May 4, 2020

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
CDPL Attorney David Weiss: dcweiss@cdpl.org, 919-593-7790
James E. Coleman, Jr.: jcoleman@law.duke.edu, 919-414-2017

Raleigh, NC — A new decision from the North Carolina Supreme Court has taken an important first step to address a problem that civil rights advocates have long highlighted: the epidemic of race-based exclusion of black citizens from jury service in North Carolina.

In the case of Cedric Hobbs, the court ruled 6 to 1 Friday that the judge at Hobbs’ 2014 murder trial allowed the prosecutor to strike African American citizens from the jury without fully considering the evidence that race was a key factor in their strikes.

The decision marks a turning point in North Carolina, where two separate studies have found that qualified black citizens are struck from juries at more than twice the rate of qualified white citizens. It will begin a culture change in a state where trial judges routinely dismiss complaints of racially motivated jury strikes without thorough investigation, and where the appellate courts have never in their history upheld a claim of race discrimination against a juror of color.

“For a long time, our courts have stood by as scores of black citizens have been denied the basic civil right to serve on a jury,” said David Weiss, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. “The North Carolina Supreme Court has just said that has to change.”

The decision established that, when claims of race discrimination against jurors are raised, judges must take into consideration the history of disproportionate strikes in that county. For instance, in Cumberland County where Hobbs was tried, studies show that prosecutors were about 2.5 times more likely to strike qualified potential jurors who were black, a statistically significant finding.

The courts also must compare the strikes of black jurors to those of white jurors, to see if they are held to similar standards. For example, at Hobbs’ trial, the defense alleged that the prosecutor struck a black juror based on his race. When the judge asked the prosecutor to state his reasons for the strike, the prosecutor claimed he struck the juror because the juror had experience with mental health professionals. The judge accepted this reason as “race neutral” without considering the fact that several white jurors who the prosecutor accepted had received extensive mental health treatment. Such comparative juror analysis is key to rooting out discriminatory intent in jury strikes.

Cedric Hobbs was convicted of robbery and murder in 2014 and is serving a sentence of life without parole. His case will now return to a Cumberland County trial court for a new hearing on whether black jurors were unlawfully excluded from his jury. If the court finds that they were unfairly struck, he will get a new trial.

However, legal experts say the salient aspect of the decision is the precedent it sets for future cases.

“What’s most important is the message that courts across North Carolina must vigorously investigate the reasons why jurors of color are excluded, not simply rubber stamp the prosecutor’s strikes,” said James E. Coleman, Jr., John S. Bradway Professor of the Practice of Law, Director of the Center for Criminal Justice and Professional Responsibility, and Co-Director of the Wrongful Convictions Clinic at Duke Law School. “This decision is a good starting point in addressing North Carolina’s shameful record of denying African Americans their civil right to serve on juries. These issues will continue to come up. As they do, my hope is that the state supreme court will continue to take this civil rights problem seriously, by enforcing and strengthening legal protections against race discrimination.”

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.

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.