Gov. Mike Easley says it’s in the state’s interests to allow undocumented immigrants to attend community colleges if they qualify and if they pay out-of-state tuition. That essentially puts him in accord with a new community college system policy – and in opposition to both Democrats and Republicans running for governor to replace him. In a phone interview this morning, here’s what Easley said:
“Here’s my position. The people we are talking about were brought here as babies and young children through no fault of their own. They distinguished themselves throughout our K-12 (public school) system. Now, I’m not willing to grind my heel in their faces and slam the door on them. The Community College System has to be open to them in order for them to be productive members of our society and help North Carolina and America compete in the world economy.”
That’s contrary to what candidates for governor are saying. “That doesn’t surprise me,” Easley said, “but I think both the Democrats and the Republicans, if they are elected governor, will revisit this issue and will view it through a totally different lens. Because if they set a policy that is destined to build a weaker North Carolina, then they will reap the [consequences] of that.”
Denying illegal immigrants access to community colleges “doesn’t penalize the immigrants, it penalizes this state and innocent children."
Easley says this problem exists because of Congress’ failure to deal honestly with immigration problems, including sealing the borders and reforming immigration policy, “so the citizens of North Carolina don’t have to make these agonizing decisions that are creating a lot of hate and anger.”
Easley says he knows his view runs contrary to that of many North Carolinians. “It’s going to be a hell of a Christmas,” he noted. “Everybody in the world is going to be picketing the mansion.”
Friday, November 30, 2007
A question of innocence
A question of innocence
Here’s a good question about the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, represented by former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. and law professors Rich Rosen and Kenneth Broun. They’re arguing to the N.C. Supreme Court that Mr. Hunt is entitled to a review of his case. They think he’s innocent of involvement in the murder of a Fayetteville couple, and they want the courts to consider testimony from a defense lawyer that his now-deceased client took full responsibility for the murders.
The question is this: Why didn’t the lawyers file this case before the new N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission?
That’s the commission created after a study commission was appointed by then-Chief Justice Lake to consider how North Carolina examines credible claims of actual innocence by those behind bars. One of the lawyers appointed to Lake’s study commission was Rosen, a law professor at the UNC School of Law.
Wouldn’t the Innocence Inquiry Commission have been a logical place to file the case?
Sure, says Rosen, but he and his colleagues were already pursuing the Hunt case in the state courts before the Innocence Inquiry Commission was up and running. “We were already too far along,” Rosen said in a phone interview. Waiting for the commission to get cranked up might have required another year’s wait, and the Hunt case was set for a hearing in Superior Court last January, he said.
Under the law setting up the Innocence Inquiry Commission, the lawyers wouldn’t be able to file the case before the commission if it doesn’t win in the state courts – unless some new evidence turns up.
“We had to make the call and this was our choice, right or wrong,” says Rosen.
More on this later.
Here’s a good question about the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, represented by former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. and law professors Rich Rosen and Kenneth Broun. They’re arguing to the N.C. Supreme Court that Mr. Hunt is entitled to a review of his case. They think he’s innocent of involvement in the murder of a Fayetteville couple, and they want the courts to consider testimony from a defense lawyer that his now-deceased client took full responsibility for the murders.
The question is this: Why didn’t the lawyers file this case before the new N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission?
That’s the commission created after a study commission was appointed by then-Chief Justice Lake to consider how North Carolina examines credible claims of actual innocence by those behind bars. One of the lawyers appointed to Lake’s study commission was Rosen, a law professor at the UNC School of Law.
Wouldn’t the Innocence Inquiry Commission have been a logical place to file the case?
Sure, says Rosen, but he and his colleagues were already pursuing the Hunt case in the state courts before the Innocence Inquiry Commission was up and running. “We were already too far along,” Rosen said in a phone interview. Waiting for the commission to get cranked up might have required another year’s wait, and the Hunt case was set for a hearing in Superior Court last January, he said.
Under the law setting up the Innocence Inquiry Commission, the lawyers wouldn’t be able to file the case before the commission if it doesn’t win in the state courts – unless some new evidence turns up.
“We had to make the call and this was our choice, right or wrong,” says Rosen.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Lake a 'lifelong Republican'? No
The Observer’s David Ingram called my attention to a story Wednesday in the Washington Post about the involvement of former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. in the case of Lee Wayne Hunt, who has spent a couple decades in prison for murder. He was convicted partly on the basis of a discredited process linking him to the bullets used in the murder.
