Nooses, attacks and jail for black students in Jena Louisiana

Forgive me if my anger overshadows my diary. As I write this, Mychal Bell is learning whether he lives in an America with one justice system for all or one reserved just for blacks. As I type, an all-white jury will be deciding whether he should go to jail for a fight with a white student. A fight that started with racial segregation and racial intimidation, and is ending with Bell's fate being deliberated by this all-white jury weighing the testimony from all-white witnesses.

This is the story of the Jena 6 and the Jena High School whites-only tree.

Prior to September 2006, this tree was only available to white Jena high schoolers. But after a black student named Kenneth Purvis questioned the policy, the school board issued a statement indicating the spot was available to all students, regardless of race.

Now according to my calendar, we're living in 2007. But then again, I'm not a black student in Jena, Louisiana. I don't have to ask permission to sit under a tree. I don't have to go to school past the 3 nooses that hung from it in response (in school colors, how about that for school spirit?!?). And after incidents where black students were assaulted, and threatened with a shotgun, I wasn't told by my District Attorney that my life could be ended "with a stroke of a pen."

But if you are Mychal Bell, Theodore Shaw, Bryant Purvis, Carwin Jones, Robert Bailey Jr and Jesse Beard, it's not 2007. It's more like 1957. And some trees are off-limits unless you want to be hanging from it, white people can send messages with their fists and guns, and the justice department can be selectively used to keep African-Americans in their places.

Now in my county, I would imagine that a District Attorney wouldn't be able to threaten a group of African-American students. I would imagine that the presiding judge would not dismiss a noose hanging from a tree as legally irrelevant. Especially, if it had led to a series of assaults on black students and the academic wing of the school being set on fire.. But then again, I'm not Mychal Bell, and I haven't been sitting in jail since December in lue of $90,000, a 17-yr-old being charged as an adult.

No, in my county, if a  21-yr-old man had entered a convenient store and threatened 3 African-Americans, my District Attorney wouldn't have waited until the black students retaliated. Or at least he wouldn't have been taking the school board's side as they reduced the expulsion of the white students who hung the nooses to a brief suspension, and my town wouldn't have dismissed the incident as a harmless prank.

But then again, I'm white. And I don't live in Jena, Louisiana.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I came across this story on Eschaton. Atrios had referenced a word document written by Alan Bean of the Friends of Justice. There are several things to add to this story.

• Mychal Bell was found guilty this afternoon of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery, both felonies. He is facing 20 years in prison.
• Alan Bean, of the Friends of Justice, has been following the story and has blogged about the outcome of the trial here.
• Alan and his daughter Lydia are trying to pick up the slack of the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center and other groups who have been involved with this story off and on, but so far have done nothing to aid the legal defense of the Jena 6 (my commentary, not Alan's).  They need our help in supporting their grassroots effort to provide justice in cases like the Jena 6. Please go to their website and sign up for their email alerts. Please send a donation to their group at:

Friends of Justice
507 N. Donley Ave
Tulia TX, 79088
or go to their "get involved" page here.

I was lucky enough to talk to Alan and Lydia Bean today and told them that I would be blogging about this issue on DKos. They welcome any financial help we can provide as, like most grassroots organization, their own personal funds are not enough to support their work.

• I have spoken with the Louisiana's Attorney General's office about an investigation into why a white District Attorney can intimidate and selectively charge African-Americans who have been racially discriminated against. I have yet to hear back from the La AG's public relations dept.

But I am asking for everyone here to take a stand. Please contact

Senator Mary Landrieu
webpage contact link
[phone]

Senator David Vittner
webpage contact link
Phone:[phone]

Rep Bobby Jindal
webpage contact link
Phone: [phone]

Rep William Jefferson
Phone:  [phone]

Rep Charlie Melancon
webpage contact link
Phone: [phone]

Rep Jim McCrery
webpage contact link
Phone: [phone]

Rep Rodney Alexander
webpage contact link
Phone: [phone]

Rep Richard Baker
webpage contact link
Phone: [phone]

Rep Charles Boustany
webpage contact link
Phone: Phone: [phone]  

Please call these representatives and leave a message. Tell them that Americans won't stand for racism and ask them to get involved. Let's bring political pressure to bear on District Attorney Reed Walters to stop using the Louisiana justice system to discriminate against African-Americans. For Mychal Bell and the rest of the Jena 6, we need to speak up. Our voices will make a difference!

edited to add the last member of the Jena 6

•  Tips for justice

  by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:44:19 PM PDT

•  Jesus fucking christ.

