Full story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/21/justice/north-carolina-death-revoked/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
The response from the North Carolina Association of District Attorneys is “interesting” and entirely predictable (sadly).
Blog Editor
Mark Godsey
Daniel P. & Judith L. Carmichael Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law; Director, Center for the Global Study of Wrongful Conviction; Director, Rosenthal Institute for Justice/Ohio Innocence Project | Email | ProfileContributing Editors
Justin Brooks
Professor, California Western School of Law; Director, California Innocence Project | Email
Cheah Wui Ling
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore Email | Profile
Daniel Ehighalua
Nigerian Barrister; Project Director, Innocence Project Nigeria Email
C Ronald Huff
Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and Sociology, University of California-Irvine Email | Profile
Phil Locke
Science and Technology Advisor, Ohio Innocence Project and Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic Email
Dr. Carole McCartney
Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Leeds; Founder, University of Leeds Innocence Project | Email | Profile
Nancy Petro
Author and Advocate
Kana Sasakura
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Konan University; Visiting Scholar, University of Washington School of Law; Innocence Project Northwest (IPNW)
Dr. Robert Schehr
Professor, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director, Arizona Innocence Project Email | Profile
Shiyuan Huang
Associate Professor, Shandong University Law School; Visiting Scholar, University of Cincinnati College of Law Email | Profile
Ulf Stridbeck
Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Martin Yant
Author and Private Investigator Email | Profile-
Thank you Phil.
At times , North Carolina , appears to have a vertical learning curve.
To my knowledge , Brunson v. North Carolina, 333 U.S. 851 , is the shortest opinion of our Supreme Court. It was the single word “Reversed” and tucked in the back of Volume 333 .
» As is shown by the record in this Court of Brunson v. North Carolina, 333 U.S. 851, tried in North Carolina in October, 1946, Forsyth County, with its large Negro population, at that time had a jury pool of 10,622 white and 255 colored citizens. At that time, a sheriff, then in office for 10 years, testified that he had summoned only about twelve Negroes for jury service in that time. In 1949, the jury box was purged. All those listing taxes and eligible were listed for jury service, with the result in this case shown above.
» Discriminations against a race by barring or limiting citizens of that race from participation in jury service are odious to our thought and our Constitution. This has long been accepted as the law. Brunson v. North Carolina, 333 U.S. 851; Cassell v. Texas, 339 U. S. 282, 339 U. S. 286-
Page 344 U. S. 471
» 287; State v. Peoples, 131 N.C. 784, 42 S.E. 814. Such discrimination is forbidden by statute, 18 U.S.C. § 243, and has been treated as a denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to an accused, of the race against which such discrimination is directed. Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370. The discrimination forbidden is racial discrimination, however, directed to accomplish the result of eliminating or limiting the service of the proscribed race by statute or by practice. Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128; Patton v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 463. «