Jena Six: Observations from Central Louisiana

Over a month ago, CenLamar featured a compendium of information on the case of the Jena Six. Since then, the compendium has been widely circulated and read. Throughout the past month, however, the story has taken many turns, and recently, charges were reduced to a lesser offense against four of the young men who were initially charged with attempted second degree murder as adults (the sixth is being tried in juvenile court).

Here in Central Louisiana, the case of the Jena Six continues to be a contentious issue. According to the results of an unscientific poll released by The Town Talk, a vast majority of respondents (over 70%) believe the charges are adequate (and this was conducted BEFORE the District Attorney decided to reduce charges against at least three of the defendents).

Lest a reader from outside of Central Louisiana conclude that these results are indicative of the local impression regarding this case, I caution that the poll was conducted online, and it enabled a single person to vote multiple times. It is easy to see the potential for abuse. Certainly, however, the community remains divided.

When Reverend Jesse Jackson arrived in Jena a week ago, the local reaction, at least online, was mixed. Many people have argued that the imposition of race as a factor in this case has obscured attention away from the crime itself, a fight in which six young men allegedly beat up one young man. They assert that the nature of the crime (six versus one) justifies a harsh penalty. Many have attempted to remove race altogether, retelling the story as somehow “race neutral.”

But for those people who have carefully combed through this story, for those who have read and analyzed all of the publicly available information, it is difficult to justify or even understand the reason five out of the six young men were initially charged with attempted second degree murder. Even if one naively believes that race was somehow a non-factor in this case, something still doesn’t quite add up.

To the national audience, racial injustices are not exclusive to the American South or to small towns like Jena. Unfortunately, racial injustices have occurred and have been documented throughout the entire nation, both North and South, on the East Coast and on the West Coast. A handful of national bloggers, on DailyKos and other websites, have proclaimed that this case reveals something about the State of Louisiana, perpetuating the stereotype of Louisianans as intolerant racists. Granted, a handful of Louisianans who have publicly commented on the case of the Jena Six have only served to contribute to this stereotype, but I trust that an informed reader will not take their claims seriously.

People who live in small, rural towns typically are not too comfortable when they become the subject of international scrutiny. Although I do not like to engage in the hypothetical, forgive me this once: If this had occurred in a city like Houston, Texas, it would have still rightfully garnered the attention of the media (arguably, since Houston serves a bigger media market, the case may have initially attracted more attention). Because Houston is a city of nearly three million people, a city already accustomed to big stories (most notoriously, the Enron scandal), media coverage of this “hypothetical” case would have probably been MORE focused on the alleged “miscarriage of justice” and LESS focused on the city itself.

But this did not occur in a city like Houston. It occurred in a town named Jena, and because the media had never heard of Jena, Louisiana before this case, the town and its residents immediately became a major part of this story, and for many people in Jena, it is difficult not to take it personally when bloggers and members of the media proclaim that your hometown, a place with only 3,000 residents, is “the most racist town in the nation.” This is divisive hyperbole, and though it may attract much-needed attention to a case that arguably demonstrates the reality of a two-tiered justice system in America, it also serves to exacerbate the tense and precarious situation in Jena. Indeed, because the media had never heard of Jena, Louisiana before this story, the people of Jena have been defined by this story.

We must be mindful not to oversimplify this complex case, and we must guard against hasty generalizations made about an entire community, generalizations that are ultimately based on the questionable actions of one man in a case fraught with complications.

Like many places across the nation, Louisiana has a long history with racism and the vestiges of slavery. I am not naive enough to completely discount the fact that 16 years ago the Republican nominee for Governor of Louisiana was David Duke, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and even though I was an elementary school student during this election, I remember the collective dread, a feeling shared by people of all races, when David Duke secured the Republican nomination. Most people knew David Duke would lose the election, but the fact that he was able to garner 38.8% of the vote still seems absurd, embarassing, and shameful. But I digress.

Nearly a year ago, when I first began writing about the situation in Jena and well before the Jena Six made news, I could have never anticipated that the small town would suddenly be hoisted into the international spotlight. The high school obviously seemed to be struggling with race relations. Tension was high. But I don’t think anyone predicted the series of events that could have unfolded after a school fight sent one young man to the hospital for a couple of hours.

