Bell and Sims v. State of NC
| Opinion Filed | Pending |
| Attorney for the Case | John R. Mills Michael R. Ramos David W. Andrews Dionne Gonder |
| Amicus Brief Writers | Ian Mance Andy Banzhoff |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Docket No. | 25-5469 |
Bell and Sims were both convicted of first-degree murder, with Bell being sentenced to death and Sims being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. After the convictions, clear evidence arose of the prosecutor’s discriminatory intent during jury selection. Specifically, in a separate case, the prosecutor filed an affidavit to try to explain a history of racial discrimination in jury selection. In an attempt to exonerate himself for racial discrimination, the prosecutor admitted that he had struck a black female juror in the Bell/Sims case not because she was black, but because he was looking for male jurors and a foreman. Apparently, although the prosecutor appeared to understand that racial discrimination in jury selection is unconstitutional under Batson v. Kentucky, he failed to understand that gender discrimination in jury selection is equally unconstitutional under J.E.B. v. Alabama. Thus, he admitted to unconstitutional discrimination. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied relief for failure to raise the issue previously, even though the affidavit only became available later.
Bell and Sims are seeking a writ of certiorari form the Supreme Court of the United States. NCAJ joined with the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, Emancipate NC, and the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP in support of the petition.
The brief notes that, as argued in a concurrence by Justice Earls, North Carolina has essentially overruled Batson and J.E.B., often through the application of numerous impenetrable procedural bars to relief. Although there is a significant history of discrimination in jury selection in North Carolina, it is the only state among the 25 most populous states that has never granted meaningful relief to a defendant based upon jury discrimination. The Supreme Court of the United States has historically intervened when state courts refuse to apply its precedents. This would be an appropriate case for such intervention, particularly given the history of the prosecutor in question and his admission of unconstitutional intent in this case.
