web analytics

TPC Obtains New Details In Nyamodi Youth Case: Habeas Corpus Document Outlines Why Young Black Man Should Be Released

There is a very large contingency of people in the Franklin County, North Carolina community and it’s surrounding area who believe that Shannon Nyamodi shot Rhonda MacClean in the face at point blank range, and robbed her on August 16, 2012. Despite official police reports establishing that the victim more than likely didn’t indicate who she believed her assailant was in the crime during the initial stages of the investigation, she has now come forward publicly stating that the black youth was in fact the person who shot her. Previous TPC articles have discussed her strange emergence after nearly fifteen months has elaspped since she was severely wounded that fall night, but pundits who support her newly discovered claims actually have created the myth that Nyamodi’s legal counsel is to blame for the case’ delay proceeding to trial.

Any perception which infers Maitry “Mike” Klinkosum (Nyamodi’s current legal counsel) has repeatedly requested continuances is this case, is sorely misguided, and derives from a perspective of complete ignorance related to the official record before the North Carolina Superior Court. Official documentation in the case already has been provided in various articles on this blog pointing to the state’s attorney prosecuting the case, having a suspicious desire to remove the entire record from the court’s Management Docket System altogether, and without any indication from the state or court as to when the case would return to the system for prosecution. The constant outcry from the victim and her public supporters, who make such uninformed claims, are not only disturbing, but may point directly to a culture of judicial misconduct indigenous to North Carolina courts when minorities encounter it’s criminal justice system.

Comparing Nyamodi’s co defendant’s (a minor who is white) case, which has already been disposed of with an alleged disposition convicting the youth (according to her mother) for her role in the crime, to that of Shannon Nyamodi who has been languishing in jail for nearly fifteen months, we see a complete disparity related to the right for a speedy trial which was upheld in one instance, and has been completely violated pertaining to constitutional law in the other case. In fact all of the request before the court for continuance in this case have been requested by the state, and granted by North Carolina’s courts. There is no documentation on the record which would suggest otherwise. There has only been two continuances requested in the case which were requested by the state’s attorney.

On February 20, 2013 the state was granted a motion request in which both the prosecution and the defense had declared the case “Exceptional” (nothing suggested that it was) to have the case removed from the docket system, until such time the state decided to place it back on for prosecution. Although attorney Klinkosum didn’t challenge the motion (another bizarre element of the case), and agreed to have the case taken off, it’s disturbing that the court allowed such prosecutorial discretion while failing to establish a timetable for bringing the case back on the docket. The only other continuance which occurred was on December 16, 2013 in which the state was supposed to get the case moving forward again, and only after Shannon Nyamodi’s mother insisted the cast be tried to avoid her son from languishing in jail. Ms. Crudup (Shannon’s mother) revealed to TPC that she was in court December 16, 2013 when her son’s case was called before the court and continued again at the state’s request. The state’ attorney advised the judge that they would be keeping Shannon’s case open, because they had given attorney Klinkosum a plea deal to present to his client. Klinkosum never spoke to his client that day nor any other time sense the state made such a statement in open court. Shannon Nyamodi has never considered taking a plea deal in the case, and has never had one presented to him. These facts are supported by official documentation, his mother’s eyewitness account of the court proceeding on 12/16, and should dispel all rumors declaring that it’s a “run and hide for as long as you can” posture by the defense in this case. View official court record depicting the state’s request to shelve the case below:

casearchive

Notice that the February 20, 2013 motion (continuance) was requested by the state.

 

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Neither the state or the defense attorney in this case have shown interest in expediting the criminal trial of Shannon Nyamodi. The defendant’s mother has been more proactive in freeing her son than his own hired legal counsel. Ms. Crudup solicited help from a criminal justice advocacy group AXJ (Action For Justice of Franklin County) who immediately became disturbed after learning the merits of the case. The agency cited serious constitutional right violations which center squarely around the length of time Shannon Nyamodi has been detained without a trial date. AXJ’s involvement in the case has resulted in a tentative court date of January 21, 2014 being ordered by judge Hobgood, after being presented with a Habeas document pertaining to the youth’s case.  The “writ of habeas corpus” filed on behalf on Shannon Nyamodi can not be ignored, as it brings to bare justification for his continued detention while his case has been removed from the docket system.

