The Center for Death Penalty Litigation

Covid-19 Update from CDPL

By

CDPL is doing its part to help stop the spread of Covid-19. We have temporarily closed our office in downtown Durham, and all of our attorneys, investigators, and public education specialists are now working remotely. We have also temporarily ceased in-person client meetings to ensure that none of our staff carries the virus into a prison, where people are kept in confined spaces and are extraordinarily vulnerable to illness.

However, CDPL is continuing to fight vigorously for the rights of our clients. We are busy ensuring that employees have access to the technology they need to work on their cases from home. We’re also implementing systems to make sure that our clients can continue to contact their defense team members by mail and by telephone. We are continuously monitoring conditions at Central Prison and intervening on behalf of our clients when necessary. We are also reaching out to trial teams across the state and assisting them in obtaining continuances in light of the pandemic.

Our clients and the public can rest assured that CDPL will continue to zealously fight executions, now and in the future, and to advocate for an end to the cruel and unfair death penalty. You can continue to reach our staff by email and by calling our main phone line. 

Please also continue to check the blog of the N.C. Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty for the latest news about the death penalty.

N.C. Supreme Court to Decide Whether to Finally Recognize Racial Discrimination in the Jury Box

By

Monday, February 3, 2020                                                 

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Miriam Krinsky, Fair and Just Prosecution, krinskym@krinsky.la, (818) 416 5218
David Weiss, Center for Death Penalty Litigation, dcweiss@cdpl.org, (919) 593-7790

RALEIGH, N.C. – On February 3, at 9:30 a.m., the North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases of two criminal defendants, Cory Bennett of Sampson County and Cedric Hobbs of Cumberland County. In both cases the court must decide whether prosecutors illegally excluded black citizens from juries because of their race. If the court decides in the defendants’ favor, it will be the first time in North Carolina’s history that the high court has acknowledged race discrimination against jurors of color. 

“These cases are about far more than these two defendants,” said Duke Law Professor James Coleman, a scholar on race and the law who filed an amicus brief in both cases. “They’re about whether North Carolina’s high court will finally confront the problem of African Americans being systematically denied the right to wield power in our justice system. For too long, this discrimination has been an open secret, ignored at the highest levels of North Carolina’s justice system. Now, our court has the chance to say that race discrimination in the jury box must end.”

Two recent studies found that qualified black citizens in North Carolina are excluded from juries at more than twice the rate of white people, denying defendants the right to be judged by a fair cross section of their community. Research has also found that juries with two or more members of color deliberate longer, discuss a wider range of evidence, and are more accurate in their statements about cases, regardless of the defendant’s race. And as recently as June of last year, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion in Flowers v. Mississippi warning that race discrimination in jury selection is a pressing problem that courts must address.

Despite this, a recent analysis revealed that North Carolina’s high courts have failed to enforce the law established in Batson v. Kentucky, a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision that barred racially-motivated jury exclusion. In the thirty years since Batson, more than a hundred North Carolina defendants have raised claims of race discrimination against jurors of color. Yet, the state’s appellate courts have never upheld a single one of those claims.

“Now, the N.C. Supreme Court has a chance to make a clean break from this unfortunate track record, and chart a new path forward,” Coleman said. “There is no question that black citizens are unfairly excluded from jury service because of their race. The only question is whether the North Carolina courts will finally provide meaningful protection from this longstanding civil rights violation.”

North Carolina’s appellate courts stand alone among southern states in failing to acknowledge this type of discrimination. Courts in every southern state, except North Carolina, have enforced the law against jury discrimination and overturned convictions because of racial discrimination against jurors of color. Alabama, for example, has had more than 80 appellate reversals because of racially-tainted jury selection.

The evidence in the cases now before the court mirrors what has been found in studies of broad patterns in North Carolina. In both trials, prosecutors used most or all of their strikes to remove black jurors. When asked to explain their strikes, prosecutors cited characteristics virtually identical to those of white jurors who were accepted. Bennett and Hobbs will get new trials if the court decides in their favor.

