Innocence center turns attention to next case

Raleigh, N.C. — The North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence, which helped free wrongfully convicted inmate Greg Taylor last week, has moved on to its next project – the release of convicted murderer Larry Lamb.

Lamb was one of three people convicted in the fatal shooting of Leamon Grady, who was robbed and found dead in his Raleigh home in 1987. He is serving a life sentence.

“There’s people out there who have indicated that the wrong person is in prison for this murder. People who would have knowledge of it,” said Christine Mumma, executive director of the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence.

Levon "Bo" Jones was accused of shooting Grady. After 13 years on death row, he was released in May 2008 when prosecutors decided to drop the charges against him after a key witness admitted she lied on the stand.

Lovely Lorden, Jones' former girlfriend, was the only witness accusing Jones of the murder, but she admitted in an affidavit that she “was certain that Bo did not have anything to do with Mr. Grady’s murder” and that she did not know what happened the night Grady was murdered.

Lorden said a detective had coached her before Jones' trial what to say about Jones and co-defendant Larry Lamb. She also said she collected $4,000 from the governor's office for giving key information in the case.

"Much of what I testified to was simply not true," Lorden said in the affidavit.

The affidavit also cast doubt on the conviction of Lamb and co-defendant, Ernest Matthews, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was released in 2001.

Lamb’s son, Anthony Lamb, who lives in Massachusetts, thought his father should have been released with Jones.

“I was like, ‘They let this guy out. How come they aren’t going to let my father out?’” he said.

Lamb said he is overjoyed the Center on Actual Innocence is now pursing his father’s case.

“This is the greatest news of the year,” he said.

The Center on Actual Innocence is preparing to file a motion to have Lamb released based on the false statements made by Lorden.

Duplin County District Attorney Dewey Hudson said he is not sure if he will contest the motion. He wants to make sure the witness wasn't coerced into changing her story.

9 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 9 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

"Somewhere in Duplin County, a DA and an investigator are squirming in their seats wondering if they are gonna be the next public officials to be "exposed" as incompetent."

Incompetent? More like downright criminal. How many lives have been ruined across this nation by dirty cops and prosecuters? I don't see why anyone in their right mind would ever trust a cop or our injustice system after these past few weeks.

Hans
February 23, 2010 10:10 a.m.

In time, the innocence committee will eventually have a hard time finding a case to take. DeathRow-IFeelYourPain-NOT

Lets hope so

AnotherIgnoredComment
February 23, 2010 10:01 a.m.

“Duplin County District Attorney Dewey Hudson said he is not sure if he will contest the motion. He wants to make sure the witness wasn't coerced into changing her story”

Shouldn’t he be concerned if she was coerced on her ORIGINAL story?!!!!!!

If the DA and cops involved with the original trial REALLY coached and paid this woman to get her testimony and the conviction, I think they should be convicted of attempted murder.

“In time, the innocence committee will eventually have a hard time finding a case to take.” - DeathRow-IFeelYourPain-NOT

That sounds like a good thing.

Lightfoot3
February 23, 2010 9:20 a.m.

You all are too quick to write off these cases as prosecuted by crooked DA's and bad cops. Remember, when these people were convicted, crime scene technology was archaic. Most were convicted on more circumstantial evidence than today. Its not always bad cops or DA's. They got the conviction the best way they could back then. Even though they couldn't prove guilt with hard evidence, most are guilty of their crimes.

This commission doesn't bother me though. It takes them one to three years to get someone exonerated. We prosecute a hundred murder cases in that time frame. For every one they release, they probably put 100 away with more solid evidence. In time, the innocence committee will eventually have a hard time finding a case to take.

DeathRow-IFeelYourPain-NOT
February 23, 2010 8:58 a.m.

Jeff = I disagree. Only new evidence not heard in the original trial can be put forth. It's a major step in the check and balance for the system. Prior to this commission, prosecutors, investigators, and DA's had no fear of a review into their practices, now that has changed. Nothing wrong with a little oversight of what used to be a monopoly of procedure. If your father was convicted and you KNEW there was evidence to prove his innocence, you'd be the first applicant in line for this commission.

Somewhere in Duplin County, a DA and an investigator are squirming in their seats wondering if they are gonna be the next public officials to be "exposed" as incompetent.