Shaquanda Cotton & You

I've known about a miscarriage of justice for over a week or two, and I've said nothing about it. But today I'd like to make a small point in light of a story with legs.

The story is that about Shaquanda Cotton, the black girl from Paris, Texas who was sentenced to about 7 years in prison for shoving. That's right, shoving. Shaquanda is 14 years old.

The youth had no prior arrest record, and the hall monitor--a 58-year-old teacher's aide--was not seriously injured. But Shaquanda was tried in March 2006 in the town's juvenile court, convicted of "assault on a public servant" and sentenced by Lamar County Judge Chuck Superville to prison for up to 7 years, until she turns 21.
 
Just three months earlier, Superville sentenced a 14-year-old white girl, convicted of arson for burning down her family's house, to probation.

It doesn't get any plainer than that. Chuck Superville is begging to be compared with Mike Nifong as legal terrorist of the year. Surely there are other officers of his court that are complicit in this travesty of justice. With any luck, he'll be run out of town, and investigated until it hurts. But you never know. If there's anything to be learned about life in America, it's how godawfully difficult it can be to fire attorneys. What do you think are the chances that we could get the law changed so that lawyers are easier to fire? Speaking of which, who the hell represented Cotton?

Spence brings this to my attention today with regard to the Kwaku Network, which as all Cobb readers know is my term for the informal backchannel of communications of African Americans. I hesitate to say that the network is broken, because it has no particular goals or discipline. It is what it is. But some days I wish that it were a little bit more efficient and pinpointy accurate, a bit more timely and not so reliant on external sources. You see right about now, as I become emotionally attached to this story, I want to hear about what's up in Paris, TX from folks in Paris, TX. I mean, any internationally famous director can make a cute movie about a place we've never been and will never go, but why should we believe him?

It comes down to storytelling, and this is something we all ought to be incrementally better at. We the people. For our own damned survival and for the survival of liberty in this country. Some days I get the feeling that more and more of us are turning into iPod People, walking around connected to some device that robs us of articulateness. We pick a band and let their lyrics do our talking, while we're transported out of the present as we walk down the street. Who saw Shaquanda do the shoving? Who was the witness? How did it come to be that such an incident happening right in front of somebody's face got punted to the cops?

People who believe in fairness and justice need to recognize that they are the justice system too. This is where the people of Paris, TX failed Shaquanda and her arsonist neighbor too. And I have to write about this because I'm just as capable as any newspaper editorialist. I can't evade that responsibility either. I'm not going to let the MSM go on a ratings tear about racism still alive and well in 2007. That's not what this is all about. This is about the failure of citizenship, and a failure of adults to protect children and consequently the failure of children to respect their elders. This is about the breakdown of society in a town called Paris, TX and how much that town is just like yours because it is full of people just like you who talking into their cellphones and taking video pictures of tragedy instead of using your hands, your hearts and your minds.

Comments

[The Water Ox]

I have nothing to say, but see this and this.

[Cobb]

Great details. I'm glad you said it. It's just the kind of stuff I was looking for. Now I'm going poke around the 'sphere to see what kind of big fat hairy deal is being made of this and in which direction.

[David McQueen]

OOh what was that I just felt?
Ooh it was a breath of fresh air.
Thanks for your write up on this Cobb.

[elb1999]

Unfortunately there seems to be a lot more going on beneath the surface of this story. Looks like it might be about a bad ass kid and a mother in denial.

[Lester Spence]

How can you call a kid with no history of problems a bad-ass kid?

On top of that, what is the baseline for citizenship? Should it be tied to behavior even when no law exists that mandates it? I understand fully that black folks chose Rosa Parks over Claudette Colvin...but surely Jim Crow segregation was equally wrong for a single teenage pregnant girl?

[Cobb]

It does look like that. And of course that takes us to the center of a number of ideological debates about education, race, juvenile justice and family values. Ick.

Given what I've learned at Qusan's site, (great stuff from the locals), I'm inclined to be a lot more lenient in my harsh criticism of Judge Superville for two reasons. Firstly, the reason we have judges are to eliminate the kind of snap comparisons made between this and that 14 year old girl. For all we know the would be arsonist flicked a cigarette at her mother in anger and it landed in the sofa. But it is pointless to compare on case to the other, and yeah i fell for that bait, sorta.

Secondly, the fact of the Cottons' rejection of an opportunity for probation is just contemptible. So the judge is certainly within reason to apply the indeterminate sentence. I did see that 'up to seven years' and didn't conflate it with seven years, but if I had lawyerly eyes I would have looked closer. I didn't know there was a such thing as an indeterminate sentence.

[Cobb]

The closer I look, the less I want to look, but that's because the 'significance' of this case is all out of proportion, and I feel compelled to smack some sense into commentators as well as pontificate.

Something told me not to get involved with this story in the first place.

Here's more stuff forwarded to me from the left wing of my family.

[ken]

Here was an article from Paris News (local paper), I decided to cut an paste it because you need to suscribe.

Here it is:

Superville: Look at all the facts

By Mary Madewell
The Paris News

Published March 25, 2007

County Judge Chuck Superville says he fears for the community’s safety and is calling for the national media and other organizations to investigate the facts before drawing conclusions about the Shaquanda Cotton case.

The judge said a March 12 story in The Chicago Tribune unfairly painted the community as racist and a recent protest as well as the threat of future protests by organized groups with national media coverage could “spin this thing out of control.”

Superville said he has refrained from commenting until now because of his position as the judge in the Cotton case, but that he believes he has a higher duty as county judge to maintain order in the community.

“I call on the media and others involved to go to the public record to get the facts of the case before they rush to judgment,” Superville said Saturday.

Superville said after a three-day jury trial, which found that Cotton committed an act of juvenile delinquency — namely assault causing bodily injury against a public servant — he determined the best place for her would be Texas Youth Commission.