If the North Carolina Supreme Court finds race discrimination in these cases, it will join other state courts that have recently confronted the issue, such as Washington, Nevada and Connecticut. All have taken steps to end racial discrimination, including reversing convictions marred by racial bias, crafting new legal approaches, and appointing study commissions on jury discrimination. 

Several national organizations, along with North Carolina civil rights leaders and advocacy groups, have filed “friend of the court” briefs urging the North Carolina Supreme Court to take action. These groups include Fair and Just Prosecution, the North Carolina NAACP, the North Carolina. Advocates for Justice, the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, the Anti-Defamation League, Latino Justice and the Korematsu Center for Law and Equality. 

“The exclusion of African Americans from the jury box is a fundamental civil rights problem rooted in our shared history of subjugation and segregation based on race,” said Miriam Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor and Executive Director of Fair and Just Prosecution. “It will take a concerted effort at every level of the justice system to solve this problem. Right now, the North Carolina Supreme Court has a chance to step up to the task, apply the law fairly, and send a message that North Carolina’s tolerance of this injustice must end.”

###

 Fair and Just Prosecution is a national network of elected prosecutors working towards common-sense, compassionate criminal justice reforms. To learn more about FJP’s work, visit http://www.fairandjustprosecution.org/ or follow us on Facebook @FairAndJustProsecution.

 Center for Death Penalty Litigation is a non-profit law firm that provides direct representation to inmates on North Carolina’s death row, as well as consulting with and training attorneys who practice capital litigation across the state. In addition to representing individual clients, CDPL spearheads litigation that addresses systemic injustices and educates the public about the death penalty. To learn more about CDPL’s work visit https://www.cdpl.org.

 

Additional background information

 State v. Cory Bennett was tried in 2016 in Sampson County, North Carolina, on charges of possession and trafficking of methamphetamines. Mr. Bennett was convicted and sentenced to a maximum of 13 years in prison. During jury selection, the prosecutor used only two peremptory strikes to remove jurors, both against African-Americans. When the defense lawyer objected that the strikes were racially motivated, the trial judge overruled the objection and did not even require the State to explain its reasons for the strikes. The trial judge instead questioned the defense lawyer about her strikes against, what the judge termed, “white Americans.” The N.C. Court of Appeals found no error, but the N.C. Supreme Court decided to review the case further, even though it was not required to do so.

State v. Cedric Hobbs was tried in 2014 in Cumberland County, North Carolina, on one charge of first-degree murder related to the armed robbery of a pawn shop. Mr. Hobbs was convicted. The State sought the death penalty, but the jury chose a sentence of life imprisonment. During jury selection, the prosecution used eight peremptory strikes to remove jurors, six of whom were black. When the defense lawyer objected, the prosecutor responded defensively that the objection “was somehow [saying] we’re just racists in this county.” The trial judge required the prosecutor to explain the reasons for striking the black jurors, but nonetheless overruled the defense. The N.C. Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found no error, but the N.C. Supreme Court granted discretionary review. The defense argues the State’s strikes were discriminatory because the prosecutor cited “race-neutral” traits that caused them to remove black jurors but accepted white jurors with the very same traits. A statistical study showed the prosecutor’s office in this county has a twenty-year track record of removing black jurors at twice the rate that they remove all other jurors. And the prosecutors in this case questioned black jurors very closely on certain issues but did not closely question white jurors who had the same characteristics. 

Discrimination against jurors of color is a major problem in North Carolina. Studies show that North Carolina’s appellate courts have failed to police jury discrimination. Other studies show the effect of this failure: such discrimination is rampant in North Carolina’s trial courts. These studies are discussed in an article published in NACDL’s legal magazine, The Champion. That article also highlights efforts by several state supreme courts to address the problem. In addition, in December 2019, the Connecticut State Supreme Court announced a new Jury Selection Task Force, because “allow[ing] the systematic removal of minority jurors . . . create[s] a badge of inferiority, cheapening the value of the jury verdict.” It is time for North Carolina to take similar steps to enforce and update its own laws barring race discrimination in jury selection.

