared the conflicting testimony to the contradictory reports parents often receive from two feuding children. If there is no way of determining the truth, and if both children are equally credible (or lacking in credibility) practical agnosticism is the only sane policy. To take sides in such a situation would be sheer folly.

The jury in Jena would have understood that argument. Unfortunately, it was never made. Even worse, Mr. Williams defended his decision to call no defense witnesses by arguing (in casual conversation) that the white jury would have questioned the veracity of black school kids. This may have been true; but, hey, let’s give these folks a chance.

I do not blame the jurors for this gross miscarriage of justice. Mykal Bell was done in by a conspiracy perpetrated by an unholy Trinity of legal professionals: a judge, a district attorney, and a conveniently incompetent defense attorney. It was in the best professional interests of Mr. Mauffray, Mr. Walters and Mr. Williams to dispense with this case outside the courtroom. Mykal Bell spoiled their plans and has now paid dearly for his insolence.

Sentencing in this case will be postponed until July 31st. Meanwhile, the trial of Theo Shaw waits in the wings. Once again, we have a defendant represented by an incompetent, uncommitted court appointed attorney. Blane Williams didn’t help Mr. Shaw by his repeated insistence that the other defendants in this alleged conspiracy are all guilty as hell.

I end this diatribe (written in the heat of passion, I admit) with a word of challenge to the usual suspects in the criminal justice reform community. It is generally impossible to get attorneys from the ACLU, the NAACP, the Legal Defense Fund, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the various innocent projects to represent indigent black defendants at the pre-conviction stage. These cases are considered “low-impact” and therefore low priority. Reform groups with staff lawyers prefer civil rights suits filed on behalf of wrongfully convicted (and unambiguously exonerated) defendants. There are a number of arguments advanced for this policy; but what just happened in a Jena, Louisiana courtroom exposes the tragic limitations of an outmoded strategy. Poor defendants have nowhere to turn prior to trial. Groups like Friends of Justice can attract media (if we’re lucky), but finding pro bono legal representation is a much harder sell. The criminal justice reform community needs to re-think its commitment to post-conviction (and often post-exoneration) intervention.

I need to rush off to a post-fiasco meeting with the defendants and their families, so I will have to cut this short. I will try to write at least one more report before returning to Texas.

Alan Bean

Executive Director, Friends of Justice

***

TWO WAYS TO GET INVOLVED:

1. Send a donation to Friends of Justice to support our organizing in Jena. Make checks to “Friends of Justice” and make a note that it’s for the “Jena initiative”. Our address is 507 N. Donley Ave, Tulia TX 79088.

2. Sign up for our Action Updates. Click the link on the right-hand side of our website, and respond to the confirmation email. We’ll contact you with further news and opportunities to take action.