web analytics

Shannon Nyamodi Sent To Prison For Now: Documents In Young Defendant’s Plea Agreement Very Problematic

The prosecutor handling the criminal case of Shannon Nyamodi and the defendant’s own legal counsel weren’t concerned about the case, while the youth languished in a county jail for nearly 21 months without an actual court date within the docket system. Then suddenly his mother received phone calls on May 28, 2014 from various people stating that Shannon would make a plea at the Franklin County Courthouse on the 29th. His mother was very skeptical about those claims because her son had consistently professed his innocence, and repeatedly conveyed his refusal to plea guilty for a crime in which he hadn’t committed. Shannon even withstood harsh treatment while in custody at the Franklin County Jail, where he was constantly placed in isolation, not allowed to have visits, with no phone calls, and no contact with the outside world. During the entire time that he endured such rigorous confinement, the youth never wavered and maintained his innocence.

So, when word came from the courtroom that Shannon Nyamodi had been transported to Franklin County where he made a guilty plea in exchange for a 136-180 month prison term, speculation immediately emerged questioning why the young defendant had changed the course of his plea to the court for serious felony charges. It was an unforeseen culmination of a nearly two year ordeal that had garnered national attention for the once aspiring U.S. Marine’s plight. Just eight days prior, Shannon had in fact submitted an affidavit to the Franklin County Clerk of Courts office firing his attorney of record (Maitri “Mike” Klinkosum). It’s unclear how or why the court allowed Klinkosum to act in a legal capacity for young Shannon during the hearing which brokered the plea deal.  See below Affidavit:

 

lawfire

Affidavit with Clerk of Courts timestamp validating the court’s receipt of notification that Shannon Nyamodi had fired his attorney Maitri “Mike” Klinkosum on May 21, 2014.

 

In addition to the filed affidavit, on the morning of May 29, 2014 Shannon’s mother was informed that her son was in fact scheduled to make a court appearance, and that Klinkosum was representing her son. She was experiencing car problems that day and had become fearful that she wouldn’t make it to court on time for the hearing. She typed a letter for the judge explaining that Klinkosum had been terminated from representing Shannon, and advised the judge that she had the original affidavit. The mother faxed the letter to the Clerk’s office, and the court official allegedly walked the letter to judge Ridgeway’s chambers. The court never held a show cause hearing challenging Klinkosum’s legal right to represent Shannon, and strangely the proceeding took place anyway with Klinkosum as Shannon’s attorney.

One of the most consistent arguments that has been repeatedly offered in the case of Shannon Nyamodi, has been his right to due process that he is afforded under the law. Klinkosum never attempted to bring the young defendant’s case to trial in nearly two years, and upon him having been fired from legally representing Shannon, strangely, some secretive hearing was suddenly created where Shannon ultimately agreed to a plea deal.  Moreover, the details contained in the plea arrangement are even more shocking. The prosecution had always alleged that it was Shannon Nyamodi who shot Rhonda Maclean in the face at point blank range, while conspiring with her 15-year-old daughter to kill and rob her of nearly $65,000.00 dollars, but those charges, along with others were dropped, and the youth ultimately was only convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

The prosecution’s willingness to drop nearly all of the serious felony crimes against young Shannon speaks volumes about the strength of their case against him, and offers a very compelling argument that Shannon may have agreed to the plea deal under duress. See the plea deal below:

 

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014_0003

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014_0002

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014_0001

 

Previous articles on TPC have detailed the very troubling case that the prosecutor’s office had against this defendant from the very start, and when judge Height authorized the case to be taken off of the docket indefinitely back in February of 2013, the court gave wide discretion to the prosecutor’s office for it’s continuance, and afforded prosecutors an unfair tactical advantage in the case while young Shannon Nyamodi languished in prison for nearly two years. Those who are sympathetic to North Carolina’s courts rationalize that the extended period of time Shannon Nyamodi spent in detention without an actual court date is the norm, and the grueling slow process is attributed to a docket backlog. Despite this perspective from pundits with an allegiance to the state’s judicial system, official documents made public in the case file demonstrates that the prosecutor’s own record has more exculpatory findings for young Shannon than those which point to his guilt. Therefore, it’s troubling to comprehend why the youth would agree to a plea deal in a case that even the most inexperienced attorney could have successfully won.

