A Young Black Man’s Life In The Balance: Suspicion Of North Carolina Courts Unfairness In Nyamodi Youth Case Lingers

(Readership objection to the image of Resident Superior Court Judge Hobgood’s image being associated with this article has been taken into consideration by TPC, and has been removed. The image wasn’t intended to draw concern, or challenge this official’s record as a public servant, but rather only to depict his association with the case. Apologies are extended to those whom this matter may have adversely impacted).

His story is reminiscent of the a time when America was at the heights of social discord and civil rights struggles were the greatest challenge to the American people, when states disobeyed established constitutional law by enacting their own set of rules related to the criminal justice system. The life of young Shannon Nyamodi is a clear indication that some states with allegiance to the confederacy remain indignant, defiant, and determined to met out it’s own brand of justice where people of color are concerned, and are simply doing what ever they want pertaining to black defendants in cases of criminal law. The standards in this country dictate that criminal cases should be brought before the courts in the most expedient manner possible, while constitutional law acts as a safeguard holding states accountable through the 6th and 14th amendments, and measuring the manner by which states pay respect to a citizen’s right to due process under the law. The state of North Carolina is a glaring example of a political climate vexed with ideology on government which contrast with the American society from a platform of unfairness and injustice. A more critical observation of the state’s current division from U.S. constitutional allegiance can be seen through it’s pledge, along with other red states, who have threatened to Succeed from the Union over their rejection of the Affordable Health Care Act (“Obama Care”). Many of the arguments publicly offered for such a radical posture appear to stem from the bitterness of some southerners over the country having arrived to the existence of the first sitting black president in the nation’s history. Not to get of topic, but I offer such dissident politics by states like North Carolina to underscore the political climate in old confederate states that willfully circumvent long established constitutional law. Any criminal defendant who is held in detention in this country for over a year without their criminal case having been brought to trial signals a red flag triggering a presumption that the 6th amendment has been violated, and Shannon Nyamodi’s case out of Franklin County, North Carolina is textbook on such a constitutional infringement. Besides a clear violation of federal law in his case, sitting judges have even ignored North Carolina’s own General Statue when making rulings in the Nyamodi case. A “writ of habeas corpus has been filed in superior court twice on the youth’s behalf. On January 6, 2014 his mother Elizabeth Crudup filed the motion before Resident Judge Robert Hobgood, and on February 3, 2014 she filed another habeas at Hobgood’s direction before Honorable Judge R.F. Johnson to challenge the legality of his detention.. Both officials denied the habeas request while citing among other reasons, that the mother doesn’t have any standing to file legal documents on behalf of her son. Their decisions are very perplexing when considering North Carolina’s General Statue which clearly indicates that anyone can legally file such a document on a detained criminal defendant’s behalf. North Carolina General Statue § 17-5.  By whom application is made. Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf. (1868-9, c. 116, s. 3; Code, s. 1625; Rev., s. 1823; C.S., s. 2207.) Perhaps such a ruling highlighted in both official’s “statements of facts” may simply have been an oversight in one instance, but the law establishes as a matter of fact that the rulings were both inaccurate while interpreting the law when they ruled to dismiss the habeas on separate occasions. NCGS 17-5 even allows for the criminal defendant themselves to file such a document before the courts without the presence of an attorney. So, it’s just rather peculiar that the judges would make the same error interpreting cause for the habeas’ dismissal. The other arguments presented in the decisions are all frivolous on their face, as no statue, case law, or other established legal standing were documented in the dismissals to justify both officials decisions. The officials also cite court dates which Shannon Nyamodi was purportedly suppose to have had, but he was never even transported to the courthouse, and his attorney has never appeared on these dates.  In each instance, at the very least the judges should have raised issue with the premise for such an extended continuance in the case and the absence of the defense counsel. The failure of both judges to pay respect to the defendant’s right to a speedy trial under federal law aids the continuing unlawful detention of Shannon Nyamodi while violating his constitutional rights. NCGS also outlines when a habeas shall be denied, and clearly nothing in the law is applicable in this case prohibiting the mother of the defendant from prosecuting the habeas on Shannon Nyamodi’s behalf: § 17-4.  When application denied. Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases: (1)  Where the persons are committed or detained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States, or a judge thereof, in cases where such courts or judges have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of suits in such courts. (2)  Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree. (3)  Where any person has willfully neglected, for the space of two whole sessions after his imprisonment, to apply for the writ to the superior court of the county in which he may be imprisoned, such person shall not have a habeas corpus in vacation time for his enlargement. (4)  Where no probable ground for relief is shown in the application. (1868-9, c. 116, s. 2; Code, s. 1624; Rev., s. 1822; C.S., s. 2206; 1971, c. 528, s. 1.) Additionally, state law establishes sanctions for court officials who knowingly and willfully deny a writ of habeas corpus without cause. The judge’s “statements of fact” in their decisions notes that the defendant has been indicted by a grand jury, that the courts has legal authority in the mater, and that the motion was being prosecuted without the consent of the defendant’s attorney. All of these factors have no bearing on the legality of Shannon Nyamodi’s detention, when considering the court has failed to prosecute the case within a year prescribed by constitutional law, and the absence of a timetable on record establishing when the case would be prosecuted. Both superior court judges are now each subject to a monetary penalty of $2,500 dollars to the defendant, because they should reasonably have known that the defendant’s constitutional rights were being violated. § 17-10.  Penalty for refusal to grant. If any judge authorized by this Chapter to grant writs of habeas corpus refuses to grant such writ when legally applied for, every such judge shall forfeit to the party aggrieved two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). (1868-9, c. 116, s. 9; Code, s. 1631; Rev., s. 1828; C.S., s. 2212.) Also, court officials should have been mindful of state law requiring the person for whom the writ application is for, be presented to the courts without delay. Neither judge should have held a hearing or ruled on the habeas without Shannon Nyamodi present before the courts. As a former Corrections Official, I can’t ever recall having witnessed a writ of habeas hearing without the defendant present. It’s just common sense to secure the body of the detainee before the court, if for no other provocation but to determine the actual detention of a criminal defendant. Chapter 17 of North Carolina’s General Statue goes to great length outlining various penalties for non compliance of producing a party entitled in a writ, which even allows for the physical attachment of officers or persons charged with producing the party before the courts. The judges are either incompetent (highly doubtful) or have conveyed a blatant willful disregard for state law, in this case at least, and it’s simply unconscionable that they displayed such ignorance for state law which they are charged to uphold. Furthermore, on January 6, 2014 Judge Robert Hobgood came to the Franklin County courthouse at 8:25 am., filed his decision denying Shannon Nyamodi’s habeas, and left three minutes later at 8:28 a.m. the same day. When the defendant’s mother caught up with him later that morning and met with him in his chambers, he conveyed to her that he agreed with the habeas, encouraged her to have the document brought before another judge on the same matter, and in essence punting the document to one of his colleagues. Hobgood could have reconsidered and changed his ruling. The fact that he didn’t take such course of action demonstrates that he may have been shedding the responsibility because of the controversial nature of the Nyamodi case. Read judge Hobgood’s Habeas Decision below: Please take special note of the allege confession of Shannon Nyamodi that Judge Hobgood refers to in his decision which is indicated on a search warrant affidavit for the home where the crime occurred. The allege confession is listed as the 8th item in a handwritten addendum format, and the initials appear to be that of the judge who granted the warrant. This draws suspicion for the following reasons. 1. The judge’s alteration of the document is improper if he in fact wrote the addendum, and this would have had to mean that he actually heard the confession. Totally improper if a judge with the potential of being assigned to hear the case of a criminal defendant was present during police investigative interviews with the defendant. 2. It would mean that Captain Mitchell actually forgot to include the most compelling evidence establishing guilt of the defendant in his affidavit (highly doubtful), meaning someone decided to include the 8th item after Captain Mitchell had already composed the warrant affidavit. 3. Captain Mitchell wouldn’t have had to list the defendant’s allege confession in The Facts to Support a Search warrant affidavit, because the crime scene, statements from the victim, the victim’s severe injury, and witnesses were already probable cause to establish a serious crime had occurred sufficient to obtain a search warrant. 4. The defendant (Shannon Nyamodi) has always maintained his innocence and denies ever making a confession to police. View the mysterious hand written addendum with the judges allege initials below:

report5edit

The suspicious handwritten addendum which alleges that Shannon Nyamodi confessed to the crime. The alteration was obviously made after the document was created, and it mistakenly has the judge’s initials listed as the author of the addendum. The document should have actually had Captain Mitchell’s initials because he was the police official seeking the warrant. Something very funky occurred with this document’s alteration.