There Are Stories from Jena That Need to Be Told:

Some have argued the district attorney initially sought attempted second degree murder charges as a mere strategic manuever. They claim this charge would provide the district attorney with an advantegeous position from which to “bargain” for the terms and conditions of a set of reduced charges. The strategy is fairly obvious and commonly employed, but that does not justify the district attorney’s decision in this case. For one, five of the six accused with this crime are being charged as adults, even though all six were under the age of eighteen.. If the district attorney had truly used the attempted secondary murder charge, knowing that he never intended to convict on that charge, simply as an advantageous bargaining tool, which some have suggested, it still does not entirely add up. For in Louisiana, there are some charges, like attempted second degree murder, in which a juvenile may be charged as an adult, but there are other, “reduced” charges that can only be prosecuted in the juvenile justice system. In other words, “bargaining down” from an attempted second degree murder charge may force the case into juvenile justice system, and if the purpose of filing attempted second degree murder charges was to ensure these cases would be heard in criminal court (for adults), then why would one use these charges as a bargaining tool? The Associated Press reports:

Under Louisiana law, a juvenile charged with aggravated battery may be charged as an adult only if the attack involved a firearm, but murder and attempted murder charges can be brought in adult court.

The allegations leveled against the Jena Six have never described the use or involvement of a fire arm, and therefore, by law, these cases belong in the juvenile justice system. The Town Talk reports:

Last week, 28th Judicial District Court Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr. granted Bell’s defense attorneys’ motion to vacate his adult conviction on that charge and have him face it in juvenile court. That action reduced Bell’s possible maximum sentence from 22½ years to 15 years.

If the decision to charge these young men with attempted second degree murder was done in anticipation of having better bargaining power over the “inevitable” reductions, did anyone consider that those reduced charges could only be heard in a juvenile court? Is it possible that these young men were charged as adults with attempted second degree murder because the district attorney believed these charges adequately and sufficiently fit the crime? If the district attorney had truly sought these charges, as some have suggested, as bargaining power, then how does this ultimately benefit his strategy, considering that these reduced charges are reassigned to juvenile court, in which the maximum punishment for these crimes is also reduced?

I do not know Mr. Walters, and I am not a lawyer. But it seems disingenuous to argue that charging five young men, all under the age of eighteen, as adults with attempted second degree murder was done strategically. Others may disagree, but it appears, to me, that the recent reductions of these charges for all but one of the Jena Six has nothing to do with the district attorney’s shrewd legal strategy and everything to do with a realization that attempted second degree murder charge would be nearly impossible to prove in a case filled with conflicting written statements and uneven testimonies, a case in which the victim, who was definitely beaten and knocked out in a dirty fight, ultimately (and thankfully) only suffered minor injuries and was back at school a few hours later that day to participate in a ring ceremony.

And this calls to attention a related point: It seems ethically and morally irreponsible for a district attorney to level serious attempted murder charges against a group of young men if, as others have claimed, this was only done with the expectation that those charges would be reduced. Should any prosecutor be allowed to file charges they know they cannot prove as a bargaining strategy? Some lawyers have commented that this is a common practice, but how is charging someone with a crime they cannot prove ethical or professional, even if they anticipate reducing those charges to fit a crime they believe they can prove?

Imagine the implications if we allow and encourage this custom. What if we allowed a district attorney to charge anyone responsible for an attempted murder with first degree murder? What if the infirm and the elderly who order their prescription medications from Canada were now allowed to be charged with international drug smuggling?

And there is another problem with the case of the Jena Six, to which I have already briefly alluded: the inconsistencies. It does not take a lawyer to read the documented inconsistencies in this case and wonder how anyone could justify charging six young men with attempted second degree murder. No one is denying that a violent and dirty fight occurred, and no one is diminishing our legal, ethical, and moral obligation to hold accountable those responsible for this act of violence. But unfortunately, the case of the Jena Six is filled with vagueries, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Before determining who perpetrated this crime and before deciding the appropriate and justified charges to be filed against those perpetrators, the district attorney has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens he represents to perform his or her duties by carefully evaluating the merits of the evidence against each of the accused and by honestly assessing which charges adequately address the alleged crime.