The unexplained premise for Shannon’s abrupt shift in his plea for these felony charges brings tremendous scrutiny upon the actually record of the plea arrangement itself, and immediately elements of the documents depict glaring details which are very problematic. Chiefly, Shannon’s signature or endorsement under Acknowledgement By The Defendant, raises suspicion as to how the writing was obtained. While some characters in the endorsement appear to resemble the defendants writing, his writing style format appears to be quite different from his writing on record. His last name is even spelled incorrectly, and clearly some dynamic appears to have transpired that caused him to write his name in a fashion which is barely legible with all of the letters running together. You could even make the argument that his hand may even have been guided forcefully while the endorsement was being constructed. Either way, Shannon’s endorsement appears to have been composed irregularly for some reason, or under duress. Take a look at Shannon’s endorsement on another document below (take note of numbers 2,4 & 5, and the letter I):

 

IMG_20140106_170925

A letter from Shannon Nyamodi to attorney Klinkosum requesting his speedy trial rights. His endorsement is very legible with proper spacing.

pleasig

Shannon Nyamodi’s alleged voluntary endorsement accepting a plea agreement, which is nearly illegible, last name misspelled, and a complete contrast to his writing style and format compared to his endorsement on record.

 

The endorsements of this young defendant are comparatively contrasting as depicted above, and the manner in which certain numbers within the date, and the letter I, clearly illustrates that a change occurred in his writing style when endorsing the plea agreement. Since an individual’s signature or endorsement are writings that develop with practice over a period of time, this form of writing typically forms a pattern, and seldom do such drastic change in a person’s signature or endorsement style occur in such a contrasting fashion. it’s also clear that the date above Shannon’s endorsement wasn’t composed by him either. The numbers 2,4, & 5 are composed differently on the plea agreement verses his previously recorded endorsement in his speedy trial request letter. To be specific, it appears that his endorsement on the plea agreement appears to have been constructed under duress or at the very least, severe stress. Rarely does a person’s signature or endorsement change so drastically. Something appears fishy.

Additionally, there is more “funny business” apparently going on with the plea agreement document as well. In most court cases where a plea agreement has been established, certain procedures typically follow once the agreement has been accepted by the court. The document usually requires a witness (a commissioned court clerk) who verifies that the agreement was sworn, affirmed, and endorsed before them at a given date and time making the agreement binding. Although court official Barbara L. Dickerson indicates on the agreement document that the aforementioned had in fact transpired before her on May 29, 2014, to the contrary, both Shannon and his attorney’s endorsements appear to have occurred approximately 3 weeks prior to these proceedings. Take a look at a snapshot of endorsements on the plea agreement below:

 

funnybiz

Endorsements on the Shannon Nyamodi plea agreement indicate that the court official Barbara L. Dickerson and Assistant Prosecutor Annette Sellers both endorsed and dated the document on the actual day of the proceedings. However, Shannon and his attorney appear to have dated and endorsed it 3 weeks prior to the date of the plea agreement.

 

Are the date discrepancies an oversight? It’s highly doubtful, and a very compelling argument could be made that the dates were purposefully back dated by attorney Klinkosum or Assistant Prosecutor Annette Sellers, designed to give the appearance that Shannon Nyamodi had agreed to the plea deal before May 21, 2014, the day Shannon’s affidavit was filed with the Clerk’s office firing Klinkosum. Everyone who was a party to the plea agreement (the Clerk, Prosecutor, Defendant, and his Attorney) should have all endorsed the agreement before the court’s commissioned official on the exact date of the proceedings, as the document indicates that it had. More importantly, Shannon’s endorsement indicating that it was signed on May 8, 2014 means that he never subscribed to the agreement before the court, and if he never voluntarily and verbally agreed in open court to the agreement, it’s not legal.