On February 3, 2014 the habeas was presented before judge R.F. Johnson, another superior court judge, and consistent with judge Hobgood’s direction encouraging the defendant’s mother to have another judge hear the motion. The mother went before judge Johnson with the knowledge of state law not requiring an attorney be present, and attempted once again to have the habeas heard on behalf of her son.. Johnson conducted himself in such a fashion that appeared unfit for him to serve as a court official, let alone a sitting judge. The second denial of the habeas has set the ground work for the matter to be taken to a higher court for adjudication. However, judge Johnson’s antics while refusing to even read the document fuels an advantage for the defense toward obtaining the freedom of Shannon Nyamodi. Read judge Johnson’s Habeas Decision below:   The judges decisions pertaining to Shannon Nyamodi’s habeas request appear to be generic and fail to address serious infringements on the defendant’s constitutional rights. The North Carolina superior courts are not an umbrella of the federal court system, but they are bound by constitutional law just the same. The court’s failure to pay respect to a defendant’s federal speedy trial rights (6th amendment) only heightens earlier discussion in this article related to some state’ judicial practice of ignoring a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights when a clear violation exist, despite the heinous nature of a crime for which a defendant may be charged and subsequently detained, a defendant is entitled to have his day in court as soon as possible. The bizarre ruling which accepted the State’s Attorney motion to have the case of Shannon Nyamodi taken off the court docket system was characterized by the court as being exceptional, but clearly the only exceptionality in this case is the manner in which the North Carolina superior court in Franklin County has handled the case of this young defendant. In addition to the irregular handling of Shannon Nyamodi’s criminal case by court officials, state attorney general Roy Cooper’s office has shown the same degree of disrepute pertaining to fairness, equal justice, and due process under the law for the Nyamodi youth. Weeks ago Elizabeth Crudup contacted the AG’s office soliciting assistance from the top law enforcement official in North Carolina, and on February 7, 2014 she received a call from the agency’s Public Safety Department. According to Crudup, an official identifying himself as Mr. Tom Jones stated to her “I don’t believe that a person has been held for such a long time in this state without a court date. There is nothing I can do for you.” Crudup admits the apathy of the official got the best of her, and she says she rebuffed him stating “Sir be glad that you were born as a white man, because you could never endure the kinds of things that black people suffer in this country everyday.” Mr. Jones’ comment was so off color that TPC contacted his office directly to solicit a statement on the record, but calls went to his voice mail. It’s very difficult to accept that a state official of Mr. Jones’ capacity  could make such a broad generalization concluding that Elizabeth Crudup’s complaint was unfounded solely on his personal belief that such a matter could never occur in the state of North Carolina. Obviously the official never conducted any investigation into Shannon Nyamodi’s case, because if had made an inquiry, he would have discovered that the youth has been detained for over sixteen months in the Franklin County jail. Both superior court judges Hobgood and Johnson list in their “findings of fact” that Shannon Nyamodi had court dates. The dates are described as being on December 16, 2013 and January 21, 2014. On these dates the judge presiding did in fact call the defendant’s case, but on both occasions the state attorney continued the case without the defendant or his lawyer present. That can’t possibly be considered as a court date. The case was taken off of the court’s docket system on February 2o, 2013, which means that the defendant’s purported court date on December 16, 2013 would have been his only appearance before the court in nearly 10 months. There is nothing on record in this case which reveals that judge Hight established a timetable for when the case would be placed back in the system for prosecution, and for nearly a year Shannon Nyamodi was held in custody without any charges against him within the entire court docket system. At some point a judge should have questioned judge Hight’s “strange ruling” and ordered that the case be heard before the court. All of these bizarre rulings by state judicial officials, coupled with the state wanting to continue the case for as long as possible, creates serious suspicion pertaining to the state’s case, and the charges filed against Shannon Nyamodi. Something is drastically wrong with the judicial process in the state of North Carolina and the case of Shannon Nyamodi may have exposed a horrible culture of misconduct by court officials who have knowingly and willfully denied this youth due process under North Carolina state law, and constitutional liberties for which all Americans fall heir. The bottom line is that the state knows the extent of culpable evidence that exist in the case, if any, and has failed the people of the state of North Carolina by not seeking justice prosecuting the case, and the defendant held in custody whose liberty and right to have his day in court taken away. It’s an obvious and blatant display of prejudice for some unknown reason, and every official with the power to take the necessary action to correct this matter should be held accountable criminally and civilly. 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. 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

(Readership objection to the image of Resident Superior Court Judge Hobgood’s image being associated with this article has been taken into consideration by TPC, and has been removed. The image wasn’t intended to draw concern, or challenge this official’s record as a public servant, but rather only to depict his association with the case. Apologies are extended to those whom this matter may have adversely impacted).

