That is why the lawmakers of North Carolina passed the Racial Justice Act in 2009, following a large number of black employees who had white or almost all white juries before them. One of the first such laws, t He allowed a consecutive resident to reduce the death of his sentence by presenting statistical evidence of a differentiated discrimination pattern by prosecutors.
In North Carolina, this pattern was easy to show. Study researchers at the Michigan State University Law College looked at jury selection in 173 North Carolina death penalty trials over 20 years and found that black jurors were struck at double the rate of the boy. In a state that is more than one-third there, about half of the states stream all-white juries or juries were convicted with only one black juror.
Over 130 men and women condemned claims under the Racial Justice Act. In 2012, the first complainant, a consecutive prisoner named Marcus Robinson, won his case. A further three cases were followed, each with the same result: The court found not only a pattern of racial discrimination by prosecutors, but also that they had differentiated specifically in each case. All four prisoners were put into life without parole.
But even when the new law was revealing the scope of racist discrimination by North Carolina prosecutors, the state's Republican legislature wanted it to be removed. In 2011, a bill was passed by lawmakers who implemented the Racial Justice Act, but it was vetoed by the Democratic governor, Beverly Perdue. When Pat McCrory, Republican replaced Ms Perdue in 2013, the government did not agree at any time to dump the law.
With the racist justice action from the picture, the state appealed the alternatives in the four cases decided, and in 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court returned the cases for further review, because it had not been given. enough time for them to respond to Michigan State study on biased biased strikes.
Shortly afterwards, state officials ignored the Supreme Court Order and. t he sent the four complainants back to death without a court hearing or considering new evidence or arguments. The state has not yet provided any explanation as to the racial discrepancy in jurors' strikes, arguing that the repeal of the law does not change until the complainants return.
In the State Supreme Court next week, the four complainants, including Mr Robinson, will make many constitutional arguments, but they all have the same question: State legislators have been successful in finding a law to find racial bias in their justice system. They found it. Rather than building on that success, new law repeaters and punished those who benefited. These four complainants are not claiming innocence; they argue that they have the same constitutional safeguards as any other person, including double danger.