“If Shaquanda had been white, the outcome would have been the same,” Superville said. “My decision was based on facts and law and I am confident this was the correct decision based on the facts I was presented.”

The March 2006 case is on appeal with the Texarkana Court of Appeals. The court conducted a 10-hour hearing in August 2006 to consider a request that Cotton be released on bond.

The judge said Cotton could have been released at that time but would not speculate why the appellate court did not grant the bond. The judge said he presented the facts of the case and that attorneys for both the prosecution and for Cotton presented arguments.

Superville said he gave the 14-year old an indeterminate sentence up to seven years — her 21st birthday.

“Once I set the indeterminate sentence, Shaquanda holds the key to her jail cell,” Superville said. “It is up to the child and TYC.”

In explaining the juvenile process, Superville said after a jury makes it’s finding, the judge determines the disposition.

“I am bound by law to ask lawyers whether or not reasonable effort has been made to prevent or eliminate the need for the child to be removed from her home,” Superville said.

“I also must determine whether or not there is enough family support to assist the child in successfully completing terms and conditions of probation,” Superville said.

“Thirdly, I must determine whether or not it is in the child’s best interest to be removed from the home,” the judge said.

“Both lawyers presented evidence on those points,” Superville explained. “The county attorney put on a substantial amount of evidence that Shaquanda had been a persistent behavior problem at school and that the mother failed to cooperate at every turn.”

“I asked if there was anything that could be done that had not already been done and the repeated answer was ‘no,’” Superville said.

Superville said reports from Lamar County Juvenile Probation Department also weighed on his decision. Before a juvenile trial which could result in probation, the probation department conducts a fact-finding survey.

“The juvenile officer said the mother refused to cooperate and said he had no reason to believe the mother would cooperate if Shaquanda received probation,” Superville said.

“That theme was repeated witness after witness—that the mother made it impossible to help Shaquanda,” Superville said. “She blamed everyone except the child for misbehavior.”

[Lester Spence]

Thanks Ken. I still think that Prometheus6 has the best response to this article. The fact remains that Ms. Cotton did not injure the aid, that she has a spotless record (unless you count wearing skirts that were too short), that the prison has a history of mistreating juveniles, that the prison is normally reserved for harsh offenders, and that Shaquanda's issues are medical in nature.

Listen. In every case involving systemic mistreatment or subjugation you don't have to look hard to find something wrong with the victim. One of the reasons that Rosa Parks is Rosa Parks is because her character was so flawless that organizers knew that no one would be able to assail her if they organized around her case.

But while I appreciate both Judge Superville for coming forward, and for Ken in this case for bringing the article to light, it doesn't change the central components of the case. And it seems to me you're either going to be for making Cotton whole based on those central components, or you're going to move on because Ms. Cotton is an imperfect organizing tool.

[Cobb]

Impefect organizing tool indeed! Using your daughter's freedom as a bargaining chip in a vendetta against the system is about as imperfect as you can get. But I think the folks at the school have her number, and I'm beginning to question the wisdom of people who are making a federal case out of this.

[ken]

A little more info: Lamar County District Attorney. I imagine this can be all checked out.

http://www.lamarcountyattorney.com/cotton.html

[Duane]

The one thing I learned in all of this:

Rickey Smiley has a syndicated talk show.

[Lester Spence]

Impefect organizing tool indeed! Using your daughter's freedom as a bargaining chip in a vendetta against the system is about as imperfect as you can get.

I wasn't referring to Ms. Cotton's mother, but rather to the ACLU. That should have been pretty clear. But whatever the case, your comment is shades of Hannah Arendt vs. Ralph Ellison. Arendt was wrong there...and you're no Arendt.

But I think the folks at the school have her number, and I'm beginning to question the wisdom of people who are making a federal case out of this.

Why exactly?

[Cobb]

Because rights carry responsibilities, and in all of the information I've seen here, nothing suggests a system that is broken, rather a system that is functioning perfectly in the context of some very soft values.

My angle in this very much takes off where the woman from Smiley's Summit commented about schools saying 'everyone is scared of the kids'. Nothing could be more of an indictment of a lax set of values by adults than when they allow children to run wild. I am convinced that Cotton's mother has done just that, and that the public school system does not and will not make the proper corrections. There is no sense of enforced duty as one might have in a Catholic school that allows corporal punishment. Consequently, there is just talk, to which this child has not been adequately responsive. But more importantly, there is a dissolution of community. If a 'problem child' cannot be corrected in school (a free public institution), where do they go next? They go to the police. So Shaquanda and her mother are a combination that are headed for towards drop-out and one incident seals it.

What I see is the dissolution of community inherent in that process. Everybody (of sufficient maturity) knows that the Old School won't put up with it. "Somebody needs to knock some sense into her." is the subtext. But nobody in the school system is authorized.

Branching theoretically for a moment. One school of thought says, stretch the system, put a new set of bungalows and new set of rules out there for this category of children. The single-parent, ADHD, black female, at-risk... and federally fund a new fleet of short buses. The opposing school of thought says, high standards for everyone, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from, conform or die. Somewhere in the middle of that is young Cotton before the incident and the school, at its limit began to withdraw support.

So it is inevitable that somebody would and did drop out. I haven't seen much discussion about the suitability of the 'civil rights' group Cotton's mother is involved with, but I've seen its MySpace page. Yike.

To make a federal case out of this is to suggest that Cotton is representative of somebody who needs more attention, and I'm obviously principly opposed to the first school of thought, which would add short buses. I'm convinced by the DA's statement that Cotton's mother and attorneys rolled the dice with Cotton's freedom and lost. The arsonist's parents accepted the conditions of probation, Cotton's mother rejected them. There's no legal case here that's not wildly obscure. The jury acted reasonably. There is no miscarriage of justice, there's just willfulness and stupidity on the defense team.

