Beginning Feb. 26, attorneys are scheduled to present evidence to a Johnston County Superior Court judge arguing that race significantly affected prosecutors’ actions during jury selection, not just in the underlying case of Hasson Bacote, but in capital cases throughout North Carolina.
But if the state attorney general’s office gets its way, these findings will not be heard in court — at least not this month.
“Racial discrimination in jury selection is abhorrent in all respects and has no place in the criminal justice system,” reads a recent court filing signed by lawyers in the attorney general’s office, including the Attorney General himself, Josh Stein, a Democrat who is running for governor this year. “Nevertheless, like all claims, a claim of racial discrimination cannot be presumed based on the mere assertion of a defendant; it must be proved.”
According to a recent court filing, the evidence to be submitted by Bacote’s lawyers includes several findings:
- In 176 capital cases across North Carolina between 1985 and 2011, Black people were two and a half times more likely to be struck from jury pools than other jurors.
- Similarly, in seven Johnston County capital cases over that same timeframe, Black people were four times more likely to be struck from the jury pool than other jurors.
- In four capital cases in that timeframe tried by Gregory Butler, an assistant district attorney, Black people were 10 times more likely to be struck from a jury pool than other jurors. Butler also prosecuted Bacote, the defendant in the underlying case.
The attorney general’s office, however, called the evidence “insufficiently supported.” It took issue with a study conducted by law professors at Michigan State University, arguing that the state Supreme Court has already deemed that research irrelevant and misleading.
Last year, the state Supreme Court ruled that a study by the same MSU professors was “unreliable and fatally flawed” because it “assumed racial animus in cases in which defendants did not make any such claim, or in which the trial court or appellate courts did not make or sustain any such findings.”
In light of that opinion, the AG’s office asked the trial court judge to deny Bacote’s jury selection claims without holding a hearing. The judge denied the request.
The attorney general’s office is now seeking a second opinion. It has petitioned the state Supreme Court for guidance on how lower courts should use the MSU study in assessing claims of juror discrimination. This decision could drastically impact pending RJA claims, since they rely on the MSU study to support juror discrimination arguments.
Attorney Shelagh Rebecca Kenney, one of the attorneys representing Bacote, filed a motion last week criticizing the AG’s office for trying to derail the pending hearing: “The State appears motivated by its knowledge of the strength of Defendant’s evidence, its reluctance to face that evidence in open court, and its fear of losing.”
The Racial Justice Act’s lead case
Hasson Bacote, who is Black, was sentenced to death in Johnston County in 2009 for a crime he committed when he was 20 years old.
Ten white and two Black jurors convicted Bacote of killing Anthony Surles during a robbery. According to attorney Kenney’s motion, Bacote is one of 11 men sentenced to death in North Carolina after being convicted of first-degree murder solely under the theory of felony murder; that means the killing was not premeditated or deliberate, and instead happened during the commission of another violent felony.
All 11 of those men are people of color.
The core of Bacote’s case is the Racial Justice Act, a landmark law passed by Democrats in 2009, repealed by Republicans in 2013, and preserved by the Democratic-controlled state Supreme Court in 2020. The law gives people on North Carolina’s death row an opportunity to be resentenced to life in prison without parole if they can prove racial discrimination played a role in their death sentence.
The hearing would be the first since 2020, when the Supreme Court ruled that all claims brought under the RJA were still valid and could have their day in court.
Lawyers for the state started sharing discovery with Bacote’s team in 2022, after a Superior Court judge ordered them to turn over data on how prosecutors across North Carolina pick juries in capital cases. Over the past few years, the state has turned over 680,000 pages of discovery, which Kenney called in her motion “the most comprehensive discovery provided by the state on jury selection issues in North Carolina.”
Bacote’s is the RJA’s lead case, which means it will set the standard for how other cases are handled. How the Supreme Court handles the attorney general’s request — or a later appeal — will affect how judges deal with future Racial Justice Act claims.
Lawyers with the Attorney General’s office wrote to the state Supreme Court noting that if the hearing takes place on Feb. 26 as scheduled, it would “waste time and resources if it is later determined on subsequent appeal that the claims should have been dismissed at the pleadings stage.”
Kenney, meanwhile, rebutted that claim. She argued the research referenced by the attorney general’s office dealt with a 2011 MSU study; that data was updated for Bacote’s case, using information gleaned from the hundreds of thousands of documents turned over by the state. That data, she continued, hasn’t ever been presented or considered by any court.
She also contested the relevance of the state Supreme Court ruling referenced by the state, since that ruling explicitly said it did not address the defendant’s RJA claim.
The MSU study is also not the only evidence Bacote’s lawyers plan to use to make their case. Included within those 680,000 documents were prosecutors’ handwritten notes, which Kenney wrote in the motion “reveal that race permeated the State’s approach to jury selection.”
Prosecutors’ notes from various trials show a preoccupation with prospective jurors’ race. In one Washington County case, for instance, a prosecutor wrote that they didn’t want a particular person on the jury out of concern she would be “sympathetic to plight” and that she “had a child by BM [Black Man].” In that same case, a prosecutor scribbled that they wanted one juror who seemed favorable to prosecution, noting she seemed like she would “bring her own rope.”
Race didn’t just figure into jury selection, but into the prosecutor’s racist views as well. Kenney’s motion includes a newspaper article from another of Butler’s capital cases where he compared the Black defendants to wild dogs and hyenas, hunting their victims “like the predators of the African plain.”
The Supreme Court could issue a ruling on the attorney general’s petition as early as the end of this week.
This article originally appeared in NC Newsline on February 7th, 2023.
Please support the news you can use and visit The Brooks Blackboard's website for more news!
Take a look at my brief bio about my writing life and on social media:
Facebook page: The Brooks Blackboard
Twitter: @_charlesbrooks
No comments:
Post a Comment