Repository Collection 03

State v. Larry Lamb

CASE ENTRY

Last Revised • July 11, 2026

This Source Verification Page documents the National Registry of Exonerations case profile for State v. Larry Lamb, cited in Claim III of the Supplemental Motion. The case is referenced as an example of a North Carolina conviction later overturned following the use of unreliable witness testimony, coercive investigative practices, and the suppression of material impeachment and exculpatory evidence. It is included to illustrate comparable instances in which official misconduct resulted in post-conviction relief.


Related SMAR Citation

“State v. Larry Lamb: Duplin Co. Sheriff's detectives coerced witness; prosecutor failed to disclose contradictory statements and compensation arrangement led to vacatur.”


Case Name

State v. Larry Lamb


Location

Duplin County, North Carolina


Convictred

1993


Exonerated

2013


Source Location

The National Registry of Exonerations


Source Location

The National Registry of Exonerations


Highlighted Pages

1 - 4


Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 59, Paragraph: 121


Source Status

✔ Obtained and reviewed.

✔ Relevant passages highlighted.

✔ Publicly available source

✔ Included within the Source Verification Archive


Cited to Support

May's allegation that North Carolina courts have granted post-conviction relief where convictions were obtained through unreliable witness testimony, coercive investigative practices, and laterdeveloped impeachment and exculpatory evidence. The Larry Lamb case is cited as an example in which the prosecution's principal witness later recanted her testimony, stating that law enforcement officers coached and threatened her into providing false testimony, and where additional evidence undermined the State's case and identified alternative perpetrators. May relies upon Lamb to illustrate that unreliable witness testimony, coercive investigative practices, and later-developed impeachment and exculpatory evidence resulted in the vacatur of the conviction and dismissal of the charges.


Supporting Documents

Original Article

Link to the original article.

View Website →


Highlighted Research Copy

Working research copy containing the highlighted passages cited in the Supplemental Motion.

View PDF →


Continue Your Research

Return to Claim III

Continue browsing the sources cited throughout Claim III.

Browse Sources →

Return to Source Verification Archive

Return to the main Source Verification Archive and explore additional sections of the Supplemental Motion.

Browse Archive →