As for the conditions of the youth authority facilities. You're back to square one. Here's a public facility with rules and regs, and Cotton is running afowl.

Why should we break our necks for Shaquanda Cotton? What do her actions make her representative of that America should defend?

Didn't Dave Chappelle ask 'how old is 14, really?'.

In my mind it comes to this. The judge asks, do you want to admit your responsibility and make a promise and get probation? Cotton says Hell no. I didn't do anything wrong. How old is 14 really? Now look at your own children, how would you expect them to behave? What right does Cotton have to reject the free public system that works for everyone else, especially and including the 14 year old white girl to whom she's compared?

[Swan]

OT

Re: prosecutor-purgegate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10349.html

What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

[Charles Duggleson]

My wife is rounding the corner of her first year of teaching middle schoolers. The kids are mostly Black and many of them are troublemakers. My wife started off a mashmallow, but now she's stern and firm. The change in attitude has worked, she's won their respect and most have modified their behaviour for the better. Then again, as I glance at my wedding band, I can testify that she's pretty much irrisistable anyhow.

Just to say that I can understand, to a point, the perspective of Old School, that some tough lovin could be in the offing here. I don't believe that's the issue, Cobb. It's a question of scale and proportion. Once you decide Shaquanda (Shanquanda...daaag!) is a bent seed, does the community shun and dispose summarily?

Cobb, is there no sentence that you would find appalling? Seven years max if "bad behaviour" in the clink? Where do you draw the line? Seven's ok, but twenty -- now, that's nutty?

I put to you re your Old School rules, that a sentence like this for this woman-child, even one with her "background" is neither Christian nor reformatory. By my gross calculations, it is 119.72% punitive, and from the sounds of it, a good chunk of that is for her mother.

Seriously, you can't see that? Frankly good man, I'm a little embarrassed for you. What do your wife and kids think?

I hear you tho re kwaku network. I guess the node's broken in Paris, new skins for the e-drums required.

[Cobb]

I'll have to replicate the DA's statement. The Cottons had three chances and they threw them away. Apparently, there has been some renegotiation as of today:

Statement 3-30-07 regarding Miss Cotton's release:

We are happy for Miss Cotton and her family and wish her nothing but the best in the future. We sincerely hope she has learned her lesson and that we do not see her in the criminal justice system ever again.

Background/Talking points regarding the Shaquanda Cotton case

This juvenile girl assaulted a teacher, who by Texas law is a public servant, in September 2005. It was witnessed first-hand by two other teachers who testified.

The juvenile asked for, and received, a trial and was found adjudicated delinquent by a jury (we don't refer to juveniles as "guilty" or "not guilty" in Texas - it's "adjudicated" or "not adjudicated") in March of 2006. The deliberated for 5 minutes.

Before trial, the Lamar County and District Attorney's Office (prosecutors) offered a plea bargain reduction from felony to misdemeanor assault and 2 years juvenile probation, which the mother and defense attorney turned down.

After the jury adjudicated the juvenile as delinquent, the defense asked Lamar County Judge Chuck Superville to set punishment. The defense could have had a jury set punishment, but asked for the judge to decide.

This juvenile did NOT receive 7 years in prison. She was given an indeterminate sentence to the Texas Youth Commission, which means her conduct and cooperation with their behavior rehabilitation programs determines when she gets out. Minimum time to complete the programs for this level of offense is one year. She entered TYC in March 2006 and could have been out March 17, 2007, if she was being cooperative.

Texas statute under the Family Code (governing juveniles) left 2 options for the judge: 1) release the juvenile on probation back to a family member who verbally assures the judge that cooperative efforts to meet probation conditions will be met, and 2) sentence to the Texas Youth Commission.

Often, parents are part of the problem and other family members step forward to offer to take the juvenile in their care and see to it probation conditions are met. NO other family members came forward and this juvenile's mother (Creola Cotton) refused to cooperate with social and family studies ordered by the judge so that he could determine if probation was feasible. Through her actions of non-cooperation, Ms. Cotton told the judge she would not comply with conditions of probation. The judge's hands were tied by the law and he had no other choice but TYC.

School officials testified during the punishment phase that this juvenile had been a continuous discipline problem and that her mother continually defended her actions, telling her she did nothing wrong, and fought against disciplinary actions against her daughter for legitimate infractions.

The defense filed an appeal, fired the defense attorney trial attorney they hired (Wesley Newell of Dallas) and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (saying the defense attorney didn't do his job well enough). The Court of Appeals in Texarkana ruled that the juvenile would not be released on bond pending their final appeal decision. That decision has not yet been handed down.

This juvenile would not be in TYC if her mother had agreed to cooperate with conditions of probation after the jury found her essentially guilty.

Black leaders in our community, as well as the local chapter of the NAACP, have shyed away from the case because it is an issue of irresponsible parenting. The mother and her fringe, extremist, anti-white organization (Concerned Citizens for Racial Equality) who are aligned with the New Black Panthers want to blame the system and the judge for her daughter being in TYC.

There comes a time when we all must recognize when our actions have been discovered, we have been judged guilty, and we must suffer the consequences. To remove consequences from our children for their actions does them more harm than good.

The vast majority of people who have been found guilty by a judge or a jury and are subsequently incarcerated continue to maintain their innocence, which is their choice and their right as human beings in a democratic society. However, we have a system in place to deal with people who have broken the law and that system includes fellow citizens all along the way, including juries.

A jury found her guilty, the judge set her punishment, and this juvenile has now spent one year in a detention facility where she never had to go if her mother had cooperated with officials attempting to place her child on probation.

The district attorney's office in this case wants nothing more than to see this juvenile re-enter society and never cause another problem for herself by following the rules that society puts in place through its various organizations and formats (school, public laws, etc.). It is our position that she's spent more than enough time in TYC - in fact, never had to go there - and that if TYC feels she has learned her lesson, then let her out.

