The Racial Justice Act has survived its first serious challenge. On Thursday, a judge in Forsyth County rejected arguments by prosecutors that the law was too sweeping and failed to comply with the North Carolina Constitution.
Two North Carolina death-row inmates, Errol Duke Moses and Carl Stephen Moseley, are using statistics and findings from a Michigan State University study to claim racial imbalance and bias played a role in their trials and sentencing.
Their cases are the first of the 154 death row inmates seeking relief under the law to get to a courtroom.
According to the News & Observer story, prosecutors in the case earlier this week attacked the law, saying it was too sweeping to apply fairly across the state.
For instance, an assistant district attorney, argued that the law does not specify exactly how race is to be considered in evaluating the bias claims. He objected to the fact that one of the two defendants, Moseley, a white inmate convicted of killing white victims, was alleging racial bias played a part in his sentencing.
Defense attorneys argued that that a broad law was exactly what the legislature intended. “In North Carolina, we have a societal interest in addressing a history that has been marred by racial discrimination,” said Paul Green, one of Moseley’s attorneys.
Lawyers will now move to the bias claims.
That said ... the law could be in jeopardy in the political arena.
Republicans who gained control of the state Senate and House in January have talked about either severely narrowing the reach of the act or repealing it all together.
Their cases are the first of the 154 death row inmates seeking relief under the law to get to a courtroom.
According to the News & Observer story, prosecutors in the case earlier this week attacked the law, saying it was too sweeping to apply fairly across the state.
For instance, an assistant district attorney, argued that the law does not specify exactly how race is to be considered in evaluating the bias claims. He objected to the fact that one of the two defendants, Moseley, a white inmate convicted of killing white victims, was alleging racial bias played a part in his sentencing.
Defense attorneys argued that that a broad law was exactly what the legislature intended. “In North Carolina, we have a societal interest in addressing a history that has been marred by racial discrimination,” said Paul Green, one of Moseley’s attorneys.
Lawyers will now move to the bias claims.
That said ... the law could be in jeopardy in the political arena.
Republicans who gained control of the state Senate and House in January have talked about either severely narrowing the reach of the act or repealing it all together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zliascFWQAM
ReplyDeleteThis Racial Justice Act seems to challenge the narratives we have learned about. The people we see as being the "innately evil predator" are trying to turn themselves into the "naive innocent victim". If these men/women are on death row and have been convicted on the basis of physical evidence (such as DNA) they should not be able to get a new trial solely because they THINK their jury was racist. Unfortunately it is a fact that racism still exists today, however these prosecutors are reaching.
ReplyDelete@NHS, so sentencing someone to death if that sentence comes about as a result of racial bias is ok with you? Just curious since you posted that link.
ReplyDeleteUm, not at all. And that link does not even imply that, so I dont know how you reached that conclusion. I just think it is wrong that people will try to use this to get a lighter sentence, even if he/she is guilty... like the guy mentioned in your article, or the man that killed those two officers.
ReplyDeleteSorry NHS. It was just a question. I cannot see the video since my sound is broken (ugh). I was just wondering why you posted it since you did not make any comment along with it.
ReplyDelete