• North Carolina Could Become Second State to Pass Racial Justice Act North Carolina’s leg­is­la­ture recent­ly took an impor­tant step toward becom­ing the nation’s sec­ond state to pass a Racial Justice Act, leg­is­la­tion that gives defen­dants the oppor­tu­ni­ty to chal­lenge the death penal­ty based on stud­ies show­ing racial bias. The bill was quick­ly approved by mem­bers of the House Judiciary II Committee and will now go before the full House for con­sid­er­a­tion. The leg­is­la­tion is sim­i­lar to leg­is­la­tion enact­ed in Kentucky in 1998 and, accord­ing to the NAACP, it tar­gets the issue of the dis­pro­por­tion­ate num­ber of minor­i­ty inmates who face the death penal­ty pros­e­cu­tions. ​“This is not about emo­tion. This is about empir­i­cal data. Empirical data tells us we have some seri­ous issues,” not­ed Rev. William Baber, the pres­i­dent of North Carolina’s NAACP Chapter. The pro­posed North Carolina Racial Justice Act would place the bur­den of proof on the defen­dant. The defen­dant could argue before tri­al that race was a sig­nif­i­cant fac­tor in oth­er pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al deci­sions to seek the death penal­ty around the same time and in the same coun­ty or pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al dis­trict. After defen­dants have been sen­tenced to death, they could present evi­dence that race influ­enced deci­sions to exer­cise peremp­to­ry chal­lenges dur­ing jury selec­tion. Such chal­lenges allow defense attor­neys and pros­e­cu­tors to reject poten­tial jurors who they deem biased. The leg­is­la­tion notes that defen­dants would have to ​“state with par­tic­u­lar­i­ty” how race played a role in their case. Of the 185 peo­ple cur­rent­ly on death row in North Carolina, 53% are black. Census fig­ures show that the state’s pop­u­la­tion of 8.7 mil­lion in 2005 was about 74% white, 22% black, 6.5% Hispanic, and 1.3% American Indian. (Associated Press, May 9, 2007).
  • North Carolina Death Penalty Panel Urged to Halt Executions Members of the North Carolina House Select Committee on Capital Punishment heard repeat­ed calls for a halt to exe­cu­tions in the state dur­ing a recent hear­ing attend­ed by vic­tims’ fam­i­ly mem­bers, reli­gious lead­ers, and oth­er cit­i­zens. Among those tes­ti­fy­ing at the hear­ing was Shirley Burns, the moth­er of a son who is await­ing exe­cu­tion at the end the January and a sec­ond son who was mur­dered in April 2006. ​“How many have had to sit on both sides of the table? I had to come to grips with myself,” stat­ed Burns. ​“Here I am plead­ing and beg­ging for my son’s life. How can I as a Christian ask for anoth­er per­son­’s life?” Father David McBriar, a Roman Catholic priest in Raleigh and a reli­gious coun­selor to death row inmates in Central Prison, voiced con­cerns about the accu­ra­cy and fair­ness of North Carolina’s death penal­ty. ​“Is every judg­ment of the death penal­ty in our state fair and just? I sub­mit it is not. If the answer is, ​‘I don’t know’ or ​‘How can I be sure’ … then in con­science you must declare a two-year mora­to­ri­um (on exe­cu­tions) until we find out,” said McBriar. Retired phar­ma­cist David Work told the pan­el that North Carolina leg­is­la­tors should halt exe­cu­tions because the state uses the same lethal drug com­bi­na­tion that is used by Florida, which halt­ed lethal injec­tions in December after an exe­cu­tion took 34 min­utes and two dos­es of lethal drugs. ​“The drugs used in North Carolina are the same drugs used in Florida. The pro­ce­dure is the same, and it’s just a mat­ter of time until some­thing sim­i­lar hap­pens in this state I belielve,” he said. The House Select Committee on Capital Punishment has been meet­ing since December 2005. It was estab­lished to exam­ine issues relat­ed to the ​“accu­ra­cy and fair­ness” of North Carolina’s death penal­ty. It will also review mis­con­duct by pros­e­cu­tors and the role of race in cap­i­tal cas­es. In 2003, the North Carolina Senate approved a two-year mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions, but the House failed to take up the issue that year. A sim­i­lar mea­sure was approved by a House com­mit­tee in 2005, but the mea­sure nev­er received a vote on the House floor. (Associated Press, January 4, 2007 and News 14 Carolina, January 4, 2007).
  • Gov. Easley signed into law on August 3, 2006 the bill cre­at­ing N.C.‘s Innocence Commission. The Commission will begin review­ing cas­es on Nov. 1. ​“The eight-mem­ber pan­el will be made up of a judge, pros­e­cu­tor, defense lawyer and oth­ers. Five of the eight mem­bers must agree that a defen­dant deserves judi­cial review. Then a three-judge pan­el must unan­i­mous­ly agree that a defen­dant has pre­sent­ed ​“clear and con­vinc­ing evi­dence” of fac­tu­al inno­cence to be exon­er­at­ed.” (Associated Press, Aug. 3, 2006).
