This statement of appreciation from Troy Davis, passed along by Amnesty International, just arrived in my in box:

To all,I want to thank all of you for your efforts and dedication to Human Rights and Human Kindness, in the past year I have experienced such emotion, joy, sadness and never ending faith.

It is because of all of you that I am alive today, as I look at my sister Martina I am marveled by the love she has for me and of course I worry about her and her health, but as she tells me she is the eldest and she will not back down from this fight to save my life and prove to the world that I am innocent of this terrible crime.

As I look at my mail from across the globe, from places I have never ever dreamed I would know about and people speaking languages and expressing cultures and religions I could only hope to one day see first hand. I am humbled by the emotion that fills my heart with overwhelming, overflowing Joy.

I can’t even explain the insurgence of emotion I feel when I try to express the strength I draw from you all, it compounds my faith and it shows me yet again that this is not a case about the death penalty, this is not a case about Troy Davis, this is a case about Justice and the Human Spirit to see Justice prevail.

I cannot answer all of your letters but I do read them all, I cannot see you all but I can imagine your faces, I cannot hear you speak but your letters take me to the far reaches of the world, I cannot touch you physically but I feel your warmth everyday I exist.

So Thank you and remember I am in a place where execution can only destroy your physical form but because of my faith in God, my family and all of you I have been spiritually free for some time and no matter what happens in the days, weeks to come, this Movement to end the death penalty, to seek true justice, to expose a system that fails to protect the innocent must be accelerated.

There are so many more Troy Davis’. This fight to end the death penalty is not won or lost through me but through our strength to move forward and save every innocent person in captivity around the globe. We need to dismantle this Unjust system city by city, state by state and country by country.

I can’t wait to Stand with you, no matter if that is in physical or spiritual form, I will one day be announcing, “I AM TROY DAVIS, and I AM FREE!”

Never Stop Fighting for Justice and We will Win!

— Troy Davis

Steven Bochco, famous for legal/cop dramas like “NYPD Blue” and “Hill Street Blues”, is making his cable debut. “Raising the Bar” shifts the focus from serial killers and child molesters to the more mundane offenses you would encounter if you strolled down to the County Courthouse.  The defendants are scruffy, compromised and frequently innocent.  The DA is crass and cynical, prosecuting cases he thinks he can win even when he has no way of determining if the defendant is really guilty.  The judge at the center of the action is an efficiency nut who enjoys exercising the boundless power her office affords.  Juries are prone to convict unless innocence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In other words, Raising the Bar is about the real-world criminal justice system.

The show isn’t doing very well.  The reviews have been mixed, the competition is intense, and the ratings have been dropping.   The show lacks a rivveting Dennis Franz type lead and the production values are a bit too formulaic for my taste.  But I suspect the real problem is that the American viewer doesn’t know what to do with moral ambiguity and the portrayal of a broken legal system?

I have become a loyal viewer.  The legal system presented in most legal dramas is pure fantasy (you will notice that the bad guys are almost always white and wealthy).  The “Law and Order” pantheon, though skillfully rendered, takes a pro-prosecution perspective; defense attorneys are generally sneering, well heeled and amoral.  “Law and Order” is generally a who-done-it murder mystery in a courtroom setting.  As such it avoids 90% of the cases that pass through a real courtroom.

Bochco’s “Raising the Bar” could be a sleeper.  Dramas driven by complex characters can take a while to hit their stride.  But if you want a compelling window into a broken system, “Raising the Bar” delivers.

In this article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bochco talks about his new show. (more…)

I met Sandy Gonzalez a few months ago at a conference in DC.  His story beggars belief, but it’s true all the same.  Since I was fresh from the Alvin Clay Trial it didn’t seem too incredible that federal DEA and ICE agents would give their blessing to a series of gruesome torture sessions ending in murder.  When Sandy Gonzalez blew the whistle on fellow DEA officials he was driven out of the agency.  Thus far, no one in the mainstream media has been willing to touch this story.  The implications are too severe.  We all like to believe the best about our government and there are few rewards for those who tell too much truth.