  I'm sorry, but I can't even begin to register my disgust. What the fuck country did we wake up in ?

  Thank you, blueintheface. That pretty much sums up how I feel after reading this. Blue. I live in Georgia, where we have our own equal justice problem. You may have heard of Genarlow Wilson?

  by Lisa Lockwood on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:50:15 PM PDT

•  Jena

  Just looked up Jena on Google maps.  It is closer to Natchez than New Orleans and that is not hopeful for these guys.  As much as I love my home, I am well aware that there is rampant racism in the rural areas.  I could tell stories for hours.  But shining the bright light of publicity on these types of problems is usually the only way to fix them.  Shame is a powerful motivator.

  by out grrl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:51:02 PM PDT

  •  Northern Louisiana

    is not like Southern Louisiana -- it is more like Mississippi... this from my own observations and from what I hear from my friends in New Orleans.  But this case is pretty extreme... it's hard to imagine that this can still take place in the USA.

    by playon on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:42:16 PM PDT

    •  I went to college in Louisiana...

      both north and south, and from what I saw it seemed that there was more racism in the north of the state.  In general, Cajuns and N'awleanians seemed generally less scared and hung up on racial issues.

       Jee-zus.  I usually find something amusing or smart-assed to say about everything, but this is like waking up in the Twilight Zone.  I keep thinking it can't really be happening.

      by Starve2Act on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:05:44 AM PDT

•  This, as usual is outrageous!

  First of all, how can you panel an all white jury?  What method of jury selection are they using that excludes African Americans?  Secondly, the pattern is apparent 17 year old imprisoned for consensual sex in GA for 28 months so far???? Now these young boys?  Are they attempting to imprison before they can impregnate?  

  by Blogvirgin on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:52:10 PM PDT

  •  Mychal Bell's lawyer

    who is African-American, thought that it wouldn't be a problem to convince 6 white people that there was reasonable doubt. It's also why he rested his case after the prosecution rested.

    Great strategy, huh?

    by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:53:37 PM PDT

    •  Public Defender

      Was he a public defender?  My guess is yes if the family was too poor to come up with the bail.  With the way things go in that part of the state, he is probably the DA's cousin.  At the very least they go to church together and belong to the same "club".

      by out grrl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:55:50 PM PDT

      •  I don't know,

        but the Judge disqualified a lawyer who spoke with two of the defendents. He said if he respresented one, it would be a conflict of interest.

        From what I see, the La Justice system really was stacked up against these students.

        by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:04:14 PM PDT

        •  "Justice"

          Doesn't suprise me one bit.  LA is a mess in general.  We joke that before the K-R twofer they were just incompetant.  Now they are incompetant AND understaffed.

          I don't know how effective contacting our elected officals will be.  Standing up for these kids would not be seen as a positive in a lot of districts.  The only place you could get more traction than blowback would be in New Orleans and, maybe, Red Stick.

          by out grrl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:08:13 PM PDT

  •  2900 people, 350 blacks

    Per courts, the Constitution guarantees a representative slice of the community, not a jury that represents the parties in interest.  

    by burrow owl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:40:27 PM PDT

    •  I thought the Constitution

      guaranteed a jury of my peers.  If I am African American, 17 years old, in America, I doubt that I have a peer among 12 Caucasian jurors.  Nor would twelve Caucasian jurors represent a slice of my community.

      by Blogvirgin on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 06:43:50 PM PDT

    •  Hmm. One report said that

      "dozens" of black parents tried to get in to a School Board meeting to protest the noose thing.  Out of 350 people total, there can't be too many dozens of parents of high school kids.  Sounds like the entire community was aroused -- and ignored.

      by DSPS owl on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:50:28 AM PDT

  •  12% of Jena is African-American

    I'd say 1 out of 6 jurors would have been representative. But then again, Bell's lawyer should have fought for a more equal representation. And from what I've read, his legal efforts were severely lacking.

    by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:29:52 PM PDT

  •  One of Georgia case defenses:

    He did not know it was against the law.  Just having sex he was found not guilty.  The Georgia definition of oral sex is aggravated assault which they just changed but not retro active.