[Cobb]

I am unfortunately not privy to the precious intellectual property of the transcript of Arendt vs Ellison. Perhaps one day it will make it into a Google cache. So while I know one or two things about Heidegger, I will stipulate that I am no Arendt.

In fact I did very much consider the deportment of Charlene Hunter, James Meredith and the Little Rock Nine when I asked what is it about Cotton's disposition we find necessary to defend. I would go as far as to give Cotton's mother the benefit of the doubt and suggest that this was a question of Civil Rights vs Black Power. And although this bears no resemblance whatsoever to a legitimate test case to prove discrimination, I would allow that Cotton's mother's defiance of the court smacked of the causeless rebellion of the New Black Panthers. Why would anyone expect the ACLU to support Black Power, by the way?

At any rate, I still say that Paris failed Cotton by not being able to intervene with some force of moral purpose. Her family, her friends, her church, her neighbors all failed to stop a train wreck I think all of them must have seen coming given Cotton's mother's politics. Then again, I'll be the last to suggest any publicly funded solution be found. This, to me, is a matter of personal courage and Old School values. Christian charity if you want to call it that. Something other than punting to the cops.

All the while, given the fact that nobody in Cotton's family would vouch for her to submit to probation until now, then apparently she is exactly the Cousin Pookie Obama was talking about. In that respect, TYC was just what she needed.

[gary waite]

I was appointed to represent Shaquanda on appeal after she was convicted...I did not represent her at trial. There are a few comments that need to be made about the DA's statement.
First, Shaquanda was never offered probation from the DA's office. You don't have to take my word for that, it's in the trial transcript. I filed a motion for new trial as part of the appeal. I called the trial lawyer and asked him if a probation offer had been made. He answered "no." This was never disputed by the DA's office. Later, after trial , I specifically asked if a probation offer had been made. The DA said "no." That ended my enquiry into the plea bargain part of the case, and I filed my appeal with the Texas sixth Court of Appeals. My grounds , among others, are ineffective assistance of counsel and insufficient evidence to remove her from her mother's home to place her in TYC.
One of the things that is disturbing about the release from the DA's office is the apparent lack of knowledge about juvenile law. A juvenile cannot, I repeat, Cannot, be sentenced by a jury. Only the judge can set the punishment.
There are many other "misstatements" about this case. I try only to set the record straight.

[Lester Spence]

Thank you Mr. Waite.

I apologize to Mr. Waite because I should let his comments sit by themselves for a bit.

But I cannot. I will, however, delete the "defiance of the court" question I had, since Mr. Waite has rendered it moot.

What in Ms. Cotton's record suggested to you that she had A strike, much less 3 strikes before this event occurred?

The reason that Ms. Cotton didn't get probation prior to this, is because she would not admit her guilt (why would she if she feels she was railroaded?) and because she had illegal contraband (a pair of socks). What am I missing?

Rights come before responsibilities. There is nothing in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence that suggests otherwise. What document are you reading?

[DarkStar]

Cobb, don't dodge, don't flower with expansive use of vocabulary, just put it plain and simple:

NO other family members came forward and this juvenile's mother (Creola Cotton) refused to cooperate with social and family studies ordered by the judge so that he could determine if probation was feasible

What does "social and family studies" mean?

Next:

Her family, her friends, her church, her neighbors all failed to stop a train wreck I think all of them must have seen coming given Cotton's mother's politics.

Are you saying, for you, it comes down to politics and a person's politics is a reason to jail them or their offspring?

Next, from the DA's statement:

Often, parents are part of the problem and other family members step forward to offer to take the juvenile in their care and see to it probation conditions are met. NO other family members came forward and this juvenile's mother (Creola Cotton) refused to cooperate with social and family studies ordered by the judge so that he could determine if probation was feasible.

If I'm not mistaken, the court would have to find the mother unfit in order to place the child in someone else's care. If another family member stepped up, the court has to get the parent's, in this case, mother's, consent.

If commenter Gary Waite is who he claims he is, he just put more on the plate to consider.

A member of my wife's chapter of Mocha Moms is from Paris, TX, and she is saying the mother is part of a group who sued the school system on behalf of Black kids and this is a form of retaliation.

There is much more to this. I think both sides are hiding a lot.

[Cobb]

Thank you Mr. Waite. Now we're getting down to some very interesting questions.

Spence, we can get into the ideas behind the public's responsibility to public instutitions and black angles on that later. If we have an attorney's attention, let's take advantage of this moment.

I read that administrators at the school said that Cotton had discipline problems before, and although I find it difficulty believing that one incident alone would determine her fate, I still think the school failed her. My understanding is that teachers were called as witnesses as to her character at trial and that it wasn't positive - again my assumption is that a jury wouldn't take a kid straight from innocence to the pokey. So what's fuzzy is, was she suspended? Was she expelled? Was she sent to 'military school'? Did she have detention?

Again comparing this to school growing up for me, we had kids who would fight. And we had teachers who would swat, and we had roughneck kids. But we didn't have kids who would dare take a swing at a teacher or even think about cursing one out, but we did have kids who would threaten to have their parents come and curse out a teacher. So this was the closest thing I could think of in imagining what level Cotton had gone to in assuming the temerity to knock over a member of the school staff. But that would be something everybody in school would know. So unless somebody is representing that Cotton had no discipline problems (yeah I've heard no prior 'criminal record') it stretches credibility to suggest this was a bolt from the blue. Additionally, whenever this kind of thing happens, if the kid is a good student, that's the first thing we hear.

All of that notwithstanding, the claim that has got my attention is that no offer of probation was made. The DA's statement says a plea agreement was turned down. If that's a lie, it's a very significant one. The DA's statement says after conviction Cotton's mother refused necessary conditions for probation. If that's a lie, it's a very significant one.

