Creative Loafing highlighted the contributions of Councilwoman Mayfield and the Civil Right Clinic in getting the City Council to consider the needs of the thousands of Charlotteans who have conviction histories and are looking for work.  Councilwoman champions ‘Banning the Box:’ Spearheaded by LaWana Mayfield, job application question regarding prior convictions debated in city committee.

The Charlotte Observer ran an editorial by Civil Rights Clinic member Cleat Walters III, which highlighted the benefits of the ordinance to the City.  Banning ‘the box’ eliminates unfair obstacle to jobs

Unfortunately, not all of the stories in the media were accurate.  While we all have sympathy for the family and fiance of murder victim Danielle Watson, who was killed during a robbery inside the Flying Biscuit, WBTV’s story highlighting his opposition to Ban the Box “Murder victim’s fiance outraged over bill to remove “felon” question from job application“ fails to identify the fact that the ordinance does not prohibit criminal background checks for job applicants.

Hopefully, Charlotte will follow cities like Richmond that recently enacted a similar ordinance as reported by The Richmond Times-Dispatch.  Richmond City Council unanimously passes ‘ban the box’ ordinance.

Ban the Box is slated for discussion during the May 2nd meeting of the Charlotte City Council’s Economic Development Committee.  The coalition hopes the  meeting room CH-14 in the Government Center will be packed when they consider this important measure at 12pm that day.

Clinic Members Emily Ray, Isabel Carson, and Daniel Melo sit down to discuss the recent proposed changes to Charlotte’s Citizen’s Review Board and what lies ahead.

• Civil Rights Clinic
• North Carolina Advocates for Justice
• North Carolina Center for Actual Innocence and Duke Law Wrongful Convictions Clinic

The letters submitted by these organizations collectively ask for the Opinion to apply equally against federal prosecutors as against state prosecutors.  The reasoning provided by the NCAJ and the Civil Rights Clinic is found in federal law.  Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a), government attorneys are required to follow the laws and rules of the state in which they practice as they are applied to attorneys practicing in that state.  Additionally, the federal district court rules for the Western, Middle, and Eastern Districts of North Carolina state that lawyers must be members in good standing with the North Carolina Bar before being admitted to the federal bar.  According to Burton Craige of NCAJ, not applying the Opinion against federal prosecutors would be “unwarranted and unprecedented” because the “North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct apply equally to all prosecutors licensed by the State Bar.”

Additionally, the Clinic proposed changing the one sentence of the opinion from “When new evidence clearly demonstrates that a convicted person should be released from prison … .” to “When new evidence demonstrates … .”  While removing one word from the Opinion appears to be trivial, the use of the word “clearly” creates an ambiguity that may open the door to the use of release-dismissal agreements based on a prosecutor’s subjective belief that new evidence is not clear to him that a convicted person should be released.

NCAJ and the Clinic also proposed that the Committee add language to the Opinion referencing the clear conflict of interest that exists when a prosecutor seeks a release-dismissal agreement:

A prosecutor who presents a release/dismissal agreement to a convicted person is representing the civil interests of the public officials or entities who will presumably benefit from such an agreement.  That role is in conflict with his role as a representative of the sovereign and a minister of justice.  Under Rule 1.7(a), it is a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved by consent.

Finally, the Clinic proposed that the Opinion should apply to all phases of criminal investigation and prosecution because the concerns that serve as the foundation of the proposed opinion also apply in a pre-conviction context.

By: Jordan Dupuis

Witnessing History Evolve, Maybe

By: Caleb Newman

Photo Credit: Caleb Newman

Last week, I was one of ten fortunate students from our school to travel to the Supreme Court of the United States to observe oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the California Proposition 8 case, and United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case. The issues in these two cases have been discussed and belabored by the news media on television and the internet, pastors in the pulpit and during prayer sessions, students in classrooms and symposiums and forums, politicians on the campaign trail and during press conferences, and social activists on television shows and social media websites. But at the end of the day (or, rather more appropriately, at the end of the Court’s term), the Justices will have the final word.