Burden of Proof:

Friends of Justice recently published an article entitled “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: What Blane Williams Should Have Known.” Blane Williams was Mychal Bell’s first public defender, and his methods during this case have also been roundly criticized. Along with the well-known facts concerning the racial make-up of the jury of Bell’s “peers,” this article also thoroughly examines the “failures” of what they describe as Mr. Willams’s “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Thankfully, Mr. Bell now has another team of lawyers, who have already successfully convinced a judge to toss out at least one of Bell’s convictions. In the process of criticizing Mr. Bell’s defense strategies, the article also illuminates the incredible inconsistencies uncovered and further calls into question the applicability of an attempted second degree murder charge, of which Bell had been initially charged. A few excerpts:

— “The alleged assault was “aggravated” because a dangerous weapon was used-namely tennis shoes.”

Many have expressed their disbelief that “tennis shoes,” worn on Mr. Bell’s feet, could somehow constitute a dangerous weapon. An article of clothing the School Board requires all students to wear can constitute a “dangerous weapon.” A student wearing tennis shoes who kicks another student wearing tennis shoes can be charged and convicted with aggravated assault. According to US Legal’s Online Dictionary:

(a) “dangerous weapon means and includes, but is not limited to:
Any knife having a blade three inches or more in length, or any snap-blade or spring-blade knife regardless of the length of the blade;
Any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool;
Any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle;
Any cutting, stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm;
Any dirk or dagger or bludgeon;
Any “taser public defender” or other similar electronic immobilizer which causes, by means of an electrical current, a person to experience muscle spasms and extreme pain, followed by unconsciousness.

Perhaps someone can clarify the nuances, if any, of the Louisiana Law, but it seems the notion of tennis shoes as a weapon is the exception to the rule.

— ” Justin Cooper was the only witness at trial to testify that Mychal Bell kicked Justin Barker as the victim lay unconscious on the ground. Since Justin Cooper was one of the boys who admitted to hanging the nooses at Jena High School at the beginning of the school year, he can hardly be seen as an objective or credible witness. Defense Attorney Blane Williams was apparently unaware of Cooper’s connection to the noose incident.”

— ” Jessica Hooter was one of four trial witnesses who identified Mychal as the person who threw the first punch at Justin Barker. Two days after the assault occurred, Jessica was unable to identify the initial attacker. But as she explained at trial, “After I thought about it more, I remembered more.” In his closing remarks, Blane Williams never mentioned that she had embellished her earlier testimony. Perhaps he forgot.”

— “Midway through the trial, assault victim Justin Barker and his family were seen by ten witnesses (myself included) sharing a convivial meal with several of the students who had testified against Mychal Bell. This suggests that a number of “memory-enhancing” conversations about the incident have taken place between early December and late June. Jessica Hooter likely “remembered” that the unidentified attacker was Mychal Bell because this quickly became the orthodox story in the social circle she moves in.”

— “… special education teacher Kristy Martin listed off the names of the boys who surrounded Justin Barker as if they were clear in her memory. Although she was forced to admit that she never saw a single student touch Justin Barker, Martin’s ability to name names seemed very convincing. Martin is the only witness thus far who has provided a list of attackers longer than three names.”

When the story was initially published, it stated that only four students had been charged. Perhaps witnesses were having difficulty remembering the names of those allegedly responsible or perhaps, as one member of the Jena Six has asserted, some of those accused were merely bystanders to a quick and intense fight.

–“In a written statement, given immediately after the incident, Coach Wayne Spence states that he was taking names of rowdy students in the gym during the lunch hour. ‘I had a list that Ms. Martin obtained from me,’ he wrote. This suggests that Kristy Martin specifically asked Spence for the list of names the day of the fight. This explains why she is the only witness to remember more than two or three members of the Jena 6. Most eye witnesses can’t identify a single assailant by name. Most of the students who gave eyewitness statements after the December 4 altercation at the school make references to ‘a bunch of black kids’.”

If this is indeed accurate, if a teacher selected names of “rowdy kids” written by another educator during the lunch hour in order to identify the names of those responsible for an attack that she did not even witness, how could anyone take this testimony seriously? More importantly, if Martin was the only witness who could list more than three names of students that allegedly participated in a fight she did not directly witness and if this list was based on or culled from a list of “rowdy students” written by another educator during lunchtime, is it possible that a member or members of the “Jena Six” were never positively identified by anyone who actually witnessed the fight?

— Regarding Mychael Bell in particular: “Coach Benjy Lewis gave two statements immediately after the school incident in which he clearly states that Justin Barker was facing him when Malcolm Shaw (not Mychal Bell) struck Barker from behind. “I saw Malcolm Shaw hit Justin Barker with his right fist to the right side of Justin’s head, right around the temple,” Lewis wrote. “Justin went down face first, knocked out . . .” Most witnesses agree that a single punch knocked Barker out cold. The only adult who witnessed the punch says Mychal Bell didn’t throw it.”