Fortunately, people like Radley Balko of Reason Magazine who are willing to listen to folks like Sandy Gonzalez.  Balko remains the only reporter who has given the story of Ann Colomb and her family the attention it deserves.  You can find his interview with with Gonzalez here beginning with this enticing lead-in:

Three years ago, Sandalio “Sandy” Gonzalez’s 32-year career with the Drug Enforcement Agency came to an abrupt end after he blew the whistle in a horrifying case now known as the “House of Death,” in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stand accused of looking the other way while one of their drug informants participated in torturing and murdering at least a dozen people in an abandoned house near the Texas-Mexico border.

In August, Senior Editor Radley Balko spoke with Gonzalez about the case, the cover-up, and what it all means for federal law enforcement and the War on Drugs.

 

A few years ago, I used the story of boxer Jack Johnson to illuminate the plight of an elderly white attorney bearing the same name. My piece began with a quick run down of the boxer’s career:

On the Fourth of July 1910, the Great White Hope stepped into the ring with Jack Johnson, a black fighter from Galveston, Texas. The myth of white superiority, a bedrock principle of the Jim Crow era, was riding on the line. But there was thunder in the black man’s right hand, lightning in his left. He carved up his white opponents with nonchalant grace, smiling sweetly all the while.

And so, by popular demand, Jack Jeffries emerged from retirement to fight Johnson for a purse of $100,000 in 1910, shedding eighty pounds in the process. When Jeffries and the myth of white superiority were reduced to ruins, race riots across the nation claimed the lives of twelve innocent black men, and law enforcement officials worked overtime to take the smiling black champion down. Eventually, Jack Johnson was framed on trumped up morals charges and forced to flee the country.

A century later, John McCain (an avid boxing fan) is leading the fight to have Johnson’s conviction overturned.  You can find the details at Ed Gray’s blog.

The Supreme Court of the United States is likely to issue a ruling on the Troy Davis case by October 6th.  With the presidential election in its bell lap and the economy in full meltdown, a lot of stories aren’t getting the attention they deserve.  Fortunately, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has stayed on the Davis saga and the tangled legal issues it has brought to public awareness.

In cases devoid of physical evidence and completely dependent on eyewitness testimony, what does it take to spark a hearing or a new trial?  The evidentiary standard is exceedingly high: proof, with “no doubt of any kind,” that a witness’s trial testimony was “the purest fabrication.”

Could the Supreme Court justices decide that there is enough doubt about Mr. Davis’ guilt to commute the sentence but not enough doubt to order a new trial?  That’s not the way the system works.  Defendants aren’t sort of guilty or marginally innocent; it’s an either/or proposition. 

This means a court could be deeply troubled by the rash of recantations in the Davis case while ruling that, as a matter of law, Mr. Davis can be given no relief.  As the Journal-Constitution article emphasizes, witness recantations don’t carry much weight with appeals courts.  The mere fact that a witness is no longer sure what they saw isn’t sufficient.  Unless there is proof, with “no doubt of any kind,” that a witness’ trial testimony was “the purest fabrication” no relief can be granted.

That’s a mighty high hurdle.  In the absence of physical evidence, how can you ever prove that a witness had it wrong in 1991 and has now got it right?  All things being equal, the original testimony will be given greater weight by appeals courts because it was closer to the date of the alleged crime and therefore more likely to be reliable. 

What if it is asserted that the recanting witness was coerced into testifying falsely.  But how can we evaluate this claim?  It would require a hearing to establish that (a) a coercion claim is being made, and a hearing can’t be granted unless all doubt about the veracity of the original testimony has already been removed. Even then, when law enforcement swears that witnesses weren’t coerced, we would be left with a he-said-she-said stand off.  The mere fact that law enforcement says witnesses testified freely casts some doubt on the claim of coercion.  And some doubt, no matter how little, is all you need to uphold a conviction.

What if all seven of the recanting witnesses in the Davis case claim they were coerced?  Would that be enough to spark a hearing or a new trial?