The briefs in the two cases, including amicus briefs, can be found here.

Now Hiring: CDPL seeking two new staff attorneys

By

The Center for Death Penalty Litigation (CDPL) in Durham, North Carolina seeks to hire two new staff attorneys to support its mission.

CDPL is a non-profit law firm and advocacy organization that works to provide the highest quality representation to people facing execution, and to end the death penalty in North Carolina. CDPL’s commitment to representing indigent and disadvantaged defendants just as vigorously as corporate lawyers defend their highest-paying clients, and training other capital attorneys across the state to do the same, has saved the lives of many who faced execution. In addition to representing individual clients, CDPL spearheads litigation and public education campaigns that address systemic injustices and cast light on the arbitrariness and unfairness of our state’s capital punishment system. Over the past decade, CDPL has been a leading force in stopping executions in North Carolina.

Our team of attorneys, mitigation investigators, paralegals, and public education specialists works to identify strategic opportunities to change public opinion and reduce the use of the death penalty. Our office also has a strong commitment to racial equity, and works both internally and externally to combat systemic racism. In addition to handling individual cases, attorneys are encouraged to participate in cross-disciplinary projects that further our goals of ending the death penalty and promoting racial equity.

CDPL is seeking to hire one attorney with at least 5 years of trial experience interested in working on both trial and post-conviction cases and also supervising and mentoring other attorneys. CDPL is also seeking to hire an attorney with at least two years of relevant experience interested in working on post-conviction cases and, if desired, trial cases.

In addition to these qualifications, ideal candidates will have:

  • A commitment to ending the death penalty and addressing systemic unfairness
  • Strong oral and written communications skills
  • An understanding of issues common in capital cases, including mental illness, poverty, racism, and substance abuse
  • An interest in advocacy and public education, in addition to direct representation of clients

Applicants should send a cover letter by February 20, 2020, detailing interest, as well as a resume, the names of two professional references, and a writing sample of approximately 10 pages to Ms. Barrie Wallace at barrie@cdpl.org. For additional information, please contact Barrie Wallace at barrie@cdpl.org.

CDPL is committed to diversity and racial equity and is an equal opportunity employer. CDPL seeks to recruit attorneys with diverse experiences and backgrounds who are committed to furthering CDPL’s racial equity goals. Our racial equity mission statement can be found here.

 

CDPL founder Henderson Hill joins Curtis Flowers defense team

By

CDPL founder and former director Henderson Hill is joining the defense team of Curtis Flowers, a death-sentenced man in Mississippi whose extraordinary case rose to national prominence after a gripping podcast revealed that he is innocent.

Flowers is facing a seventh trial for the same crime. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his case earlier this year after finding that the prosecutor had systematically excluded African American jurors at all six of Flowers’ previous trials. Now, the same district attorney appears poised to try Flowers again, even after the previous six trials either ended in hung juries or were overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. Meanwhile, Flowers has spent 22 years in prison, most of it on death row, for a crime he didn’t commit.

“A good friend has famously observed that our criminal justice system treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent,” said Hill. “The justice system’s serial abuse of Curtis Flowers — poor, black and innocent — must and will stop. I am honored to work with Rob McDuff and the Mississippi Center for Justice to achieve that to which Mr. Flowers is so deeply entitled: a full measure of justice and vindication.”

The evidence of racist jury selection in Flowers’ case is strikingly similar to evidence that CDPL helped uncover in North Carolina under the Racial Justice Act. CDPL is litigating dozens of cases in which black jurors across North Carolina were illegally denied the right to serve because of their race.

Hill has spent his career fighting against the death penalty and championing civil rights. In addition to founding CDPL, he directed the Eighth Amendment Project, a national nonprofit that works to end the death penalty. His work has helped many people avoid death sentences and execution. In 2014, he won CDPL’s J. Kirk Osborn Award for leadership in capital defense.

