The prosecution argued the reason Blacks are kept off the jury is not their race, but because they tend to be more liberal and more opposed to the death penalty, had criminal records, or in its view, were otherwise not desirable jurors. The defense argued that is just a pretense which masks underlying racism.

150 other cases are pending, so the Judge's ruling will be quite significant.

According to the state's expert, Christopher Cronin of the Methodist University political science department:

Race as a variable is one of the variables, and may simply indicate a minority population that has a cultural and political ideology that would make it less likely to be favored by the majority population, which is represented by the state," Cronin said. "And the state's interest is to represent that majority population and its intent for laws, punishment, etc."

The state also called three judges who had presided over death penalty trials and testified they perceived no racism and the prosecutors were highly ethical. One law professor summed it up by saying:

"It's hard to read the tea leaves in a case like this. But the case could set quite a precedent in North Carolina—and make a lot of others around the country sit up and take notice."

The defense is relying upon a study by researchers at Michigan State University, that found that since 1990, North Carolina prosecutors in 173 death penalty trials struck twice as many qualified black potential jurors than white.
Robinson's jury was composed of 2 Black, 1 American Indian and 9 White persons.

The state countered with:

"They've brought you numbers, conjecture and speculation," he told Judge Weeks. "But they do not have evidence of discrimination or evidence of some secret society of prosecutors plotting to exclude black jurors."

Which is exactly why the legislature wrote the law the way they did. It specifically allows the use of statistical evidence. Statistical evidence is deemed sufficient to make the showing. It seems more reliable to me than the self-serving testimony of a prosecutor who says "I was fair" or a judge who says "My trials was fair and the prosecutor was honorable." There are hidden biases here that the numbers seem to bear out.

One potential problem with the law is that it doesn't provide define or provide clear guidance with respect to how the judge makes the final decision that the role race played was "significant." The Wall. St. Jornal says:

The law doesn't define exactly how "significant" race had to have been in a decision in order to justify overturning a sentence.

The facts of the case are set out in this 2006 ruling on Robinson's Habeas Petition.

Republicans and prosecutors opposed the law. One prosecutor says:

The Racial Justice Act has nothing to do with race or justice," Doyle said Wednesday. "It's a back-door attempt to overturn the death penalty in North Carolina."

The decision is expected in a few weeks.