On January 20, 1994, two individuals were shot to death near Goldsboro, NC. On February 1, 1994, Kwame Jamal Teague was arrested and charged with the crime, along with two other individuals. Separate trials were held for each defendant. Defendant Teague pled not guilty in his trial, which began on November 6, 1995. On November 29, 1995, he was found guilty of two counts each of murder, kidnapping and robbery. He was sentenced respectively to:

• two life terms

• two fourteen year

• two twelve year sentences

Since the sentences are to run consecutively, these sentences would keep Kwame Jamal Teague in prison for the rest of his life.

ISSUES

'Confession'

The defendant’s initial statement to police disavowed any involvement in the crime. Through skillful maneuvering of a person who was young at the time, characterized by physical intimidation and trickery, they were able to convince Kwame that – whereas they were not interested in punishing him – they were convinced that one of his co-defendants was principally responsible for the crime; Kwame’s statement would help them to establish this. His second statement, structured by the police, was one of the most damaging dynamics in his being found guilty. The defense attorney failed to discredit this "confession" during the trial.

At no point did either defense attorney – both public defenders – acknowledge the possibility of the defendant’s innocence. They seem to erect as a goal the avoidance of a death penalty, rather than the establishment of Kwame’s innocence.

The defendant, as well as his father and brother – both in attendance at the trial – advised the defense attorneys against a trial strategy that placed the defendant at the scene of the crime, especially since he was not there, but this strategy correlated to the forced confession. In spite of this, the defense attorneys pursued this strategy. Kwame’s appeal attorney told us that this strategy foredoomed him to being convicted, since North Carolina capital murder law does not differentiate between a person who commits a murder and another who was present. In the eyes of the law, they are equally guilty. Since his trial attorneys knew the law, it is strange – at best – that they would devise a self-defeating strategy.

The most unjust aspect of the plight that confronts Kwame relates to the trial transcript. The court reporter claims to have lost the tape from which the transcript is produced. This is truly rare. The appellate attorney stated that only three times in North Carolina legal history has a transcript been lost. After nearly a year of effort, the court reporter claims to have reconstructed the transcript. However, an incident that occurred when a bailiff spoke with jurors in a manner of questionable appropriateness, and the matter was brought to the judge, does not appear in the transcript. This omission is not, in and of itself, of profound significance. What is significant is that, if anything is missing from the transcript, how can one assure that other matter are not also missing. If this is so, how can an appeal be considered exhaustive? Are there matters material to an appeal that does not appear in the transcript? This situation renders the trial potentially undocumented and the bases of appeal potentially incomplete. This situation reeks with injustice.