“Henderson Hill is known throughout the country as an excellent lawyer with considerable courtroom experience in criminal defense and capital cases,” said McDuff. “He is a tireless proponent of fairness in our justice system, and his presence will add greatly to the effort to finally obtain justice for Curtis Flowers.”

CDPL argues Racial Justice Act cases in the NC Supreme Court

By

On August 26 and 27, CDPL attorneys were part of an amazing team that argued six Racial Justice Act cases before the North Carolina Supreme Court. These cases go to the heart of our work to bring to light the injustice of the death penalty. We presented clear evidence that these death sentences were poisoned by racial discrimination and cannot stand. Here are a few memories from those momentous days. Read more here about the Racial Justice Act and why it matters.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

North Carolina Supreme Court to Address Racial Bias in Death Penalty

By

Justices must decide whether evidence of jury discrimination in capital cases will come to light

For Immediate Release: August 19, 2019
For More Information Contact: David Weiss, 919-593-7790 or Jin Hee Lee, 917-202-8848

Raleigh, NC — The N.C. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week, August 26 and 27, in the cases of six death row prisoners who have presented evidence that racial bias tainted their trials and death sentences.

The Racial Justice Act (RJA) was a first-of-its-kind law that allowed for a systematic review of racial discrimination in death penalty trials. Death row prisoners who proved discrimination had to be resentenced to life in prison without parole. The law was enacted in 2009, and its passage led to the uncovering of new evidence of discrimination. In 2013 a newly elected legislature repealed the RJA. That same legislature enacted voting laws that federal courts later determined to be racially motivated.

Now, the Supreme Court must decide whether the six defendants, who filed claims while the law was in effect, have a constitutional right to present their evidence of discrimination in court. The state seeks to dismiss all six defendants’ RJA claims without hearings.

“The court must answer a key question for North Carolina,” said David Weiss, a staff attorney with Durham’s Center for Death Penalty Litigation, one of several law firms that represents the RJA defendants. “Will our state abide by its constitution and confront the evidence that race has played an unacceptable role in death penalty trials? Or will we throw the evidence away without a hearing and send the message that pervasive racial bias doesn’t matter, even in life-and-death trials?”

The court will hear the following cases:

Marcus Robinson, Tilmon Golphin, Christina Walters, and Quintel Augustine from Cumberland County are the only four death row prisoners whose RJA cases were heard in court. In 2012, they won and were resentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, all four were returned to death row after the N.C. Supreme Court sent their cases back to Superior Court for a redo, saying that each defendant should get a separate hearing and that the state should be given more time to prepare. Yet, when the cases went back to Superior Court, a judge dismissed them without new hearings. The Supreme Court will decide whether Robinson, Golphin, Walters and Augustine have a right to the life sentences they previously won under the RJA, or whether they have a right to new hearings.

Andrew Ramseur and Rayford Burke are death row prisoners from Iredell County who filed RJA claims before the law’s repeal, but never got hearings. After the repeal, judges dismissed their claims, saying they no longer had a right to present evidence because the law was defunct. The Court will decide whether Ramseur and Burke have a constitutional right to litigate their claims.

The six defendants found a cache of evidence of race discrimination:

  • A prosecutor referred to Burke as “a big black bull” during closing arguments.
    During jury selection at Golphin’s trial, two white jurors suggested that Golphin should have been lynched, yet were allowed to remain in the jury pool.
  • At Ramseur’s trial, the sheriff’s department cordoned off the area behind the defense table with crime scene tape, prejudicing the jury and forcing the defendant’s black family to sit in the back of the courtroom.
  • A black juror in Robinson’s case was questioned about whether he had gone “straight through” school, implying he may have repeated grades. The prosecutor also questioned his ability to read. White jurors were not asked these demeaning questions.
  • In Augustine’s case, prosecutors wrote insulting notes about black jurors. A black juror with criminal history was a “thug” while a white juror who trafficked in drugs was “a fine guy.” A black juror was a “blk wino” while a white juror with a DUI conviction was a “country boy – ok.” A Black woman was acceptable because she was “from a respectable BLK family.”
  • In several cases, prosecutors relied on a “cheat sheet” of prefabricated reasons to justify striking black jurors.
  • In all cases, a statistical study showed that prosecutors struck qualified black jurors at far higher rates than white jurors, denying African American citizens the fundamental right to wield power in the jury box and defendants the right to a jury of their peers.