I'm familiar with these kinds of conditions, having gone through a custody battle myself. The magistrate in my case made me attend several classes. I knew I had better go if I wanted custody of my boy, so I went. If Cotton's mother refused such attendance it would argue towards her trying to make a political point... but I didn't think her politics were so relevant, but if there are deceptions in the DA's statement, then somebody needs to go after them. I'm going to see what Volokh might have said and Patterico too.

What kind of 'strikes' are kids required to get in public schools before they are suspended or expelled? Why did Cotton not get the benefit of the doubt of the teachers and staff of the school who are in part responsible for her upbringing? I don't doubt that they intended to wash their hands of her and they shouldn't have, but did they meet their responsibilities or not? I believe they hid behind technicalities, but also as I said, that everybody in her community outside of the public system lacked the courage of their values to save her.

This is what brings it into focus as a liberal vs conservative issue. If it takes a village, the village failed. Even hard characters on the Right see that.

[Cobb]

There's nothing on Cotton at Volokh or Patterico or Blackprof. If anyone finds any other legal blogs with insights please link them here.

Ed, I think I answered your family & social studies question. This is the whole social services squishy stuff attendant to family court. If I were a judge, I would use this as a proxy for asking directly 'did your mama raise you right'? If I know somebody has sat in 15 hours of lectures by a social services counselor, at least I know they have no excuse not to know what is considered socially acceptable behavior. If they resist that.. damn!

That could be the technicality that explains an official offer of probation. Is it a necessary condition? Could it have been offered on the family's own recognizance? That's the judges call isn't it?

Am I saying it comes down to politics and a person's politics is a reason to jail their offspring? No. But I cannot explain how it is that a mother (and family) finds it impossible to get probation instead to time in juvey.

[Lester Spence]

But I cannot explain how it is that a mother (and family) finds it impossible to get probation instead to time in juvey.
Son of a bitch.
Of course you can!
Explain on the other hand how you can possibly be labeled a problem child without a record of actually having documented problems? This is a dichotomous variable--there is no middle ground here. Either Ms. Cotton has a record of being disciplined for infractions beyond "wearing a skirt too short" or she does not. If she does not she is not a problem child. I don't see why you are being obstinate here.

[ken]

Explain on the other hand how you can possibly be labeled a problem child without a record of actually having documented problems? This is a dichotomous variable--there is no middle ground here.

"Dennis Eichelbaum, an attorney for the Paris school district, said the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has vindicated the district by finding no evidence of discrimination in three cases the agency has closed. Five other investigations remain open.

Eichelbaum said Creola Cotton is preventing the district from fairly defending itself by refusing to let the school district make her daughter's entire records public.

"Mrs. Cotton has been wrongfully attacking the character of the district," Eichelbaum said. "She's being disingenuous with regard to her daughter being an innocent child."

"She's playing a game," the attorney said.

This was from the Paris newspaper. I bet with 5 investigations still open, and 3 that have been closed, the school has kept records to make sure their behinds are nicely covered. Maybe for the benefit of this juvenile it might be better to leave these records for closed so if she wants to move on with her life she can.

[ken]

"Young said his office offered to give Cotton two years' probation in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor. Cotton's mother denied an offer was ever made. The girl's trial attorney, Wesley Newell, confirmed Young's offer of probation but he declined to say why it was not accepted.

Little about Cotton's case is available for public review because both the juvenile criminal system and the public school system protect a child's right to privacy."

This was the Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4676774.html

[Lester Spence]

Thanks Ken. On the investigations this is what I have:

But the federal investigations of the school district are not so clear-cut, and they are not finished. In one 2004 finding, Education Department officials determined that black students at a Paris middle school were being written up for disciplinary infractions more than twice as often as white students–and eight times as often in one category, “class disruption.”

The Education Department asked the U.S. Justice Department to try to mediate disputes between black parents and the district, but school officials pulled out of the process last December before it was concluded.

And in April 2006, the Education Department notified Paris school officials that it was opening a new, comprehensive review to determine “whether the district discriminated against African-American students on the basis of race” between 2004 and 2006. Federal officials say that investigation is still in progress.

Now which one is right?

[ken]

Now which one is right?

Are you talking about the investigation, or the Shaquanda case

The investigation into the other allegations should tell us if the scool is wrong or not. If you trust the conclusion or not that is a different issue. If I were the school district and was currently under investigation, I would make sure everything I did was recordered and could be justified. I have to believe the district did this for the Shaquanda case, unless they're just a bunch of fools.

[DarkStar]

The girl's trial attorney, Wesley Newell, confirmed Young's offer of probation but he declined to say why it was not accepted.

Which is different from what Mr. Waite stated.

[ken]

This was from the Washington Post.

"Hubbard said that Shaquanda was offered two years' probation if she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault, a plea deal that Creola Cotton refused because her daughter, who has no previous criminal history, said she did not shove or push the teacher's aide. Hubbard said that after a jury trial on the felony charge of assault on a public servant, the judge sentenced Shaquanda to a minimum of a year in a youth facility because the mother would not cooperate in establishing home-supervised probation.

Creola Cotton disputes that allegation. That issue is among several raised in the appeal of Shaquanda's conviction to the 6th Court of Appeals of Texas. "The judge sentenced her and he didn't have sufficient evidence to show there was not an alternative" to the youth facility, said Gary Waite, the attorney handling the girl's appeal. "The evidence was legally insufficient to establish that her mother couldn't provide the care and support to meet conditions of probation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802196.html?nav=rss_nation

[watcher]

A question for everyone, but especially the Black Conservative, that was on Paris, TX side in the Shaquanda Cotton case?

Read this and tell me what you think now.

The officials of Paris, TX lied. Ms. Cotton agreed to the terms of probation yet it was still denied. Judge Superville would not speculate on why...but felt free to repeat the accusation, as did the District Attorney's office. They literally had no concern for the truth. Knowing there was a transcript,they blithely lied because they couldn't conceive of being challenged, or because they valued the peace of mind of one community over justice and equal protection under the law for the other.

