|
|
Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 28, 2006 7:50:47 GMT -5
Lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill that would create a first-in-the-nation commission to investigate convicts' claims of innocence, perhaps leading to overturned convictions.
The legislation must be signed by Gov. Mike Easley before the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission would be established. His office said he would review it.
The bill was authored by Democratic Rep. Rick Glazier, who as an attorney, represented a former U.S. Marine convicted of rape in 1982 despite four witnesses who testified in his defense. Lesly Jean was exonerated in 2001 by DNA evidence.
''We have to recognize that, sometimes, our system can make a mistake,'' Glazier said.
A 2002 study of the justice system, led by then state Supreme Court Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., recommended such a commission be formed to handle innocence claims.
However, some lawmakers said it would be an unnecessary layer of judicial oversight.
''The court system that we have works very well,'' Republican Rep. Joe Kiser said.
Under the legislation, the eight-member commission could investigate claims based only on new evidence not considered in trial. If 5 of the 8 members agree a petition was credible, the state's Chief Justice would appoint 3 judges to determine whether ''clear and convincing evidence'' of innocence existed.
If the judges agree unanimously, they have the authority to overturn the conviction.
Convicts whose cases were resolved with guilty pleas would not be eligible for the 1st 2 years of the commission's existence. For the next 2 years, those cases could be considered, but the recommendation that advanced a case to the judges' panel would have to be unanimous.
The North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys objected to that proposal.
''It's kind of making a mockery of the system,'' said Garry Frank,
president of the DA's coalition.
Lawmakers would have to renew the commission after 4 years.
It is modeled after one in the United Kingdom that has examined 8,500 cases since being formed in 1997. About 4 % of its appeals were sent back to courts, and some 220 convictions have been overturned.
(source: Associated Press)
|
|
|
|
Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 30, 2006 3:32:09 GMT -5
N.C. innocence panel awaits Easley's blessing
Gov. Mike Easley's signature is the last hurdle before North Carolina creates a one-of-a-kind legal path to exonerate the wrongfully convicted.
The state Senate voted 47-1 Wednesday to send the legislation to Easley's desk. An Easley spokeswoman said Wednesday evening that the governor will review the bill once he receives it.
"This is an unique effort in America," said Stephen Saloom, policy
director with The Innocence Project, a New York-based nonprofit legal clinic.
Former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., who led the effort to create the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission, said, "I think it offers anybody who is innocent in prison a great deal of hope that wasn't there before."
The commission would be focused on examining questions of innocence, while the current criminal appeals process is geared toward ensuring fair trials.
One man who understands the scant hope that the appeals system can offer is Darryl Hunt, 41, of Winston-Salem, who filed 11 appeals and spent 18 years in prison before being exonerated in 2004 of murder.
"I really think it's going to go a long way in freeing innocent people in prison," Hunt said. "I'm hopeful this commission will be able to right a lot of the wrongs."
Others were not convinced. N.C. Court of Appeals Judge James A. Wynn Jr. said the current system offers protections for the falsely accused: a jury trial, the requirement that prosecutors share their evidence with the defense and the appeals system. If the system is convicting the innocent, Wynn said, the system should be improved.
"I think it abrogates the responsibility of the judiciary," Wynn said. He later added: "It has to lessen public confidence if the judiciary has to concede that they cannot fix the problem."
Regardless of any controversy, those outside North Carolina will be watching.
"It's a nationally recognized problem. North Carolina is taking the lead. ... What we're doing is being looked at across the country," said Rich Rosen, a UNC law professor.
Lake convened the group that proposed the commission 4 years ago after a series of wrongful convictions came to light in North Carolina.
In 1991, Lesly Jean, a former Marine, spent 9 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. In 1995, Ronald Cotton was released after more than 10 years in prison after DNA evidence exonerated him in a rape case. In 1999, death row inmate Charles Munsey was granted a new trial after another man
confessed to the murder for which he was convicted. And in 2002, Terence Garner was released from prison after a judge set aside his convictions of armed robbery and attempted murder.
The commission would be made up of eight members, including a judge, prosecutor, victims' advocate, defense lawyer and a sheriff, and the commission would employ a director to coordinate investigations. After a formal inquiry, five of the eight commission members would have to find "sufficient evidence" of innocence to forward the claim to a 3-judge panel.
The judges would hold a hearing, consider evidence from both the
prosecutor and the defendant. All 3 judges would have to find "clear and convincing evidence" to free a person.
As part of a compromise devised by lawmakers, the commission during its first 2 years could not investigate claims from those who pleaded guilty. After those 2 years, the commission could send such a claim to the 3-judge panel only if all 8 members agreed.
Prosecutors had fought hard to exclude those who pleaded guilty from the system. The state's district attorneys agreed they could not support the proposal if those who declared their guilt would now be able to swear their innocence, said Garry Frank, president of the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys, and the prosecutor in Alexander, Davidson, Davie and Iredell counties.
4 % of the 183 people exonerated by DNA evidence since 1989 had pleaded guilty, according to The Innocence Project.
