STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF STANLY SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 95 CRS 567 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) v. ) ) GUY TOBIAS LEGRANDE, Defendant. ) ........................................................... MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE RELIEF PURSUANT TO THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT ............................................................ Defendant, Guy Tobias LeGrande, through counsel, files this Motion for Appropriate Relief pursuant to the Racial Justice Act (HA), N.C. Gen. Stat. $$ 15A-2010 to 15A-2012, the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, $9 1, 19, 24, 26, and 27 of the North Carolina Constitution. Under the RJA and constitutional law, Defendant, who is currently under a sentence of death, is entitled to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. INTRODUCTION 1. The evidence set out in this Motion establishes that race is a significant factor in North Carolina's system of capital punishment. The comprehensive, scientific study presented here demonstrates that race is a significant factor in capital proceedings. Prosecutors across the state strike eligible black and other racial minority venire members at double the rate they strike eligible white venire members and individuals who kill whites have significantly increased odds of receiving a death sentence than those who kill blacks or other racial minorities. 2. The evidence set out in this Motion also establishes that race is an extraordinarily significant factor in capital proceedings in the 20Ih ~rosecutorialDistrict. The disparity seen between the prosecutors' strikes of eligible black and other racial minority venire members compared to eligible white venire members is the highest of any district in North Carolina that has more than one person currently on death row. 3. Racial minority capital defendants prosecuted in Stanly County face an uphill battle - they are more likely to face a capital trial and more likely to receive a death sentence than similarly situated white defendants. Also, at the capital trial, the prosecutors have systematically excluded racial minority jurors to secure all-white juries for deciding the fate of these defendants. 4. In addition to the comprehensive, statistical study presented herein, this motion explores the dark history of racial tension and discrimination in the 20" District since this history is relevant to whether race was a significant factor in the charging and sentencing decisions at the time Mr. LeGrande was tried. 5. While the RJA does not require a showing of racial discrimination in a particular case, Mr. LeGrande can demonstrate that race discrimination infected his trial. Specifically, race was a significant factor in the prosecutors' decisions to (i) charge Mr. LeGrande with a capital offense; (ii) advance Mr. LeGrande's case to a capital trial; (iii) strike 100% of the black venire members; and (iv) repeatedly introduce race in the trial. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 6. On January 21, 1995, Guy LeGrande, a black male, was arrested and charged with the first degree murder of Ellen Munford, a white female. On March 13, 1995 superseding indictments were returned by the Stanly County Grand Jury for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Howard Thomas (Tommy) Munford, the estranged husband of Ellen Munford and a white male, was also charged in her death with first degree murder. 7. Mr. LeGrande was initially represented by Walter Johnson and Ronald Barbee both of whom were retained by Mr. LeGrande's family members to represent him. Mr. LeGrande subsequently fired his retained counsel, rehsed the assistance of court-appointed counsel and was appointed two standby attorneys. Mr. LeGrande proceeded to trial pro se on April 15, 1996. At that trial an all-white jury found Mr. LeGrande guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The jury found that Tommy Munford hired Mr. LeGrande to kill his estranged ex-wife, Ellen Munford. (Mr. Munford pled guilty to second degree murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder and received a life sentence plus a consecutive twenty year sentence in exchange for his testimony against Mr. LeGrande.) Mr. LeGrande also represented himself at his sentencing hearing wherein the jury sentenced him to death on April 26, 1996. 8. The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Mr. LeGrande's conviction and sentence on July 24, 1997. State v. LeGrande, 346 N.C. 71 8, 487 S.E.2d 727 (1997). His execution was set for May 15, 1998. When it was clear that Mr. LeGrande would not personally take action to stay his execution, the Appellate Defender sought a stay in the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Court stayed the execution and remanded the matter to the Superior Court of Stanly County to give Mr. LeGrande an opportunity to pursue a motion for appropriate relief. State v. LeGrande, 348 N.C. 287,502 S.E.2d 849 (1998). 