(Judge Joe) Turner noted it was unfortunate that other police officers at the party didn't stop the argument between Sanchez and Blake before it escalated to physical violence and said, "I am really disappointed in the leadership."
Without (Lorraine) Galloway, who is not from Greensboro and was at the party as a guest of Police Sgt. J.C. Myrick, it appears this whole thing would have been handled without the public knowing anything about it. The Greensboro Police Department tried very hard to sweep it under the rug, but Galloway and the Guilford County District Attorney's Office did not allow that...
It wouldn't make any sense to charge Blake with assaulting Galloway for essentially trying to break up a fight between him and Sanchez and not charge him with assaulting Sanchez, because it would mean that Galloway was lying about the assault on Sanchez but not the assault on herself...
(Officer C.M Schultheis) said he was standing at the window with Galloway after Blake and Sanchez left, but because of the angle he could not see them. Galloway said that Blake had kicked Sanchez and Schultheis said he went to tell Blake's senior officer and said, "Blake is outside assaulting his girlfriend"...
Schultheis said other officers were out in the parking lot and they told Blake that if he didn't calm down he was going to lose his job...
One thing all the witnesses did agree on was that there was a lot of drinking going on at this party. There was testimony that there was a drinking contest with names up on the board of how may "Jager bombs" people could drink.
Blake admitted to having five or six Jager bombs and two-and-a-half beers and to being extremely intoxicated...
The Police Department mishandling of the case did create some inconsistencies. The police officers at the party allowed Blake to leave, even after he had assaulted Sanchez and Galloway. Blake was not questioned that night and was not questioned until Tuesday, Jan. 20. And initially the Police Department charged Blake with assaulting Galloway but not Sanchez.
It certainly appears the higher echelon at the Police Department didn't want Blake to face charges for assaulting Sanchez. The way they treated the case was as if they wanted it to go away. It wasn't until the case got to the Guilford County District Attorney's Office that the decision was made to charge Blake with assaulting his girlfriend.
So why didn't the police go and arrest Blake that night as they would do if it was someone else? One reason may be that if a man is charged with domestic assault, which is assault on a female member of his family or his girlfriend, there is a mandatory 48-hour jail sentence. It is considered a cooling off period and it is required after an arrest, not after a conviction. If the police had gone that night and arrested Blake he would have had to spend two days in the Guilford County Jail, but the way his arrest for assaulting Sanchez was negotiated, he did not have to serve that 48 hours because a judge signed an order saying that it was being waived.
And there was an unrelated report in the news today:
"Domestic violence starts with a shove or a push," (Attorney General Roy Cooper) said. "It's a big step to decide to leave a domestic situation."
Preliminary data shows the homicides were committed by 103 male offenders and 25 female offenders, some of whom had multiple victims. Of those killed, 99 were female and 32 were male.
I'm sure James Hinson will let Blake take a nice cushy security job. Blake can still carry a gun, right?
Posted by: brandonB | March 26, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Question Number 1: Why did a room full of police officers allow a person who was intoxicated to leave the premises and drive his own vehicle away? Did they not have "designated drivers" at that affair?
Greensboro's Finest allowed a drunk and angry man to drive his own vehicle on city streets with no regard for public safety. This to me is the more appalling crime. Not to say assault on a female is not bad (we have had this discussion I believe :)), but it was the lesser of the two crimes committed IMO. BB
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | March 27, 2009 at 06:33 AM
Brenda, the Hammer article indicates he walked to a friend's house in 9 degree weather. Unless the friend lives near the Police Club, that could have been a pretty long walk. But you are right-- there was no discussion of assault on a female or domestic violence on the initial report.
BrandonB, Blake is now suspended without pay pending the outcome of his appeals. But if he wins his appeal, it is difficult to know what his future will be with the GPD.
And I don't know with certainty if James Hinson would have been playing any role in this situation.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 27, 2009 at 08:39 AM
"And I don't know with certainty if James Hinson would have been playing any role in this situation."
---"Backing bros, smacking h0's" -b. holder
If any of these cops are so righteous, why do they not speak out? Not even Chief Bellamy. Why do his appeals matter right now if he has been convicted? He should be out on his butt. Why hasn't the city council had anything to say about this? Or the alleged rapes from a year ago? I wonder how many brutality complaints AJ Blake has had to deal with.