His story is reminiscent of the a time when America was at the heights of social discord and civil rights struggles were the greatest challenge to the American people, when states disobeyed established constitutional law by enacting their own set of rules related to the criminal justice system. The life of young Shannon Nyamodi is a clear indication that some states with allegiance to the confederacy remain indignant, defiant, and determined to met out it’s own brand of justice where people of color are concerned, and are simply doing what ever they want pertaining to black defendants in cases of criminal law. The standards in this country dictate that criminal cases should be brought before the courts in the most expedient manner possible, while constitutional law acts as a safeguard holding states accountable through the 6th and 14th amendments, and measuring the manner by which states pay respect to a citizen’s right to due process under the law. The state of North Carolina is a glaring example of a political climate vexed with ideology on government which contrast with the American society from a platform of unfairness and injustice. A more critical observation of the state’s current division from U.S. constitutional allegiance can be seen through it’s pledge, along with other red states, who have threatened to Succeed from the Union over their rejection of the Affordable Health Care Act (“Obama Care”). Many of the arguments publicly offered for such a radical posture appear to stem from the bitterness of some southerners over the country having arrived to the existence of the first sitting black president in the nation’s history. Not to get of topic, but I offer such dissident politics by states like North Carolina to underscore the political climate in old confederate states that willfully circumvent long established constitutional law. Any criminal defendant who is held in detention in this country for over a year without their criminal case having been brought to trial signals a red flag triggering a presumption that the 6th amendment has been violated, and Shannon Nyamodi’s case out of Franklin County, North Carolina is textbook on such a constitutional infringement. Besides a clear violation of federal law in his case, sitting judges have even ignored North Carolina’s own General Statue when making rulings in the Nyamodi case. A “writ of habeas corpus has been filed in superior court twice on the youth’s behalf. On January 6, 2014 his mother Elizabeth Crudup filed the motion before Resident Judge Robert Hobgood, and on February 3, 2014 she filed another habeas at Hobgood’s direction before Honorable Judge R.F. Johnson to challenge the legality of his detention.. Both officials denied the habeas request while citing among other reasons, that the mother doesn’t have any standing to file legal documents on behalf of her son. Their decisions are very perplexing when considering North Carolina’s General Statue which clearly indicates that anyone can legally file such a document on a detained criminal defendant’s behalf. North Carolina General Statue § 17-5.  By whom application is made. Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf. (1868-9, c. 116, s. 3; Code, s. 1625; Rev., s. 1823; C.S., s. 2207.) Perhaps such a ruling highlighted in both official’s “statements of facts” may simply have been an oversight in one instance, but the law establishes as a matter of fact that the rulings were both inaccurate while interpreting the law when they ruled to dismiss the habeas on separate occasions. NCGS 17-5 even allows for the criminal defendant themselves to file such a document before the courts without the presence of an attorney. So, it’s just rather peculiar that the judges would make the same error interpreting cause for the habeas’ dismissal. The other arguments presented in the decisions are all frivolous on their face, as no statue, case law, or other established legal standing were documented in the dismissals to justify both officials decisions. The officials also cite court dates which Shannon Nyamodi was purportedly suppose to have had, but he was never even transported to the courthouse, and his attorney has never appeared on these dates.  In each instance, at the very least the judges should have raised issue with the premise for such an extended continuance in the case and the absence of the defense counsel. The failure of both judges to pay respect to the defendant’s right to a speedy trial under federal law aids the continuing unlawful detention of Shannon Nyamodi while violating his constitutional rights. NCGS also outlines when a habeas shall be denied, and clearly nothing in the law is applicable in this case prohibiting the mother of the defendant from prosecuting the habeas on Shannon Nyamodi’s behalf: § 17-4.  When application denied. Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases: (1)  Where the persons are committed or detained by virtue of process issued by a court of the United States, or a judge thereof, in cases where such courts or judges have exclusive jurisdiction under the laws of the United States, or have acquired exclusive jurisdiction by the commencement of suits in such courts. (2)  Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree. (3)  Where any person has willfully neglected, for the space of two whole sessions after his imprisonment, to apply for the writ to the superior court of the county in which he may be imprisoned, such person shall not have a habeas corpus in vacation time for his enlargement. (4)  Where no probable ground for relief is shown in the application. (1868-9, c. 116, s. 2; Code, s. 1624; Rev., s. 1822; C.S., s. 2206; 1971, c. 528, s. 1.) Additionally, state law establishes sanctions for court officials who knowingly and willfully deny a writ of habeas corpus without cause. The judge’s “statements of fact” in their decisions notes that the defendant has been indicted by a grand jury, that the courts has legal authority in the mater, and that the motion was being prosecuted without the consent of the defendant’s attorney. All of these factors have no bearing on the legality of Shannon Nyamodi’s detention, when considering the court has failed to prosecute the case within a year prescribed by constitutional law, and the absence of a timetable on record establishing when the case would be prosecuted. Both superior court judges are now each subject to a monetary penalty of $2,500 dollars to the defendant, because they should reasonably have known that the defendant’s constitutional rights were being violated. § 17-10.  Penalty for refusal to grant. If any judge authorized by this Chapter to grant writs of habeas corpus refuses to grant such writ when legally applied for, every such judge shall forfeit to the party aggrieved two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). (1868-9, c. 116, s. 9; Code, s. 1631; Rev., s. 1828; C.S., s. 2212.) Also, court officials should have been mindful of state law requiring the person for whom the writ application is for, be presented to the courts without delay. Neither judge should have held a hearing or ruled on the habeas without Shannon Nyamodi present before the courts. As a former Corrections Official, I can’t ever recall having witnessed a writ of habeas hearing without the defendant present. It’s just common sense to secure the body of the detainee before the court, if for no other provocation but to determine the actual detention of a criminal defendant. Chapter 17 of North Carolina’s General Statue goes to great length outlining various penalties for non compliance of producing a party entitled in a writ, which even allows for the physical attachment of officers or persons charged with producing the party before the courts. The judges are either incompetent (highly doubtful) or have conveyed a blatant willful disregard for state law, in this case at least, and it’s simply unconscionable that they displayed such ignorance for state law which they are charged to uphold. Furthermore, on January 6, 2014 Judge Robert Hobgood came to the Franklin County courthouse at 8:25 am., filed his decision denying Shannon Nyamodi’s habeas, and left three minutes later at 8:28 a.m. the same day. When the defendant’s mother caught up with him later that morning and met with him in his chambers, he conveyed to her that he agreed with the habeas, encouraged her to have the document brought before another judge on the same matter, and in essence punting the document to one of his colleagues. Hobgood could have reconsidered and changed his ruling. The fact that he didn’t take such course of action demonstrates that he may have been shedding the responsibility because of the controversial nature of the Nyamodi case. Read judge Hobgood’s Habeas Decision below: Please take special note of the allege confession of Shannon Nyamodi that Judge Hobgood refers to in his decision which is indicated on a search warrant affidavit for the home where the crime occurred. The allege confession is listed as the 8th item in a handwritten addendum format, and the initials appear to be that of the judge who granted the warrant. This draws suspicion for the following reasons. 1. The judge’s alteration of the document is improper if he in fact wrote the addendum, and this would have had to mean that he actually heard the confession. Totally improper if a judge with the potential of being assigned to hear the case of a criminal defendant was present during police investigative interviews with the defendant. 2. It would mean that Captain Mitchell actually forgot to include the most compelling evidence establishing guilt of the defendant in his affidavit (highly doubtful), meaning someone decided to include the 8th item after Captain Mitchell had already composed the warrant affidavit. 3. Captain Mitchell wouldn’t have had to list the defendant’s allege confession in The Facts to Support a Search warrant affidavit, because the crime scene, statements from the victim, the victim’s severe injury, and witnesses were already probable cause to establish a serious crime had occurred sufficient to obtain a search warrant. 4. The defendant (Shannon Nyamodi) has always maintained his innocence and denies ever making a confession to police. View the mysterious hand written addendum with the judges allege initials below:

report5edit

The suspicious handwritten addendum which alleges that Shannon Nyamodi confessed to the crime. The alteration was obviously made after the document was created, and it mistakenly has the judge’s initials listed as the author of the addendum. The document should have actually had Captain Mitchell’s initials because he was the police official seeking the warrant. Something very funky occurred with this document’s alteration.

On February 3, 2014 the habeas was presented before judge R.F. Johnson, another superior court judge, and consistent with judge Hobgood’s direction encouraging the defendant’s mother to have another judge hear the motion. The mother went before judge Johnson with the knowledge of state law not requiring an attorney be present, and attempted once again to have the habeas heard on behalf of her son.. Johnson conducted himself in such a fashion that appeared unfit for him to serve as a court official, let alone a sitting judge. The second denial of the habeas has set the ground work for the matter to be taken to a higher court for adjudication. However, judge Johnson’s antics while refusing to even read the document fuels an advantage for the defense toward obtaining the freedom of Shannon Nyamodi. Read judge Johnson’s Habeas Decision below:   The judges decisions pertaining to Shannon Nyamodi’s habeas request appear to be generic and fail to address serious infringements on the defendant’s constitutional rights. The North Carolina superior courts are not an umbrella of the federal court system, but they are bound by constitutional law just the same. The court’s failure to pay respect to a defendant’s federal speedy trial rights (6th amendment) only heightens earlier discussion in this article related to some state’ judicial practice of ignoring a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights when a clear violation exist, despite the heinous nature of a crime for which a defendant may be charged and subsequently detained, a defendant is entitled to have his day in court as soon as possible. The bizarre ruling which accepted the State’s Attorney motion to have the case of Shannon Nyamodi taken off the court docket system was characterized by the court as being exceptional, but clearly the only exceptionality in this case is the manner in which the North Carolina superior court in Franklin County has handled the case of this young defendant. In addition to the irregular handling of Shannon Nyamodi’s criminal case by court officials, state attorney general Roy Cooper’s office has shown the same degree of disrepute pertaining to fairness, equal justice, and due process under the law for the Nyamodi youth. Weeks ago Elizabeth Crudup contacted the AG’s office soliciting assistance from the top law enforcement official in North Carolina, and on February 7, 2014 she received a call from the agency’s Public Safety Department. According to Crudup, an official identifying himself as Mr. Tom Jones stated to her “I don’t believe that a person has been held for such a long time in this state without a court date. There is nothing I can do for you.” Crudup admits the apathy of the official got the best of her, and she says she rebuffed him stating “Sir be glad that you were born as a white man, because you could never endure the kinds of things that black people suffer in this country everyday.” Mr. Jones’ comment was so off color that TPC contacted his office directly to solicit a statement on the record, but calls went to his voice mail. It’s very difficult to accept that a state official of Mr. Jones’ capacity  could make such a broad generalization concluding that Elizabeth Crudup’s complaint was unfounded solely on his personal belief that such a matter could never occur in the state of North Carolina. Obviously the official never conducted any investigation into Shannon Nyamodi’s case, because if had made an inquiry, he would have discovered that the youth has been detained for over sixteen months in the Franklin County jail. Both superior court judges Hobgood and Johnson list in their “findings of fact” that Shannon Nyamodi had court dates. The dates are described as being on December 16, 2013 and January 21, 2014. On these dates the judge presiding did in fact call the defendant’s case, but on both occasions the state attorney continued the case without the defendant or his lawyer present. That can’t possibly be considered as a court date. The case was taken off of the court’s docket system on February 2o, 2013, which means that the defendant’s purported court date on December 16, 2013 would have been his only appearance before the court in nearly 10 months. There is nothing on record in this case which reveals that judge Hight established a timetable for when the case would be placed back in the system for prosecution, and for nearly a year Shannon Nyamodi was held in custody without any charges against him within the entire court docket system. At some point a judge should have questioned judge Hight’s “strange ruling” and ordered that the case be heard before the court. All of these bizarre rulings by state judicial officials, coupled with the state wanting to continue the case for as long as possible, creates serious suspicion pertaining to the state’s case, and the charges filed against Shannon Nyamodi. Something is drastically wrong with the judicial process in the state of North Carolina and the case of Shannon Nyamodi may have exposed a horrible culture of misconduct by court officials who have knowingly and willfully denied this youth due process under North Carolina state law, and constitutional liberties for which all Americans fall heir. The bottom line is that the state knows the extent of culpable evidence that exist in the case, if any, and has failed the people of the state of North Carolina by not seeking justice prosecuting the case, and the defendant held in custody whose liberty and right to have his day in court taken away. It’s an obvious and blatant display of prejudice for some unknown reason, and every official with the power to take the necessary action to correct this matter should be held accountable criminally and civilly. 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. 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.

Leave a Reply

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