Not if you follow the “no doubt” and “purest fabrication” guidelines.  There will always be a modicum of doubt that a recanting witness originally got it wrong.  Maybe they just don’t want to be complicit in a death sentence.  Maybe memory has faded over time.  Technically speaking, a conviction should be upheld even if the preponderance of evidence would incline a reasonable person to feel uneasy about a conviction.  Essentially, the existing standard demands positive proof of innocence; something you will never have in a case like this.

This doesn’t mean that Troy Davis is doomed to die by lethal injection.  In fact, by calling for a hearing in this case, the Supreme Court may establish an important precedent that will lower the bar in cases involving witness recantation.  The standard would be the same, but the interpretation would change.

The fact that several justices on the Georgia Supreme Court disagreed with the majority suggests that the legal community is divided over this issue.  We are unlikely to see a unanimous ruling at the federal level.

A recent string of DNA exonerations has shaken confidence in eyewitness testimony.  We are learning that eyewitnesses are far more prone to error, influence and self-deception than the legal system has traditionally realized.

Will the Supreme Court bring the evidentiary bar down a notch or two in cases involving witness recantation?  Stay tuned.

Why is Barack Obama such a poor self promoter?  The question was addressed today in Richard Oldrieve’s “stumped” column in the Washington Post.  Oldgrieve can’t understand why Obama and his surrogates rarely mention his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review while Sarah Palin’s modest experience in sports journalism is celebrated by her supporters. 

Oldrieve thinks the American public values personality over performance.  Hence, Obama can’t flaunt his scholarly credentials without distancing himself from the hoi poloi.

This is a sound observation, oft repeated in the more sophisticated backwaters of the mainstream media.  But the full truth cuts deeper. 

Consider Mr. Obama’s support for the death penalty.  Oldrieve fears that Obama is pandering to a conservative electorate because a black candidate can’t come off as soft on crime.

I agree, but is Mr. Obama unique in this regard?  Michael Dukakis was severely damaged by his support for the death penalty in 1988, and no one has ever accused Barack Obama of being stupid.  Oldrieve notes that Obama worked hard on death penalty issues in Illinois, helping pass laws requiring the taping of confessions so police officers couldn’t bully defendants and potential witnesses.  Why doesn’t Obama advertise this accomplishment?  Surely undecided voters would be impressed.

Yes they would.  So impressed, in fact, that they would flock into the dependable arms of John McCain, a veteran politician who knows how to talk tough.

I was pleased to hear John McCain reinforce his opposition to torture last night.  As a victim of brutal interrogation techniques, McCain understands in his gut why no civilized nation can stoop to such barbarism.  McCain is as tough as they come, but even he had his breaking point.  The statement he signed in the Hanoi Hilton was about as meaningful as the false testimony shrewd interrogatores often wring from mentally and emotionally weak defendants and witnesses.

But McCain isn’t going to extend his opposition to torture to the American criminal justice system.  That would be suicidal.

Pundits have castigated both Obama and McCain for refusing to name the pet projects they will jetison in the wake of an historic Wall Street bailout.  Do they really believe that Mr. McCain is going to advocate cutbacks in military spending or that Mr. Obama is going to punt on universal health care?  Any admission along these lines would have become the stuff of the next day’s headline.

There are a host of obvious truths no presidential candidate can afford to acknowledge publicly.

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, writes about the Post-American world.  America remains the world’s only military superpoweer, Zakaria admits, but her days of economic hegemony are over.  China and India are growing impressively and will one day stand as America’s economic equals.  More significantly, America is rapidly becoming a debtor nation, spending much, saving little, and sinking further into penury every day. 

Is there a presidential politician bold enough to admit as much to the American public? 

No one with a serious intention of occupying the oval office.

Zakaria’s cautionary tale is thin gruel compared to the new book by Andrew Bacevitch, The Limits of Power: the End of American Exceptionalism.

Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who teaches at Boston University, argues that America was once an empire of production but has degenerated into an empire of consumption.  Thus we have a president who responds to 9-11 by urging his fellow Americans to shop till they drop. 