Posted by: brandonB | March 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Some good questions, Brandon, and I don't know all the answers.
But I agree it seems strange that they feel the need to await his appeals, particularly given the content of Hammer's article. I know they will probably justify it with some "due process" rights or procedures.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 27, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Somewhere along the way, GPD has lost it's ability to administer it's own rules and regulations in a fair and consistent manner and public confidence is at an all time low. Criminal and administrative investigations can and should be conducted separately and there is no need to wait for a criminal appeal to decide on the officer's fate as a GPD employee.Based on the facts that came out during the trial, he should have been dismissed well before the criminal matter was heard. Waiting for the officer to be criminally convicted and losing his certification is the lazy and irresponsible way of administering discipline and justice in a law enforcement agency.
Police officers are human beings that face the same problems and issues as everyone else and should not be expected to be perfect but when one continues to have unacceptable conduct and does not accept personal responsibility for their actions, it's time to find a new career.
My real fear is that police officers in this community do not see themselves involved in a noble profession but rather just a job where they don't have to live up to the public trust when they are not on duty.
Posted by: Anthony1 | March 27, 2009 at 01:50 PM
Anthony1, this series of events took place before Mitchell Johnson's termination. Let's hope there now will be an improvement. But we shall see.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 27, 2009 at 02:53 PM
"before Mitchell Johnson's termination."
-That reminds me, have we spent all the money to find a new manager yet? Or did Morgan find himself already?
Posted by: brandonB | March 27, 2009 at 04:19 PM
Appeal from a District Court case is de novo in Superior Court. This is because there are no jury trials in District Court and every person accused of a crime has the right to a jury trial.
So to get a jury trial in North Carolina for a misdemeanor, there must first be a conviction in District Court to appeal from.
When that appeal is entered, the conviction in District Court is vacated and the case is treated like a new case.
Sometimes the appeal is done to have a jury trial, sometimes it is done to try and negotiate a better plea in Superior Court.
That is the law. I hope Brian Clarey doesn't consider this another "misogynistic rant" for having explained it.
Posted by: Spag | March 27, 2009 at 07:36 PM
Spag, I'm not Brian Clarey, but thank you for clearing that up. The fact remains, AJ Blake beat up 2 people, drunk, in front of other cops, was charged, and convicted, and still has his job. What does vacated mean? He has a clean record as of today? From what I understand, his testimony bordered on perjury, and so did Sanchez's. Does he REALLY want to go to supreme court? Ken Free is making a bad name for himself.
Posted by: brandonB | March 27, 2009 at 07:58 PM
*superior*; though, if found guilty in superior court, I wouldn't be suprised if he tried to take it to Supreme court because we all know, he is being targeted because he is black.
Posted by: brandonB | March 27, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Vacated as in the matter proceeds as if the District Court trial did not occur and the conviction effectively nullified. The charge remains pending.
This kind of appeal is different from the normal appeal which is a claim that the lower court made a legal error and is made to the N.C. Court of Appeals or N.C. Supreme Court. A District Court conviction cannot be appealed to an appellate court, only to a Superior Court because there is no record in criminal matters in District Court (meaning there is no court reporter etc, to transcribe the proceedings). As a result, the Superior Court becomes the first court of record for misdemeanor charges. Only after a trial or hearing (if the issue is solely a question of law) in Superior Court can District Court charges be appealed.
Again, I hope this explanation of how things work in every day practice does not cause me to be branded a misogynist by Brian Clarey.
Posted by: Spag | March 27, 2009 at 09:28 PM
Only after a trial or hearing (if the issue is solely a question of law) in Superior Court can District Court charges be appealed TO AN APPELLATE COURT.
Posted by: Spag | March 27, 2009 at 09:29 PM
Well, I can totally see Joe Turner allowing the perjury to occur in HIS courtroom, and his "reluctance" to convict(which, in my eyes, makes HIM the misogynist!), but does Ken Free and Ahmen Blake really think that they can lie their butts off in a Superior Court? Please tell me that the Joe Turner brand of judges is a District Court type of thing. I can see Blake and Free getting laughed out of the courtroom.