    Since they teach abstinence only there are no specifics.   So he had no idea that oral sex was assault. The prosecution said he should have listened to abstinence classes!

    I got a 18 year old kid white like this.  He was busted as a sexual molester with a foreign object.  Had he had sex he would have been home free.  But he petted her genitals with his hand currently a foreign object.

    Most people have no idea how this zero toleration is affecting our young.  Here in California connections are everything.  This guy was sent to therapy -- hence me.

    by yoduuuh do or do not on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:00:07 PM PDT

  •  seeking life diminishing criminal records

    on black citizens is a long tradition here in the U.S. and is in every state.  Notice that the victims in these cases are high school seniors, successes by any standard.  The idea is to hobble them now, before they accrue any real power.  Jim Crow in a robe instead of a pickup truck.

    by StrayCat on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:47:05 AM PDT

•  This is an opportunity

  for those on dailykos to make a difference.  I realized that I was going to skip this diary because something in it must have warned me as my stomach, momentarily, felt queasy.  Then I read.  

  I have not heard of this, but I'll contact each rep.  So should you.

  by nolalily on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 02:54:39 PM PDT

  •  Thank you, nolalily

    I've got to go to a funeral. I'll be back later if anyone has any questions. I probably can't answer them, but I'll try.

    by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:02:39 PM PDT

•  already convicted today on lesser charges

  new on the AP wire:

  http://www.sfgate.com/...

  Black Teen Convicted of School Beating

  Thursday, June 28, 2007
  (06-28) 14:05 PDT Jena, La. (AP) -- A black teenager who once faced attempted murder and conspiracy charges for beating a white schoolmate amid racial tension at their high school was convicted Thursday of lesser charges.
  After a prosecutor reduced attempted murder charges this week, an all-white jury found Mychal Bell, 17, guilty of aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated second-degree battery, both felonies. The charges could lead to a sentence of more than 20 years; Bell would have faced decades more in prison on the attempted murder counts.

  by jennifer poole on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:04:30 PM PDT

  •  ooops, conviction was noted in the diary. sorry,

    I missed it the first time through, and I'd just read the story re: the conviction on SF Gate.

    by jennifer poole on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:20:15 PM PDT

  •  The right result, probably

    Unless there's immediate self-defense, you can't go around beating the shit out of people.  The white kids should have been expelled immediately for putting up nooses. I don't begrudge the defendants their anger, only their remedy.

    by burrow owl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:33:05 PM PDT

    •  Actually, as I google the story and find more,

      what's really needed is for Señor Love Daddy to yell at everyone to chill the fuck out.  

      What a fucking mess down there.  

      FWIW, several friends of mine have testified to the fucked up racial shit in LA - didn't intend to suggest otherwise above.  

      by burrow owl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

    •  Did they even beat up a kid

      involved with the nooses or did they beat the kid up because he was white?

      I see nothing to indicate in the news stories that the beaten kid was involved with the nooses.

      If he was not, he got beat up because he was white.

      by redcardphreek on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:53:45 PM PDT

      •  Hate crime, then

        The sentence should be made a lot harsher if the victim wasn't involved in anything.  

        by burrow owl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:34:29 PM PDT

      •  One of the articles I read

        said that the fight happened after lunch-hour taunts of one of the black students who'd previously been attacked by white students outside a social club.  Alan Bean from the Friends of Justice has a great summary of the incident and what should be done in response.

