State of North Carolina v. Hasson J. Bacote
Hasson J. Bacote, a Black man, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a nearly all-white jury in Johnston County in 2009 for the 2007 shooting death of 18-year-old Anthony Surles during a robbery attempt. [source]
This case became a landmark challenge under North Carolina's Racial Justice Act, with Bacote arguing that racial discrimination played a significant role in his death sentence and jury selection. On February 7, 2025, Judge Wayland J. Sermons Jr. ruled that race played an impermissible role in jury selection, finding that prosecutors struck Black jurors at three times the rate of white jurors. [source]
The case has broader implications for over 100 people with pending Racial Justice Act claims on North Carolina's death row. On December 31, 2024, former Governor Cooper commuted Bacote's sentence along with 14 others. [source]
Expert Testimony & Methodological Flaws
The February 2024 evidentiary hearing featured extensive expert testimony. The defense presented renowned experts including Bryan Stevenson (Equal Justice Initiative), Dr. Samuel Sommers (social psychologist on implicit bias), Dr. Crystal Sanders (historian), and Dr. Seth Kotch (historian). The prosecution's case relied on Dr. Fan Li, Ph.D. from Duke University, who served as the state's sole expert witness, providing statistical testimony to counter the defense's evidence of racial bias in jury selection. Dr. Li utilized propensity score methodology in an attempt to argue that factors other than race explained the disproportionate striking of Black jurors by prosecutors.
Her methodology was heavily criticized by other experts. In a rebuttal expert report, University of Pennsylvania biostatisticians Dr. Nandita Mitra and Dr. Jason Roy pointed out a major flaw in her analysis: Dr. Li inappropriately controlled for variables that are directly related to racial discrimination, such as attitudes toward the death penalty (which differ significantly among racial groups due to historical discrimination). The court's findings agreed with these critiques: "On cross-examination, however, it became clear that Dr. Li's criticisms stemmed from her misunderstandings about the data set." The court ultimately rejected her conclusions and found the evidence of discrimination compelling, with prosecutors striking Black jurors at three times the rate of white jurors. [source]
Zayre-Brown v. North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
Kanautica Zayre-Brown, a transgender woman incarcerated at Anson Correctional Institution, is challenging the North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections' denial of essential gender-affirming healthcare in federal court.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the U.S. and North Carolina Constitutions, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mrs. Zayre-Brown seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring appropriate medical care including gender-affirming surgery, consistent hormone therapy, and respectful treatment including the use of correct names and pronouns.
The denial of appropriate healthcare has caused extreme emotional and psychological distress, leading to self-harm and thoughts of suicide. For nearly two years, Mrs. Zayre-Brown was housed in male facilities despite being a transgender woman.
On April 16, 2024, Judge Cogburn issued a landmark order ruling that the state's process for evaluating gender-affirming surgery for incarcerated individuals is unconstitutional. The court found that the Department of Adult Correction violated Mrs. Zayre-Brown's Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide individualized consideration of her medical needs. [source]
The case is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of North Carolina, and Patterson Harkavy LLP. Trial is set for July 21, 2025. [source]
Expert Testimony & Daubert Challenges
In a filing, the State introduced Dr. Fan Li, Ph.D. from Duke University, as a "nationally leading expert on statistical methods for causal inference" to challenge the medical and psychological studies cited by the plaintiff’s medical experts. Dr. Li argued that research supporting the medical necessity of gender-affirming surgery was "low quality" because it lacked randomized controlled trials and rigorous statistical evidence.
Her credibility and qualifications were formally challenged. The ACLU and plaintiff's counsel filed a formal Daubert motion (and reply brief) to exclude her testimony entirely, against the State's opposition. They argued that as a biostatistician with no medical background, Dr. Li is unqualified to opine on the standards of gender-affirming care. Rebuttal testimony from bioethicist Dr. Armand Antommaria further emphasized that her rigid demand for randomized controlled trials is medically unethical and contradicts standard clinical practice guidelines, which appropriately rely on observational studies.