Liberal NC Supreme Court Justices Earls And Riggs Disagree With Democrat AG On ‘Crucial’ Case
Last September in a typical attention seeking move, Democrat Attorney General Jeff Jackson took the rare step in personally arguing a case before the Supreme Court. Jackson argued this case had grave consequences for public safety; claiming that if the Court ruled the other way criminals would have incentive to be more violent.”
Late last March, the Republican majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the decision from the Court of the Appeals, siding with the arguments made by Jackson. But the two Democrat Justices dissented from the majority opinion. It is notable that Jackson affirmed the Republican Justices’ ruling saying, “I’m grateful that the Court agreed with the state that we can’t give criminals an incentive to be more violent.”
“This case is a textbook example of how radical activist judges like Anita Earls threatens public safety. In this case, she proudly sides with a violent, convicted criminal over the victim of a serious crime. She cannot be trusted to administer justice any longer in North Carolina,” said Matt Mercer, Director of Communications at the North Carolina Republican Party.
Here are the facts of the case as presented by the Attorney General’s Office:
“This case, State v. Perry, was initially tried by Cabarrus County District Attorney Ashlie Shanley. The defendant, Damarlo Perry, was convicted by a jury of pulling another man, Damon Scott, out of a house, striking him with a pistol, stomping on him, causing extensive physical injuries, and leaving him unconscious on a dark road in May 2021. Perry was sentenced to serve more than 12 years in prison.”
“Perry was also convicted of robbing the victim while the victim was unconscious. The defendant appealed the robbery conviction, arguing that the state couldn’t prove he was the one who robbed the victim because the victim was unconscious. A Court of Appeals decision overturned the robbery conviction.”
“In response, Attorney General Jackson argued that the trial court judge was correct to let the jury decide the case and that a reasonable juror could conclude that the person who knocked the victim unconscious was the same person who robbed him. He argued that accepting the defendant’s argument would pose a threat to public safety by creating an incentive for future robbers to violently assault their victims in the hopes of the victims being unable to identify who had robbed them.”
Earls’ dissent in this case is yet another example of her siding with criminals and endangering public safety through her advocacy. Last year, Earls attacked federal law enforcement for enforcing immigration law. And before she was elected as an Associate Justice, Earls worked at a radical social justice group that advocated on behalf of the Latin King gang leader, who was later indicted by the Obama administration, and other liberal causes.
