Teen's Conviction Tossed In La. Beating

A state appeals court on Friday threw out the only remaining conviction against one of the black teenagers accused in the beating of a white schoolmate in the racially tense north Louisiana town of Jena.

Mychal Bell, 17, should not have been tried as an adult, the state 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal said in tossing his conviction on aggravated battery, for which he was to have been sentenced Thursday. He could have gotten 15 years in prison.

"There is no substitute for victory. Giddy is the right word," defense attorney Bob Noel said at a news conference in Monroe.

Bell's conspiracy conviction in the December beating of student Justin Barker had already been thrown out by another court.

District Attorney Reed Walters said in a statement delivered to the weekly Jena Times that he would appeal to the state Supreme Court "after I review the decision thoroughly,"

He must appeal within two weeks. Bell, whose bond was set at $90,000, cannot be released from the LaSalle Parish jail unless Walters lets that period lapse without an appeal or the Supreme Court rules in Bell's favor, Sheriff Carl Smith said.

Bell, who was 16 at the time of the beating, is one of six black students at Jena High School charged in an attack on fellow student Justin Barker, and one of five originally charged with attempted second-degree murder.

Those charges brought widespread criticism that blacks were being treated more harshly than whites after racial confrontations and fights at Jena High School.

Civil rights leaders, including the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, had been planning a rally in support of the teens for the day Bell was to have been sentenced.

"Although there will not be a court hearing, we still intend to have a major rally for the Jena Six and now hopefully Mychal Bell will join us," Sharpton said in an e-mailed statement.

Said Jackson: "The pressure must continue until all six boys are set free and sent to school, not to jail."

Jena is a mostly white town where racial animosity flared about a year ago when a black student sat under a tree that was a traditional gathering place for whites. A day later, three nooses were found hanging from the tree. There followed reports of racial fights at the school, culminating in the December attack on Barker.

The reversal of Bell's conviction will not affect four other teenagers also charged as adults, because they were 17 years old at the time of the fight and no longer considered juveniles, said attorney George Tucker of Hammond.

Judge J.P. Mauffray had thrown out Bell's conspiracy conviction, saying it was not a charge on which a juvenile may be tried as an adult. But he had let the battery conviction stand, saying Bell could be tried in adult court because the charge was among lesser charges included in the original attempted murder charge.

Teenagers can be tried as adults in Louisiana for some violent crimes, including attempted murder, but aggravated battery is not one of those crimes, the court said.

Defense lawyers had argued that the aggravated battery case should not have been tried in adult court once the attempted murder charge was reduced.

The case "remains exclusively in juvenile court," the Third Circuit ruled.

Below is the full statement issued Friday by LaSalle District Attorney Reed Walters, as reported by CBS News affiliate WAFB in Baton Rouge.

I begin this statement by saying that it has been my long-standing policy to not make statements about pending cases. I am further restrained by ethical considerations that are designed to protect defendants from prejudice as a result of public remarks made by a prosecutor. However, because of the massive amount of misinformation that has been reported concerning the recent conviction obtained in the so-called "Jena Six" matter, and for my concern for the residents of LaSalle Parish, I have decided to issue the following statement. This statement is designed to correct the major misrepresentations of fact and is carefully designed to comply with the rules of professional conduct.

At this time, I cannot address every factual misrepresentation made concerning this matter. The following statement will address those that I consider to be major inaccuracies. Because of the ongoing nature of these matters and the ethical restraints of Rule 3.6 of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, I will not be able to make any further statement at this time.

No. 1: Noose Incident at Jena High School

The noose incident at Jena High School occurred in August, 2006. This incident was very thoroughly investigated by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana who concluded that the facts did not constitute an offense that should be prosecuted under federal law. I researched state law and came to the conclusion that there is no state criminal statute prohibiting the conduct. I could not prosecute the perpetrators without an applicable statute. This is an issue that may be appropriate for Legislative consideration.

The incident which led to the charges resulting in the conviction of Mr. Mychal Bell took place December, 2006. At no time during the investigation of the incident or at the trial was any evidence presented connecting the two events. There has been no evidence presented to me that the victim in this case had any connection to the perpetrators of the noose incident.

No. 2: An Attack - Not a Schoolyard Fight

It has been repeatedly reported that this incident was just a schoolyard fight. The evidence showed that the victim was "sucker-punched" and knocked immediately unconscious before being stomped and kicked. There was no credible evidence before or during the trial that the victim had provoked the attack by word or gesture. The evidence showed that this was an attack, not a fight. It was prosecuted as such. At no time during the consideration to prosecute or the prosecution of this matter did anyone's race enter into any decision that was made. It would be a fruitless waste of time considering something that would have no effect on the presentation of evidence or be admissible in a court of law.

I realize that there have been numerous requests of me to give more details and a more thorough statement delving into this matter. However, because of the ethical considerations that I must abide by, I cannot make any further statement at this time.