9. On September 8, 1998, Mr. LeGrande's sister and cousin sought to intervene as next friends to file a motion for appropriate relief on his behalf. The Superior Court of Stanly County dismissed the next friends motion for appropriate relief and subsequently dismissed apro se motion filed by Mr. LeGrande. Thomas v. State, 35 1 N.C. 1 15, 54 1 S.E.2d 470 (1 999); State v. LeGrande, 351 N.C. 115, 541 S.E.2d 465 (1999). The North Carolina Supreme Court declined to review the two orders. State v. LeGrande, 35 1 N.C. 189,541 S.E.2d 722 (1999). 10. Thereafter: Mr. LeGrande sought habeas review in Federal Court which was ultimately denied by the United States Supreme Court on October 2,2006. LeGrande v. Polk, 75 U.S.L.W. 3168 (2006). On October 16, 2006, the State of North Carolina set an execution date of December 1,2006. 11. On November 16, 2006, Mr. LeGrande, through counsel, filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings due to Mr. LeGrande's incapacity to proceed. The trial court entered an order temporarily staying Mr. LeGrande's execution to allow time for further psychiatric evaluation on November 27, 2006. After a subsequent evidentiary hearing, the Honorable W. Robert Bell found Mr. LeGrande incompetent to be executed in an order entered on June 27, 2008. Mr. LeGrande currently remains on death row and remains incompetent to proceed. While it is highly doubtful Mr. LeGrande will regain his capacity to proceed due to his severe mental illness, this motion is filed within the time allowed by law in order to preserve his claims under the RJA. THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT 12. In enacting the Racial Justice Act (RJA), the North Carolina General Assembly made clear that the law of North Carolina rejects the influence of race discrimination in the administration of the death penalty. In so doing, the General Assembly accepted the challenge issued by the United States Supreme Court in McCleskey v. Kemp. Addressing the state legislatures, the McCleskey Court ruled that it was the duty of the states "to respond to the will and consequently the moral values of the people" when addressing the difficult and complex issue of racial prejudice in the administration of capital punishment. 48 1 U.S. 279,3 19 (1 987). 13. Under the RJA, a capital defendant shall prevail if there is evidence proving that "race was a significant factor in decisions to seek or impose the sentence of death in the county, the prosecutorial district, the judicial division, or the State at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed." N.C. Gen. Stat. 8 15A-2012(a)(3) (emphasis added). 14. The RJA identifies three different categories of racial disparities a defendant may present in order to meet the "significant factor" standard. Evidence establishing any one of these categories is sufficient to establish an RJA violation: (a) Death sentences were sought or imposed significantly more frequently upon persons of one race than upon persons of another race. (b) Death sentences were sought or imposed significantly more frequently as punishment for capital offenses against persons of one race than as punishment of capital offenses against persons of another race. (c) Race was a significant factor in decisions to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection. N.C. Gen. Stat. 8 15A-20 1 1(b)(l )-(3). 15. If a defendant is able to "state with particularity how the evidence supports a claim that race was a significant factor" in any of these three categories, the RJA provides that "[tlhe court shall schedule a hearing on the claim and shall prescribe a time for the submission of evidence by both parties." N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-20 12(a) and (a)(2) (emphasis added). 16. Once the defendant has established a prima facie case of significant racial disparities, the State has the opportunity to respond with its own statistical evidence. Because the RJA mandates relief upon a showing of racial disparities in the judicial division or the state, see N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 15A-2012(a)(3), if the defendant's case is based on a showing of statewide or division-wide discrimination, the State's rebuttal cannot be based simply upon a showing that no disparities occurred in the county or prosecutorial district. 17. If the defendant ultimately proves an RJA violation, the remedy is the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 15A- 2012(a)(3); compare Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 100 (1 986) (holding that a defendant's conviction will be reversed under the Equal Protection Clause if there is evidence that the State exercised peremptory strikes based on race). Proof of an RJA violation does not entitle the defendant to a new trial or a new sentencing hearing. 18. For the reasons stated below, Defendant is entitled to relief under the RJA, N.C.