The state of North Carolina no longer has a speedy trial statue after it was repealed by legislators in 1989 for some unknown reason. A defendant is still entitled to a speedy trial under the 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The AXJ Habeas spells out how the initial judge (Hight) erred in granting a motion to have the case taken off the docket without establishing a timetable to put it back on. Although the case has been given “Exceptional” status, the court is still required to move it forward to protect a defendant’s rights under the constitution which appears to have been created by the nation’s founders to prohibit a person’s infinite languishment in prison without knowledge of anticipated prosecution. For example:

Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum

It is an independent civil action and a form of collateral attack to determine not the guilt or innocence of the person held in custody, but whether the custody is un lawful under the U. S. Constitution. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Harris v Nelsom, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91(1969).

When Superior Court Judge Hight granted the state’s motion, removing the case from it’s court management docket system, he erred by not establishing when the case would appear back in the system, allowing the prosecution tremendous discretion related to the defendant’s right to expedient prosecution guaranteed under federal law, and all while ordering Shannon Nyamodi’s continued incarceration. Perhaps Hight’s unlawful order may be a simple oversight on his part, it happens all the time in a court of law, but the core of these proceedings focusing on why the case was give “Exceptional” status and removed from the docket in the first place. When criminal cases require “Exceptional” consideration, typically a party to the proceedings require an extended period of time for attorneys to develop arguments for trial. A presiding judge is more inclined to grant a postponement for parties to develop their case, but removing the case off of the docket entirely clearly demonstrates almost a year later, that the state had serious reservations regarding it’s prosecution of Shannon Nyamodi from the very start. The court has failed to demonstrate on record as required by law why the case is “Exceptional”, the need for such an extended continuation, and never set a time table reestablishing the speedy trial process.

The Habeas document submitted in this case illustrates how the state has obtained an unfair tactical advantage in the case, while the defendant was denied due process under federal law. The 6th amendment to the United States constitution is the part of the United States Bill of rights that set forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy among others, the right to a speedy and public trial and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him. One of the main principles that The Founding Fathers intended the Speedy Trial clause to serve was to ensure a defendant’s right as to a fair trial. The longer the commencement of trial is postponed the more likely it is that witnesses will disappear, memories will fade and evidence will be lost or destroyed. Of course, both the prosecution and the defense are threatened by these dangers, but only the defendant’s life, liberty, and property are at stake in a criminal proceeding.

The right to speedy trial arises only after a person has been arrested, indicted or otherwise formally accused of a crime. Shannon Nyamodi has been in jail since August the 16th 2012 to present day. The last court date of December the 16th, he was not even brought into the court room and was the first court date since February 20, 2013. Shannon is essentially languishing in jail which is contrary to his 6th amendment rights. A delay of at least one year in bringing a defendant to trial will trigger the presumption that the 6th amendment has been violated, with the level of judicial scrutiny increasing in direct proportion of the length of delay.

The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations (e.g. change of venue). Legislation permits courts to provide prosecutors with additional time upon showing of exceptional circumstances. Provision should be made for the court to determine on motion of the prosecution or the defense or on its own motion, that a case is of such complexity that the presumptive speedy trial time limit should be extended in order to enable the parties to make adequate preparations for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself. The court should give substantial weight to the extension of the speedy trial limit on these grounds that is made, with good cause shown, by either the prosecution or the defense. In the event that a determination of complexity is made. Although judge Hight granted a state motion for exceptional status in this case, he failed to establish a revised time limit and didn’t state on the record the reasons for the extended time. (criminal justice standard 12-2.1 (d) ).