It’s extremely hard to imagine that this defendant withstood over a year in isolation professing his innocence to suddenly decide to admit that he actually committed this crime. If Shannon endorsed the agreement on May 8 as the plea agreement document alleges, then it’s simply not convincing that the youth never indicated this to his parents whom both had visited him multiple times in jail after the day he allegedly signed the agreement. I am convinced that most who have been following this young man’s story don’t believe for one minute that Shannon endorsed the agreement on the date depicted on the document. His stressful looking endorsement was more than likely composed on the day of the proceedings (May 29) while under duress in Franklin County. Someone other than Shannon Nyamodi imputed the date of May 8, 2014 after he was forced to endorse it. The date isn’t reflective of his writing style and doesn’t have the dark, harsh, and smudging composition as seen in his alleged voluntary endorsement.

Even if Shannon had actually signed the plea agreement on May 8, 2014 as the document indicates, the court’s official who the document was allegedly sworn, affirmed, and subscribed before, should have caught the discrepancy. Now it appears that some kind of conspiracy transpired to obtain a conviction of Shannon Nyamodi despite attorney Klinkosum having been fired by him weeks prior to these proceedings that resulted in this plea deal. A criminal defendant’s right to fire his legal counsel is absolute, and could be done so without cause. The court’s failure to acknowledge Shannon’s fundamental constitutional right to competent legal representation of his personal choice, is indicative of continued mounting violations of this young defendant’s civil and constitutional rights. Attorney Klinkosum should never have been permitted to represent Shannon Nyamodi in any capacity before the courts. The tactics which appear to have been used in this case are so egregious that a Department of Justice Civil Rights Violation inquiry into Shannon Nyamodi’s case is warranted.

This young man’s fight is far from over and the officials who are responsible for this miscarriage of justice should be sent to prison themselves.

 

 

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

The prosecutor handling the criminal case of Shannon Nyamodi and the defendant’s own legal counsel weren’t concerned about the case, while the youth languished in a county jail for nearly 21 months without an actual court date within the docket system. Then suddenly his mother received phone calls on May 28, 2014 from various people stating that Shannon would make a plea at the Franklin County Courthouse on the 29th. His mother was very skeptical about those claims because her son had consistently professed his innocence, and repeatedly conveyed his refusal to plea guilty for a crime in which he hadn’t committed. Shannon even withstood harsh treatment while in custody at the Franklin County Jail, where he was constantly placed in isolation, not allowed to have visits, with no phone calls, and no contact with the outside world. During the entire time that he endured such rigorous confinement, the youth never wavered and maintained his innocence.

So, when word came from the courtroom that Shannon Nyamodi had been transported to Franklin County where he made a guilty plea in exchange for a 136-180 month prison term, speculation immediately emerged questioning why the young defendant had changed the course of his plea to the court for serious felony charges. It was an unforeseen culmination of a nearly two year ordeal that had garnered national attention for the once aspiring U.S. Marine’s plight. Just eight days prior, Shannon had in fact submitted an affidavit to the Franklin County Clerk of Courts office firing his attorney of record (Maitri “Mike” Klinkosum). It’s unclear how or why the court allowed Klinkosum to act in a legal capacity for young Shannon during the hearing which brokered the plea deal.  See below Affidavit:

 

lawfire

Affidavit with Clerk of Courts timestamp validating the court’s receipt of notification that Shannon Nyamodi had fired his attorney Maitri “Mike” Klinkosum on May 21, 2014.

 

In addition to the filed affidavit, on the morning of May 29, 2014 Shannon’s mother was informed that her son was in fact scheduled to make a court appearance, and that Klinkosum was representing her son. She was experiencing car problems that day and had become fearful that she wouldn’t make it to court on time for the hearing. She typed a letter for the judge explaining that Klinkosum had been terminated from representing Shannon, and advised the judge that she had the original affidavit. The mother faxed the letter to the Clerk’s office, and the court official allegedly walked the letter to judge Ridgeway’s chambers. The court never held a show cause hearing challenging Klinkosum’s legal right to represent Shannon, and strangely the proceeding took place anyway with Klinkosum as Shannon’s attorney.