  • North Carolina Poised to Establish Nation’s First Innocence Commission - North Carolina is poised to become the first state to estab­lish an Innocence Inquiry Commission that would review inmates’ inno­cence claims. Legislation to cre­ate the pan­el recent­ly passed the state Senate by a vote of 48 – 1, and it passed last year in the House of Representative by a vote of 80 – 23. The leg­is­la­tion now must go before a leg­isla­tive con­fer­ence to rec­on­cile dif­fer­ences between the ver­sions. The House ver­sion of the bill would estab­lish a per­ma­nent Innocence Commission and allow any­one to ask the com­mis­sion to review a case. If the com­mis­sion finds that inno­cence is like­ly, it would refer the case to a three-judge pan­el for a deci­sion. The three-judge pan­el, cho­sen by the Chief Justice of North Carolina, could estab­lish a find­ing of inno­cence by a 2 – 1 vote of the judges. The case would then be sent to the North Carolina Supreme Court for a final deci­sion. The Senate ver­sion would exclude the con­sid­er­a­tion of inno­cence claims filed by peo­ple who plead­ed guilty. In cas­es where the three-judge pan­el estab­lished inno­cence by a vote of 3 – 0, the Senate ver­sion would allow this vote to bypass fur­ther con­sid­er­a­tion by the Supreme Court. It would also estab­lish that the Commission stop accept­ing cas­es after December 31, 2010, unless the leg­is­la­ture votes to renew the project. Passage of con­fer­ence leg­is­la­tion is expect­ed, and the bill would then be sent to Governor Mike Easley for sig­na­ture into law. According to a state bud­get doc­u­ment, the leg­is­la­ture has allot­ted $210,700 for the com­mis­sion. ​“It’s already in the bud­get, and I think both sides have indi­cat­ed by their over­whelm­ing votes it’s a high pri­or­i­ty,” said State Representative Rick Glazier. (The Fayetteville Observer, July 13, 2006 and The News & Observer, July 13, 2006).
  • North Carolina Governor Signs Open Discovery Bill Into Law North Carolina Governor Mike Easley signed a bill into law that requires pros­e­cu­tors to share their files in all felony cas­es. The bill was approved in the wake of alle­ga­tions that pros­e­cu­tors with­held evi­dence in the cap­i­tal mur­der tri­al of Alan Gell, who was lat­er exon­er­at­ed and freed from death row. The new open dis­cov­ery statute requires dis­trict attor­neys to open their inves­tiga­tive files in felony cas­es to defense lawyers who request such access pri­or to tri­al. The law requires DAs to pro­vide such things as police inves­ti­ga­tor notes, defen­dant and wit­ness state­ments, test results and a list of prob­a­ble wit­ness­es for the tri­al. In return, defense attor­neys will have to pro­vide the state with wit­ness lists and details about the grounds on which they plan to defend their client. Dick Taylor of the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers said the law should ​“result in less sur­prise, less ambush and more fair tri­als.” He went on to note, ​“I think it’s one of the most sig­nif­i­cant devel­op­ments in our crim­i­nal pro­ce­dure for a num­ber of years.” Although, when Easley was the state’s attor­ney gen­er­al, his staff fought attempts by defense attor­neys in cap­i­tal cas­es to gain access to pros­e­cu­tors’ files, his spokes­woman stat­ed that Easley has long been in favor of open dis­cov­ery. (Associated Press, August 4, 2004)
  • Former North Carolina Supreme Court Justices Urge Vote on Moratorium Eight for­mer North Carolina Supreme Court jus­tices are urg­ing the lead­er­ship of the North Carolina House of Representatives to allow a vote on leg­is­la­tion that would impose a two-year mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions in the state while cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is stud­ied. Among the 8 for­mer jus­tices are Democrats and Republicans, some who sup­port the death penal­ty and oth­ers who oppose it. ​“This leg­is­la­tion is about fun­da­men­tal fair­ness, an issue that should not be con­tro­ver­sial. The recent exon­er­a­tions of Alan Gell and Darryl Hunt give clear evi­dence of the need for a study of our death penal­ty sys­tem. We should stop all exe­cu­tions until we can be sure that the death penal­ty is being used fair­ly in this state. We can­not risk the exe­cu­tion of an inno­cent per­son. We urge House lead­ers to per­mit a vote on this issue and allow the Democratic process to work,” said the Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., one of the let­ter’s co-sign­ers. The North Carolina Senate passed the bill last spring, but house lead­ers have said the mea­sure may not come up for a vote before their ses­sion ends this year. A statewide poll shows that 63% of North Carolinians sup­port the tem­po­rary halt to exe­cu­tions so the sys­tem can be stud­ied. (North Carolina Coalition for a Moratorium Press Release, June 29, 2004) 
  • The American Bar Association (ABA) has voiced sup­port for leg­is­la­tion to impose a two-year mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions in North Carolina while the state stud­ies its death penal­ty. In its announce­ment, the ABA not­ed a ​“grow­ing con­sen­sus with­in the legal com­mu­ni­ty that North Carolina urgent­ly needs a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions until it eval­u­ates issues of fair­ness, due process and pos­si­ble racial bias in its death penal­ty sys­tem.” The bill, which was recent­ly passed by the North Carolina Senate, is cur­rent­ly under con­sid­er­a­tion by mem­bers of the state’s House of Representatives. The ABA has also called for a nation­al mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions until the death penal­ty is stud­ied and pro­ce­dur­al flaws are fixed. (News Observer, July 1, 2003).
