The Crystal Mangum Duke Lacrosse Hoax Comes Up Against Court, Albeit Highly Indirectly

From Mangum v. Oxygen Media, LLC, decided Tuesday by James Dever III (E.D.N.C.):

On August 23, 2021, Crystal Gail Mangum ("Mangum" or "plaintiff") filed a pro se "libel and defamation" action against Oxygen Media, LLC and Jennifer Geisser ….

On April 3, 2011, Mangum stabbed her boyfriend Reginald Daye …. "Daye died a few days later due to complications from the stab wound." On November 22, 2013, a jury in Durham County Superior Court convicted Mangum of second-degree murder in connection with Daye's death…..

Mangum alleges that Oxygen Media defamed her on October 7, 2018, when it published on its online site "Murders A–Z" an article titled "Former Exotic Dancer Who Accused Duke Lacrosse Players of Sexual Assault Fatally Stabs Boyfriend." According to Mangum, the word "fatally" is inaccurate and defamatory. Mangum continues to deny that Daye died because she stabbed him.

The judge rejected the claim on statute of limitations ground, but also rejected a request that he recuse himself:

[Sidney Harr, who is attempting to represent Mangum,] suggests my connections to Duke Law School warrant my recusal. Harr specifically cites that I graduated from Duke Law School in 1987, was editor-in-chief of the Duke Law Journal as a student, currently teach courses there, and am on the law school's board of visitors.

Harr also cites Mangum's "acrimonious" relationship with Duke University after Mangum falsely accused several Duke lacrosse players of raping her. Moreover, Harr and Mangum believe that Daye died because of malpractice by Duke University Hospital medical personnel, not because Mangum stabbed Daye. Harr suggests that my connections to Duke Law School require recusal given Mangum's relationship to Duke University and his and Mangum's allegations concerning Duke University Hospital medical personnel who treated Daye….

Section 455(b)(1) [of Title 28] mandates recusal when a judge has personal bias toward a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings. Neither Duke University Hospital nor any current or former Duke University Hospital medical personnel are parties to this case. And my connections to Duke Law School have no relationship to Mangum and Oxygen Media, the actual parties in this lawsuit. Moreover, I have no personal knowledge of the care Daye received at Duke University Hospital after Mangum stabbed him. Accordingly, section 455(b)(1) does not require me to recuse in this case.

Section 455(a) states that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." A court must evaluate a recusal motion under section 455(a) on an objective basis…. A judge need not recuse "because of unsupported, irrational, or highly tenuous speculation." …

Considering all the facts and circumstances from the viewpoint of a reasonable, well-informed observer, my impartiality could not reasonably be questioned in this case. Contrary to Harr's arguments, Duke University's liability is not at issue in this case (i.e., Duke University would not be liable for any damages awarded against Oxygen Media). Duke University is not a party. Moreover, the jury in Mangum's criminal case, over which I did not preside, already decided Daye's cause of death and found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Daye died because Mangum stabbed him. In light of the jury's findings in Mangum's criminal case, the question in this case is whether Oxygen Media (not Duke University) defamed Mangum. Because my connections to Duke Law School have no bearing on that question, a reasonable, well-informed observer could not reasonably question my impartiality in this case….

Comments

[John F. Carr]

Also from the judge's order, she's been getting help from her serial litigant amateur lawyer fiancé Sidney B. Harr. "[...] his preparation of or assistance to Magnum in preparing at least five filings in this case, including three motions and two response briefs, appears to flagrantly violate the Wake County Superior Court's February 18, 2013 order enjoining Harr from practicing law." But he didn't strike the papers. He considered them and had a copy of his order sent to the Wake County court for "any further proceedings".

[apedad]

". . . my impartiality could not reasonably be questioned in this case."

Ugh...

A judge is judging their own judge-worthiness - which goes against our entire system of govt checks and balances.

I agree this judge is probably impartial in this case, but it really needs to be decided by a third party.

[John F. Carr]

Decisions can be reviewed on appeal or by asking a higher court of a writ. The First Circuit took a judge off of Whitey Bulger's case because of the appearance of a conflict of interest due to past work for the U.S. Attorney's office. https://casetext.com/case/in-re-bulger

[Rossami]

Decision can be reviewed on appeal but should that be the sole process? If you had the chance to rebuild our system from scratch, would you really put that first check in the hands of the person whose impartiality is being questioned?

If I were designing the system from scratch, I'd make the impartiality question a routine matter for the next judge over. However, I'd also add some consequences if the recusal challenge fails.

[rsteinmetz]

Would your really want the court docket clogged up with every defendant and plaintiff in every case trying to disqualify a judge because of some tenuous potential appearance of conflict? I also wonder if every Judge in that court who went to Duke was disqualified would anyone be left to decide? Suppose a judge went to Duke and agreed that the connection was too weak, would that decision also be challenged?

Of course what we objectively have here is a serial liar and a convicted murderer claiming the Judge can't be fair to her, after denying she is responsible for the murder she was convicted of. In fact she may be one of those people with a reputation so horrendous that she can't be defamed.

[Rossami]

The docket is already clogged up with those challenges - they're just hidden because they're handled by the same judge who is handling the rest of the case. Yes, there would be a slight increase in the legal burden because you'd have to bring a new judge up to speed on the case specifics. The trade-off is a reduction in the appearance of conflict.

And again, there have to be consequences to a failed recusal challenge. That's the real control that keeps the tenuous and outright frivolous challenges from clogging up the system. This doesn't work without a credible loser-pays consequence.

[CommentMonkey]

I think the delay associated with bringing in a new judge for every recusal motion may actually be material. It would also encourage more meritless recusal motions, I think.