The prosecution’s failure to bring the case to trial within 70 days of Shannon’s arrest, despite the granted motion of “Exceptional” status in the case, is a violation of the 6th amendment applied to the states through the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Any violation of the speedy trial clause of the amendment is cause for dismissal of a criminal case.  Shannon Nyamodi’s case was declared exceptional by the superior court judge on Feb.20th 2013. The judge did not establish a revised time limit or state the reason for extending time. At any time that action is taken that has the effect of extending the time otherwise allowed under the speedy trial rule or statute, the court should set forth its reasons on the record and should confirm, with the prosecution and the defense, the date by which a trail must be held or the case otherwise resolved. The court failed to set forth a reason for its ruling and therefore dismissal of the charges with prejudice is the only recourse and should forever bar prosecution for the offenses charged and any other offense required to be joined to the offense. (criminal justice standard 12-2.6 (c,d)).

These standards are typically applied based on case law research, and now we must see if the North Carolina courts will waste further public resources by continuing to perpetuate the unlawful detention of Shannon Nyamodi, in a case which the state hasn’t demonstrated sufficient grounds to even present a compelling argument that the youth was even involved in this horrible crime. In fact, the state appears to be hiding in this case. Even though judge Hight failed to establish a timetable to resolve the case, it’s very disturbing, suspicious, and completely unfair to the defendant to have the case removed from the docket system for nearly a year. It appears that tactics were used to hide the case within the court’s archives in an attempt to circumvent constitutional speedy trial laws. In essence, it seems that the mindset is, if there is no case officially on record, then any expedient rights due a defendant is neutralized, and not applicable to 6th and 14th amendment statue because technically no pending charges actually exist during the timeframe in which expedient prosecution rights begin. If my perspective bares even a remote possibility of actually having occurred in this case, then perhaps the actions by the state and the North Carolina courts is a crime more heinous for which young Shannon Nyamodi has been charged and subsequently been detained.

To Be Continued ..

 

 

The People’s Champion

I’m David Adams

 

 

 

 

David Adams

Self proclaimed geek, Advocate for the homeless, Social Change, Crime Blogger, and mobile technology enthusiast. A recognized Journalist and Human Interest Writer championing the plight of the masses whom are without a voice of their own.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

There is a very large contingency of people in the Franklin County, North Carolina community and it’s surrounding area who believe that Shannon Nyamodi shot Rhonda MacClean in the face at point blank range, and robbed her on August 16, 2012. Despite official police reports establishing that the victim more than likely didn’t indicate who she believed her assailant was in the crime during the initial stages of the investigation, she has now come forward publicly stating that the black youth was in fact the person who shot her. Previous TPC articles have discussed her strange emergence after nearly fifteen months has elaspped since she was severely wounded that fall night, but pundits who support her newly discovered claims actually have created the myth that Nyamodi’s legal counsel is to blame for the case’ delay proceeding to trial.

Any perception which infers Maitry “Mike” Klinkosum (Nyamodi’s current legal counsel) has repeatedly requested continuances is this case, is sorely misguided, and derives from a perspective of complete ignorance related to the official record before the North Carolina Superior Court. Official documentation in the case already has been provided in various articles on this blog pointing to the state’s attorney prosecuting the case, having a suspicious desire to remove the entire record from the court’s Management Docket System altogether, and without any indication from the state or court as to when the case would return to the system for prosecution. The constant outcry from the victim and her public supporters, who make such uninformed claims, are not only disturbing, but may point directly to a culture of judicial misconduct indigenous to North Carolina courts when minorities encounter it’s criminal justice system.

Comparing Nyamodi’s co defendant’s (a minor who is white) case, which has already been disposed of with an alleged disposition convicting the youth (according to her mother) for her role in the crime, to that of Shannon Nyamodi who has been languishing in jail for nearly fifteen months, we see a complete disparity related to the right for a speedy trial which was upheld in one instance, and has been completely violated pertaining to constitutional law in the other case. In fact all of the request before the court for continuance in this case have been requested by the state, and granted by North Carolina’s courts. There is no documentation on the record which would suggest otherwise. There has only been two continuances requested in the case which were requested by the state’s attorney.