        Restoring justice to Jena will require the following:
        • The Louisiana State Police must be assigned to the investigation of the alleged fight at the school.
        • District Attorney Reed Walters must recuse himself from the investigation and prosecution of the black defendants in the alleged school fight of December 4, 2006 or the incident at the Gotta Go Convenience store on December 2, 2006.
        • The legal cases cited above must be transferred to an alternative venue.
        • A special prosecutor must be assigned to prosecute whatever charges (if any) are deemed appropriate on the basis of an independent state police investigation.
        • The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice should launch a full investigation into events in Jena, Louisiana, beginning with the noose incident of August 31, 2006, and culminating in the alleged fight of December 4, 2006 to determine if the civil rights of Jena residents have been violated.
        • The inaction of the LaSalle Parish School Board on the noose incident represents a clear violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  Therefore, a written complaint should be filed with the U.S. Department of Justice.
        • The LaSalle Parish school system must institute a rigorous program of diversity education beginning in elementary school and continuing through high school with a particular focus on the history of race relations in America and the virtues of pluralism, mutual respect and equal opportunity.  In addition, a yearly, system-wide in-service diversity training program must be provided for teachers and administrators.

        If we can bring in impartial, fair investigators, then we can have the opportunity for the truth to come out. One of the witnesses said she heard someone say "There was the white m-fer who was running his mouth." before he was hit. Was the white victim involved in the previous beatings? Was he singled-out because he was white? At this point, none of that is clear.

        The only thing that is clear is that there is two systems of justice for the citizens of Jena, Louisiana. One for blacks and one for whites.

        by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:17:05 PM PDT

•  The case

  Okay first of all charging these guys with attempted murder seems excessive, but lets not forget these guys deserve to be in jail. They savagely beat an innocent person and sent them to the hospital in front of a crowd of 40 witnesses, there is no possible justification for that.

  Another thing the Black student didn't need permission to sit under the tree, according to the article you linked, "Last August, a black student at Jena High School, Kenneth Purvis, was told by the school principal that he could sit in the school courtyard under a tree traditionally used by white students."

  I would be more concerned about the schools lax attitude toward dealing with racist whites, then on their harsh treatment of criminals.

  by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:41:17 PM PDT

  •  Re: permission to sit under the tree

    That was my first thought, too: why are they bothering to ask?  By asking, though, they get a few things: they get the color of school permission; and if denied, they've transformed de facto discrimination into de jure discrimination and have a killer civil rights claim.  

    by burrow owl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:52:04 PM PDT

    •  Tree

      My guess would be that some white students told him not to sit there possibly threatening him with violence. Don't know if thats how it happened, but the school system should have done more to stamp out that sort of thing.

      by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:55:35 PM PDT

      •  Should Have, But Obviously Didn't

        Some things are simply not acceptable, and School Administrations are usually aware of this sort of thing.

        by ChapiNation386 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:50:58 PM PDT

        •  And again,

          the DA also acted as council to the school board regarding the noose incident. Not only are they connected, but he neglected to charge for the initial act which has resulted in so many others.

          According to the Friends of Justice, the only record of anyone being charged in all of the violence is these 6 students. The school district and the DA did nothing until the fight involving a white victim.

          by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:22:09 PM PDT

          •  The prior incidents

            I hadn't heard of this case until you brought it up, but I recall reading online when I did a google search for "Jena 6," that the white student who assaulted a black student was charged with assault and battery.

            by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:44:15 PM PDT

            •  Actually,

              per Friends of Justice:

              In one incident, a black student was assaulted by a white adult as he entered a predominantly white partly held at the Fair Barn (a large metal building reserved for social events).  After being struck in the face without warning, the young black student was assaulted by white students wielding beer bottles and was punched and kicked before adults broke up the fight.  It has been reported that the white assailant who threw the first punch was subsequently charged with simple battery (a misdemeanor), but there is no documentary evidence that anyone was charged.  

              And what about the kids with beer bottles?
              Nothing.

              by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:03:23 PM PDT

    •  These guys deserve to be in jail?

      There are widely varying witness statements about who was even involved.  One of the 6 wasn't anywhere near the incident, some say.  

      The school authorities had been handling the racial tension very badly the whole semester.  Perhaps they should be in jail.  The DA certainly should be, for threatening that he could ruin their lives with a stroke of his pen and for making inflammatory statements to a local paper.

      by DSPS owl on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 09:31:52 AM PDT

  •  The Article Said there Was a 'Series' of Fights..

