A Legal Analysis of State v. Bell

United African Movement was formed on August 17, 1988 in honor of Marcus Mosiah Garvey and specifically to empower women of African ancestry against the abuses of white supremacy. Black women have been stripped of all legal tools in American jurisprudence. This includes the right of self-defense, the right to testify against white men and the right to compulsory process.
A year later, in 1989, six Black and Latino youth were indicted for the rape of Patricia Meili, a white woman. There was no eyewitness testimony and no DNA evidence to connect the youth with either the victim or the crime scene. Meili never became a complaining witness. She lacked any incriminating evidence. Five of these boys spent years in prison before the real assailant confessed.
There was no buffer between the criminal justice system and the Central Park jogger defendants. They were prosecuted in adult court rather than juvenile court. Justice Thomas Galligan of the Bronx was appointed to preside over the trial of the indictment. Only four Black lawyers were willing to get involved in the case. Three were subsequently disbarred and the other attorney was suspended.
Nearly twenty years later, judicial terrorism has raised its ugly head in Jena, LA. The outcome is the “Jena 6.” These six Black youth have been ensnared by the criminal justice system to serve as examples. White people will not tolerate Blacks who do not know their place. Seating in Jena is still segregated. The white prosecutor delivered this message to the Black students in September 2006.
After Justin Barker, a white student, referred to Blacks as “niggers,” he received what he was asking for –a beating. The assailants are probably unknown but this did not stop the criminal justice system from conducting a round-up. The object of terrorism is fear and not justice. Black bodies are elevated over Black suspects.
Mychal Bell was the first member of the “Jena 6" to be prosecuted in a kangaroo proceeding. The judicial personnel included a white judge, a white prosecutor and an all-white jury from an all-white jury pool. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has bypassed Jena, LA. Jury pools are usually chosen from voting registration lists.
Bell was originally indicted for attempted murder. “Nigger” is not a provocative word in the eyes of white supremacists. Like a swastika, it is not evidence of hatred. The use of the word “nigger” by an assailant does not diminish criminal culpability in Jena.
For example, a man or woman who kills his or her spouse after observing the spouse and another person engaging in sexual intercourse is usually prosecuted for manslaughter and not murder. “Nigger” should diminish the criminal culpability of the assailant.
The jury convicted Bell of aggravated assault and battery and conspiracy and he initially faced 22 years in prison. The conspiracy charge was tossed on September 4 from a motion to set aside the verdict. There were also serious concerns raised about the propriety of prosecuting Bell as an adult.
Bell still faces 15 years behind bars when he is sentenced on September 20. Many factors suggest that Bell will receive an unconstitutional sentence and, particularly, in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Thus, the indictment should be dismissed in the interest of justice.
If this case had been handled in juvenile court, Bell could have only been detained until his 21st birthday instead of his 32nd birthday. At best, the injuries that Barkin sustained only constitute a misdemeanor. He was treated and he went on his merry way. There was no impairment of any of his faculties or limbs.
His injuries fall outside of a felony. There was no impairment of his physical ability. A misdemeanor calls for a sentence of a year or less in a jail. With credit for good behavior, he has already served a misdemeanor sentence. Good-time credit is usually one-third of an inmate’s sentence. Bell should be freed on September 20. The indictment should be dismissed.
A sentence for Bell would be unconstitutional. There must be a strategy fashioned to combat an unconstitutional sentence. There is a right of appeal. The right of appeal is a judicial concern and it should be entrusted to competent lawyers. The state should provide a free transcript without errors. An appellate brief and appendix should be completed from the transcript.
The second approach is for Bell supporters to demand that Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco pardon Bell. This would free Bell of any criminal record and it would end any criminal sentence. This is the preferable approach. The commutation of a sentence would only end a period of incarceration. Thus, the criminal record would still exist. The commutation of a sentence is only a compromise.