There has been much speculation regarding the anticipated outcome of Prop 8 and DOMA. Will the Justices even reach the merits of Hollingsworth, instead kicking the case on Article III standing grounds? Will the Justices find that the petitioners have Article III standing and find that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage? Will the Justices employ a rational basis review, or some sort of heightened scrutiny? Has DOMA met its end?

Photo Credit: Caleb Newman

Listening to the Justice’s questions and the points they were trying to make during oral arguments last week, it was clear how some Justices are likely to stand on some of the issues: Justice Kagan’s reading of the House Committee Report quoting “moral disapproval” of homosexuality; Justice Kennedy’s thoughts on the Prop case being improvidently granted; Justice Ginsburg’s dismissal of the theory that children “do best” with heterosexual parents; Justice Alito’s statement that same-sex marriage and civil unions are “newer than cell phones and the internet;” and Justice Scalia’s assertion that in order to find a law unconstitutional there must be some sort of “start date” for the unconstitutional law.

I am in no position to predict an outcome of these cases nor will I attempt to answer the questions above. However, standing outside of the Court on Tuesday and Wednesday made me realize that there are millions of Americans who have a deep, personal stake in the Court’s outcome. Seeing the hundreds of people waving signs, locking arms, engaging in dialogue, and marching down the street chanting and singing caused me to develop a deeper appreciation and respect for the Court.

Photo Credit: Caleb Newman

I think our founding fathers would have been proud to see the peaceful yet powerful demonstrations on First Street last week. And until the end of June, when the Court is likely to announce its opinion in these two landmark cases, Americans will continue the debate that has raged on for decades. But as one commentator remarked, “The right to same-sex marriage will not be achieved by amicus briefs or court opinions, but rather by time that will pass by allowing Americans to see that this fundamental right is not destructive as some believe.”

Hoping to Witness History

By: Adria R. Crannell

Last Tuesday, I was lucky enough to gain entrance to the Supreme Court during oral arguments for Hollingsworth v. Perry, also known as “Prop 8.” I was spending my spring break in Washington, D.C. for an internship at the National Legal Aid and Defender’s Association and was encouraged to spend the morning at the Court. I heard that people were lined up as early as Saturday afternoon for Tuesday’s arguments, so I feared I would not be able to get in. Walking from the metro stop just before 8am, I could see the line already formed down the block. There was a group offering coffee, bagels, and signs, I grabbed a bagel and a bright yellow sign with three “stick-figure” couples; two men, two women, and one man, one woman. I made pleasant conversation with the folks in line around me, including a man from Utah who helped write one of the amicus briefs for the case, a mother from Michigan whose son just graduated from Cooley Law School, and a lesbian couple, one of whom was attending law school in Rhode Island. A separate line for Wednesday’s arguments on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had already formed.

Photo Credit: Adria Crannell

As we speculated on the outcomes of the cases, a parade of ministers and congregants came through singing “This Little Light of Mine,” passing out PRIDE flags, and carrying signs encouraging the Court to rule in favor of gay marriage. With the exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, there was nary a dry eye in line. Although there were many clever and powerful signs, my favorite was the one that said “Mawage is what bwings us togeva today,” in a nod to the classic 80’s film, The Princess Bride.

Photo Credit: Adria Crannell

As I was handed a little yellow ticket granting me three minutes of viewing time in the back of the Supreme Court, I was filled with excitement like a child on Christmas morning. I couldn’t believe I was one of the lucky ones. I was positively beaming at having the opportunity to be present, even for a short time, in the Court for what, I hope, turns out to be one of two landmark decisions. My mind was racing, trying to take everything in; I had turned my Facebook newsfeed into Twitter, posting near-constant updates, both so I could share one of lifetime’s greatest privileges with friends and family, and also so I wouldn’t forget anything. Around 10:45 a.m., midway into the day’s two-hour arguments, after going through security, twice, we were led to a small section in the back of the Court, behind red velvet curtains.