    ...so how is it that these kids were singled out for prosecution ?  Why do they deserve to be in jail while other kids involved in fights are walking the streets ? What I'm reading is selective prosecution.  If these kids deserve to be in jail, then there are a WHOLE BUNCH of other kids who should have been prosecuted too.  The prosecutor made himself clear that the BLACK kids would be locked up for life.  I'm MOST concerned with a prosecutor who announces that black kids will be locked up for life while white kids are given free license to harass and assault as they like.

    by Grand Poobah on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:00:09 PM PDT

    •  To me it sounded like

      the results of this fight were more severe than those of past incidents.

      While the trial seems to have been carried out poorly, the incident itself sounds like it deserves to be prosecuted, albeit not for murder.

      by lemming22 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:19:47 PM PDT

    •  Series of fights

      The white kid who assaulted a black student at a party was charged with assault and battery. Where these kids initially charged with a much harsher crime then they otherwise would have been because they were black? Probably. But they still committed a hienous crime and belong in jail.

      I have zero sympathy for them, our jails are filled with people guilty of victimless crimes, (prostitution, drugs, some statutory rape cases, etc.), and non-violent criminals like car thieves. My sympathy is for people who are in jail for drug crimes or prostitution, not with violent criminals who assualt innocent people for no reason.

      by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:51:55 PM PDT

      •  Ok, but how do you know it was for no reason?

        Because the DA said these were the guys? Because the DA said that this person wasn't involved in the assault of black students?

        The DA and the judge are saying that nooses, racially motivated assaults and racial intimidation have nothing to do with this case. How do they know? There have been no investigations other than the one done by the DA who had warned black kids that if they did anything they'd be put away for life?

        I agree that there should be justice, but I don't know how anyone knows what that is considering who is handling this incident.

        by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:15:26 PM PDT

        •  Guilty

          Well one of the students has already been convicted, not to mention the basic facts of the case where never challenged by the defense as far as one can tell from the articles. No alternative scenario was ever presented, no allegations of any provocation, etc. Nothing to question the idea that these guys beat the crap out of a random person for no reason. And people who do that belong in jail.

          Yeah I know their 17, but 17 is old enough to know the consequences of your actions.

          by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:50:41 PM PDT

          •  Wow,

            so a black kid with a really bad lawyer gets convicted by an all-white jury and that's all you need to determine that he was guilty?

            Sorry, but I'll listen to the reports from impartial observers before I jump to those conclusions:

            • There can be little doubt that a white student was assaulted by several black students at Jena High School on December 4, 2006.  However, conflicting eye witness statements make it extremely difficult to determine the number of participants or the identity of the alleged assailants with any degree of certainty.  
            • It is virtually certain that at least one of the alleged assailants was not near the scene of the fight. Most of the students accused of participating in the assault deny involvement.

            Alan Bean, Friends of Justice

            there was conflicting testimony from witnesses as to whether the initial attacker was Bell and whether that attacker was wearing a green hooded jacket or a red shirt.

            Times Picayune

            There is nothing settled about this case, regardless of what the all-white jury decided.

            by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:00:50 PM PDT

            •  All white jury

              Every single news source you cited, none of them brought up a single question about the defendants guilt. Even the parents admit their kids beat this kid, "..it was a fight..." etc.

              The statement from Alan Bean about conflicting eyewitness accounts is unsourced, in other words totally unverifiable. Once again all the news accounts I read, BBC, Town Talk, etc. none mention the defense presenting any alternative as to where the defendants were.

              Not to mention that the incident itself occured in front of dozens of people and none of the witnesses directly contradicted the prosecution that Bell was there. In other words no eye-witness came forward and said I saw everyone who participated and Bell was not one of them. Four witnesses positively identified Bell as the one who first hit the victim.

              Now as for the important part about the all white jury, the implication being the jury was not acting in good faith. In recent years southern juries have convicted white supremacists of killing civil rights activists in old cases where huge amounts of time had passed. Frankly I think the jury deserves some credit, even though they should be viewed with skepticism.