“These defendants uncovered a mountain of evidence that race played a role in their death sentences. Now, the law requires that our state deal with that evidence,” Weiss said. “If the justices don’t allow these defendants a fair hearing, North Carolina will have given up even the pretense of believing in justice for all.”

Racial discrimination in the jury box is a national problem, which was highlighted again in June when the U.S. Supreme Court granted a new trial to Mississippi death row prisoner Curtis Flowers because the prosecutor systematically excluded black jurors over the course of six trials.

“Jury discrimination is one of the key civil rights issues of our time,” said Jin Hee Lee, Senior Deputy Director of Litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed a brief in support of the RJA cases. Founded by Thurgood Marshall, LDF becomes involved in cases when they present a chance to advance racial justice. Lee continued, “It threatens the integrity of our justice system and our democracy when we allow black citizens to be illegally barred from jury service. We hope North Carolina will give the evidence in these capital cases the serious consideration it deserves, and take needed steps to end race discrimination in North Carolina’s death penalty.”

Oral arguments begin at 9:30 a.m. Monday and Tuesday, Aug. 26 and 27 in the chambers of the N.C. Supreme Court, 2 East Morgan Street, Raleigh. On Monday, the court will hear the cases of Ramseur, Walters, Robinson, Burke, and Augustine. On Tuesday, it will hear Golphin’s case.

Read more from the N.C. Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

For the full briefs filed in the cases, click here.

The whitening of the jury: Listen to a new documentary featuring CDPL attorney

By

Black people have a constitutional right to serve on juries, just like white people. That should go without saying. But the reality is that prosecutors use all kinds of tricks and excuses to stop black citizens from sitting on juries. In this 5-minute audio documentary created by students at Duke’s Center for Documentary Studies, CDPL attorney Johanna Jennings explains how this form of racial discrimination persists in the courtroom.

One note: The documentary’s creators, Shaakira Raheem and Khalid Bashr, imagined some fictional questions that prosecutors might ask of black jurors like, “Do you have a birth certificate?” While these are not the actual questions prosecutors have asked black jurors in North Carolina courtrooms, some of the questions they actually have asked are equally outrageous and demeaning. For example:

  • In a Cumberland County courtroom, the prosecutor asked a black man if he had trouble reading and whether he went “straight through” school. No white jurors were asked similar questions.
  • Another Cumberland prosecutor asked a black man if he listened to Bob Marley or was familiar with the former emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie — implying that he might sympathize with black defendants who practiced Rastafarianism. Again, no white jurors were asked similar questions.
  • In Rowan County, a prosecutor asked a black woman if she would face criticism from her black friends if she voted to convict a black person of a crime.
  • In Transylvania County, a black juror was asked if her child’s father was paying child support.

Bob Trenkle & Etta Blankenship win 2019 Osborn Award

By

CDPL has always known that it takes a team to win a death penalty case. Often, an attorney’s most trusted teammate is the mitigation investigator. Together, they undertake some of the most grueling and emotional work of a capital case: tracking down family members, investigating crime facts, sorting through a lifetime’s worth of records and documents, in addition to spending many hours with the client. Often, the results of that collaboration make the difference between life and death for our clients. That’s why this year, CDPL’s award for outstanding work in death penalty cases goes to a team: Bob Trenkle, an attorney who has spent three decades defending capital clients, and Etta Blankenship, the private investigator, who also does mitigation work, who has worked beside Bob on many of his death penalty cases.

“Bob and Etta exemplify what we mean when we say team defense,” said CDPL Executive Director Gretchen M. Engel. “They have shown us over decades what it means to care about clients and to devote yourself to saving people’s lives.”

