State v. Jamie Lamont Smith

This Source Verification Page documents the criminal case of State v. Jamie Lamont Smith, which is cited in Statement of Facts D of the Supplemental Motion. The underlying post-conviction filings referenced in the Supplemental Motion were not available for inclusion within the Source Verification Archive at the time this page was prepared. According to the description of the cited filings contained within the Supplemental Motion, the case involved allegations concerning the preservation, destruction, and availability of prosecutorial records relevant to Batson challenges and jury selection practices in Buncombe County. This page documents the cited case and explains the role it serves in supporting the allegations presented in the Supplemental Motion.

Related SMAR Citation

“[State v. Jamie Lamont Smith, Buncombe County Superior Court Nos: 95 CRS 2919-20, 3068-9, 51504-6, 63274-5; Supplemental MAR and Brief of the Defendant in Support of Batson Claim]”

Case Name

State v. Jamie Lamont Smith

Citation

Buncombe County Superior Court Nos. 95 CRS 2919-20, 3068-9, 51504-6, 63274-5

Referenced in the Supplemental Motion

Page 29 - 30, Paragraph 52

Source Status

✖ Underlying filing not obtained.

✖ No public copy located at time of publication.

✖ No highlighted research copy available.

✔ Case citation independently verified.

Cited to Support

Lyle C. May alleges that post-conviction litigation in State v. Jamie Lamont Smith involved claims concerning the preservation, destruction, and availability of prosecutorial records relevant to a Batson challenge. According to the source cited in the Supplemental Motion, counsel reviewing the prosecution's files found significant absences in materials related to jury selection, including prosecutor notes, juror questionnaires, criminal-record-check information, and other documents that could reveal prosecutorial motives for peremptory strikes. May relies upon the Smith litigation to support his claim that the destruction or unavailability of jury-selection records was not limited to a single Buncombe County capital case and that similar issues allegedly affected multiple prosecutions handled by the Buncombe County District Attorney's Office. May further cites the Smith litigation as evidence that questions regarding record preservation, Batson-related materials, and jury-selection practices have arisen in other Buncombe County cases and therefore warrant careful review in connection with his own prosecution.

Supporting Documents

Currently Available

No public copy of the referenced Supplemental Motion for Appropriate Relief or supporting brief was available for inclusion within the Source Verification Archive.

Future Updates

If the referenced filings become publicly available or are obtained for research purposes, they will be added to this page together with any highlighted research copies.