June 5, 2020

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Henderson Hill, ACLU Capital Punishment Project Attorney – hhill@aclu.org 704-502-1145
Donald Beskind, Attorney and Duke Law Professor – beskind@law.duke.edu 919-612-3955
Gretchen Engel, CDPL Executive Director – gretchen@cdpl.org 919-682-3983

Raleigh, NC — The North Carolina Supreme Court today issued two landmark civil rights rulings on the Racial Justice Act, clearing the way for a much-needed review of racial discrimination in death penalty cases across the state.

The court decided 6-1 Friday that Rayford Burke and Andrew Ramseur, prisoners on North Carolina’s death row, were entitled to hearings where they can present evidence that prosecutors purposefully excluded African American citizens from their juries and that racism tainted their trials. The rulings also mean that death row prisoners across North Carolina who filed claims under the N.C. Racial Justice Act before its repeal in 2013 are entitled to present their evidence in court. The justices decided the case under the state constitution, so it cannot be appealed. [Read the full decisions: Ramseur and Burke.]

“This is a momentous decision that sends a clear message: Our state’s highest court will not allow North Carolina to ignore evidence that racism has infected the death penalty,” said CDPL Executive Director Gretchen M. Engel. “This was also an urgently needed decision as our state and our nation confront a long history of racism. The death penalty is the apex of a criminal legal system that has failed people of color.”

The court has not yet decided the cases of four other RJA defendants, Marcus Robinson, Quintel Augustine, Christina Walters, and Tilmon Golphin, who initially won their cases but saw them overturned on appeal.

The ruling comes just days after Chief Justice Cheri Beasley responded to protests against police violence with a candid admission that North Carolina’s courts have helped perpetuate racial disparities. “We must come together to firmly and loudly commit to the declaration that all people are created equal, and we must do more than just speak that truth,” Beasley said. “We must live it every day in our courtrooms.”

Justice Anita Earls authored the decision, and affirmed that it was about more than two individual defendants. She wrote that “the harm from racial discrimination in criminal cases is not limited to an individual defendant, but rather it undermines the integrity of our judicial system and extends to society as a whole.”

At oral arguments in August, Burke and Ramseur presented stark evidence. Both are black men convicted by all-white juries in Iredell County. Prosecutors at Burke’s trial referred to him during closing arguments as a “big black bull.” Ramseur’s trial was shadowed by widespread threats of lynching, and the judge and sheriff forced his family to sit in the back of the courtroom while the white family of the victim sat in front.

“This decision is built on basic fairness,” said Don Beskind, a Durham attorney and Duke Law professor involved in the litigation. “The evidence in these death penalty cases was stark and undeniable. The very least we can do is allow it to be heard in court. Even our most conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices, most recently Justice Kavanaugh, have said that race discrimination in jury selection is a serious long-standing problem that courts must address.”

Burke and Ramseur, like most of the people on North Carolina’s death row, first presented this evidence shortly after the N.C. legislature created the Racial Justice Act, which allowed death-sentenced people to bring forward evidence of racism in their trials. Those who could prove that race was a significant factor in their sentences would be resentenced to life in prison without parole. The law’s passage marked the first time a death penalty state allowed for a systematic review of racial bias in capital cases.

A statistical study commissioned as a result of the RJA found overwhelming evidence that, in scores of North Carolina capital cases over two decades, prosecutors illegally struck black jurors because of their race. And death row prisoners across North Carolina unearthed disturbing evidence of racism in their trials that had never before been examined by the courts.

However, in 2013, after the first four RJA defendants won their cases, a new legislature repealed the RJA. This same legislature was found by the U.S. Supreme Court to have enacted racially discriminatory voting laws. The RJA repeal legislation sought to invalidate all pending cases and prevent any court review of the evidence of bias that was uncovered. In its decision today, the Supreme Court rejected that gambit, saying that the evidence of rampant discrimination against black North Carolinians was too troubling to ignore.

Friday’s ruling was based on the precedent of State v. Keith, an 1869 case in which the N.C. Supreme Court ruled that a Confederate soldier charged with war crimes was protected by a post-Civil War amnesty law and could not be prosecuted, even though the amnesty law had since been repealed. The death row prisoners argued that if the Constitution protects Confederate war criminals, it must also protect their right to present evidence of race discrimination against black jurors even after the repeal of the Racial Justice Act.

“In light of decades, if not centuries, of mistreatment and brutalization of black citizens at the hands of America’s criminal system, today’s decision to take the death penalty off the table when there is evidence of racial bias is just one small but important step toward achieving the broad-based reform needed in North Carolina, and across the country,” said Henderson Hill, a prominent ACLU attorney who represents RJA defendants. “It’s  something to celebrate, but also a reminder that we must keep working for justice.”

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

• Go here for more detail on the Racial Justice Act.
• Read Bryan Stevenson’s op-ed on the importance of the Racial Justice Act.

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.