              One final note: I don't view any jury verdict as definitive evidence that a person is guilty, but in this case when wieghed with the evidence, and the fact that the crime occured in public, it seems hard to believe that these guys are anything but guilty.

              by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:55:25 PM PDT

•  I'd like to make a suggestion.

  Yesterday, Buhdy posted a simple copy and past and email statement - it kept everyone on the message, and gave a (very) brief and incredibly clear statement to the recipients of the emails.

  What do you want these officials to do - specifically?  I'll be glad to email, very glad - but what can I ask these officials to do that 1) they will read and understand and 2) will help?

  Thanks!

  by sheddhead on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 03:49:54 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for the advice, sheddhead

    What I would ask is for an independent investigation be done of the DA's conduct and of the incidents in Jena. From the Friends of Justice:

    • On September 6, 2006, Mr. Walters made intimidating remarks interpreted by many black students as a suggestion that any illegal acts committed in response to the noose incident would result in a life sentence.
    • Mr. Walters’ published comments in the December 13, 2006 edition of The Jena Times represent an unambiguous attempt to poison the minds of potential jurors and grand jurors.
    • Mr. Walters’ decision to increase the charges of defendants involved in the alleged fight at the school to attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to attempt second-degree murder have transformed a routine school fight into a premeditated gangland hit perpetrated by street thugs intent on murder.  This bizarre escalation of charges is impossible to justify on even the most extreme and pro-prosecution interpretation of the meager facts at hand.
    • There is strong evidence that Mr. Walters, in his role as counsel for the LaSalle School Board, has been so influenced by the atmosphere of paranoid trauma sweeping the school in the aftermath of (a) the noose incident, (b) the school fire and (c) a weekend of racial violence, that he has lost any remnant of professional objectivity.

    And what we are asking:

    • The Louisiana State Police must be assigned to the investigation of the alleged fight at the school.
    • District Attorney Reed Walters must recuse himself from the investigation and prosecution of the black defendants in the alleged school fight of December 4, 2006 or the incident at the Gotta Go Convenience store on December 2, 2006.
    • The legal cases cited above must be transferred to an alternative venue.
    • A special prosecutor must be assigned to prosecute whatever charges (if any) are deemed appropriate on the basis of an independent state police investigation.
    • The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice should launch a full investigation into events in Jena, Louisiana, beginning with the noose incident of August 31, 2006, and culminating in the alleged fight of December 4, 2006 to determine if the civil rights of Jena residents have been violated.
    • The inaction of the LaSalle Parish School Board on the noose incident represents a clear violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  Therefore, a written complaint should be filed with the U.S. Department of Justice.
    • The LaSalle Parish school system must institute a rigorous program of diversity education beginning in elementary school and continuing through high school with a particular focus on the history of race relations in America and the virtues of pluralism, mutual respect and equal opportunity.  In addition, a yearly, system-wide in-service diversity training program must be provided for teachers and administrators.

    by blueintheface on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 05:26:26 PM PDT

•  Thank you for posting on this

  I've tried to write about this, even on my own blog, but the posts I've attempted get overshadowed by my f-bombs.  

  by fabooj on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:26:27 PM PDT

  •  Quite Understandable

    People like the ones who were responsible for this farce of justice are the ones who need to be dragged forward kicking and screaming into the 21st century or have their citizenship removed with a swift forced exile to Afghanistan following immediately afterward.

    I don't care which one happens. . .  Although I admit to having a slight preference for the second option.

    by ChapiNation386 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:44:08 PM PDT

•  Jena is my parents' hometown

  ... and I still have a lot of relatives there.  FWIW, I know at least a few of them are pretty disgusted by all this, but whether they're doing anything about it is another matter altogether.  That little town, which I visited my whole life, is about as backward as it gets.  I plan to do my best never to spend another minute or another dollar in that little shit town.  Luckily there's no longer much reason for me to go back again.

  by bolgia7 on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:26:41 PM PDT

•  Jena? where did I hear that name before?

  This is an abomination

  by wuod kwatch on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 08:39:26 PM PDT

•  Amidst all my other outrage

  was my outrage at this:

  While LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters called 17 to testify on Wednesday, Bell's defense attorney, Blane Williams, rested just before 3 p.m. -- calling no witnesses and offering no evidence.

