In a startling turn of events, Curtis Lee Ervin, a 71-year-old inmate who has spent the last 33 years on California's death row, may soon find himself either facing a new trial or walking free. This development comes after a federal judge approved the state attorney general's request to address prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during jury selection in Ervin's original trial decades ago.
The case has brought to light a troubling pattern of racial bias in jury selection that allegedly persisted in Alameda County from the 1980s through the early 2000s. Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price has been spearheading an investigation into these practices, uncovering evidence that prosecutors deliberately excluded Black and Jewish prospective jurors from serving on juries in numerous cases, including Ervin's.
Ervin was convicted in 1991 for a murder-for-hire plot resulting in the death of Carlene McDonald, the ex-wife of his co-defendant. The jury found him guilty, and he was subsequently sentenced to death. However, recent revelations about the jury selection process have cast a shadow over the fairness of his trial. According to Ervin's lawyer, Pamala Sayasane, all six potential Black women were excused from serving on the jury, along with three male Black potential jurors. This practice of excluding jurors based on race or ethnicity violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The decision to potentially retry or release Ervin is part of a broader review of dozens of death penalty cases in Alameda County. District Attorney Price's office has uncovered boxes of notes showing that previous deputy district attorneys intentionally excluded Black and Jewish jurors. This systematic bias has led to the resentencing of other death row inmates and raised questions about the potential criminal conduct of some former prosecutors.
The implications of this case extend far beyond Ervin's fate. It highlights the ongoing struggle to ensure fair and unbiased jury selection in the American justice system. Studies have found patterns of racial bias in jury selection not just in California, but across the United States, from Washington to Connecticut and even in the Deep South. This widespread issue underscores the need for continued vigilance and reform in the jury selection process.
Retrying a case as old as Ervin's presents significant challenges. As defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden points out, many witnesses may have died in the intervening years, forcing prosecutors to rely heavily on transcripts from the original trial. This approach can be difficult for juries to engage with and may impact the prosecution's ability to secure a conviction. Additionally, new prosecutors may be hesitant to take on such a controversial and potentially unwinnable case.
The Ervin case is just one part of a larger effort to address historical injustices in the criminal justice system. District Attorney Price's office is engaged in settlement negotiations with lawyers representing other death row inmates whose cases are under review. These efforts, while controversial and facing opposition including a recall effort against Price herself, represent an attempt to rectify past wrongs and ensure that the justice system lives up to its ideals of fairness and equality under the law.