Lake’s involvement was interesting because he’s a Republican who stirred up a little controversy when he created a study that lead to the Innocence Inquiry Commission. I wrote a Tuesday blog item about that.
On Wednesday the Post reported:
“Lake, a lifelong Republican, also was instrumental in the creation last year of North Carolina’s Innocence Commission, which reviews cases of convicts who say they are innocent.”
Well, no. It is probably accurate to call Lake a lifelong conservative, but he has been a Republican less than half his life. He was a Democratic state senator when I came to Raleigh in the late 1970s, though he soon became a Republican to run, unsuccessfully, against Gov. Jim Hunt in 1980.
Of course, I’ve made this kind of error myself, so I shouldn’t be too critical of the Post. In a blog the other day about Lake’s involvement, I called Gerda Stein a lawyer. She wrote back: “I am not a lawyer, I’m a social worker at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. (used to be a mitigation investigator, now public information person). But my parents, especially my father the lawyer, will be proud!”
Lake’s involvement was interesting because he’s a Republican who stirred up a little controversy when he created a study that lead to the Innocence Inquiry Commission. I wrote a Tuesday blog item about that.
On Wednesday the Post reported:
“Lake, a lifelong Republican, also was instrumental in the creation last year of North Carolina’s Innocence Commission, which reviews cases of convicts who say they are innocent.”
Well, no. It is probably accurate to call Lake a lifelong conservative, but he has been a Republican less than half his life. He was a Democratic state senator when I came to Raleigh in the late 1970s, though he soon became a Republican to run, unsuccessfully, against Gov. Jim Hunt in 1980.
Of course, I’ve made this kind of error myself, so I shouldn’t be too critical of the Post. In a blog the other day about Lake’s involvement, I called Gerda Stein a lawyer. She wrote back: “I am not a lawyer, I’m a social worker at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation. (used to be a mitigation investigator, now public information person). But my parents, especially my father the lawyer, will be proud!”
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Former Chief Justice Lake seeks justice for Hunt
CBS’s 60 Minutes and the Washington Post recently featured stories about the strange case of Lee Wayne Hunt, who has been in prison for a couple of decades for a double murder. There’s no doubt two people were murdered, but there is doubt that Hunt killed them. For one thing, key forensic evidence against him was a process that scientists now repudiate as unreliable and misleading, and that the FBI no longer uses. For another, a defense lawyer now says his deceased client took full responsibility for the murder and that Mr. Hunt was not present when the victims were killed.
Mr. Hunt’s legal team has filed a motion with the N.C. Supreme Court asking the court for review. His lawyers are UNC law professors Rich Rosen and Kenneth Broun – and former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., a conservative Republican.
"All I know is when he learned the facts of the case, he felt very
strongly that a great injustice had been done," says Gerda Stein, who works with the lawyers involved in this case. "Remember, he created the
Innocence Commission, so I think he looks closely at some of these
cases."
While he was chief justice, Lake created a study commission to determine a better way to look at credible claims of innocence, which led to creation of a new state commission to examine those cases. Lake wasn’t interested in freeing criminals; he was interested in finding out about cases where the innocent have been imprisoned, because that might mean our criminal justice system had not caught the real criminal, who might still be out on the streets.
Here’s a summary of the Hunt case from an Observer editorial the other day:
WHERE IS JUSTICE?
N.C. COURTS SHOULD LOOK AT EVIDENCE THAT PUT HUNT IN PRISON
Observer Staff - Editorial
If you watched CBS’ "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, you were probably disturbed to hear about the case of Lee Wayne Hunt. He has spent the last two decades in N.C. prisons for a double murder, convicted in part with the use of an FBI process no longer considered reliable and that the agency hasn’t used in more than two years.
That’s not all. A defense lawyer says a deceased client took sole responsibility for the murders before Mr. Hunt’s trial, but because of attorney-client privilege the lawyer couldn’t tell anyone what he knew.
Put these two things together and you’ve got one more mind-boggling example of what can go wrong in our criminal justice system. It seems to be a case begging for a new trial, but so far Mr. Hunt’s lawyers have gotten nowhere. The N.C. Court of Appeals not long ago refused to take a look at his request for a new trial. Now the N.C. Supreme Court will be asked to review a lower court decision denying him a new trial, but unless the justices view the FBI process as flawed or the lawyer’s assertions as credible, Mr. Hunt may spend the rest of his days in jail.