  • More than 150 promi­nent res­i­dents of North Carolina have asked the House of Representatives and Governor Michael Easley to sup­port a two-year sus­pen­sion of exe­cu­tions in the state and to con­duct a death penal­ty study. North Carolina’s Senate passed the mea­sure in May, and a vote in the House is expect­ed this month. In a let­ter call­ing for the bil­l’s enact­ment into law, note­wor­thy North Carolinians, includ­ing for­mer judges and cor­po­rate lead­ers, not­ed that ​“legit­i­mate con­cerns about the fair­ness and accu­ra­cy of our sys­tem of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment exist and must be addressed.” Specifically, the let­ter men­tions sev­er­al recent cas­es in which death sen­tences have been over­turned by state courts. Read the let­ter and see a com­plete list­ing of sig­na­to­ries.
  • Following a vote by North Carolina’s Senate to sup­port a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions in order to allow time to study the death penal­ty, six-term Republican House Delegate David Miner of North Carolina stat­ed, ​“I am very encour­aged. It was a his­toric vote and we hope to repeat that in the House in com­ing weeks.” Miner is a self-pro­claimed ​“pro-life Republican” who chairs the House Finance Committee and is co-spon­sor­ing the mora­to­ri­um bill in that cham­ber. Stressing his con­cern that most peo­ple on death row are poor, Miner recent­ly stat­ed that ​“cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is dis­crim­i­na­to­ry.” (Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2003)
  • By a vote of 29 – 21, the North Carolina Senate passed a mea­sure that impos­es a two-year mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions while the state’s death penal­ty is exam­ined. The North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval of the bill came short­ly after new tri­als were ordered for two North Carolina death row pris­on­ers. In each case, tri­al judges ruled that pros­e­cu­tors failed to hand over evi­dence to defense attor­neys that may have helped their clients. Supporters of the mora­to­ri­um bill state that the tem­po­rary halt to exe­cu­tions and the com­pre­hen­sive study of the state’s death penal­ty would enable law­mak­ers to address ques­tions of fair­ness and accu­ra­cy. The bill now goes to the full Senate for con­sid­er­a­tion. (Associated Press, April 29, 2003) Read the the Associated Press news sto­ry.
  • A new law in North Carolina allows pros­e­cu­tors to seek a first-degree mur­der con­vic­tion with a sen­tence of life in prison with­out parole instead of the death penal­ty. ​“I think that was an excel­lent change in the law,” said District Attorney David Flaherty Jr. ​“I think we’ll have more first-degree con­vic­tions. It will cut down on our back­log.” Previously, pros­e­cu­tors were required to seek the death penal­ty if one or more aggra­vat­ing fac­tors were present in a mur­der case. The new law allows pros­e­cu­tors to secure a con­vic­tion, some­times through a plea bar­gain, spar­ing the defen­dant a pos­si­ble death sen­tence, and keep­ing the vic­tims’ fam­i­lies from the pain of a tri­al and sub­se­quent appeals. It will also save the state con­sid­er­able amounts of mon­ey. According to a 1993 Duke University study, seek­ing the death penal­ty adds more than $300,000 to the cost of a non-cap­i­tal case, more than the $166,000 sav­ings in prison costs. (Charlotte Observer, 1/​23/​02)
  • Gov. Michael Easley signed into law a bill that for­bids the exe­cu­tion of defen­dants with men­tal retar­da­tion in North Carolina. Capital defen­dants may seek to have them­selves declared men­tal­ly retard­ed in a pre-tri­al hear­ing if the pros­e­cu­tor con­sents, or after their tri­al. The post-tri­al deter­mi­na­tion requires a unan­i­mous jury ver­dict. To be ruled men­tal­ly retard­ed, defen­dants must score 70 or below on an IQ test and must prove they had intel­lec­tu­al and adap­tive dis­abil­i­ties before age 18. North Carolina becomes the 18th state to ban the exe­cu­tion of the men­tal­ly retard­ed, in addi­tion to the 12 states that ban the death penal­ty com­plete­ly. The law also applies to those cur­rent­ly on death row. According to the NY Times, ​“North Carolina offi­cials plan to advise the [U.S. Supreme] court on Monday of the new leg­is­la­tion and arguge that the McCarver case is there­fore moot.” The Court decid­ed to hear the case of Ernest McCarver, a North Carolina death row inmate with men­tal retar­da­tion, to deter­mine the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of exe­cut­ing those with men­tal retar­da­tion. (N.Y. Times 8/​4/​01, Wash. Post 8/​5/​01). See also Intellectual Disability.