Black Judge Commutes Four Killers’ Sentences Based On Race

Flickr Creative Commons Scott Justice is Blind statue Black judge commutes four killers’ sentences based on race

An activist judge in North Carolina said prosecutorial racism was the reason he commuted the sentences of four convicted killers.

Described as three of the state’s most notorious death row killers, among the group’s victims are three law enforcement officers, two women and a teenager. The judge was able to overrule the first sentence under the state’s controversial Racial Justice Act.

Commuting a black man’s death sentence to life in prison, the judge cited “the persistent, distorting role of race in jury selection in North Carolina.”

He never argued the man – found guilty of kidnapping and robbing a teenager before shooting him in the face – might be innocent. Since the Racial Justice Act gave him the discretion, he simply declared prosecutors were racist and gave a murderer a get-out-of-death-row-free card.

Republicans subsequently gained control of the state’s legislature and enacted a new, pared down, version of the act. Apparently, that didn’t present an obstacle for the black judge who commuted the sentences of three more murderers – including two cop killers – later the same year.

Concluding race was a factor in jury selection, he presented some handwritten notes supposedly proving prosecutors tried to eliminate blacks from jury pools to back up his claim.

One killer is a Lumbee Indian convicted of murdering two women and shooting another in a gang initiation; the other two are black men who killed a total of three law enforcement officers in separate incidents.

“This conclusion is based primarily on the words and deeds of the prosecutors involved in these cases,” the judge ruled. To the casual observer, though, it seems his conclusion might have roots in his own idea of racial justice.

Some in the courtroom expressed vocal disagreement to the ruling, including the brother of one murdered state trooper who shouted an expletive as the judge spoke. As about sixty uniformed police officers left the courtroom, a woman in attendance yelled at them, urging them to shed their badges because the legal system could not protect them from criminals.

Activist judges from the Supreme Court down can cause significant damage to our system of law. Although prosecutors plan to appeal the judge’s ruling, this case proves America’s justice system is not immune to moral relativism and race baiting tactics.

B. Christopher Agee founded The Informed Conservative in 2011. Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Photo credit: Doug (Creative Commons)

"Loophole" from Obama's IRS: Protect your IRA or 401(k) with gold and silver... click here to get a NO-COST Info Guide >


  1. Progressive judges must be removed at ALL levels of our court system.

  2. Hang the Judge in there place!!!

  3. Just because he is a Judge Do You Really Think He Is Above RACE BAITING??? Heck, Look At The Current Sitting President…!!! A Race Baiter from The Gate…Look At Holder…Look At Jessie Jakson Look At All The Blacks Who Hold High Seats In The Land Of Nod… A- L- L. R-A- C- E. B-A- I- T ers…. Jut As Bad As The
    Kkk…Maybe Even Worse… Look At The Black Panthers, Look At The Muslim Brotherhood…Need I Say More…???

  4. Wake Up America!

  5. Time to challenge the Judges that pass such rulings as they serve on “Good behavior” that sure does not sound like anything less than another sort of reverse discrimination action not at all based upon the facts of the case just the presupposed idea of the Judge.

    • theNewLiberal says:

      What is "reverse discrimination"?

      • The Racial Justice Act

        • theNewLiberal says:

          It's nonsense. Discrimination is all the same. The term "reverse discrimination" presumes that there's a primary type of discrimination. It's silly.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            When was the last case for racial discrimination with a White person as the Plaintiff?
            Since 99.9% of all racial discrimination cases are with a Black as the Plaintiff, when a White person is racially discriminated against it's considered "reverse discrimination" since they were not considered when the law was made. Whites are considered to be unable to be discriminated against solely for their race.
            This is where the term came from.
            Now try to spin it.

          • theNewLiberal says:

            By calling it "reverse discrimination" you're admitting that the primary type of discrimination occurs by whites against blacks. You're harming your own cause. Not to mention it's bollocks to begin with. Open your eyes.

          • What would you call discrimination based on the fact that they were the ones that discriminated against you in the past?
            And your making a hasty conclusion to limit it to just Black And White.
            My people have experienced just as much if not more of the discrimination than both of the mentioned categories.

          • theNewLiberal says:

            That is exactly my point. The term "reverse discrimination" assumes something about who "typically" discriminates. It's BS. Discrimination is the same no matter who is the perpetrator. You're buying into bogus ideology when you use that phrase.

