N.C. Governor creates country's first "Innocence Inquiry Commission" for prisoners

**Terminator** · 08-03-06, 04:42 PM

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Gov. Mike Easley signed a measure Thursday, creating the country's first innocence inquiry commission -- a state panel that will examine possible wrongful convictions.

"As a state prosecutor for more 15 years, I know that law enforcement's greatest nightmare is to have an innocent person in jail or on death row," Easley said. "As a state that exacts the ultimate punishment, we should continue to ensure that we have the ultimate fairness in the review of our cases.

"Its creation gives our criminal justice system yet another safeguard by helping ensure that the people in our prisons in fact, belong there. This is something all North Carolinians can be proud of," Easley said.

The commission will be made up of eight members to review claims of innocence. Five of the eight members would have to determine "sufficient evidence" to forward the claim to a three-judge panel. In order to free a person, all three judges must be unanimous.

"We can get the person who is actually, factually innocent out of jail if we've locked them up wrongly, and we have people who have real confidence that…we're human beings and mistakes are made," said state Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland. "We now have a process to correct them."

To avoid being overrun with requests, for the first two years, the Innocence Commission will not consider claims from those who pleaded guilty. After the two years, those claims will only go to the three-judge panel if all eight commission members agree.

Once a majority of commission members agree that new and sufficient evidence exists, the findings would be sent to the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. If the commission is considering a case in which an individual had pleaded guilty, a unanimous decision would be required to refer the matter to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice would then appoint a three-judge panel to hear the case in the county where the crime happened. No judge on that panel may have had previous involvement in the case.

The three-judge panel has the authority to overturn the conviction if its members unanimously find clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is innocent of the charges. If the three judges are not unanimous in their finding, the defendant is denied legal relief and remains in prison.

**jmur5074** · 08-03-06, 09:42 PM

Good luck with that....
Even before those two years they're going to be overrun.

Are they going to be having something similar to new trials??? Or is it just going to be three judges discussing evidence and statements and what not? I dunno.....probably a good idea "in theory", I doubt it'll last long though.

**General Patten** · 08-03-06, 09:52 PM

i dont know if it'll work out or not, but it's a good idea.

**Standard Dave** · 08-04-06, 10:01 AM

If there is an identified problem it might be a good idea, but wouldn't they be better off examining the evidence at the time of the trial or is my thinking out dated (trial = Decision on guilt).

**MonsterMash** · 08-04-06, 10:34 PM

So......basically they want a "panel" to see if they were innocent or guilty. What about being convicted by your peers and all the subsequent appeals you have? I'm sure that 50 years ago people were wrongly convicted by just plain bad luck. But, in today's world of in car camera systems, video surveillance, forensics, etc......you would be hard pressed to convince me that the person didn't do it. Seems to me that this just prolongs the process of justice.

**conalabu** · 08-06-06, 11:29 AM

The concept is admirable. But, in the end, I agree with MM. Our entire government system is formed on checks and balances. There are already fail safes in the system we have now to counter the possibility of false conviction. Do people still fall through the cracks? Of course. No system is perfect, nor will this new system be perfect. Yes, it can be argued that every chance that we can get to free an innocent man is worth adding to the system guards in place, how far do you go? After a few decades will we decide that another level is needed to ensure that much more protection from flase conviction? Do we maybe decide that a five judge panel is needed top review the cases which will then go to a three judge appeal panel? How many layers do we need? How much more money is going to be spent on not just on the formation of the layers, but into the wages and new positions needed to augment and properly fill out these new layers? I say make it easier from the get go. Judge Dredd style. Clean out a few layers.

**BigDawg** · 08-06-06, 01:18 PM

Well it looks good on paper, but Ill leave it there.

I say with all the checks and balances in place it should be enough. If they are innocent they get all these appeals etc. But we only get ONE chance to put a guilty man where he belongs. If the paperwork isn't exactly right, or the twelve idiots in the box can't see the light, thats it its over. Doesn't matter what new evidence you have or anything, you had your ONE chance move on. About some layers, and checks and balances on that side too??

**Order phentermine** · 08-10-06, 10:19 PM

OMFG!!!!!! WTF was that

Nice try though!!!

**conalabu** · 08-10-06, 10:23 PM

[QUOTE=Order phentermine]SPAM!!!!![QUOTE]

Wow. At least they are trying to be more subtle. Still, no points for being subtle, shitball. Still not wanted. E-mail, please?|

**Hannibal** · 08-10-06, 10:25 PM

Order phentermine Discount phentermine, Cheap phentermine

I agree with MonsterMash and BigDawg. The shitbags already have every advantage in the system they need. I wouldn't want my tax dollars wasted on a program like this.

**Lazy Fed** · 08-10-06, 11:18 PM

WTF was that Order crap, it just popped outta now where????? I think on paper it is a good idea, but in real life I some liberal nut screwing good arrests up. IMO