But Bacevich cuts deeper.  At the close of WWII, he argues, Harry Truman had to decide whether to disband the immense military establishment created during wartime or to expand it.  Urged on by cold warriors, Truman opted for endless military expansionism and we are living with the consequences.

In order to justify our immense financial investment in the military establishment, Bacevich suggests, we have created a national security state rooted in a rigid and brutally enforced orthodoxy.  Bacevich refuses to hold George W. Bush and his advisers responsible for the debacle in Iraq.  Bush and company simply extended the logic of the national security state into new territory. 

Every candidate for high office, the ex-military man insists, must sign off on the national security state as a matter of course.  Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama must rattle the sabre.  Any suggestion that our military adventures abroad are bankrupting the nation while destroying American credibility would doom any presidential run.

Bacevich is a traditional conservative in the mold of Reinhold Niebuhr, the most influential American theologian of the first half of the twentieth century.  Niebuhr advocated a “Christian realism” that rejected liberal optimism and conservative hubris.  Utopian day dreams and authoritarian nightmares were equally unacceptable to the clear-sighted Niebuhr.

Is there any connection between Barack Obama’s call to Jihad in Afganistan and his half-hearted support for the death penalty and the war on drugs? 

I think there is.

Politicans like Obama and Clinton understand that if you want to become president of the United States you have to sign off on a national security state embracing a planetary web of military bases and an enormous gulag of state and federal prisons. 

The same mentality that finds security in military firepower takes solace in mass incarceration–and for the same reason.  In other words, Andrew Bacevich’s “limits of power” thesis can be applied to both the military establishment and the criminal justice system.

For strictly defensive reasons, we need a strong military and we need prisons.  When America is threatened from without she must be able to defend herself.  When violent criminals roam the streets we must be able to protect the citizenry. 

But what happens when both the military and the prison system become two or three times as large as the defense of the American people require?  Why are both the American military and the American prison system singularly immense?  Why has America, virtually alone among the democracies of the West, revived the death penalty?  At what point does more power equal less security?

And finally, how is the bloated size of the military and prison system related to the current market meltdown?

Bacevich argues that countries like China, India and the oil producing titans are financing an American military we can no longer afford.

Will the American economy recover?  Or has a dot.com bubble suceeded by a mortgage bubble put off the day of reckoning?  Is the big bad wolf at the door?  Are we three little pigs huddled in a house of straw?  Have we created an immense welfare state for the military, intelligence and criminal justice establishments that we can no longer afford? 

One thing is certain; neither John McCain nor Barack Obama can break with national security state dogma any more than a fish can swear off water. 

Does this mean that both candidates are intentionally lying to us? 

I don’t think so.  Necessity is the mother of conviction.

Bacevich doesn’t think the outcome of the 2008 presidential election will be as significant as most pundits imagine.  Both candidates will face the same daunting economic and military realities, and both men must confront the self-defeating nature of American desire: we desire free access to services, products, fossil fuel and credit, and will severely punish any president who says the free lunch is over.

True to the Christian realism of Reinhold Niebuhr, Bacevich is looking for the place where the interests of America and the interests of the rest of the world community overlap.  It is too much to expect nation states to follow the self-sacrificial way of Jesus, he says (it’s hard enough for individuals to scale those heights).  But we can expect the nations of the world to pursue their own self-interest.  The “my-way-or-the-highway” rhetoric employed by George W. Bush will get us nowhere; other countries will follow our lead only when they believe it is serves their interests to do so.

Does Christian realism have anything to say about the American criminal justice system?

Yes.  We have doubled and tripled the size of our prison system by fighting a “war on crime” and a “war on drugs”.  War, Bacevich reminds us, is always an unpredictable and risky enterprise, prone to unforseen consequences.  Few military operations in the second half of the twentieth century yielded the results anticipated by presidents and generals. 

The same critique applies to the wars we have declared on drugs and criminals.  We have told the residents of poor neighborhoods that if they don’t mend their ways we will throw them in prison on a massive scale.  Has it worked?  It depends.  If the goal was to build lots of prisons and cram them to the rafters, our war on crime has been a smashing success.  But if we were trying to reduce crime, diminish the drug trade, and improve the viability of poor neighborhoods we have failed miserably.