My question: how stupid do you fee for supporting those officials? And are you going to admit you're wrong?

[Cobb]

Joe Gandelman's got a healthy thread. I learned a few new things. Over there I wrote the following:

I learned two things in this discussion. Number one is that the conditions set by Cotton’s mother by initiating the ‘federal case’ around the claim of racist punishments by the school district may justify her insistence on maintaining the innocence of Shaquanda. This makes sense to me. There is ample precedent for federal nullification of local jurisdictions. If I were Cotton’s ‘federal case’ counsel it wouldn’t take much for me to paint the entire region of Texas as a racist backwater arrayed against a poor little innocent black girl. Obviously lots of people here have swallowed that bait. Substitute ‘prison’ for ‘juvey’ and that’s all it takes.

The second thing I learned is that far too many American citizens are just completely ignorant of the law. The very idea of comparing an arson case with an assault case based upon the race of the defendant is a line of logic that is shamefully retarded. All of you should be ashamed.

We should all keep in mind that the reporting on this story has been crazy, and Cotton’s mother and the state of Texas both have an interest in keeping Shaquanda’s school record sealed. Therefore the facts in question will always be in question. All that remains are some results of ‘federal case’ investigations, and the appeal of Cotton’s actual trial.

Oh yea one more thing I learned was that the appellate board did not grant her freedom when they might have. There hasn’t been any news or detail on that matter either.

Again, the only logical reason I see for Cotton's mother to reject local offers for cooperation would be for the 'federal case' to go through. Here's the source for that lesson.

The mother chose the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Division to air her grievance [OCR Docket No. 06061065, filed Nov. 28, 2005]. The investigation focused on noncompliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And so, the case of Creola and Shaquanda Cotton’s will still under investigation when the alleged shoving incident took place. The mother also led a protest against the school system and aided other black parents to file discrimination complaints.

The authorities say the mother and the daughter would not “cooperate”. But the terms of cooperation includes an admission of guilt on the part of Shaquanda to the crime of delinquency. They call this coercive technique “accepting responsibility for her criminal behavior”. Without this confession, authority cannot help or treat the child’s anger management issues. But Shaquanda will not confess- at least, not while her appeal is pending. A confession would undermine her right to an innocence defense.

When cooperation with the authorities means giving a confession or accepting guilt before exhausting due process of administrative review, school authorities and the criminal justice system are exercising unconstitutional coercion in threatening the separation of mother and daughter.

As a result of the Education Department’s civil rights investigation of possible violations against Shaquanda by the Paris School system, the compliance review concluded:

“Information obtained regarding the removal of the complainant’s daughter by the state to a juvenile detention facility, OCR complaint No. 06061065, will be closed as of the date of this letter and the issues and concerns raised regarding discrimination on the basis of race regarding discipline will be reviewed as a part of the Title VI compliance review.”

Either way you slice it, Cotton's mother has taken the calculated risk to defy the local authorities in anticipation of a greater vindication. So tone down my volume about an imperfect organizing tool. Cotton herself thus becomes a political prisoner in a struggle at a higher level, which in some ways is noble and in other ways are very unfortunate.

I would add to all this the following observation. I had a very interesting experience as a mentor at a local ghetto elementary school. I was in my late twenties and I recognized the whole deal with discipline and control over minutiae. So I've seen the dynamic of control gone crazy and more of a, hmm how shall I say it... prison mentality than an academic mentality. This is rather what I would expect of a poor school that just doesn't attract the kind of principal and staff that create a more free learning environment. I have no doubt that race plays its petty invidious ways in such a petty system of child micromanagement. Again, I went to Catholic school. I know what it's like to get swats for being out of uniform. So it's no surprise that, if the record is completely and fairly represented (because the real one is sealed) that rolling up a skirt and spilling paint can be considered discipline problems.

I recognize the sentiment that says Paris is racist and if it takes a shoving to let the world know, then it's justified. But don't deny that Cotton is stonewalling and defying the locals, and don't paint the system as racist. (God here we go again, it's going to be a number.) We all know that if the perp was a 14 year old white boy and the victim a 58 year old black grandmother, the blackosphere would be erupting the other way.

[DarkStar]

Mike, your observations seem to be political in nature, and not analytical.

I'm sorry, but you are attempting to save face, IMO.

[Lester Spence]

Either way you slice it, Cotton's mother has taken the calculated risk to defy the local authorities in anticipation of a greater vindication. So tone down my volume about an imperfect organizing tool. Cotton herself thus becomes a political prisoner in a struggle at a higher level, which in some ways is noble and in other ways are very unfortunate.

I still don't understand your position here. How exactly did Ms. Cotton defy local authorities?

[rikyrah]

Young Ms. Cotton has been freed. The mother needs to take her daughter and get the heck out of that town. You and I both know that the child now has a target on her back, and it's not going to get any better. It's time for them to start anew somewhere else.

[rikyrah]

Young Ms. Cotton has been freed. The mother needs to take her daughter and get the heck out of that town. You and I both know that the child now has a target on her back, and it's not going to get any better. It's time for them to start anew somewhere else.

[ken]

"I still don't understand your position here. How exactly did Ms. Cotton defy local authorities?"

She may not have defied local authorities, but she refused to plead guilty to a lesser sentence and accept probation.

From the Lamar County DA 3/30/2007:

The juvenile asked for, and received, a trial and was found adjudicated delinquent by a jury (we don't refer to juveniles as "guilty" or "not guilty" in Texas - it's "adjudicated" or "not adjudicated") in March of 2006. The deliberated for 5 minutes.

Before trial, the Lamar County and District Attorney's Office (prosecutors) offered a plea bargain reduction from felony to misdemeanor assault and 2 years juvenile probation, which the mother and defense attorney turned down."