None of this means Mr. Hunt is innocent. He has a long record as a drug dealer. But because the FBI no longer uses so-called bullet lead analysis technique, there is no forensic evidence that Mr. Hunt was involved in the murders. At his trial, The Washington Post reported, an FBI analyst testified that lead in bullet fragments from the victims of a double murder near Fayetteville matched the lead in bullets "connected to" Mr. Hunt’s co-defendant.
The FBI stopped using the lead analysis technology after the National Academy of Sciences said it was "unreliable and potentially misleading." Yet the FBI hasn’t alerted defense attorneys about the discredited analysis in this case.
Equally troubling is a disclosure by defense lawyer Staples Hughes. He says his client Jerry Cashwell told him he had killed Roland and Lisa Matthews after an argument while watching television with them. Mr. Hughes thought attorney-client privilege prohibited him from talking about his client’s confession. After his client committed suicide in prison, Mr. Hughes came forward with the story.
The state’s reaction, however, has been even more discouraging: A judge has referred Mr. Hughes for possible disciplinary action for possible violations of lawyer-client privilege. That’s despite a 2003 N.C. Supreme Court ruling that, despite attorney-client privilege, a lawyer may be compelled to disclose what a deceased client told him about a crime.
Based on recent revelations about Mr. Hunt’s trial and Mr. Hughes’ client, it seems obvious a new trial is in order. But this is North Carolina, and official resistance to assertions there’s something wrong with the criminal justice system here runs wide and deep. Where is justice?
Mr. Hunt’s legal team has filed a motion with the N.C. Supreme Court asking the court for review. His lawyers are UNC law professors Rich Rosen and Kenneth Broun – and former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr., a conservative Republican.
"All I know is when he learned the facts of the case, he felt very
strongly that a great injustice had been done," says Gerda Stein, who works with the lawyers involved in this case. "Remember, he created the
Innocence Commission, so I think he looks closely at some of these
cases."
While he was chief justice, Lake created a study commission to determine a better way to look at credible claims of innocence, which led to creation of a new state commission to examine those cases. Lake wasn’t interested in freeing criminals; he was interested in finding out about cases where the innocent have been imprisoned, because that might mean our criminal justice system had not caught the real criminal, who might still be out on the streets.
Here’s a summary of the Hunt case from an Observer editorial the other day:
WHERE IS JUSTICE?
N.C. COURTS SHOULD LOOK AT EVIDENCE THAT PUT HUNT IN PRISON
Observer Staff - Editorial
If you watched CBS’ "60 Minutes" last Sunday night, you were probably disturbed to hear about the case of Lee Wayne Hunt. He has spent the last two decades in N.C. prisons for a double murder, convicted in part with the use of an FBI process no longer considered reliable and that the agency hasn’t used in more than two years.
That’s not all. A defense lawyer says a deceased client took sole responsibility for the murders before Mr. Hunt’s trial, but because of attorney-client privilege the lawyer couldn’t tell anyone what he knew.
Put these two things together and you’ve got one more mind-boggling example of what can go wrong in our criminal justice system. It seems to be a case begging for a new trial, but so far Mr. Hunt’s lawyers have gotten nowhere. The N.C. Court of Appeals not long ago refused to take a look at his request for a new trial. Now the N.C. Supreme Court will be asked to review a lower court decision denying him a new trial, but unless the justices view the FBI process as flawed or the lawyer’s assertions as credible, Mr. Hunt may spend the rest of his days in jail.
None of this means Mr. Hunt is innocent. He has a long record as a drug dealer. But because the FBI no longer uses so-called bullet lead analysis technique, there is no forensic evidence that Mr. Hunt was involved in the murders. At his trial, The Washington Post reported, an FBI analyst testified that lead in bullet fragments from the victims of a double murder near Fayetteville matched the lead in bullets "connected to" Mr. Hunt’s co-defendant.
The FBI stopped using the lead analysis technology after the National Academy of Sciences said it was "unreliable and potentially misleading." Yet the FBI hasn’t alerted defense attorneys about the discredited analysis in this case.
Equally troubling is a disclosure by defense lawyer Staples Hughes. He says his client Jerry Cashwell told him he had killed Roland and Lisa Matthews after an argument while watching television with them. Mr. Hughes thought attorney-client privilege prohibited him from talking about his client’s confession. After his client committed suicide in prison, Mr. Hughes came forward with the story.