Beyond that, I'd bet that judges are actually more apt to recuse themselves than other judges. In other words, I suspect the current system results in more recusals than would the one you propose. I don't have any data on this and maybe I'm wrong. But most judges, in my experience, are keen to avoid the reputational damage that comes from denying even a colorable recusal motion. On the other hand, judges are loathe to do anything that might be seen as embarrassing their colleagues. Thus, I suspect judges will err on the side of not recusing colleagues, even in circumstances in which they might recuse themselves.

As for your point that recusal motions ought to come with strict "loser pays" rules, I agree completely. It will never happen though. Many jurisdictions already have "loser pays" rules for discovery disputes and they are routinely ignored by judges who don't want to upset local bar members.

[David Nieporent]

The sort of litigants who bring frivolous recusal motions are very likely loser-pays consequence-proof.

[DaivdBehar]

Because the judge is paid by the government, there is a tremendous bias in favor of the government. The government should pay half, and the litigant should pay half the paycheck for the duration of a tribunal. David does not even understand this.

[Noscitur a sociis]

If you had the chance to rebuild our system from scratch, would you really put that first check in the hands of the person whose impartiality is being questioned?

Yes.

The state I live in requires automatic review of a denial of recusal by a different judge. It's main utility is giving desperate and unscrupulous litigants a guaranteed way to delay their case for a few days if they need it.

[DaivdBehar]

The judge is not impartial in this case. The litigant put Duke through the wringer in the past, and the judge is a strong Duke partisan. Any decision can be seen as retaliatory. No human should judge their own conduct. No human should have immunity, since it justifies violence in formal logic.

[DaivdBehar]

Isn't it settled that criminal liability is unchanged by medical malpractice? The victim would not have suffered malpractice but for his being stabbed.

[DaivdBehar]

Judges get their paychecks from the government. Is it a coincidence they are totally biased in favor of government? Judges shold get half their checks from the government, and half their pay from the litigants. All judges should recuse themselves if the government is a party to litigation.

[Longtobefree]

If a man can claim to be a woman, and no one is allowed to question it, a judge can declare himself impartial.
Imagine the chaos if all the gender dysphoric mental patients had to have a third party agree that their delusions are facts.

[DaivdBehar]

Delusions imposed on the public by men with guns. The lawyer profession is filled with those, not just gender identity. They believe minds can be read, in forecasting, that standards of care should be set by a fictitious character they refuse to say is Jesus. This sicko profession is in utter failure across the board due to its delusions. If you have the guns you can collect $trillion in rent seeking, and so they will never change without violence

[Davedave]

It's worth noting that in this case there is nothing for the judge to decide. Statute of limitations is up, end of case.

There's a point where you can say revysals shouldn't be decided by judges at all, because they're all in it together. But, in practice, we just don't have a problem here.

[Ed Grinberg]

Well, at least she didn't try to frame anyone this time...

[Longtobefree]

Um, the hospital?

[ReaderY]

It seems a pretty uphill battle to try to claim that somebody saying you killed someone is defamation when a jury has already convicted you of murder over it.

[wolfefan]

Hi Eugene - a small note that Mangum's name is misspelled in the headline.

[Eugene Volokh]

Whoops, sorry, fixed!

[Dilan Esper]

I think that particular typo is almost inevitable if you write about this person enough.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd assumed it was her stage name.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With red meat for rubes,
The UCLA law prof
still lathers his fans

Stolen election?
Bamboo ballots? Clingers gagged?
Those uppity gays?

A 230-turn
to avenge Clinger King Trump?
No, this time it's Duke

[Krayt]

They like the foibles of her lawyer, you like the foibles of Trump's lawyer, where is that popcorn vendor anyway?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Yes, popcorn!

I intend and expect to enjoy the continuing unfolding of the American culture war.

And this white, male, movement conservative blog's continued unraveling in response to more liberal-libertarian mainstream progress in America.

[DaivdBehar]

Delusional thinking by a rent seeking, hate filled lawyer. Wait until 2025 when payback will visit the Democrat Party.

[ReaderY]

Yeah, sometimes these stupid lawyer tricks kinds of posts can be entertaining even when the political context they’re embedded in isn’t funny, and sometimes even when it’s the other side’s stupid lawyers doing the stupid lawyer tricks.

Bring on the popcorn.

[ReaderY]

Sorry, even when it’s your own side’s stupid lawyers doing the stupid lawyer tricks.

[DaivdBehar]

I do not see any reason for anyone to be upset about this post. It is a useful review of several legal issues.

[ducksalad]

Modern poetry sucks.

Try again with rhyme and meter.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is your disdain of modernity comprehensive, or is it just the poetry and diminished bigotry?

[Greg J]

"On November 22, 2013, a jury in Durham County Superior Court convicted Mangum of second-degree murder in connection with Daye's death"

Sorry, Crystal, but once a jury has convicted you of murder, people no longer have to call you an "alleged" murderer

[not guilty]

I don´t know whether the defendant raised it as an issue, but wouldn´t the jury verdict as to second degree murder be dispositive? The plaintiff, having been found culpable of the fatal stabbing beyond a reasonable doubt, would seem to be estopped to deny the truth of the publication.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. What is your preferred pronoun in accordance with your gender self identity?

[Longtobefree]

If by "that issue" you mean outlawing truth, then yes, I am.
Forcing the citizenry, especially school children, to say (and ideally believe) men are women is no different than demanding we say the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it.

The terrifying thing about 1984 was never the cameras, it was newspeak.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Queenie. What does blowhard mean to you?

[DaivdBehar]

Is the mocking of people's mothers a hood custom? What hood did you grow up in or attend 6th grade?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm not even sure I substantively disagree with you, but this does seem like an odd time to bring it up.