This was verified in the Houston Chronicle by the Cotton's trial lawyer:

"Young said his office offered to give Cotton two years' probation in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor. Cotton's mother denied an offer was ever made. The girl's trial attorney, Wesley Newell, confirmed Young's offer of probation but he declined to say why it was not accepted."

Personally, its likely there is more incidents before this one. It would be unusual for a generally cooperative student to all of the sudden get into, pratically a wrestling match with a teacher without any prior incidents.

Houston Chronicle:

"Cotton's struggle against authorities in this small northeast Texas town focuses on a single thread: how a black teenager with no prior criminal history was sent to prison for what her supporters say was a mere brush-up against a teacher's aide, while a white classmate was given probation for burning down her family's rental property by setting a Christmas tree on fire.

Prosecutors in the case counter that the incident involving Cotton was much more serious than a shove. It was an assault, described by Lamar County Attorney Gary Young as a "body slam" that sent a petite 58-year-old teacher's aide to the ground."

I believe Creola Cotton unintentially verified this later in the article:

"Cotton's mother said her daughter was also hurt in the incident, but that no one brought that up at her daughter's jury trial, an unusual proceeding that occurred at the defendant's request."

(I would imagine the defense attorney wouldn't think that litle piece of evidence would help the defendent's case.)

And finally from the DA's office:

"The district attorney's office in this case wants nothing more than to see this juvenile re-enter society and never cause another problem for herself by following the rules that society puts in place through its various organizations and formats (school, public laws, etc.). It is our position that she's spent more than enough time in TYC - in fact, never had to go there - and that if TYC feels she has learned her lesson, then let her out."

[b cobb remotely]

I'm remote and will be brief. I'm convinced that O. Cotton had a choice of priorities and that she believed that if S. woould cop a plea to the local case, that would jeopardize the Title VI case.

Does anyone believe that O. Cotton did actually cooperate with the local court in every way? That she had no way of keeping her daughter out of juvey?

Ed. My angle has always been that the locals failed the Cottons. I call em as I see em. The details of the Title VI case are new. Again I don't see any major statements coming out of the defense.

I'll spew more in a different thread about what I would expect from a community angle. Remember that there are plenty black bloggers that have chased missing balck children. This story would have never risien to our attention if it weren't for the misrepresentation of 'prison' which I quoted in this blog.

[DarkStar]

How exactly did Ms. Cotton defy local authorities?

That's what I keep asking.

Does anyone believe that O. Cotton did actually cooperate with the local court in every way? That she had no way of keeping her daughter out of juvey?

HellifIknow...

From the Chicago Tribune:

Hubbard also backed away from claims he and Young made this week in numerous media interviews that the judge in the case, Lamar County Judge Chuck Superville, had had no choice but to send the youth to prison because her mother had testified that she would not cooperate with probation officials had the judge sentenced the teen to probation.

On Thursday, Young's official Web site contained this assertion: "This juvenile's mother (Creola Cotton) told the judge she would not comply with conditions of probation."

But a review of the full court transcript shows no such testimony. In fact, Creola Cotton repeatedly answered "yes" when asked in court whether she would comply with any conditions of probation that the judge might impose.

Now what?

[DarkStar]

On the failure of the immediate local support system, if the mother is not giving up control, and she is capable, how is there a failure at the local level?

The Chicago Tribune finding that the mother agreed to what the court stated, now, IMO, forces people to look at the court and not at the mother.

[Cobb]

Sorry, I just have no sympathy for parents that work against schools. The local support system includes the school. They failed by punting to the cops. I can see that an egregious act like knocking over a staffer could break the camel's back, but just acknowledge that she was fighting them.

[Charles Duggleson]

So check it: You've got some estranged cousin who hadn't built the strength to raise up out of the tough hood in which she was raised. She becomes a defensive, tempermental person with more than her fair share of white paranoia. She raises a daughter with much the same attributes. Your cousin dies and after consultation with your families, you decide to take in the youngster.

It's not going so well the first few months. She's slowly opening up at home with you and the kids, but at school she's...a "handful." Never gets into serious trouble, but she's no stranger to talking back to authority types, sometimes caught bullying others. She's a headache and not easy to explain to visiting friends and neighbors.

One day she gets in big trouble for shoving a teacher's aid. She is charged with a felony act, which carries mandatory jail time.

Do you let her go, Mike? I mean, what amounts to an out-of-proportion sentence to you?

"But don't deny that Cotton is stonewalling and defying the locals"

Damned straight Cobb, she didn't want her daughter's name changed to "toby" over something like this.

I'm disappointed that such an otherwise brilliant mind can be so blind to spin. You seem to lap up any plausible explanation the DA etc offer. Without an ounce of skepticism. Your Old School forebears, law-abiding citizens each, might still have a different perspective.

I suppose that's the difference between Conservative and Liberal is about whom you tend to give the benefit of doubt.

[Cobb]

Perfect.

I break my neck to not get her arrested in the first place. So that means, I'm immediately at the school to find out what's up. I break my neck not to get charges pressed against her in the first place. That means I kiss the ass of the person who got knocked over. I break my neck in the third place to have teachers and staff at the school work on my behalf. I have my minister, my cousin, my babysitter, my mailman - her best friend's parents, everybody in my community that has something good to say about my child, intervening on her behalf.

OK none of that works. This is the failure that I cited in the original post. A failure to keep the kid out of the justice system in the first place.

Now I'm in the justice system. It's a first offense, I do all the same thing. Anything to keep her out of jail and in my custody. If the DA tells me to dress up in a chicken suit and walk his dog as a part of a condition for probation plea to a misdemeanor instead of a felony trial then I take the plea. And I'm already prepared for this because my experience tells me that my community ain't got my back. They've already tossed me to mercy of the cops and the DA. What supposedly intelligent black parent is clueless at this point?