Prosecutors were not the only ones dissatisfied; the bill says victims can be excluded from commission proceedings if their presence would interfere with the investigation.
"We feel they have a right to be at every stage of the process," said Mel Chilton, executive director of the N.C. Victim Assistance Network, a nonprofit group.
(source: News & Observer)
|
|
|
|
Post by SoulTrainOz on Jul 30, 2006 3:36:34 GMT -5
Innocent even after proven guilty? Panel may decide
Gillespie believes it's an attempt to halt the death penalty in N.C.
North Carolina is on the verge of creating the first judicial panel in the United States dedicated solely to freeing innocent people from prison.
The eight-member panel could hear from perhaps thousands of incarcerated people, sorting through their cases to find any who might have legitimate claims to being innocent. It could then forward cases to a 3-judge tribunal, which would have the power to release inmates.
Spurred on by a string of reversed criminal convictions in recent years - including the murder conviction of Darryl Hunt of Winston-Salem, who served about 18 years in prison until he was cleared by DNA evidence - the proposed system would be modeled on one in the United Kingdom.
Members of the N.C. House voted 86-28 for a final, compromise version Tuesday. Gov. Mike Easley, a Democrat, is expected to sign the bill.
Rep. Mitch Gillespie, R-McDowell, voted against the creation of the
innocence panel because he feels it is another attempt to end the death penalty in North Carolina.
"I voted against it last year and I voted against it this year," he said. "Right now, North Carolina will be the first state in the nation to do something like this. This is just another attempt to stop the death penalty in North Carolina. There's nothing wrong with our current system. If we have a problem, we need to fix it instead of starting a complete new system."
If a doubt exists about a prisoner's guilt, the governor can step in and force a review of the case. The governor also has the power to stop an execution.
"Even if you pleaded guilty, any advocacy group can bring forth a claim of innocence," said Gillespie. "This panel can overturn the complete judicial system. All we heard on the floor was about the victims in jail."
He added that an eight-member appointed panel could override the findings of 12 jurors.
"Our system is not broken," said Gillespie. "This is just another way that the liberals are trying to end the death penalty in North Carolina."
In addition, the statewide association for district attorneys is opposed to the idea.
Last year, Gillespie went to Central Prison in Raleigh, visited prisoners who are sitting on Death Row and looked at their cases. He walked into the execution chamber where the condemned are strapped to a gurney.
"I felt stronger in support of the death penalty than when I entered," he said.
The N.C. Senate was expected to vote on the bill Wednesday. Sen. Keith Presnell, R-Yancey, could not be reached for comment.
State legislators have considered creating an innocence panel since early 2005, when a group led by then-Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., a Republican, recommended the idea. The House endorsed it later that year, but the idea stalled until a Senate committee revived it this month. Supporters praised Tuesday's vote as historic and as reflective of a judicial system that sometimes needs improvement.
"We recognize that, on a rare occasion, our system makes a mistake, and we've actually incarcerated the wrong person for a crime. The guilty person, the guilty murderer, the guilty rapist remains on the street," said Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, the sponsor of the legislation.
"North Carolina's been a leader in a lot of ways," said Tom Ross, a retired Superior Court judge and court administrator who is now the executive director of the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. "You can't worry about whether you're first or last or in between," Ross said. "What you have to worry about is: What's the right policy?"
The panel would be known as the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission and would be made up of a judge, a prosecutor, a victims' advocate, a sheriff, a defense lawyer and three others. They would be appointed by the chief judge on the N.C. Court of Appeals.
With the support of 5 members of the panel, a case would go to a 3-judge tribunal. The tribunal, which would be made up of 3 Superior Court judges who are appointed by the Chief Justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, would then hold a hearing, and the judges would have to decide unanimously to set a defendant free.
Legislators have already agreed on a $210,713 budget for the panel's 1st year. It would start with three staff members who would do most of the screening of cases.
A broad consensus has formed in support of the panel, including sheriffs, prosecutors and trial lawyers.
Rep. Paul Stam, R-Wake, a frequent advocate for conservative legal positions, was among the final negotiators on the legislation. He praised the proposal for the many barriers that a defendant would have to get over before being set free. For example, a defendant could not invoke attorney-client privilege to avoid testimony.
"The one thing you won't get out of this commission is a lot of guilty people being set free. It's just too hard," Stam said.
The commission has drawn criticism from some people in law enforcement and from some victims.
Ramona Stafford of Lewisville, whose husband Stephen was killed in 1993, criticized the proposal because many meetings of the panel could be closed to the public and to the victims. She also said that the 3-judge tribunal has too much power.
"They're just selecting themselves as judge and jury," Stafford said.
About 160 people convicted in Forsyth County courtrooms would be eligible to apply to the innocence panel, said District Attorney Tom Keith, who said he could "live with" the legislation.
The number of applicants could drastically increase in two years when a provision would take effect making eligible defendants who had pleaded guilty. Keith said that he's concerned about the extra workload for prosecutors who would have to rebut innocence claims.
"It's resources taken away from my office. If you want to do this, give us more people," he said.
(source: McDowell News)
|
|
