Bill would eliminate Actual Innocence Commission | North Carolina | Indy Week
Pin It

Bill would eliminate Actual Innocence Commission 

The state Supreme Court's Chief Justice should abolish the North Carolina Actual Innocence commission because it is obsolete. That's among several proposals couched within Senate Bill 734, the Regulatory Reform Act. A large bill, it includes provisions to decriminalize cursing on public sidewalks and to streamline environmental reforms.

The Actual Innocence Commission was established through court order in 2002 after the-Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake invited representatives from the criminal justice system and academic community to a roundtable discussion. Since then, the commission has served as a way for people involved in the criminal justice system to debate policy and the common causes of wrongful conviction.

It is different from the state-funded Innocence Inquiry Commission. Its charge is to examine cases in which there might be new evidence that didn't come up during a trial. A recommendation in the Governor's budget proposal increases state funding to the Innocence Inquiry Commission. It has overturned the wrongful convictions of four people in the state and deals strictly with individual cases, while the Actual Innocence Commission addresses only policy.

Chris Mumma, executive director of the Actual Innocence Commission, says the group has been "hugely beneficial" to law enforcement in its work on accusation issues in wrongful convictions, witness identification issues, false confessions and the post-conviction process.

She says the Innocence Inquiry Commission, which will hear a fifth case next week, is a "ripple effect" of the Actual Innocence Commission's work. Established in 2006, the Innocence Inquiry Commission grew out of the Actual Innocence Commission.

"It has absolutely been effectual in exonerating innocent people in North Carolina," Mumma said.

During the Senate debate, Jerry Tillman, R-Moore, called the Actual Innocence Commission ineffective.

"Tell me how many cases they've reviewed," he said Thursday. "They've done little or nothing."

Mumma said Tillman is misinformed about the role of the Actual Innocence Commission. "It's not relevant to him. There is no state funding for it. It was not established through legislation," she said. "It's just an old-school approach."

Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, who spoke in favor of the Commission, said he feels Tillman's opposition to the Commission reflects Tillman's general views on wrongful convictions.

"He's saying we don't need to do any of this, period," McKissick, an attorney, said in a phone interview Friday. "He's saying let these people serve in jail whether they were wrongfully convicted or not. He took the blanket position that it's a waste of money to try to let these people go and we don't need to be involved in this type of thing. That offends every basic principle of justice and fair play."

Tillman has not responded to INDY Week's request for comment.

The bill passed the Senate on its second reading.

Current North Carolina Chief Justice Sarah Parker has said she supports the Actual Innocence Commission. Eleven other states have observed the work North Carolina has done in overturning wrongful convictions, and have come up with similar models.

"I see no reason to encourage the Chief Justice to look into abolishing it," McKissick said. "Why would we encourage somebody to abolish an established commission that has made some good recommendations when they can continue to do additional work that can help cure inequities in our criminal justice system?"

This article appeared in print with the headline "Guilty of obsolescence?."

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in North Carolina



Twitter Activity

Most Recent Comments

WRAL.com estimated that the loss was about $500M, which is less than .001 (1/10 of 1%) of …

by John Trololo on How Much Has HB 2 Cost North Carolina? As Much as $395 Million—and Counting. (North Carolina)

You can't lose what you never had. The ACC will lose when it's fans don't leave to the state to …

by Barbara 2 on How Much Has HB 2 Cost North Carolina? As Much as $395 Million—and Counting. (North Carolina)

How much tax money has McCory spent on lawyers trying to defend the UN-defendable....McCory is an idiot a moron....anything but …

by Tony D on North Carolina Tried to Defend HB 2 in Federal Court. It Didn’t Go Well. (North Carolina)

I would love a decent fixer upper mobile home to make into my very own Work /Craft Shop. I love …

by Kaybird on Abandoned mobile homes plague North Carolina (North Carolina)

Should a judge be allowed to be reelected by a retention vote if he or she had not been first …

by Doug Johnston on The Quiet Battle for the N.C. Supreme Court Matters More Than You Think (North Carolina)

Comments

WRAL.com estimated that the loss was about $500M, which is less than .001 (1/10 of 1%) of …

by John Trololo on How Much Has HB 2 Cost North Carolina? As Much as $395 Million—and Counting. (North Carolina)

You can't lose what you never had. The ACC will lose when it's fans don't leave to the state to …

by Barbara 2 on How Much Has HB 2 Cost North Carolina? As Much as $395 Million—and Counting. (North Carolina)

© 2016 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation