|
Now is the time for the abolition movement and those who support a moratorium on executions to show Attorney General Mike Easley, the Democratic nominee for governor, and Gov. Jim Hunt that they are ignoring a growing body of evidence that the death penalty in North Carolina is awash with racial and class bias. More and more North Carolinians are learning how deeply flawed our death penalty system is. Condemned by a jury of 11 whites, Michael Sexton's case is an example of such flaws.
In North Carolina, black defendants who kill whites are three times as more likely to face execution, according to a Charlotte Observer study (9/13/00). During the past decade, "just 40 percent of all murder victims in the Carolinas were white, but in cases of inmates now on death row, nearly 70 percent of the murder victims were white." The Observer concludes in an editorial that "minority defendants start out with an intolerable and indefensible disadvantage compared to white defendants" (9/13/00).
A N.C. Legislative Study Commission is studying racial disparities in the application of the death penalty in North Carolina. The Commission has heard extensive testimony about the use of racial slurs and racial stereotypes by participants in capital trials. The Commission will likely issue a report by the end of the year. In the face of the questions now being raised in the legislature and in by the public about racial disparities in the application of the death penalty, the timing of Michael Sexton's execution date is shocking.
Questions of Fairness and Racial Bias Mandate Stay of Execution
Michael was 23 at the time of the crime, the rape-murder of Kimberly Crews, a white social worker at Wake Medical Center, in August 1990. The record in this case shows that racial bias tainted this death penalty prosecution. In addition, Michael Sexton's nightmarish childhood, as documented by juvenile social services records, show that he cannot be among the "worst of the worst" for which the death penalty is reserved.
Michael grew up a ward of Central Orphanage and the Wake County Department of Social Services. His father died when Michael was five. As a child, Michael was abused and abandoned by an alcoholic mother and a series of his mother's violent boyfriends. One of his mother's boyfriends sexually assaulted Michael's younger sister, giving her syphillis at the age of nine. Another boyfriend beat Michael with an iron poker. While trying to escape the beating, Michael overturned a pot of boiling water and scalded his leg. When Michael was 14, his mother told the family court that she did not want the children. Michael's sister and brother were placed in foster homes and Michael was sent to training school because DSS could not find a foster home for him. A year later, Michael was admitted to Central Orphanage. After DSS removed him from his mother's home, Michael did not see his mother or his siblings for a number of years. A DSS social worker recommended that Michael be placed in the Willie M program but he was rejected because he was "not violent enough." Less than a decade later, Michael committed the capital offense.
Michael was sentenced to death by a jury composed of 11 whites and one African-American. The State exercised four consecutive peremptory strikes to remove all but one of the African-Americans called for jury service. Asked to give reasons for excluding such a disproportionate number of African-American jurors, the prosecutor stated that one juror did not maintain eye contact and "was not forthcoming." The prosecutor objected to another juror because of "the way he was dressed." The prosecutor further noted that this juror wore an earring and concluded that he was "not mature" despite the fact that this juror was married, a father of two, and had lived at the same address for a number of years. The prosecutor faulted a third juror because she had poor eye contact. This juror had been a witness to an accident that resulted in a lawsuit. Based on this fact, the prosecutor excluded this juror because she was "litigious." The prosecutor also expressed concern that because the juror's husband worked at a hospital the juror would "identify" with the defendant who also worked at a hospital. The victim worked at a hospital too but the prosecutor did not explain why the juror would identify with the defendant rather than the victim.
|
|