Bob and Etta began working together in 1991, when both worked for the Orange County Public Defender’s Office. Bob has now represented more than 100 capital clients, and taken eight cases to capital trial, as well as representing several capital clients in post-conviction proceedings. Etta has been his first pick as an investigator on every one of his cases. In 2001, the two worked together to shape North Carolina’s first Capital Defender’s Office. They helped set the capital defense standards that have made death penalty verdicts rare in North Carolina. Both have also devoted untold hours to mentoring other capital defense teams throughout the state.

Bob has worked as a public defender in both Florida and North Carolina. He also taught law at the University of Florida Law School. He has been with the firm of Edwards & Trenkle since 2002. He is a Board Certified lawyer in both federal and state criminal law. He has lectured and taught attorneys on defending capital murder charges in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas, most recently in April. Bob has volunteered as an instructor at numerous training seminars on capital defense, and defense attorneys across the state say he is always willing to take their call and offer as much of his time as they need.

Etta was licensed as a private investigator in 2003. At that time, she began traveling the state doing fact and mitigation investigations in capital cases. Etta is known for her caring touch with clients and building the trust required to help them make good decisions about their defense. In 2017, in addition to dealing with her own cases, she flew to be with a friend whose brother was facing execution in Arkansas. Etta went to the prison with her friend while she had her final visit with her brother and was also at the prison with her friend during the execution of her brother.  Afterwards, Etta wrote this moving piece about that experience.

Bob and Etta never rest on their victories. As soon as they win one case, they move on to saving the next life. We hope that, at our award reception in September, they will finally take a moment to celebrate their many accomplishments. BUY YOUR TICKETS HERE.

The J. Kirk Osborn Award

J. Kirk Osborn

It has now been more than a decade since we lost J. Kirk Osborn, one of the giants of the capital defense community. Kirk defended more than a dozen capital cases and never had a client sentenced to death. His advocacy and deep compassion for his clients saved many lives, and inspired other attorneys to follow in his footsteps. Each year, the Center for Death Penalty Litigation honors Kirk’s legacy by presenting the J. Kirk Osborn Award for lifelong zealous advocacy, compassion for indigent men and women facing the death penalty, and leadership among capital defense attorneys.

CDPL Statement on the Death Sentence of Seaga Gillard in Wake County

By

From Gretchen M. Engel, Executive Director of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation:

Today’s verdict in Wake County does not reflect the views of the majority of citizens in North Carolina. All it shows is that, if you try ten death penalty cases in a row and exclude from the jury all the people who oppose the death penalty, you can find a jury that will sentence a person to death despite the death penalty’s documented unfairness.

By law, juries in capital trials include only people who support the death penalty, which polls tell us are now a minority in North Carolina. However, even with juries stacked in favor of the death penalty, only two of the past seventeen capital trials in North Carolina have ended with death sentences. In Wake County the ratio is even lower. This is the only death verdict of the past ten capital trials.

Seaga Gillard committed a serious crime for which he should be punished. But was he the worst of the worst? Wake County jurors have rejected the death penalty in cases of rape and murder, including rape and murder of a child. Wake County jurors have refused to impose the death penalty in other double homicide cases and even in a case in which the defendant was convicted of murdering five people. All today’s verdict shows is what we already knew: That the death penalty is imposed arbitrarily, and disproportionately on black men.

Since taking over as Wake district attorney, Lorrin Freeman has pursued the death penalty more than any other prosecutor in North Carolina, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. That is a poor investment, even in this case. Executions have been on hold since 2006 and most death row prisoners in North Carolina have been awaiting execution for more than 20 years. Gillard will now join them, awaiting an execution that is unlikely to ever be carried out.

Contact Us

The Center for Death Penalty Litigation
123 West Main Street · Suite 700 · · ·
Durham, NC 27701
919-956-9545
cdpl@cdpl.org

Donate

Please make a tax-deductible contribution to ensure truth and fairness in North Carolina's death penalty system.