People resist blunt force.  If the surge in Iraq has been successful it is because (a) American soldiers have been instructed to treat Iraqis with respect and dignity and (b) we have found that place where the interests of Sunni insurgents and the American military overlap.

Apply those tactics to the inner cities of America and we may see positive results. 

If you are dealing with a violent criminal, prison makes a lot of sense.  If the goal is to grow mature, self-reliant citizens, prison is a disaster.  When inmates return to the streets they are even less disciplined, focused and responsible than when they went in.  The prison environment encourages a survival mentality, slavish conformity and the complete surrender of self-determination.  While brief prison stretches can serve as a wake-up call, the point of diminishing returns comes quickly.

Bacevich argues that military force should be employed defensively and only as a last resort.  The same line of reasoning could be applied to poverty control (which, in most cases, is what our criminal justice system is all about).  For most dysfunctional people, opportunity delivers more bang for the buck than blunt force. 

Friends of Justice talks about a common peace–the point at which the interests of affluent Americans overlap with the interests of poor people.  Our next president needs to be searching for this precious patch of ground, for only there is even modest progress possible. 

But we can’t wait passively for a McCain or an Obama to lead the charge.  That’s why Friends of Justice is taking its case to “communities of moral discourse”–beginning with the churches of the greater Dallas area.

Presidents will lead the way when we leave them with no alternative.

COALITION TO FREE THE ANGOLA THREEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Emma Mackinnon

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Conviction Overturned After 36 Years in Solitary For “Angola 3” Member
Albert Woodfox

Federal Judge Orders the State: Must Either Retry or Dismiss Charges
Against “Angola 3” Member

Lawyers: Charges Should be Dismissed Immediately; Otherwise, Woodfox
Should be Released on Bail

In response to a federal judge’s decision overturning the conviction
of Albert Woodfox, one of the two “Angola 3” members who remain in
prison, lawyers for the men called on the State Attorney General’s
office to drop any further charges and release the men immediately.
If the state intends to re-try Woodfox, they said, he should be
released on bail until the time of trial. They argued the man, now 61
and in poor health, has spent long enough imprisoned on a wrongful
conviction and that continuing to hold him would be unthinkable.

Woodfox and fellow inmate Herman Wallace have been imprisoned since
1972 for the murder of prison guard Brent Miller. They spent 36 years
of that time in solitary confinement. The federal judge’s ruling
acknowledged that Woodfox has been wrongfully imprisoned. His
conviction rested on the testimony of a fellow prisoner, a convicted
serial rapist who was promised and received the warden’s help
obtaining a pardon in exchange for testifying against Herman and
Albert. The deal was not disclosed at trial; the witness was pardoned
and freed later. An additional witness, who said he had seen Albert in
the area of the crime, was a schizophrenic who was on heavy doses of
psychotropic medications at the time of the murder, which also was not
disclosed. No physical evidence ties Woodfox or Wallace to the crime.

“Both the magistrate judge and the district court judge have now found
that Woodfox’s conviction was invalid and had to be reversed. Woodfox
has demonstrated the deep flaws in the state’s investigation and
prosecution of the case against him, and has presented evidence of his
innocence. If the State of Louisiana appeals, it will bear the burden
of showing the court of appeals that both of the two judges were
incorrect. As the facts and the law are so clearly on the side of Mr.
Woodfox, we are confident that the State cannot carry that burden. No
further legal delay should deprive Albert of even one more day of his
life,” said Chris Aberle, one of Woodfox’s lawyers.

“The state has already stolen nearly four decades of Albert Woodfox’s
life. The injustice in this case is unfathomable. How can Louisiana
continue to imprison a 61 year old man after a federal judge has ruled
that he shouldn’t have been convicted in the first place? Albert must
be released,” said Nick Trenticosta, co-counsel in the case.

The third member of the Angola 3, Robert King, was released in 2001
after a judge overturned his conviction. King had spent 29 years in
solitary confinement for a separate crime.

