Cry of innocence

A new layer of review for North Carolina prisoners who claim innocence should have to operate openly and independently

Citizen juries long ago proved that justice could be safe in their hands. All in all, they've shown a remarkable ability to sift the truth from complicated and conflicting evidence.

Unfortunately, the history of democracy also includes examples of jury verdicts against people who were in fact innocent. Those disturbing cases cry out for efforts to counteract flaws in the judicial system, as state lawmakers are poised to do with the creation of the N.C. Innocence Inquiry Commission.

The idea was advanced several years ago by former state Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake Jr. Based on the work of an expert task force, Lake saw the innocence commission filling a gap in the present appeals process. In criminal cases, appellate courts generally rule on a trial's fairness, based on the existing body of evidence. It's possible to obtain a new trial because of important new evidence, but the bar is set high. If the commission receives final approval, North Carolina would be the first state in the nation to provide this additional check on the work of citizen jurors.

This commission would need members who are independent, ethical and wise. The same qualities -- and then some -- would be required of the three judges empowered to dismiss a conviction if a case was referred by the commission. And the public would need to be on guard for any favoritism or bias, because the trail blazed by North Carolina may someday affect the quality of justice for other Americans.

DNA evidence has exonerated 181 criminal defendants nationally since 1989, and it's fair to assume they didn't represent the system's only mistakes. Three years ago, DNA cleared Darryl Hunt of a 1984 murder and rape in Winston-Salem. But Alan Gell was acquitted in a new trial in 2004 after the disclosure that Bertie County police and prosecutors had withheld evidence that Gell wasn't a murderer.

Bills approved by both the House and Senate would have an eight-member commission evaluate inmates' claims of innocence. It would take agreement from at least five commission members for a claim to proceed to the three-judge panel. The judges then would have to agree that evidence of innocence was "clear and convincing" in order to throw out a conviction.

At the top of its game, the commission could become a worthwhile safeguard in the justice system. Still, the innocence commission is unlikely, for instance, to affect the competitive urges of some prosecutors to win convictions even in marginal cases. That's why it's important for the State Bar, the legal profession's disciplinary body, to hold prosecutors to high standards of ethical conduct. Withholding of evidence, for example, should be sternly punished.

The legislation specifies a range of experienced people for some of the commission's seats, including a sheriff, judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer. The seat for a victims' advocate should provide a worthwhile perspective as well. In making the appointments, the state's chief justice and the chief judge of the Court of Appeals shouldn't settle for less than the best there is.

The ultimate check on the commission, though, remains a vigilant public with open access to the deliberations. After all, effective watch dogs over public jury trials have helped to make the democratic system of justice the fairest one in the world. Improving on it, while not unthinkable, would be North Carolina's formidable challenge.