  "The prosecution has the responsibility of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," Williams said after the day's proceedings. "My goal is to get Mychal out of jail as soon as possible."

  OF COURSE the "prosecution has the responsibility of proof beyond a reasonable doubt," but that does not excuse what appears from this article to have been sleeping through the trial.  Bejebus.

  This kid already had the decks stacked against him three ways to Sunday, and THIS is the representation he gets?  Whoever said that the quality of the exercise of one's constitutional rights depends on the amount of one's money sure had it right.  America in 2007.  I am so ashamed.

  Williams did say, though, that his not calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence will be the "subject of scrutiny by a whole bunch of people."

   

  Ya think?

  I am shocked and disgusted by this entire mess, blueintheface.  Thank you for this diary.  I will write and phone tomorrow.

  by noweasels on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:34:46 PM PDT

  •  Incompetence

    The fact that the defence called no witnesses could indicate incompetence, or it could indicate that the basic facts were never in question. Is it possible that the defenses case was that the crime simply did not rise to the level of the charges?

    Not a legal expert but if my client is charged with murder and I convience the jury it was manslaughter my client walks free, because they weren't charged with manslaughter. Or can a jury convict a defendant of a lesser crime they weren't charged with?

    by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:02:10 PM PDT

    •  A jury

      cannot convict on a lesser included charge unless the lesser included charge is requested as an alternative by the prosecutor (and agreed to by the defense attorney) when the jury instructions are being drawn.  This is a gamble some attorneys take -- saying no to an instruction about a lesser included charge if they think the jury (faced with, for example, murder or acquittal) will bite on acquittal.  I do not practice criminal law.  And you are completely right that "it could indicate that the basic facts were never in question" -- and, of course, it is the government's responsibility to prove facts, not the accused's burden to refute them.  Nevertheless, in the highly charged atmosphere of this case, it seems inconceivable to me that a competent lawyer would not at least have presented some evidence about the tree and the atmosphere, which would seem to go to mitigation and a defense.  I haven't seen the transcripts, the documentary evidence or the instructions or charging documents . . . so I'm just opining.  But it just struck me as odd and suspicious from what I did learn from the news articles.

      by noweasels on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:12:14 PM PDT

      •  Change of venue

        I think the lawyer should have requested a change of venue probably. And maybe Bell deserves a new trail because of incompetent defense, it doesn't change my basic impression that he deserves to go to jail for his crimes (if convicted in a fair trail).

        by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:31:51 PM PDT

        •  based on what, exactly?

          It is the government's job to prove guilt, not the accused's burden to prove innocence.  And this is what was said on the Friend of Justice blog:

          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.

          by noweasels on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:56:43 PM PDT

          •  Irrelevant

            Who hit first is irrelevant, all the witnesses saw Mychal Bell hit the victim.

            by John Mirra on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 12:59:07 AM PDT

          •  Clarification

            All the witnesses who placed Mychal Bell at the scene say he hit the victim, thats about 11 eyewitnesses that say he participated in an assault.

            by John Mirra on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:00:47 AM PDT

  •  When I spoke with Alan Bean of the

    Friends of Justice, he briefly described how little the defense did. I told him that I'd read a blog saying that he was pointing out the conflicting statements of the witnesses, and he said that yes, Williams asked the typical questions, but offered little else (my words, not his).

    I've got calls in to the ACLU and the Southern Poverty Law Center to find out what they did, why they didn't provide legal aid, and what they plan to do in the future.

    by blueintheface on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:05:49 AM PDT

•  Fantastic

  Glad I still had time to recommend.

  Not sure why you included Jefferson on your list. I know he's still a member of Congress, and may have influence, but he won't be taking a prominent role in anything like this.

  by mrblifil on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:34:48 PM PDT

  •  I know, but he's still there so he's on the list

    Notice no way to email him? You've got to jump through hoops, and have an address from his district to enter in the Congressional email page.