Last week Alan Bean (Executive Director of Friends of Justice) and I attended a conference in Waco, Texas sponsored by the Christian Ethics Today Foundation. The conference, on the Truett Seminary campus of Baylor University, was not well attended. The attendees were mostly older, with a smattering of Truett Seminary students. Truett faculty members were conspicuous by their absence. It was an ethics conference, and Truett currently has no ethics department, although reportedly they are in search for someone to teach ethics and missions.

 The conference, while it seemed to lack a unifying theme, was advertised in the brochure as “Red Letter Christians, An Emerging Evangelical Center, and Public Policy Issues.”

 James Dunn gave his characteristically enthusiastic and well informed presentations regarding church and state, and by extension, the place of religion in politics. Dunn is a vocal advocate of separation of church and state, but he insists that does not mean that evangelical Christians should not be involved in politics.

David Gushee, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, was expected to represent the “emerging evangelical center.” This emerging group would avoid both the extremes of the Christian right, represented by such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and the late Jerry Falwell, and the so-called evangelical left represented by Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, and others. But Professor Gushee, in his presentation, seemed to be moving away from any evangelical center and toward radical Christianity.

And that brings us to “Red Letter Christians.” What a scary thought to political progressives who don’t understand how the title originated. “Red Letter Christians” in a red state at a Baptist University could conjure up visions of hate-mongering homophobes, doctor-murdering anti-abortionists, or other religio-politically crimson groups.

The term actually originated with a secularist talk show host who commented on certain Christians who pay special attention to the words of Jesus printed in red in some Bibles. So Tony Campolo proudly owns the appellation, and also gladly accepts the designation of radical evangelical. He is evangelical in his doctrine and espouses a high view of Scripture. But he insists, contrary to the views and practices of those on the evangelical right, that the words of Jesus must be taken literally. “Love your enemies” really means love your enemies. “Be merciful” really means be merciful. This is radical Christianity. It stakes out a position and practice not between, but above and beyond the extremes of left and right.

Friends of Justice (https://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com) seeks criminal justice reform. No presenter at this conference so much as mentioned this issue. I think the presenters and attendees would be very positive toward the Friends of Justice position if they were aware of the systemic gross injustice, especially toward the poor, in the system.

 That’s why we were there: to plant seeds of awareness.

 Charles Kiker

Tulia, Texas

The 1991 trial of Troy Davis was a simple affair.  Jurors were told that Davis killed Mark McPhail, an off-duty police officer.  Davis was smirking as he pulled the trigger, jurors were told.  Nine people said they witnessed the foul deed done.  Davis was convicted and sentenced to die by lethal injection.

Sixteen years later, the lines have blurred considerably.  Seven of the nine witnesses who testified against Davis now say they perjured themselves under pressure from law enforcement.

Justice Harold Melton of the Georgia Supreme Court is unimpressed with these recantations.  “We simply cannot disregard the jury’s verdict,” Melton wrote this March when the court denied a request for a stay of execution.  Jurors were convinced by the trial testimony, he explained, “and, in fact, we favor that original testimony over the new.”

In other words, most Georgia Supreme Court Justices believe the witnesses got it right in 1991 and now, perversely, have decided to change their minds. 

You can do a long prison stretch for perjury.  Why would terrified witnesses place themselves in legal jeopardy?  The recanting witnesses, by and large, are simple, unlettered men and women who stand in awe of authority. 

They are backing away from their original testimony because their false words put a man on death row and now they can’t live with themselves.  No other explanation is credible.  These people haven’t been intimidated by defense counsel, nor are they swayed by the fact that Amnesty International, Jimmy Carter, or Pope Benedict the 16^th have expressed concern over this case.    

So why is the legal system so reluctant to put the original witnesses back on the stand?

Sarah Totonchi, chairwoman of Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, has a theory. “This case gets at the heart of some real dark issues of Georgia’s criminal justice system,” she told reporters when the US Supreme Court granted a temporary stay of execution.  “If they acknowledge the problems with this case, they are also admitting there are things like police misconduct and police coercion, and I think it’s easier to go along with the status quo than to admit that we have these problems and ultimately have to solve them.”