On February 20, 2013 the state was granted a motion request in which both the prosecution and the defense had declared the case “Exceptional” (nothing suggested that it was) to have the case removed from the docket system, until such time the state decided to place it back on for prosecution. Although attorney Klinkosum didn’t challenge the motion (another bizarre element of the case), and agreed to have the case taken off, it’s disturbing that the court allowed such prosecutorial discretion while failing to establish a timetable for bringing the case back on the docket. The only other continuance which occurred was on December 16, 2013 in which the state was supposed to get the case moving forward again, and only after Shannon Nyamodi’s mother insisted the cast be tried to avoid her son from languishing in jail. Ms. Crudup (Shannon’s mother) revealed to TPC that she was in court December 16, 2013 when her son’s case was called before the court and continued again at the state’s request. The state’ attorney advised the judge that they would be keeping Shannon’s case open, because they had given attorney Klinkosum a plea deal to present to his client. Klinkosum never spoke to his client that day nor any other time sense the state made such a statement in open court. Shannon Nyamodi has never considered taking a plea deal in the case, and has never had one presented to him. These facts are supported by official documentation, his mother’s eyewitness account of the court proceeding on 12/16, and should dispel all rumors declaring that it’s a “run and hide for as long as you can” posture by the defense in this case. View official court record depicting the state’s request to shelve the case below:

casearchive

Notice that the February 20, 2013 motion (continuance) was requested by the state.

 

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Neither the state or the defense attorney in this case have shown interest in expediting the criminal trial of Shannon Nyamodi. The defendant’s mother has been more proactive in freeing her son than his own hired legal counsel. Ms. Crudup solicited help from a criminal justice advocacy group AXJ (Action For Justice of Franklin County) who immediately became disturbed after learning the merits of the case. The agency cited serious constitutional right violations which center squarely around the length of time Shannon Nyamodi has been detained without a trial date. AXJ’s involvement in the case has resulted in a tentative court date of January 21, 2014 being ordered by judge Hobgood, after being presented with a Habeas document pertaining to the youth’s case.  The “writ of habeas corpus” filed on behalf on Shannon Nyamodi can not be ignored, as it brings to bare justification for his continued detention while his case has been removed from the docket system.

The state of North Carolina no longer has a speedy trial statue after it was repealed by legislators in 1989 for some unknown reason. A defendant is still entitled to a speedy trial under the 6th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The AXJ Habeas spells out how the initial judge (Hight) erred in granting a motion to have the case taken off the docket without establishing a timetable to put it back on. Although the case has been given “Exceptional” status, the court is still required to move it forward to protect a defendant’s rights under the constitution which appears to have been created by the nation’s founders to prohibit a person’s infinite languishment in prison without knowledge of anticipated prosecution. For example:

Habeas Corpus ad subjiciendum

It is an independent civil action and a form of collateral attack to determine not the guilt or innocence of the person held in custody, but whether the custody is un lawful under the U. S. Constitution. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is “the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.” Harris v Nelsom, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91(1969).

When Superior Court Judge Hight granted the state’s motion, removing the case from it’s court management docket system, he erred by not establishing when the case would appear back in the system, allowing the prosecution tremendous discretion related to the defendant’s right to expedient prosecution guaranteed under federal law, and all while ordering Shannon Nyamodi’s continued incarceration. Perhaps Hight’s unlawful order may be a simple oversight on his part, it happens all the time in a court of law, but the core of these proceedings focusing on why the case was give “Exceptional” status and removed from the docket in the first place. When criminal cases require “Exceptional” consideration, typically a party to the proceedings require an extended period of time for attorneys to develop arguments for trial. A presiding judge is more inclined to grant a postponement for parties to develop their case, but removing the case off of the docket entirely clearly demonstrates almost a year later, that the state had serious reservations regarding it’s prosecution of Shannon Nyamodi from the very start. The court has failed to demonstrate on record as required by law why the case is “Exceptional”, the need for such an extended continuation, and never set a time table reestablishing the speedy trial process.

The Habeas document submitted in this case illustrates how the state has obtained an unfair tactical advantage in the case, while the defendant was denied due process under federal law. The 6th amendment to the United States constitution is the part of the United States Bill of rights that set forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy among others, the right to a speedy and public trial and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him. One of the main principles that The Founding Fathers intended the Speedy Trial clause to serve was to ensure a defendant’s right as to a fair trial. The longer the commencement of trial is postponed the more likely it is that witnesses will disappear, memories will fade and evidence will be lost or destroyed. Of course, both the prosecution and the defense are threatened by these dangers, but only the defendant’s life, liberty, and property are at stake in a criminal proceeding.