    Nice, huh?

    by blueintheface on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 06:36:22 AM PDT

•  bad legal rep it seems, however

  Though I know nothing beyond what is posted here, I am familiar with the south.

  Terrorism may seem to some to be too strong a word for the behavior that precipitated this situation, but it is the most fitting.

  The powerlessness that is enforced on blacks in the deep south is pervasive and smothering.

  When a chance at payback appears, pent up frustration often triggers an over reaction in the heat of the moment.

  The goal of terrorism since the time of the emergence of anarchist and Bolsheviks, has been not to kill people or to gain some simple goal, but to trigger an over reaction which can then be exploited.

  I don't think any of the rednecks involved are strategic geniuses but the style, form and tactics of this repression has been handed down from the days when some very smart people ruled over large numbers of blacks with the same tactics of intimidation, violence and persistent reminders that the law was no protection.

  If pack mentality, and pent up rage did lead highschool kids to do serious damage to another student, then there is not much hope of "justice" no matter how much the underlying cause was the fucked up society in which this situation grows back every time you think it is cut down.

  by NCrefugee on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:11:09 PM PDT

  •  The South

    I'm not from the south, so I can't comment from personal experience, but times have changed. Right now it is 2007, 43 years have passed since the civil rights act. The south may not be anywhere close to perfect but  I don't think it is the cauldron of racial oppression that people portray it to be.

    by John Mirra on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 10:40:50 PM PDT

    •  You think

      Where have you been for the past 43 years?

      A Whites only tree! how far removed from a Whites only bathroom is that?

      by babatunde on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 02:37:06 AM PDT

      •  Ridiculous

        You can't compare these two, there was no whites only tree as far as official policy was concerned. Under Jim Crow the law said blacks couldn't use the same washrooms.

        The schools official policy was always that anyone could sit under the tree, you can't blame the school for the fact that some students tried to reserve a tree strictly for whites.

        by John Mirra on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 01:56:48 PM PDT

        •  John, this is the whole point

          The school officials ignored what should have been obviously addressed decades ago in order to allow racial segregation. It was only until black students challenged the practiced and challenged the fact that they were getting assaulted that anyone stepped in.

          Now is being prohibited from sitting under a tree the same as having separate bathrooms? No. But it's still a mechanism that keeps African-Americans in their place, just as the selective and overly harsh justice the DA has decided to mete out. The school knew about that policy, they never tried to end it. But when a black student did, the school and the DA did next to nothing until a white student was harmed.
          And then the response of both the school and the DA was a punishment far harsher than any that had been for any white person.

          by blueintheface on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 04:38:07 PM PDT

    •  well, I haven't lived in the south since

      I was a kid (but I'm not that old, so we're talking mid-1980's-1990's, still pretty recent), but even as a little kid, I could see that it still had a long way to go.  Very long.  Stuff like what's described in this diary is not all that rare.  If you don't have personal experience living in the South, what do you know that makes you say otherwise?  I'm honestly curious.

      by zigeunerweisen on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 04:09:06 AM PDT

    •  So - please explain this incident

      If it's not racism, what is it?

      by DrWolfy on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 05:38:59 AM PDT

    •  I am and this doesn't surprise me

      I am from the south.  I grew up in east Texas.  About 30 miles from where a gang of rednecks drug James Byrd to death behind a pickup truck a few years ago.

      In my humble opinion, very little in the rural south has changed.  They just took the signs down reminding the black folks to be out of town by sundown.

      The klan isn't gone, it's just underground.  They show their faces every now and then just to remind the darkies who's in charge.  

      This is but one more revolting example.

      Pathetic.

      by hosemore on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 08:43:54 AM PDT

  •  Well the white victim was treated and released

    and went to a high school function later that night. Meanwhile, the other incident involving a black student who was hit with beer bottles only resulted in one misdeamnor (although no reports of the charge has been found). The students who were confronted in a convenience store with a shotgun get absolutely no justice for their case.

    So yes, I'd say that terrorism and justice are two issues that play heavily in this case.

    by blueintheface on Fri Jun 29, 2007 at 07:01:19 AM PDT

•  Just sent this diary link it to Oprah. nt

  by Terra Mystica on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:47:26 AM PDT