Mark McPhail was a police officer; everything hinges on this fact.  One hundred and sixty officers die in the United States in an average year.  Sixty thousand officers are assaulted and fifteen thousand sustain injuries.  It’s a dangerous job.  When a fellow officer goes down, outrage is natural.

Remember the question that lost Michael Dukakis the election in 1988, “Governor, if [your wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

Dukakis responded with bemused detachment: “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life.”

The Massachusetts Governor should have let some emotion surface. “If somebody raped and murdered my wife,” he could have answered, “I would want to kill them with my own bare hands.  Who wouldn’t?  That’s why you wouldn’t want me within a mile if the judicial process.  In my outrage and despair I couldn’t possibly be objective, and neither could you.”

Anneliese McPhail, the victim’s mother, isn’t trying to sound objective.  She knows Davis is the murderer and she wants to see him die. “If I saw him, I’d punch him in the face,” she admits.  “I am angry at the whole family. I don’t know how they have such a following.”

The police officers who investigated the murder in 1989 likely felt the same way.  Which is why they latched onto the first credible suspect they came across and made sure witnesses told a simple, straight, consistent story.

In any good who-done-it, the first and obvious suspect is never the real killer.  Sometimes real life works that way too.  Not often, but sometimes.  Frightened eye witnesses are frightfully open to suggestion.  Good cops never exploit that fact.

The Troy Davis case shows how easy it is to convict an innocent person.

Abbey Brown was on Hwy. 8 heading for Jena when she called me for this article.  My view of the situation is similar to that of Henry LeMoine, the attorney representing Justin Barker and his family: Yes, Jena has a problem with racism; but, no, the community isn’t uniquely racist.  Jena is a standard issue Southern town.

I knew from my experience with the Tulia drug sting that the media likes to focus on the alleged racism of little Southern towns.  You line up a few, “There’s no racists in this town,” quotes along with several, “this is the most racist community in the whole wide world” statements and, voila! you’ve got yourself a story.

The national media knows that race draws readers.  Moreover, few journalists have the courage (or the background) to relate a story like Tulia or Jena to larger issues like the war on drugs or the School to Prison Pipeline. 

As I told a community meeting in Jena shortly after getting involved in this case, this is a story about the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children (see Ezekiel, chapter 18).  Tragically poor judgment by community leaders (especially the DA and School Superintendent) sent a small group of young people (black and white) into a violent downward spiral.  A fire at the school house provided the spark that engulfed an entire community. 

As usual, the young black males bore the sole responsibility and the city fathers scrambled to dissociate themselves from any responsibility.  As the article shows, they are still scrambling. 

My goal was to place these events in historical context.  Acts of violence are generally rooted in a tragic history and the beating of Justin Barker was no exception. 

I remain confident that when all the facts are on the table America will learn something from Jena.  But as the legal can is kicked farther and farther down the road, I wonder if anyone will be paying attention when the day of reckoning arrives.

In the meantime, race relations in Jena have improved markedly in the past year.  The community’s travails sparked a remarkable religious revival which, in a Bible-belt community like Jena, provided the closest thing to real self-examination we are likely to see.  Racial attitudes forged over centuries can’t be transformed overnight; but the folks in Jena are doing the best they can with what they’ve got.

Finally, it should be noted that the BBC crew that produced a scathing piece about “race hatred” returned to Jena a few months later for a follow-up that was much more balanced and temperate.  Unfortunately, the second program stirred hardly a ripple of interest on either side of the pond.  But, hey, that’s show biz!

 

Jena’s image tainted by controversy

Abbey Brown

JENA – The label “most racist community in America” is one some have attached to Jena – the town in the center of the biggest civil rights demonstration in years.

But the person many blame for that designation – Alan Bean, founder of Texas-based Friends of Justice – said he likes the people of Jena. His intention never was to give Jena the label as an overtly racist community.That outcome, Bean said, is “unfortunate.”

