RALEIGH, N.C. — Attorneys representing Hasson Bacote, a Black man sentenced to death in 2009, are advocating for a life sentence citing North Carolina’s history of racial bias in jury selection as a compelling argument for resentencing. Bacote’s sentence was delivered by a jury comprised predominantly of white members – 10 white and two Black jurors – after his involvement in a felony murder was established by the court.
The latest arguments were presented on Wednesday, unfolding Bacote as the central figure in a broader examination of North Carolina’s Racial Justice Act, instituted in 2009 but eventually repealed in 2013. The law originally permitted death row inmates to challenge their sentences if racial discrimination played a role in their verdicts. Although repealed, the law still impacts cases like Bacote’s that had already initiated appeals.
During the concluding remarks, Henderson Hill, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, starkly criticized the jury selection process. Hill argued that while white jurors were accepted into the jury box at trials, Black jurors of similar backgrounds often faced dismissal. The State Department of Justice, arguing against Bacote’s legal team, maintained that the question at hand is whether the sentence was motivated purely by racial discrimination. Jonathan Babb, the department’s attorney, emphasized that establishing a historical context of racism does not directly validate Bacote’s claim for a resentencing solely on racial grounds.
The outcome of Bacote’s request now lies with Superior Court Judge Wayland Sermons Jr., who is yet to schedule a decision. This ruling could potentially set a precedent influencing the fate of over 100 other inmates on North Carolina’s death row.
North Carolina’s substantial backlog in death row cases partly stems from the imposed hiatus on executions since 2006, which coincides with disputes over the legality of lethal injection protocols and obtaining the necessary drugs. The pause in executions has prompted reevaluations of many cases, particularly concerning the fairness of jury selections.
The attention to racially biased jury selections is not isolated to North Carolina. Similar issues have surfaced in California where the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has initiated a review of past cases that possibly involved exclusion of Black and Jewish jurors.
Throughout the hearings for Bacote, which spanned two weeks, his legal team put forth a suite of professionals, including historians and social scientists, to testify on discriminatory patterns erstwhile used in Johnston County’s jury selections. This county, characterized by its historical ties to racially motivated propaganda, provided a potent backdrop to arguments of ingrained bias influencing legal outcomes.
Further underscoring discrepancies, Ashley Burrell from the Legal Defense Fund highlighted during closing arguments that in Johnston County, all Black defendants in reviewed capital cases were sentenced to death. In contrast, the majority of white defendants faced different, often lesser, sentences. This asymmetry, according to Burrell, typifies a long-standing narrative that adversely profiles Black males as inherently dangerous, a stereotype further perpetuated by derogatory labels used during trials.
As the anticipated decision from Judge Sermons awaits, the political spectrum is also reacting. Josh Stein, North Carolina Attorney General and a gubernatorial candidate, has historically supported the death penalty but insists that racial fairness must be a cornerstone of capital punishment justice. His stance is being closely watched as discussions unfold about the future of the death penalty in North Carolina amidst the ongoing challenges and critiques, emphasizing the integral role of fair and unbiased judicial processes in upholding the principles of justice.