Friday Interview: N.C. Actual Innocence Commission Revisited | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: This is a most interesting conversation on Carolina Journal Radio with Former chief justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. gives us an interesting insight into his days on the North Carolina Supreme Court Bench.

Former chief justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. reviews process that helps innocent prisoners win freedom

    RALEIGH     There's plenty of disagreement about the proper punishment for particular crimes, but no one wants to see an innocent person stuck in prison. Before retiring as chief justice of the N.C. Supreme Court, I. Beverly Lake Jr. played a critical role in the development of the N.C. Actual Innocence Commission, a group charged with ensuring that the state is not imprisoning people who can prove their innocence. Lake discussed the commission with Mitch Kokai for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)

    Kokai: This idea of having a special group that focuses on innocence for people who are behind bars -- why was this an important idea a decade or so ago?

    Lake: Well, thank you for that question. I was concerned throughout my career with the Supreme Court, which spanned a 12-year period, with the public perception of the job that the courts were doing -- whether we were in fact efficient, whether we were spending too much money, and whether we were having the proper result. So the issue, in my opinion at that time, was the public trust and confidence in the courts. And I was very concerned about that, particularly when several cases were called to my attention that indicated, or actually proved, to the satisfaction of the lower courts, that the people who had been in prison for a number of years were in fact innocent. And Darryl Hunt is a good example of that.

    Kokai: The idea was not to let lots of prisoners go free but to ensure that those who are in prison are supposed to be there. Is that what it is?

    Lake: That's exactly right. And the General Assembly thought, initially, and others, that there would be a flood of applications and a large number of people who would be freed from prison without adequate review of their case. And we assured them that was not [true] because there was going to be, by the Innocence Inquiry Commission -- the study commission that I set up, formed, and presented to the General Assembly -- we assured them that that commission would have a thorough examination of the actual quality of that case. And so they would weed out all the cases that had no basis in fact.

    Kokai: I imagine that was one of the key fears: If there's this other option, anyone who is sitting in prison is going to try to get out.

    Lake: That's right.

    Kokai: What's the main roadblock that stops the guilty person from going through this process?

    Lake: Well, as I said, the commission investigator makes an initial determination as to what case can even go to the Innocence Inquiry Commission, ... and that's an adversarial proceeding at that point. The evidence the defendant presents can be tested and should be thoroughly tested at that point by the Inquiry Commission. So, it's very unlikely that any case that does not have substantial merit would be recommended and forwarded to the three-judge panel, which is the final decision maker in the case.

    If the Inquiry Commission, after its study -- careful study of the evidence -- concludes that the case is sufficient to be presented to the three-judge panel, then it is, and that again is an adversarial proceeding, and the three-judge panel has to be unanimous before the prisoner can be declared innocent. And this is very important: The defendant in this proceeding, throughout, has the burden of proof. Normally, the state, at the trial level, all the way through, and at the appellate level, has the burden of proof. But this is the flipside of that coin. The defendant has to show a very, very good case.

    Kokai: We've had several high-profile cases go through this process. When a defendant, a prisoner, goes through this process and he's found to be innocent and is freed, what does that tell you about North Carolina's judicial process? Is this good news that someone is able to get through this? Or is it bad news that we've kept this person in prison so long?

    Lake: Well, it's a combination of both. It certainly is bad that an innocent person has had to sit in prison year after year. And some of these cases, like Greg Taylor, for example -- 17 years living with hardened criminals -- I can't imagine ... anybody going through that circumstance, knowing he's completely innocent of the crime, yet he was convicted and is now having to serve a substantial, if not the entire remaining years of his life, in prison. In Greg Taylor's case, he lost his marriage. He was not able to see his only daughter graduate from high school. He was not able to attend her wedding, walk her down the aisle. So he just missed so much in life that the state cannot give back to him.

    Kokai: Is it good news, though, that the state is finally taking these steps?

    Lake: It certainly is good news, and it gives the public confidence that we have a backup system. And that never hurts to have a backup. In this case, these petitions are very carefully reviewed so that the ones that have no merit are fleshed out very quickly. But it certainly gives the public a new sense of trust and confidence that justice is, in fact, being affected in the state of North Carolina in these cases. As I said at the outset to the membership of the study commission, in my opinion, North Carolina has the best criminal justice system in the world, but it is not perfect, and we need to do all we can to improve it where it is deficient.

    Kokai: You took a lot of heat when you first came up with this idea. Some people said, "Why is he talking about this? He's a law-and-order conservative." Looking back on it, are you glad that you went forward and made sure that this process moved forward?

    Lake: Well, thank you for that question. I did take a lot of heat, and a few of my longtime friends still don't speak to me. But I still am just delighted that I was able, that I had the opportunity, to put this process in effect, because it has been a first procedure, nationwide, for North Carolina, that ensures that we are truly dedicated to truth and justice. And that's what all systems should be dedicated to.