Due to the curtains, I was not able to see every Justice and wasn’t always sure who was speaking, but I was able to see Justice Scalia as he repeatedly hounded Theodore Olsen, the attorney challenging Prop 8, with the question of “when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage?” The two bantered back and forth with Olsen attempting every maneuver the English language allowed to avoid putting a designation on when, ultimately stating he didn’t know. With that, my time was up and I was escorted out of the back room.

Photo Credit: Adria Crannell

My thoughts still swirling, in awe that I was able to be present for an argument in front of the Supreme Court, to see some of the Justice’s whose words I have spent the last three years reading, to hear the questions and answers that will later become another decision read by future students, to take in as much as possible while trying to apply what we discussed in Constitutional Law just the week before, feeling my law school career boiled down to three minutes in which I hope to have witnessed history.

Read more here: http://www.charlottelaw.edu/about/csl-earns-place-national-honor-roll-community-service

Pictures by Katie Webb

Please stay tuned to the Civil Rights Blog for more updates and information in the following weeks!

For further information, please read:

Observer article April 1st Council Meeting: After scrutiny, council votes to examine review board

February Observer Article: The real story on the Citizens Review Board

By Lindsey Engels

A release-dismissal agreement happens when a prosecutor enters into an agreement with a criminal defendant to dismiss criminal charges in exchange for the defendant’s release of any and all civil claims arising out of the defendant’s arrest, prosecution and/or conviction. When the Clinic started the project in the fall of 2011, 13 states had already addressed the issue.  Indiana, South Carolina, New Jersey and Massachusetts prohibit the use of release-dismissal in entirely.  California and Ohio permit defense attorneys to offer a release-dismissal agreement, but flatly prohibit a prosecutor from doing so.  For more information about the project, where we have filed, and the status of the project, check out these articles:

• Release Dismissal Agreement Update: Students Advance Nation-Wide Call for Ethically Banning the Practice
• The Ethics of Release-Dismissals
• One in the “Win” Column: Virginia Bar Proposes Ethics Opinion on Release-Dismissal Agreements

In the proposed Opinion, the Committee stated that the inquiry is limited only to state court prosecutions where the state “did not also assert civil claims against the defendant arising from the same alleged criminal conduct.”  The Committee further stated, “When new evidence clearly demonstrates that a convicted person should be released from prison, the duty to ‘seek justice’ requires a state prosecutor to initiate a proceeding to have the conviction vacated if not already initiated by the convicted person.”  The Committee asserted that conditioning the initiation of that proceeding, or cooperation with a proceeding initiated by the convicted person, upon the convicted person’s release of all civil claims against authorities “violates the most basic tenets of a prosecutor’s responsibilities as set forth in Rule 3.8.”

By tying the use of release-dismissal agreements to these rules and banning the use of release-dismissal agreements in dismissing convictions, North Carolina is on its way to joining the likes of Virginia, South Carolina, Indiana, Connecticut and others to prohibit the use of release-dismissals in criminal cases.

The Civil Rights Clinic will submit written comments on the proposed Formal Ethics Opinion to the Ethics Committee concerning the absence of federal prosecutors from the Opinion’s restrictions, its limitation of the ban to post-conviction matters, and language in the Opinion that requires clear demonstration that a convicted person should be released from prison.

If you wish to submit a comment on the proposed Formal Ethics Opinion to the Ethics Committee, please send the comments to

North Carolina State Bar

Ethics Committee

PO Box 25908

Raleigh, NC 27611

By Jordan Dupuis

North Carolina law now provides that individuals convicted of particular felonies or misdemeanors may petition the court in which they were convicted for a Certificate of Relief.  The Certificate, if awarded, would grant the individual some relief from the collateral, civil consequences of the conviction.  Although a Certificate of Relief is not an expunction, it can be a valuable asset.  For example, the Certificate provides evidence to employers of the individual’s successful completion of their sentence and all terms of probation.  It would also protect an employer who hires an individual with a Certificate from negligent hiring lawsuits.

