Crystal Mangum, Duke lacrosse accuser, convicted of murder

Crystal Mangum: In 2006, the Duke lacrosse accuser lied that she was raped by three lacrosse players. Now Crystal Mangum has been convicted of murdering her boyfriend. Mangum claimed self defense.

(AP Photo/ The News & Observer, Chuck Liddy)
A tear runs down Crystal Mangum's face as her verdict of being guilty of second-degree murder is read Friday Nov. 22, 2013 in the stabbing death of her boyfriend, Reginald Daye, in 2011. Mangum was sentenced to a minimum of 14 years and two months to a maximum of 18 years in prison.

The woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape was convicted of second-degree murder Friday in the stabbing death of her boyfriend.

The jury deliberated for about six hours over two days before reaching its verdict in the trial of 34-year-old Crystal Mangum, who was sentenced to between 14 years and 18 years in prison.

Killed was 46-year-old Reginald Daye, who was stabbed on April 3, 2011. He died of complications 10 days later.

Mangum claimed the stabbing was a case of self-defense, saying Daye was beating her in a jealous rage when she grabbed a knife and "poked him in the side."

Assistant District Attorney Charlene Franks told the jurors during closing arguments that the evidence did not back up Mangum's story.

In 2006, Mangum falsely claimed Duke lacrosse players gang-raped her at a team party where she was hired as a stripper. The case caught the nation's attention, as the coach was forced to resign and the university canceled the remainder of the season.

The three players arrested were eventually declared innocent by North Carolina's attorney general after Mangum's story crumbled and her mental stability was questioned. The Durham prosecutor, Mike Nifong, who championed Mangum's case, was later disbarred.

The 2006 case raised larger issues, such as questions about prosecutorial power, according to The Christian Science Monitor.

"If you look at how American politics has developed in the last 20 years, there's a consistent pattern of getting tough on crime, reducing civil liberties, and giving more power to prosecutors," says Robert "KC" Johnson, a Brooklyn College professor who covered the Duke case through a daily blog. "This is really the first high profile event ... where there's been a very strong push by most people, regardless of ideology, in the other direction."

Other legal experts say the Duke case is an isolated incident in which an overzealous and relatively inexperienced prosecutor was thrust into a high-profile case involving a black exotic dancer who accused three white university students of rape at a boozy off-campus party.

"It became a pressure cooker where the top blew off," says Peg Dorer, director of the North Carolina District Attorneys' Conference in Raleigh.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.