The state’s reaction, however, has been even more discouraging: A judge has referred Mr. Hughes for possible disciplinary action for possible violations of lawyer-client privilege. That’s despite a 2003 N.C. Supreme Court ruling that, despite attorney-client privilege, a lawyer may be compelled to disclose what a deceased client told him about a crime.
Based on recent revelations about Mr. Hunt’s trial and Mr. Hughes’ client, it seems obvious a new trial is in order. But this is North Carolina, and official resistance to assertions there’s something wrong with the criminal justice system here runs wide and deep. Where is justice?
Friday, November 23, 2007
Easley-Dole: He said, she said
Gov. Mike Easley and Sen. Elizabeth Dole provided their constituents with an entertaining exchange last week over each other’s handling of a Navy proposal for a jet landing field to practice aircraft carrier landings in Eastern North Carolina.
Both Easley and Dole oppose the field anywhere that local residents oppose it, and both have tried to help the Navy find a suitable place. And it is not opposed everywhere. Jones County commissioners have voted 3-2 “not to oppose” the field in the Hoffman State Forest. That may not be the same thing as support for the Navy, but it tells the Navy something about the doubts that even military-friendly North Carolinians have about the field.
I spoke with both Easley and Dole last week after their public exchange of prepared statements. Easley was exasperated because he thought Dole, as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, could be doing more to make the Navy understand it has to offer the state more. “This thing I cannot do by myself,” Easley said. “Elizabeth Dole has got to get involved in this. She can’t keep ducking it.... I’m not looking for a fight here. I’m looking for some help.”
Easley felt stung when Dole and fellow Sen. Richard Burr responded sharply to his suggestion the Navy come up with other proposals. They interpreted that as meaning “other sites,” but Easley says he meant other proposals that would help local communities and build support for a landing field.
“If it were me, I’d put together a good economic development package with the jobs for a major base, solving the long term problems (of overcrowding and noise at the Navy’s current base at Oceana, Va.), put that proposal out there and see if there’s support for that,” he said.
Dole also felt stung by Easley, especially his suggestion she hadn’t been able to guide the Navy in the right direction. She and her staff had been meeting with the Navy all along, encouraging it to find a better site for the field and also meeting with residents of northeastern counties that didn’t want the field at all. That’s why she responded that Easley needed to keep working with the Navy to find the right site.
“I wanted to give him a heads up it wasn’t personal, but I’m a Southern lady and I wanted him to know I wasn’t going to stand still for that,” Dole said.
She also was miffed because the governor hadn’t met with local officials and residents to talk about the landing field, but had helped the Navy pick the sites the governor now says he opposes.
“The one thing that is very clear is the governor decided to work with the Navy.... It’s very clear the governor did not talk to local officials. It’s clear that the process went poorly, and we have written to the Navy to say, ‘Sorry you didn’t learn anything from the last time’” when it failed to develop local support for previous landing field proposals, she said.
Both Easley and Dole oppose the field anywhere that local residents oppose it, and both have tried to help the Navy find a suitable place. And it is not opposed everywhere. Jones County commissioners have voted 3-2 “not to oppose” the field in the Hoffman State Forest. That may not be the same thing as support for the Navy, but it tells the Navy something about the doubts that even military-friendly North Carolinians have about the field.
I spoke with both Easley and Dole last week after their public exchange of prepared statements. Easley was exasperated because he thought Dole, as a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, could be doing more to make the Navy understand it has to offer the state more. “This thing I cannot do by myself,” Easley said. “Elizabeth Dole has got to get involved in this. She can’t keep ducking it.... I’m not looking for a fight here. I’m looking for some help.”
Easley felt stung when Dole and fellow Sen. Richard Burr responded sharply to his suggestion the Navy come up with other proposals. They interpreted that as meaning “other sites,” but Easley says he meant other proposals that would help local communities and build support for a landing field.
“If it were me, I’d put together a good economic development package with the jobs for a major base, solving the long term problems (of overcrowding and noise at the Navy’s current base at Oceana, Va.), put that proposal out there and see if there’s support for that,” he said.
Dole also felt stung by Easley, especially his suggestion she hadn’t been able to guide the Navy in the right direction. She and her staff had been meeting with the Navy all along, encouraging it to find a better site for the field and also meeting with residents of northeastern counties that didn’t want the field at all. That’s why she responded that Easley needed to keep working with the Navy to find the right site.