Some of the requirements to obtain a Certificate include:

• Conviction of no more than two felonies (class G, H or I) or misdemeanors in the same session of court

• No other convictions of a felony or misdemeanor (other than a traffic violation)

• At least 12 months have passed since completion of any period of probation, post-release supervision, or parole and since all active time was served (if any)

• No criminal charges currently pending

• All terms of sentence and probation were complied with

• There has been no violation of the terms of any criminal sentence (if that is not true, the failure is justified, excused, involuntary, or insubstantial), and

• That granting the petition would not pose an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of the public or any individual

The Civil Rights Clinic is currently seeking individuals who think they qualify for a Certificate to determine their eligibility.  If you think you qualify for a Certificate of Relief, please contact:

Jason Huber: civilrightsclinic@charlottelaw.edu or 704-971-8381

            It is easy to see that the current system is far from perfect.  According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2008 only 39% of 17-year old students were able to find, understand, summarize, and explain relatively complicated literary and informational material. Internationally, PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) scores have left the United States far behind other countries in regards to student performance.  There is also evidence to show that drop out rates are still high, individuals are struggling to find employment after school even if they do pass, and the curriculum being taught is not necessarily helping students with jobs they are able to find.

            Despite its prevalence in society and endless discussions about how to fix these problems, many people still do not consider public education to be a civil rights issue.  However, the racial disparities are impossible to ignore:  47% of white students are at the highest level of reading, while only 21% of black students and 22% of Hispanic students are at that same level.  There are also studies that show correlations between socioeconomic status and academic achievement, and additional studies to demonstrate that academic achievement can lead to future success.  Unfortunately, these studies also show the correlations between low socioeconomic status, low academic achievement, and future inability to maintain steady employment.  These studies form the basis of the “school to prison pipeline” and highlight how the failure to fix the educational system harms society as a whole.

            Webster dictionary defines civil rights as the nonpolitical rights of the citizen, or the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.   The rights of citizens to political and social equality form the foundation for the most famous civil rights movements in our nation’s history.  Education forms the foundation of these civil rights, as the purpose of education is to give all people an opportunity for success in the future.  Those individuals leading our country, our states, our cities, and even our universities are all well educated, regardless of their race or former socioeconomic status.  A strong education gives people an opportunity to pursue greater professions, to change their socioeconomic status, and to potentially avoid a life of crime or violence.  All people have the right to social freedom and equality, yet without the knowledge of how to pursue those rights many individuals are left reliant on the educated elite who are able to navigate their way through the current system.

            The reality is that all children can learn, regardless of race or socioeconomic status.  Charter schools, private schools, and public schools have all provided evidence that children can learn in the right atmosphere and with the right teacher.  Despite this evidence, people still refer to public school demographics and make assumptions about what that school is able to accomplish.  People hear where an individual went to school and immediately make assumptions about that individual and what his experiences were like at that school, and assume he is similar to his peers.  This is one of the reasons several educated parents that can afford to do so will place their children in private schools, where the assumption is that they will be getting a superior education and be in a better position to excel in the future.

            Public education is the civil rights issue and a primary staple of our society that must be addressed to ensure that individuals have an equal opportunity at obtaining employment, higher education, and quality housing.  Without addressing public education as a civil rights issue, we can only address the aftermath of inequality and not put prevent these issues from arising in the future.    The research is available, and educators across the country can provide further insight into what changes need to happen to ensure that students are able to pursue social freedom and equality.  Yet until public education is recognized as a true civil rights issue, and a majority of educated and uneducated adults are ready to demand true educational equality and opportunities, the education system will remain a topic for debate and political campaigns.