Bean first traveled to Jena in January 2007 after being contacted by parents of some of the black youths who have since become known as the Jena Six.

“I was afraid these teens would be vulnerable to decades in prison if (LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed) Walters followed through on his stated plan,” Bean said, referring to the original charges of attempted murder for the teens in connection with the attack on white student Justin Barker at Jena High School in December 2006. “Their lives would have been destroyed.”

The goal wasn’t for the teens to go without punishment, he said, but for them to get the justice they deserve as American citizens.

“I knew when I got involved, if the national media attached to the story, Jena would emerge with a black eye,” Bean said. “And I wanted to save them from it.”

But he couldn’t.

Bean tried to talk to Walters to encourage the DA to reduce the charges from attempted murder to a “more realistic level.” He interviewed Jena residents and leaders, researched the events since the discovery of nooses at the school, then wrote up his version of events and sent it to a few media outlets including the Chicago Tribune and BBC.

The BBC came to town and produced a documentary portraying Jena as a community completely divided and full of racial strife, unfairly editing interviews and portraying an inaccurate picture of the community, many residents say.

Walters said the reputation the community received wasn’t deserved. And as far as his actions, he wouldn’t change a thing.

“I think the town and the state were unfairly portrayed,” Walters said. “Not enough research was done by those who came here. They just took the first answers they got and didn’t ask themselves, ‘Is there more here than what I’m getting?’

“Once (area residents) began to see the misconceptions that were being spread, they became reluctant to talk to reporters at all. They were afraid anything they said would be misconstrued.”

‘It’s not just Jena’
Carol Powell-Lexing, one of the attorneys representing Jena Six defendant Mychal Bell, said the reputation Jena has gotten over the past two years was one the town earned.

“I think the picture is an accurate one,” she said. “But it’s not just Jena. There are a number of communities throughout the U.S. and Louisiana where pockets of racism exits. They are everywhere. Jena just got exposed.”

Walters said he isn’t sure why so many assumptions about Jena and his actions were made so quickly.

“People locally have no misconceptions about what happened,” he said. “Somehow outside of LaSalle Parish and in the news media, people got the idea this prosecution was racially motivated, which it absolutely was not. I don’t know where that came from, other than perhaps an assumption because of where we are.”

In a letter to The Town Talk, Jena Mayor Murphy McMillin described the community of Jena as “God-fearing” and “all-inclusive.” He released documents related to the town’s Community Relations Panel – formed after the Sept. 20, 2007, rally so the town could “address barriers that may exist within the community of Jena.”

McMillin refused to do an interview or answer questions.

“Our beloved Jena is a home to friends of different cultures,” the panel’s summary read. “The panel believes this to be an asset to our community life. … While Jena has many cultures, we are one people, one race … the human race.”

James Boren, an attorney representing Jena Six defendant Robert Bailey Jr., said he can’t imagine any community claiming they are free of racism.

“It’s hard for me to believe that people can honestly say there is no racism in any community because it’s everywhere,” he said. “The claims of racism provoke some people more than others. But Louisiana has never really stepped up to address the question of why it is that there are so many African-Americans that believe that Louisiana’s law enforcement and criminal justice system are racist. It seems like the only response I’ve ever seen to those claims is to deny it.”

‘Unjustly accused’
Jena Java owner Evelyn Talley said Jena is a great community that is far from how it has been portrayed in the national media. She moved here from California with her husband, now deceased, about 13 years ago and loves Jena’s small-town, close-knit feeling.

“I could see the frenzy that was being whipped up by people coming in and judging Jena without doing their homework,” she said. “Many came in and prejudged Jena by preconceptions. But because of the faith of the community, we knew we were unjustly accused.”

If the image was deserved or not, Talley said, residents learned a lot and have moved forward.

“This is a nice community,” she said. “It was before this, and it is now.”

Henry Lemoine, the attorney representing Barker, described Jena as a “fine, little town.”

“They have coped with a series of events as well or better than any municipality,” he said. “I think the idea of racial prejudice is very realistic. And we all should be ashamed. I personally am ashamed. But it isn’t just Jena.”