Posted by: brandonB | March 27, 2009 at 09:46 PM
It will obviously be a bit more difficult to convict Blake with a jury, but it appears that the prosecution has a strong case. (It seems doubtful that Doug Henderson would have proceeded otherwise).
It should be noted, however, that the city is free to set its own policies as to when to retain or terminate police officers. It is not necessarily bound to keep Blake under these circumstances unless its internal rules are written inflexibly to absolutely require that he be permitted to pursue appeal alternatives prior to termination.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 27, 2009 at 10:08 PM
I don't understand the hostility towards Joe Turner. He did find Blake guilty. I know Joe Turner and I think you are misreading his words.
When he says "reluctant" I suspect he really meant "regretfully" because he finds it regrettable/unfortunate that a police officer committed a crime.
Posted by: Spag | March 27, 2009 at 10:21 PM
There is no reason that a GPD administrative investigation into the activities of Blake cannot be concluded and he be terminated for violating departmental rules. They finished the criminal investigation when the case was handed to the DA. Waiting around for a conviction and loss of certification is just a way they can say to the powers that be that they had no choice rather than do what is right. But I guess it avoids the uncomfortable situation they might find themselves in when they clear him administratively (saying that he violated no rules even with the lower legal standard of evidence) and then he is convicted of breaking the law in court. That would effectively and publicly declare that following the law is not required of certain GPD officers - but we always knew that.
Posted by: Tim | March 28, 2009 at 07:30 AM
"I don't understand the hostility towards Joe Turner." -- Spag
It's unwarranted. There is a lot of flailing about recently from commenters here who are angry but don't know why and aren't sure who to be angry at so, like a drunk in a stupor, they swing wildly at the nearest target.
Posted by: Roch101 | March 28, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Sam and Roch, I think there has been a longstanding perception in some circles-- even among some police-- that Turner is a lenient judge and magistrate who tends to set bail too low. In fact, there was even at one point an expression of concern written by one of the female judges regarding the activities of the magistrate's office, if I remember correctly. This has little to do with the Blake case, however.
Tim, I agree with your analysis-- if nothing has changed with the firing of Mitchell Johnson. If Blake gets off on appeal, he still might have his job, if the past is any indication of what the future will be. But you are right-- there is no legitimate reason apparent as to why the administrative investigation cannot be concluded.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | March 28, 2009 at 12:08 PM
"angry but don't know why"
--Go watch this man's courtroom, any given day, and you may not want to write it, but you will be angry.
"they swing wildly at the nearest target."
--I'm swinging at anyone involved. This isn't JUST some case. This is quite a big deal and everyone involved from Blake, Turner, Bellamy and all of the officers at the party deserve to be blackballed. I'm sorry if I've offended your friend but he's not clean and that's a whole other post.
Posted by: brandonB | March 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Also, I will confess that I had A LOT of respect for Joe Turner, then this:
http://www.news-record.com/content/2007/11/26/article/bond_lowered_for_man_accused_of_shooting_officer
This man happened to be wanted in Alamannce Co. at the time of the reduction. $150,000 is only an aunts house away from freedom.
Posted by: brandonB | March 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Joe, if Turner really wanted to be lenient, he would have found the officer not guilty. As it stands, he didn't do anything in this case that any other judge in any other county would not have done.
Regarding the bond case, there are bond guidelines in this county and they are set by the Senior Resident Superior Court judge (Catherine Eagles). Turner was following those guidelines.
Posted by: Spag | March 28, 2009 at 04:36 PM
So the bond guidelines require a bond for a man who attempted murder and is a fugitive to be no more than $150,000? I hear about folks everyday who are not allowed bond because of a failure to appear for things like felony larceny. I'm not trying to push buttons. If Turner's hands were tied, then he did what was expected of him. With Blake, I understand first time offenders get reduced/suspended sentences, but for a police officer who shows no remorse and as far as I know, none of his buddies spoke on his behalf, he gets the same treatment as someone who actually leaves themselves at the mercy of the judge? His arrogance warrants jail time in my opinion.
Posted by: brandonB | March 28, 2009 at 04:58 PM
Spag, have you seen the cover of this weeks issue of YES! I don't think Clarey has any room to call you that.
Posted by: brandonB | March 28, 2009 at 06:58 PM