NC Supreme Court Issues Major Decisions Regarding Capital Jury Trials
NC Supreme Court Issues Major Decisions Regarding Capital Jury Trials
In a set of cases claiming the prosecution systematically sought the death penalty using unlawful discriminatory methods, the North Carolina Supreme vacated the death sentences because the legislature’s retroactive repeal of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA) was unconstitutional. The RJA was enacted in 2009 and provided that “[n]o person shall be subject to or given a sentence of death or shall be executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race.” The RJA implemented a hearing procedure authorizing a defendant to raise an RJA claim either at a pretrial conference or in postconviction proceedings. Upon the filing of a claim, the RJA mandated that “[t]he court shall schedule a hearing on the claim and shall prescribe a time for the submission of evidence by both parties.” The law placed the burden of proof on the defendant and provided, in pertinent part: “A finding that race was the basis of the decision to seek or impose a death sentence may be established if the court finds that race was a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the sentence of death in the county, the prosecutorial district, the judicial division, or the State at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed. . . . If the court finds that race was a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the sentence of death in the county, the prosecutorial district, the judicial division, or the State at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed, the court shall order that a death sentence not be sought, or that the death sentence imposed by the judgment shall be vacated and the defendant resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.” In State v. Ramseur andState v. Burke, the defendants raised racial discrimination claims (including Batson violations) citing the 2009 RJA as authority. However, the legislature later amended and then repealed the RJA in 2013 to reduce the availability of RJA relief. It made these amendments retroactive. The retroactive repeal effectively nullified the pending RJA claims in the Ramseur and Burke cases. The state supreme court found the retroactive repeal of the RJA’s ameliorative provisions were unconstitutional ex post facto laws. The court stated, “by retroactively eliminating the RJA’s substantive claim and its accompanying relief, the RJA Repeal increases the severity of the standard of punishment attached to the crime of first-degree murder and deprives defendant of a defense to the 'nature or amount of the punishment imposed for its commission [citations omitted].' As such, the retroactive application of the RJA Repeal to defendant[s] violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws.” This may mean that over 100 people on North Carolina's death row may now challenge their death sentences as racially discriminatory under the RJA.
Canadian Juries Commission Calls Jury Duty an “Essential Service” Worthy of Pandemic Government Assistance
According to Mark Farrant, founder of the Canadian Juries Commission, a nonprofit group that seeks to improve Canada’s jury system, “Jury duty is essential to our justice system and one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It needs to be declared an essential service in this pandemic and post-pandemic.” By formally making jury duty an essential service, Farrant argues, the provinces and territories will more likely have adequate supplies of personal protective equipment for juries and encourage sufficient financial compensation for anyone selected to serve.
The American Board of Trial Advocates Releases White Paper on Resumption of Civil Jury Trials
ABOTA is an organization long committed to promoting and improving civil jury trials. Toward that end, ABOTA’s COVID-19 Task Force just released “Guidance for Conducting Civil Jury Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic.”
Appellate Court Issues Mandamus Directing Trial Judge to Permit Conditional Posttrial Interviews with Jurors
In DeHoyos v. Superior Court of Orange County, a death row inmate successfully obtained a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to authorize contact with former jurors in his case with the condition that any subject juror has freely consented to an interview with Mr. DeHoyos’s habeas corpus attorney. The appellate court opinion provides an instructive primer on a trial judge’s gatekeeper responsibilities with respect to a juror’s expectations of privacy.
Jury Trial Last Week Results in Quarantine of Judge and Staff
In Minnesota last week, Judge Kerry Meyer presided over the state’s first jury trial after the lifting of a total moratorium on trials. The trial ended with a verdict and the judge being quarantined because her staff member tested positive for COVID-19. The Star Tribune reportedthat the trial occurred in a courtroom larger than 1,800 square feet. Jurors wore masks and were seated throughout the courtroom at least six feet apart. Meyer said there were never more than 14 jurors in the courtroom and acrylic barriers separated them from others.