Friday, August 1, 2008

Judge removed from cases against 'Jena 6' teens

This is a good thing. The DA Reed Walters is considering appealing the decision cause . . . he's still no good.

Judge removed from cases against 'Jena 6' teens
Associated Press
Aug. 1, 2008, 3:14PM

NEW ORLEANS — The judge overseeing the criminal cases for the remaining Jena Six defendants was removed against his will today for making questionable remarks about the teenagers.

Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr. had acknowledged calling the teens "trouble makers" and "a violent bunch" but insisted he could be impartial. Judge Thomas M. Yeager, who was asked by defense attorneys to review the case, found there was an appearance of impropriety and took Mauffray off the case.

"The right to a fair and impartial judge is of particular importance in the present cases," Yeager wrote.

Six black teens were arrested and initially charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with a Dec. 4, 2006, attack on fellow Jena High School student Justin Barker, who is white. The charges were later reduced.

Jesse Ray Beard, Robert Bailey Jr., Carwin Jones, Bryant Purvis and Theo Shaw now face aggravated second-degree battery charges. Beard is charged as a juvenile.

Mychal Bell is the only member of the group that has been tried. He was originally charged as an adult with attempted murder. The charge was reduced before a jury convicted him last June of aggravated second-degree battery.

In September, an appeals court overturned the verdict and ordered Bell tried as a juvenile. He pleaded guilty to a juvenile charge of second-degree battery. He now lives in Monroe, La., with a foster family and is attending school.

The case aggravated racial tensions in the tiny, central Louisiana town, and led to a massive civil rights demonstration last September.

Mauffray was out of town, court officials said, and would not comment on the ruling.
District Attorney Reed Walters said he may appeal the decision.

"Whatever ultimately happens concerning the judge, this does not mean these cases go away," he said. "It will just take longer to get them to trial. However, I may seek to have the decision overturned."

An attorney for Beard said he hoped it the Louisiana Supreme Court would quickly appoint a new judge to hear the remaining cases.

"Everyone is entitled to a fair judge, not the judge they want," attorney David Utter said. "It mystifies me why the district attorney would fight this."

No comments:

Post a Comment

This isn't too complicated. If you disagree with me, I'm more than happy to have an honest discussion. I'm quite open to learning new facts and ideas. I'm dying for a conservative to explain their ideas in a sensible way.

But, I do have rules, and they also apply to those who agree with me. They just get the benefit of my already knowing the fact they'll be referring to.

So, here're the comment thread rules:

1 - Use facts.
2 - Refer to policy.
3 - Don't rely on theories and conjectures. Show me how, for example, a public health insurance option will lead to "rationing" of health care.
4 - No unfounded attacks on any entity.

If you break those rules, I will edit your comment to my own whimsical satisfaction.

Lastly, perhaps most importantly, I'm not going to entertain too much pro-white/racism-denying discussion. I want this to be a space to discuss strategies to fight racism, not space where I have to fight racism. I want anti-racists to be able to come here for a mental respite. If what you're interested in doing is attempting to demonstrate the fallacy of anti-racism by repeating the same ole comments and questions and accusations we hear all the time, please do that somewhere else.

Share This Article

Bookmark and Share

But Don't Jack My Genuis