As one of his first acts as in office, President Trump issued sweeping pardons and commutations for the people convicted of crimes stemming from their involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Most of the defendants received full and unconditional pardons, while fourteen people convicted of seditious conspiracy received commutations of their sentences, according to this report by the AP. The President has also directed the U.S. Attorney General to dismiss the remaining pending prosecutions of January 6th defendants (around 450 cases). This sweeping grant of relief serves as a rejection by the executive branch of the outcomes of what was “the largest investigation in Justice Department history,” according to the story. Supporters of the move praised the President’s actions as undoing what they consider politically motivated prosecutions, while detractors have categorized the relief as a blow to the justice system, pointing to the hundreds of defendants duly convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers and other serious crimes. At least one defendant convicted of a misdemeanor relating to January 6th is attempting to refuse her pardon, although the legal support for such a move is unclear, according to this story. Additionally, President Trump issued a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, an online marketplace for drugs and other contraband. Ulbricht was convicted of various drug, conspiracy, and computer offenses in 2015 and was sentenced to life without parole. Read on for more criminal law news.
Phil Dixon
News Roundup
According to this story, the CEO of United Health Care, Brian Thompson, was walking through Manhattan on his way to conference when a masked gunman fired multiple shots from a 9 mm handgun, striking Mr. Thompson from behind and killing him. The suspect fled the scene and remains at large at the time of this writing. Authorities believe the shooter was specifically targeting Thompson, a belief reinforced by the discovery that shell casings at the scene were inscribed with the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” Police were able to obtain surveillance footage showing an image of the suspect from a local hostel. Thompson’s wife reported that he had received threats recently, but did not offer specifics. In addition to his wife, Thompson leaves behind two sons. Read on more for more criminal law news.
Smith v. Arizona Comes to NC
As regular readers know, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), this past June. The decision undercut the reasoning used by North Carolina courts to justify the practice of permitting substitute analysts to offer an independent opinion about the forensic report of another, nontestifying analyst (as discussed here and here). Until this week, no North Carolina court had applied Smith. The wait is now over. In State v. Clark, NCCOA-1133, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Dec. 3, 2024), the Court of Appeals delved into the impact of Smith on North Carolina law, ultimately granting the defendant a new trial for a Confrontation Clause violation. This post discusses the Clark decision and its implications for the future of substitute analysts in the state.
News Roundup
In the aftermath of the widespread destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene, federal and state officials have begun providing relief assistance to affected residents in western North Carolina. These efforts have been complicated by widespread misinformation regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and others. This past weekend, someone called 911 to report that an armed man near a FEMA relief center was allegedly threatening to harm relief workers and who supposedly spoke of “truckloads of militia members” in the area. According to this report, FEMA took the threat seriously, suspending door to door visits with residents and temporarily scaling back relief efforts in response. The man in question was found with an assault rifle and a pistol and was charged with going armed to the terror of the public. The Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department ultimately determined that the man was acting alone and that the report of armed militias in the area was untrue. The Governor’s office, FEMA, and other agencies have denounced this incident and other instances of misleading and inaccurate information about disaster relief efforts. My colleague, Kristi Nickodem, recently published a blog post over at Coates’ Canons addressing what local governments can do to combat misinformation in this context, which you can read here. Read on for more criminal law news.
The Fourth Circuit Weighs in on THC-O and “Synthetic” THC
In September, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a significant decision affecting the hemp industry on the federal level. There has been an open question for some time regarding the legality of certain cannabinoids that do not naturally occur in the cannabis plant but can be created from hemp products. THC-O (tetrahydrocannabinol acetate) is an example of such a compound. State and federal criminal law both ban “synthetic THC.” What exactly counts as “synthetic” THC? I wrote a bit about this ambiguity in the law before, but Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, ___ F.4th ___; 2024 WL 4031401 (4th Cir. 2024), provides some of the first guidance on the issue in the age of legal hemp. Read on for the details.
State v. McLean Clarifies the Timeframe for Giving Oral Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Attorneys practicing in criminal superior court are likely familiar with the process of giving notice of appeal to the appellate division. Under Rule 4(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, a defendant can give notice by either (1) giving oral notice of appeal “at trial,” or (2) by filing a written notice of appeal within 14 days after entry of judgment and serving it on the State. A recent case explains what counts as “at trial” for purposes of giving notice of appeal. Under State v. McLean, COA 23-100, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Aug. 6, 2024), oral notice of appeal is considered made “at trial” and therefore timely as long as it is given within the session of superior court, which is typically one week. “[T]he period of time for Defendant to provide timely notice of appeal at trial commenced following sentencing and ended when the court session adjourned sine die.” McLean Slip op. at 8 (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Although the defendant in McLean gave oral notice of appeal the morning after the pronouncement of the judgment in his case, the timing of the notice was proper, because the session had not yet ended. This post examines the holding and implications of the McLean decision.