“I wanted to give him a heads up it wasn’t personal, but I’m a Southern lady and I wanted him to know I wasn’t going to stand still for that,” Dole said.
She also was miffed because the governor hadn’t met with local officials and residents to talk about the landing field, but had helped the Navy pick the sites the governor now says he opposes.
“The one thing that is very clear is the governor decided to work with the Navy.... It’s very clear the governor did not talk to local officials. It’s clear that the process went poorly, and we have written to the Navy to say, ‘Sorry you didn’t learn anything from the last time’” when it failed to develop local support for previous landing field proposals, she said.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
No sanction of judge's speech
The N.C. Judicial Standards Commission has no plans to sanction a state appeals court judge for urging voters to support a judge based on how he might vote in a case he’s sure will come up.
N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Doug McCullough told a Haywood County audience earlier this fall it ought to support a Supreme Court justice who would make sure Democrats don’t get away with gerrymandering after the next legislative redistricting process. While judges are allowed by judicial canons to speak to audiences and to discuss issues, they’re not supposed to talk about upcoming cases. And McCullough said in his comments that there’s likely to be a redistricting case.
The N&O reports that Judicial Standards Commission chairman Paul Ross said the commission made “an effort to ensure such conduct is not repeated.” Here's a link:
Sounds about right. While the state purports to have an elective process for judges, judicial candidates’ ability to campaign and attract votes often has to turn on such warm, fuzzy, non-issues as honesty, integrity and a good civic record. Candidates who want to talk about what they’d do in office run right up against the canon against discussing how they’d vote on a case. That’s why a lot of folks – Republicans and Democrats – support a different way of choosing judges: appoint them on merit and then let voters decide periodically whether to retain them.
The candidate McCullough urged voters to support, by the way, is Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds. McCullough did Edmunds no favor in predicting how he’d vote on a redistricting case. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on its merits, and that matches Edmunds’ reputation since his days as U.S. Attorney in North Carolina’s Middle District. He’s known as a smart, fair, independent judge.
N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Doug McCullough told a Haywood County audience earlier this fall it ought to support a Supreme Court justice who would make sure Democrats don’t get away with gerrymandering after the next legislative redistricting process. While judges are allowed by judicial canons to speak to audiences and to discuss issues, they’re not supposed to talk about upcoming cases. And McCullough said in his comments that there’s likely to be a redistricting case.
The N&O reports that Judicial Standards Commission chairman Paul Ross said the commission made “an effort to ensure such conduct is not repeated.” Here's a link:
Sounds about right. While the state purports to have an elective process for judges, judicial candidates’ ability to campaign and attract votes often has to turn on such warm, fuzzy, non-issues as honesty, integrity and a good civic record. Candidates who want to talk about what they’d do in office run right up against the canon against discussing how they’d vote on a case. That’s why a lot of folks – Republicans and Democrats – support a different way of choosing judges: appoint them on merit and then let voters decide periodically whether to retain them.
The candidate McCullough urged voters to support, by the way, is Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds. McCullough did Edmunds no favor in predicting how he’d vote on a redistricting case. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on its merits, and that matches Edmunds’ reputation since his days as U.S. Attorney in North Carolina’s Middle District. He’s known as a smart, fair, independent judge.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Easley staff helped Navy pick OLF sites he opposes
That was an interesting broadside Gov. Mike Easley leveled at Sen. Elizabeth Dole Wednesday evening about the OLF. The governor opposes new sites in Camden and Gates counties that the Navy may consider in where to put the outlying landing field. and urged the Navy to find more alternatives. Sen. Dole and Sen. Richard Burr responded that his call was not helpful in resolving the issue. Then Easley's office issued a statement that said “It is time for Elizabeth Dole to learn that she represents the people of North Carolina, including those counties.”
What the governor didn’t say is how those sites got on the Navy’s radar in the first place: His administration helped put them there. This past spring and summer, his Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources Bill Ross, working with Easley’s staff and with environmentalist Tom Earnhardt, among others, scoured sites for the Navy, rounded up information and helped the Navy consider putting them on a list of final sites.
More on this later.
What the governor didn’t say is how those sites got on the Navy’s radar in the first place: His administration helped put them there. This past spring and summer, his Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources Bill Ross, working with Easley’s staff and with environmentalist Tom Earnhardt, among others, scoured sites for the Navy, rounded up information and helped the Navy consider putting them on a list of final sites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
