Local News

First case of Innocence Commission goes to court

Posted August 25, 2008

— A special hearing, the first of its kind, began Monday to determine if a former Greenville police officer should be cleared of a crime of which he was convicted seven years ago.

Henry Reeves was convicted in 2001 of taking indecent liberties with a child. Recently, the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission reviewed his case and found new evidence supporting his claims that he did not molest his daughter in 1999.

The eight-member commission of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and law enforcement officers reviews claims of innocence from convicted criminals, considering new evidence that might justify a new verdict.

It hears only evidence that was not introduced at trial.

Gov. Mike Easley signed a law in August 2006, making the commission the first of its kind in the nation.

In 2007, the General Assembly established the panel not only to examine cases but also to study how wrongful convictions can be avoided. The state chief justice or the chief judge of the Court of Appeals appoints each member.

Since May, the commission has received requests to review 288 cases. Of those, 135 are still under review, and 148 have been rejected. Four are under investigation. Reeves' case is the other.

His case is the first sent to a special hearing before a three-judge panel. New evidence, not available in 2001, includes the victim's recanting her story, new witnesses coming forward and accusations of coached testimony.

The panel will decide whether to exonerate Reeves or uphold the conviction. The hearing is expected to last a week.

About 90 percent of the cases submitted to the Innocent Inquiry Commission are likely to be rejected. About 58 percent are declined because there is not enough factual evidence to prove someone is innocent. About 18 percent are rejected because there is no new evidence, and 14 percent are turned town because of a guilty plea.

Homicide and child sex offense cases make up half the cases.

The commission does not address claims of technical errors in trials. That job remains with the state's court system.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • ERRN Aug 26, 2008

    Since when in this country does someone have to PROVE their innocence? If there is enough evidence to hold an innocence trial, then doesn't THAT show reasonable doubt?????

  • Navy Vet Aug 25, 2008

    I thought all of our courts were based on the Constitution where someone WAS innocent until proven guilty. If a innocent person is wrongfully convicted they should be re-tried or set free. Having a need to have a INNOCENSE Court says a great deal how far off base we have drifted.

  • Tax Man Aug 25, 2008

    If they find witness coaching here they need to prosecute the prosecutor! If this officer is freed, then heads need to fall in the justice system - judge & prosecutors who allow wrongful convictions should be held to a much higher standard and imprisoned for at least the sentence given to the innocent! The job of the judge and prosecution should be to find the truth and if the truth convicts that is fine - but their job is not to convict at any price.

    Good luck to this gentleman.