Given the final statement and the contradictory eye-witness accounts of the event, how can anyone justify initially charging Mychal Bell with attempted second degree murder and then with aggravated battery (in which tennis shoes were declared to be the deadly weapon)?

Perhaps, despite the inconsistencies, the district attorney sought these charges based on the testimony of ten white students who claimed to witness the fight, one of whom admitted to hanging the nooses on the school tree earlier in the year and another of whom suddenly remembered Bell’s name two days after the fight. Some claimed Mychal Bell threw the first punch. Others claimed the first punch was thrown by another student, who hit from behind, which explains Barker’s inability to remember who began the fight. Only one student claimed Bell had kicked Barker, yet ultimately, his conviction was based on the use of his tennis shoe as the dangerous weapon.

Unfortunately, young Mr. Bell’s attorney failed to call a single witness, and he failed to adequately explain and unpack the numerous inconsistencies in this case. By most accounts, the school fight resulted in pandemonium. In high school, I witnessed a handful of knock-down fights, including a memorable one in which a group of students pushed another student into the school’s trophy case; the sounds of shattering glass loudly echoed throughout the first floor. When there is a fight in high school, people tend to swarm around it, almost theatrically. This, no doubt, occurred during the fight in Jena High School– swarms of kids, some pushing and pulling each other away, one or two may even attempt to jump in the middle to protect a friend. And like the fights I witnessed when I was a high school student, the fight at Jena High was reported by at least one witness to have been over in a matter of seconds. That is typically the nature of these fights.

Again, I am not trying to excuse the illegal and violent behavior of any person who physically injured Mr. Barker. Clearly, someone or some group of people must be held accountable for this crime.

But based all of the conflicting and ambiguous statements, how can anyone be certain that every single member of the Jena Six participated in this violent act? Based on the all of the conflicting and ambiguous statements, how could a district attorney charge five people with attempted second-degree murder and another in juvenile court, particularly considering that not a single eyewitness could identify all six people as participants in this crime? It appears as if the Jena Six may have been compiled by parsing together various statements and witness reports, some of which were conflicting, one of which may have been based on a list of misbehaving students written prior to the altercation by a coach in the lunch room. For anyone who has ever seen a serious high school fight, the problem is apparent: How can anyone prove that all six students directly participated in this fight? Is it possible, if not likely, that in a fight lasting only a few seconds, a group of students huddled closely around the fight? And is it possible that an African-American student or students who had gathered closely to the fight could have been falsly implicated due to their race and (potentially) their friendships with the student or students truly responsible for the crime? After all, not a single eyewitness got a positive ID on ALL six of accused during the fight.

That said, the district attorney probably (successfully) arrested at least one of the young men responsible for both initiating and beating another young man unconscious, but based on the available evidence, information, and testimonies, I also believe it is possible that at least one and at most four individuals may have been charged for a crime they simply witnessed (and to which they were not an accomplice). And in the event that, for some reason, these suspicions are correct, then the “justification” for the attempted second degree murder charges against five of these young men, which was built on the idea that the fight was six young men attacking one young man), is rendered baseless.

Local Support:

There are some who are angered or perturbed when people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to town to speak and to rally for the Jena Six. Not suprisingly, instead of addressing specific topical disagreements regarding the Jena Six they may have with people like Sharpton and Jackson, criticism is usually directed against their characters and their motivations. Others argue that national civil rights leaders impede on the community’s ability to solve these problems themselves.

Many have observed that this resistance toward the inclusion of civil rights leaders in issues such as these was commonplace in numerous cities during the Civil Rights Movement, and they have forcefully argued that these leaders provide critical attention to injustices and situations that may otherwise never be reported or acknowledged.

Jena, Louisiana will forever be associated with this school fight. It will leave an indelible mark on the town. But instead of merely focusing on the town of Jena, we should also focus on the national implications. The notion that this could only happen in a place like Jena is empirically flawed, and for some, that’s a difficult truth.

Update: The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal vacated Mychal Bell’s conviction on aggrevated second-degree battery. According to the news release, Reed Walters now faces a decision: He can charge Bell with attempted murder as an adult or he can charge Bell with aggrevated battery as a juvenile or he can drop all charges against Bell based on the available evidence.