One of the most consistent arguments that has been repeatedly offered in the case of Shannon Nyamodi, has been his right to due process that he is afforded under the law. Klinkosum never attempted to bring the young defendant’s case to trial in nearly two years, and upon him having been fired from legally representing Shannon, strangely, some secretive hearing was suddenly created where Shannon ultimately agreed to a plea deal.  Moreover, the details contained in the plea arrangement are even more shocking. The prosecution had always alleged that it was Shannon Nyamodi who shot Rhonda Maclean in the face at point blank range, while conspiring with her 15-year-old daughter to kill and rob her of nearly $65,000.00 dollars, but those charges, along with others were dropped, and the youth ultimately was only convicted of conspiracy to commit murder.

The prosecution’s willingness to drop nearly all of the serious felony crimes against young Shannon speaks volumes about the strength of their case against him, and offers a very compelling argument that Shannon may have agreed to the plea deal under duress. See the plea deal below:

 

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014_0003

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014_0002

Plea Shannon Nyamodi06022014_0001

 

Previous articles on TPC have detailed the very troubling case that the prosecutor’s office had against this defendant from the very start, and when judge Height authorized the case to be taken off of the docket indefinitely back in February of 2013, the court gave wide discretion to the prosecutor’s office for it’s continuance, and afforded prosecutors an unfair tactical advantage in the case while young Shannon Nyamodi languished in prison for nearly two years. Those who are sympathetic to North Carolina’s courts rationalize that the extended period of time Shannon Nyamodi spent in detention without an actual court date is the norm, and the grueling slow process is attributed to a docket backlog. Despite this perspective from pundits with an allegiance to the state’s judicial system, official documents made public in the case file demonstrates that the prosecutor’s own record has more exculpatory findings for young Shannon than those which point to his guilt. Therefore, it’s troubling to comprehend why the youth would agree to a plea deal in a case that even the most inexperienced attorney could have successfully won.

The unexplained premise for Shannon’s abrupt shift in his plea for these felony charges brings tremendous scrutiny upon the actually record of the plea arrangement itself, and immediately elements of the documents depict glaring details which are very problematic. Chiefly, Shannon’s signature or endorsement under Acknowledgement By The Defendant, raises suspicion as to how the writing was obtained. While some characters in the endorsement appear to resemble the defendants writing, his writing style format appears to be quite different from his writing on record. His last name is even spelled incorrectly, and clearly some dynamic appears to have transpired that caused him to write his name in a fashion which is barely legible with all of the letters running together. You could even make the argument that his hand may even have been guided forcefully while the endorsement was being constructed. Either way, Shannon’s endorsement appears to have been composed irregularly for some reason, or under duress. Take a look at Shannon’s endorsement on another document below (take note of numbers 2,4 & 5, and the letter I):

 

IMG_20140106_170925

A letter from Shannon Nyamodi to attorney Klinkosum requesting his speedy trial rights. His endorsement is very legible with proper spacing.

pleasig

Shannon Nyamodi’s alleged voluntary endorsement accepting a plea agreement, which is nearly illegible, last name misspelled, and a complete contrast to his writing style and format compared to his endorsement on record.

 

The endorsements of this young defendant are comparatively contrasting as depicted above, and the manner in which certain numbers within the date, and the letter I, clearly illustrates that a change occurred in his writing style when endorsing the plea agreement. Since an individual’s signature or endorsement are writings that develop with practice over a period of time, this form of writing typically forms a pattern, and seldom do such drastic change in a person’s signature or endorsement style occur in such a contrasting fashion. it’s also clear that the date above Shannon’s endorsement wasn’t composed by him either. The numbers 2,4, & 5 are composed differently on the plea agreement verses his previously recorded endorsement in his speedy trial request letter. To be specific, it appears that his endorsement on the plea agreement appears to have been constructed under duress or at the very least, severe stress. Rarely does a person’s signature or endorsement change so drastically. Something appears fishy.