The right to speedy trial arises only after a person has been arrested, indicted or otherwise formally accused of a crime. Shannon Nyamodi has been in jail since August the 16th 2012 to present day. The last court date of December the 16th, he was not even brought into the court room and was the first court date since February 20, 2013. Shannon is essentially languishing in jail which is contrary to his 6th amendment rights. A delay of at least one year in bringing a defendant to trial will trigger the presumption that the 6th amendment has been violated, with the level of judicial scrutiny increasing in direct proportion of the length of delay.

The prosecution may not excessively delay the trial for its own advantage, but a trial may be delayed to secure the presence of an absent witness or other practical considerations (e.g. change of venue). Legislation permits courts to provide prosecutors with additional time upon showing of exceptional circumstances. Provision should be made for the court to determine on motion of the prosecution or the defense or on its own motion, that a case is of such complexity that the presumptive speedy trial time limit should be extended in order to enable the parties to make adequate preparations for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself. The court should give substantial weight to the extension of the speedy trial limit on these grounds that is made, with good cause shown, by either the prosecution or the defense. In the event that a determination of complexity is made. Although judge Hight granted a state motion for exceptional status in this case, he failed to establish a revised time limit and didn’t state on the record the reasons for the extended time. (criminal justice standard 12-2.1 (d) ).

The prosecution’s failure to bring the case to trial within 70 days of Shannon’s arrest, despite the granted motion of “Exceptional” status in the case, is a violation of the 6th amendment applied to the states through the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Any violation of the speedy trial clause of the amendment is cause for dismissal of a criminal case.  Shannon Nyamodi’s case was declared exceptional by the superior court judge on Feb.20th 2013. The judge did not establish a revised time limit or state the reason for extending time. At any time that action is taken that has the effect of extending the time otherwise allowed under the speedy trial rule or statute, the court should set forth its reasons on the record and should confirm, with the prosecution and the defense, the date by which a trail must be held or the case otherwise resolved. The court failed to set forth a reason for its ruling and therefore dismissal of the charges with prejudice is the only recourse and should forever bar prosecution for the offenses charged and any other offense required to be joined to the offense. (criminal justice standard 12-2.6 (c,d)).

These standards are typically applied based on case law research, and now we must see if the North Carolina courts will waste further public resources by continuing to perpetuate the unlawful detention of Shannon Nyamodi, in a case which the state hasn’t demonstrated sufficient grounds to even present a compelling argument that the youth was even involved in this horrible crime. In fact, the state appears to be hiding in this case. Even though judge Hight failed to establish a timetable to resolve the case, it’s very disturbing, suspicious, and completely unfair to the defendant to have the case removed from the docket system for nearly a year. It appears that tactics were used to hide the case within the court’s archives in an attempt to circumvent constitutional speedy trial laws. In essence, it seems that the mindset is, if there is no case officially on record, then any expedient rights due a defendant is neutralized, and not applicable to 6th and 14th amendment statue because technically no pending charges actually exist during the timeframe in which expedient prosecution rights begin. If my perspective bares even a remote possibility of actually having occurred in this case, then perhaps the actions by the state and the North Carolina courts is a crime more heinous for which young Shannon Nyamodi has been charged and subsequently been detained.

To Be Continued ..

 

 

The People’s Champion

I’m David Adams

 

 

 

 

David Adams

Self proclaimed geek, Advocate for the homeless, Social Change, Crime Blogger, and mobile technology enthusiast. A recognized Journalist and Human Interest Writer championing the plight of the masses whom are without a voice of their own.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookLinkedInGoogle Plus

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “TPC Obtains New Details In Nyamodi Youth Case: Habeas Corpus Document Outlines Why Young Black Man Should Be Released”

Leave a Reply

- See more at: http://thepeopleschampion.me/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=side-tab#sthash.HEuco14y.dpuf