[Charles Duggleson]

"And I'm already prepared for this because my experience tells me that my community ain't got my back."

Haaaarrsh! C'mon, bruh... I mean... c'mon...

Anyway, I hear you re bending over backwards and kissing whatever distasteful bits they've got to offer in order to keep your charge out of jail. Jail time would pretty much guarantee she'll be a looong time before being ready for productive citizenship. I'm not sure, as indignant and righteous as I might be, that I'd want my young ward to be some sort of test case for justice either.

Tough call, but my point is that you do see the cause for alarm, right? To assume there must be some sort of rational logic behind the sentencing is... unsettling. It's just too easy to rationalize and cover up bullshit. Excesses, whether it's Shaquanda's 'tude, or judicial sentencing, need to be nipped early before it gets away.

[Cobb]

Like I said, nothing Cotton's mother did made sense to me until I read that the Title VI case depends in some regard to Shaquanda's maintenance of innocence. Let's not forget that an appeal was made and that there was an opportunity for the appellate review board to grant a probation, but that didn't happen. No judge wants to be reversed on appeal.

As for the harshness of the sentence, really that's the only thing that makes this case noteworthy at all, and it's all based upon a comparison to another case, which is just wrong, and the eagerness of some to make a political point vis a vis '7 years in prison'. It never was 'seven years in prison'. It's one to seven in juvenile detention which is what you would expect for a felony assault conviction in a jury trial.

[DarkStar]

Sorry, I just have no sympathy for parents that work against schools.

Really?

My cousins worked against the school when the school system wanted to place their son in special education. It turned out that he is highly intelligent and was bored with school. He later graduated from high school in the AP program, double majored in college, and got a comp sci masters from Stanford. And, right now, is working for a major tech firm.

I, and the mother of my daughter, worked against the school when the school wanted to place my daughter, in first grade, on Ritalin.

All over the country, parents who are said to be involved and caring, work against schools of matters they deem of importance to them.

o that means, I'm immediately at the school to find out what's up. I break my neck not to get charges pressed against her in the first place. That means I kiss the ass of the person who got knocked over. I break my neck in the third place to have teachers and staff at the school work on my behalf. I have my minister, my cousin, my babysitter, my mailman - her best friend's parents, everybody in my community that has something good to say about my child, intervening on her behalf.

You have no idea if that was done or not.

What supposedly intelligent black parent is clueless at this point?

Mike, it's been shown, now, that the officials in Paris lied about what happened in court. You are still basing your situation on their lies.

It's one to seven in juvenile detention which is what you would expect for a felony assault conviction in a jury trial.

One, there are different types of juvies.
Two, the system she was placed in was a jail and you know it.
Three, as stated by her current lawyer, in a juvinile
system in Paris, TX, there is no jury trial.

[Cobb]

One. I don't know the difference between 'CYT' and other juvenile detention facilities. My assumption was that juvey is juvey.
Two. If there's a different destination for violent offenders and others, then I would expect that she go where the violent ones go. She was, after all, convicted of the felony charge.
Three. She wasn't tried as an adult, and nobody is appealling for a different venue. She was tried just like all other juveniles that were in 'CYT'. Yes there was a jury in this case, and a black woman was on the jury.

--
Show me where it has been shown that the officials lied about what happened in court. I'd like to review that.

--
'Working against schools' is a generalization. Enjoining a class action lawsuit against the school district in which your child is enrolled is what I'm talking about. I presume that C. Cotton was charging teachers and staff with charges of racist discrimination that, if proven, would cost them their jobs. I'm certain she was naming names in her testimony if she wasn't a crank. And could it be that any of the accused knew she was pointing the finger at them? Probably. Why wouldn't she accuse the very teachers involved in the reports characterizing her daughter's discipline issues? Who said S. Cotton defaced the desk? Do you think everybody didn't know?

Common sense dictates that if you're trying to get a teacher fired, that teacher is going to have some friends and some enemies. It's a fight. Duh.

[Charles Duggleson]

Tricky bidniz getting into blame-the-victim, she-shoulda-knowed kind of arguments. The question isn't a matter of if the daughter did something inappropriate (yes, she did -- tho I say that ignorant of what prompted Shaquanda to try a shove) or whether or not moms could expect some sort of "response" to her insistent badgering of the powers that be (she ought to know better).

The question (which you still duck answering) is regarding the appropriateness, the scale and proportion of the punishment given these specific "crimes" in this scenario. You seem to be saying that if the moms is going to "make trubble" ("don't cause no ruckus, nah"), then she essentially brought on whatehhhver they decided to lash back with. For you, it doesn't matter what they charged her with as long as there's some scintilla of a legal loophole (read: noose) available to leverage and no one has outright claimed a racial bias. If they could have tried her as an adult for assault, fine, says Cobb. Lock her up, she's an embarrassment to my "Old School" values anyway.

Have I nailed it, Mike?

You make a whole lot of presumptions, assumptions etc re the motives of the judge and jury. If nobody sayyys "I hate uppity negros" (or the like) then racism couldn't be involved.

I'm finally convinced your very appreciable intellect is incapable of burrowing past a plausible explanation, especially when it smooths over something you'd rather not contemplate. Shit, after much back and forthing, I'm forced to write you off. Damn.

[Cobb]

I'm saying that the court system should not be politicized. Not by DAs, nor by defenses nor by self-righteous third parties moved to pity. Write that off.

[Temple3]

You couldn't be saying that. Courts are inherently political animals filled with judges, lawyers and all manner of folks with politics. And the courts apply rules of law which are created by political legislators. Perhaps your normative statement is accurate - but is positively not the way of the world. With that said, you have to move off that shaky ground here. You totally missed this one. "...the appropriateness, the scale and proportion of the punishment given these specific "crimes" in this scenario." It's not rocket science.