Additionally, there is more “funny business” apparently going on with the plea agreement document as well. In most court cases where a plea agreement has been established, certain procedures typically follow once the agreement has been accepted by the court. The document usually requires a witness (a commissioned court clerk) who verifies that the agreement was sworn, affirmed, and endorsed before them at a given date and time making the agreement binding. Although court official Barbara L. Dickerson indicates on the agreement document that the aforementioned had in fact transpired before her on May 29, 2014, to the contrary, both Shannon and his attorney’s endorsements appear to have occurred approximately 3 weeks prior to these proceedings. Take a look at a snapshot of endorsements on the plea agreement below:

 

funnybiz

Endorsements on the Shannon Nyamodi plea agreement indicate that the court official Barbara L. Dickerson and Assistant Prosecutor Annette Sellers both endorsed and dated the document on the actual day of the proceedings. However, Shannon and his attorney appear to have dated and endorsed it 3 weeks prior to the date of the plea agreement.

 

Are the date discrepancies an oversight? It’s highly doubtful, and a very compelling argument could be made that the dates were purposefully back dated by attorney Klinkosum or Assistant Prosecutor Annette Sellers, designed to give the appearance that Shannon Nyamodi had agreed to the plea deal before May 21, 2014, the day Shannon’s affidavit was filed with the Clerk’s office firing Klinkosum. Everyone who was a party to the plea agreement (the Clerk, Prosecutor, Defendant, and his Attorney) should have all endorsed the agreement before the court’s commissioned official on the exact date of the proceedings, as the document indicates that it had. More importantly, Shannon’s endorsement indicating that it was signed on May 8, 2014 means that he never subscribed to the agreement before the court, and if he never voluntarily and verbally agreed in open court to the agreement, it’s not legal.

It’s extremely hard to imagine that this defendant withstood over a year in isolation professing his innocence to suddenly decide to admit that he actually committed this crime. If Shannon endorsed the agreement on May 8 as the plea agreement document alleges, then it’s simply not convincing that the youth never indicated this to his parents whom both had visited him multiple times in jail after the day he allegedly signed the agreement. I am convinced that most who have been following this young man’s story don’t believe for one minute that Shannon endorsed the agreement on the date depicted on the document. His stressful looking endorsement was more than likely composed on the day of the proceedings (May 29) while under duress in Franklin County. Someone other than Shannon Nyamodi imputed the date of May 8, 2014 after he was forced to endorse it. The date isn’t reflective of his writing style and doesn’t have the dark, harsh, and smudging composition as seen in his alleged voluntary endorsement.

Even if Shannon had actually signed the plea agreement on May 8, 2014 as the document indicates, the court’s official who the document was allegedly sworn, affirmed, and subscribed before, should have caught the discrepancy. Now it appears that some kind of conspiracy transpired to obtain a conviction of Shannon Nyamodi despite attorney Klinkosum having been fired by him weeks prior to these proceedings that resulted in this plea deal. A criminal defendant’s right to fire his legal counsel is absolute, and could be done so without cause. The court’s failure to acknowledge Shannon’s fundamental constitutional right to competent legal representation of his personal choice, is indicative of continued mounting violations of this young defendant’s civil and constitutional rights. Attorney Klinkosum should never have been permitted to represent Shannon Nyamodi in any capacity before the courts. The tactics which appear to have been used in this case are so egregious that a Department of Justice Civil Rights Violation inquiry into Shannon Nyamodi’s case is warranted.

This young man’s fight is far from over and the officials who are responsible for this miscarriage of justice should be sent to prison themselves.

 

 

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.

5 Responses to “Shannon Nyamodi Sent To Prison For Now: Documents In Young Defendant’s Plea Agreement Very Problematic”

  1. Hello! I realize this is somewhat off-topic however
    I needed to ask. Does operating a well-established website
    such as yours require a massive amount work? I’m
    completely new to blogging but I do write in my diary daily.
    I’d like to start a blog so I can share my experience and views online.
    Please let me know if you have any kind of ideas or tips
    for brand new aspiring bloggers. Appreciate it!

  2. Awsome site! I am loving it!! Will come back again.
    I am bookmarking your feeds also

  3. Karyn Alawdi says:

    Don’t wear seat belts lest you drown in your own urine?

  4. soi keo says:

    It’s very straightforward to find out any topic on web as compared to books, as I found
    this post at this web page.

Leave a Reply

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