          • Seeks_the_truth says:

            Do you have a comprehension issue?
            What I said was "Whites are considered to be unable to be discriminated against solely for their race."
            I did not say the primary type of discrimination does occur by Whites against Blacks. What I also said was that only the Whites are not ALLOWED to file discrimination charges for it when it does happen. Try getting the ACLU, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton or any other "racial equality leader" to stand up for these Whites. Will never happen.
            What "cause" am I allegedly harming? I have no "cause" in this matter. In fact, I'm not even White, or Black. (or Hispanic, Asian nor mixed)
            My eyes are open. I see plenty of Black on White racial attacks not being prosecuted simply because the attacker is Black. I also see if a Black is even looked sideways at, they yell racism and demand "justice".
            The wrongly charged George Zimmerman can attest to this fact.
            Your racism is showing.

  6. That reminds me of the OJ trial in the 90's, this man got away with killing 2 people. This OJ lowlife was found not guilty becasue he is black by some of the blacks on jury. This president was re-elected by 90 percents of blacks who don't care that this bogus prez will bring this country down, what a bunch of stupid people they are.

    • Seeks_the_truth says:

      Now I'll argue (philosophically) that point with you.
      OJ was found innocent because of lack of evidence. There was none. I followed the entire trial and saw nothing that would have me give a guilty verdict. The same as the original jury.
      May I suggest you take another look at the trial now that you're older and wiser, and hopefully unbiased.

      • I followed the trial too, these are the facts that I went with, there is more but here are a few.

        1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.
        2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

        3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

        4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco,

        (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway

        • (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

          If you feel that there was lack of evidence then that is your right to your opinion and I have my opinion and that is my right to my opinion, I am going by these facts, these jurors felt there was lack of evidence and had I been a juror, I would had found him guilty, for myself I find plenty of evidence.

        • Seeks_the_truth says:

          Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Makes for a good debate. Even though OJ was found innocent, the media and the public still wish to call him guilty.
          There were many facts and evidence that proved OJ was innocent. Here are just a few.

          1) ALL blood evidence purported to be that of OJ was found to have preservative. All blood evidence found was after a vial of blood taken from OJ was "misplaced".

          2) The quantity of blood purported to be that of OJ found at the scene was quantitatively more than the small cut on his finger would/could bleed. This fact testified to by physicians.

          3) The time frame the limo driver testified to makes it impossible for OJ to come in completely covered in blood, shower, change and go to the waiting car. The driver testified it was merely minutes from seeing "a dark shadow" to OJ coming to the car and his bags were already waiting on the stoop.

          4) Det. Lange admitted to F. Lee Bailey, they could not find a trace of blood OR dirt on the white stairs OR on the walls leading to O.J.'s upstairs bedroom OR on the white bedroom carpet OR in the bathroom. (The single dark sock with his blood spot went strangely "unnoticed" until days later.) Remember OJ allegedly came into the home straight from a bloody double murder.

          5) Speaking of the sock, if it was allegedly worn during the bloody murder, how did it only get a single drop of blood, and how did the blood soak completely through, in an equal circle, if it was being worn?

          6) Det. Lange testified that they took apart ALL the plumbing in the bathroom but could not find one drop or flake of blood in the pipes. The probability of this is remote.

          It's also known, and testified to, that the last arguments OJ had with Nicole was over her involvement with known drug dealers and hookers and he didn't want them around his children. It's also overlooked Nicole had a "Columbian necktie" which is indicative to drug dealers making a point.
          I also can't overlook the 4 witnesses that were not allowed to testify to their statements, main one being Tom Lang. Mr. Lang reports, while walking his dog, seeing a blonde woman arguing with a man near a white pickup truck—a Ford F-350, not the Bronco owned by Simpson—on the night of the murder. Another man nearby had a “menacing” posture, and he stood in a partially crouched position. Later Lang realized he had probably seen Nicole Brown Simpson.
          What really has me stumped is how did a 50 plus year old arthritic man over take, and brutally murder, a young, strong, athletic man and a young, athletic woman? It might make a difference if that question can be answered.
          I also can't forget the fact that Nicole had OJ's children, that would have hair "consistent to that of OJ's".

          I don't feel there was lack of evidence, and neither did the jury. That is why OJ was acquitted. The evidence showed his innocence.
          In a situation, especially one like this, I prefer to follow the facts. No matter where they might take me. I don't allow my opinion bias me against facts.
          I'm glad to know you also looked at the evidence objectivly and is how you came to your conclusion. You didn't just "jump on the bandwagon" as others did.
          I commend you. (sincerely)

Speak Your Mind