Daniel Spiegel

News Roundup

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that drug overdose deaths in the U.S. declined significantly in 2024 as compared to 2023, reaching their lowest levels since 2019. Experts from the CDC state that increased funding from Congress has enhanced their ability to collect and analyze data, which in turn has allowed for more targeted and effective prevention efforts. Deaths from fentanyl fell by approximately 37%, while deaths from cocaine and psychostimulants also declined significantly. The declines were consistent across virtually all geographic regions.

Some experts attribute the changing trend to wider availability of the overdose-reversal drug naloxone as well as stepped-up treatment. Others contend the decline stems more from fewer people getting addicted in the first place.

Despite the encouraging news, drug overdoses remain the leading cause of death for individuals between the ages of 18 and 44.

Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more

Authentication of Digital Communications Chart

A common evidence question that arises is how to properly authenticate digital communications. We have written on the topic in several blogs: How Can a Party Show Authorship of a Social Media Post or Other Electronic Communication?, Authenticating Photographs Obtained from Social Media Platforms, Business Records: Posts, Chats, and Texts, New Guidance on Authenticating Social Media, Admissibility of Electronic Writings: Emails, Text Messages, and Social Networking Posts, and more.

Last year, I created a chart to highlight the ingredients of authentication our appellate courts found to be adequate or inadequate as a foundation for surveillance video (also see the accompanying blog, Surveillance Video- When It Comes In and When It Doesn’t). I’ve received positive feedback on the chart and practitioners have asked for more evidence content in this format. For a second installment, I chose digital communications.

Read more

New Bulletin on Social Workers in Public Defender Offices and Issues Involving Mandatory Reporting

Increasingly, public defender offices are bringing social workers in-house. As part of a growing interest in holistic defense, these offices are relying on social workers to assist with the representation of their clients in a variety of ways. Social workers can locate housing, find appropriate treatment for substance use disorder or mental illness, and improve client communication by building trust and sensitivity to clients’ needs. This work may support the presentation of mitigation evidence at sentencing, and beyond that, break cycles of involvement with the criminal justice system.

North Carolina is in the midst of a major, legislatively-funded expansion of its public defender system. The School’s Criminal Justice Innovation Lab is supporting NC Indigent Defense Services by evaluating the implementation of social work positions in public defender offices to learn more about the ways the inter-professional collaboration functions, how social work positions are structured, and common benefits and challenges of using social work staff.

During this work, a question has arisen on several occasions: how should the inter-professional defense team navigate a situation, such as learning of child abuse, where mandatory reporting laws require notification to the local department of social services (DSS) or law enforcement? Should social workers comply with state statutes and follow their own ethical code by making a report? Or does the attorney’s obligation to keep client confidences and provide effective assistance of counsel “trump” the social worker’s duty to report?

Read more

News Roundup

Hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants were summarily deported from the United States to a prison in El Salvador last weekend. Federal authorities relied on President Trump’s executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in removing the immigrants without due process protections. The administration stated that the immigrants were members of a violent gang, Tren de Aragua, and that their alignment with the Venezuelan government and entry into the U.S. constituted an invasion by a hostile nation. Advocates for the deported Venezuelans deny their involvement with the gang and stress that the three previous times that the AEA was invoked, it was during clear times of war (the War of 1812, WWI, and WWII).

Judge James Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, had ordered that the flights carrying the immigrants be turned around, but this did not occur, and the court is now engaged in an inquiry to determine whether the Trump administration should be held in contempt. After Trump called for the impeachment of the judge, Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court made a public statement that the appellate process, rather than impeachment, is the proper way to address adverse court rulings.

Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more

Can Law Enforcement Review Ankle Monitor Location Data Without a Warrant?

Last September, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Thomas, No. COA23-210, __ N.C. App. __ (2024), a case involving law enforcement’s retrieval of ankle monitor location data gathered while the defendant was on post-release supervision.

This is the first North Carolina appellate case to address whether it is constitutional for law enforcement to retrieve ankle monitor data without a warrant. This post will discuss the reasoning in Thomas and its implications for related questions.

Read more

News Roundup

After a two-week evidentiary hearing last February, and closing arguments delivered in August, Superior Court Judge Wayland Sermons Jr. issued a 120-page order concluding that racism significantly affected the 2009 Johnston County trial of Hasson Bacote that resulted in the imposition of the death penalty. Bacote first challenged his sentence fifteen years ago under the now-repealed Racial Justice Act. In his order, Judge Sermons stated that the evidence showed a “consistent picture of the role race has played in jury selection throughout Johnston County and Prosecutorial District 11, and in the capital cases tried by [the] prosecutor…” After Governor Cooper commuted Bacote’s sentence to life imprisonment last December, it was unclear what would happen with the pending litigation. Judge Sermons evidently concluded that it was appropriate to make a ruling, stating that the voluminous “statistical, cultural, historical, social science, and other evidence produced in the [Bacote] case” would serve as a guide to courts considering the particular facts of future cases. Attorneys for the State said they planned to appeal the ruling.

Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more

The Confidential Informant File: What Is It and When Must It Be Disclosed to the Defense?

I recently completed a series of posts on issues surrounding confidential informants (“CI’s”), discovery, and motions to reveal the CI’s identity. In this “bonus” post, I will discuss a related question: what is the “CI file” and when must the State turn it over to the defense? Let’s say the defense is successful in compelling … Read more

News Roundup

In the waning weeks of his four-year term, President Biden announced commutations of 37 of 40 federal death sentences. With the exception of three individuals convicted of crimes involving “terrorism” or “hate-motivated mass murder,” Biden decided that the remaining federal death row prisoners should receive sentences of life without the possibility of parole. In 2021, Biden declared a moratorium on federal capital punishment to study protocols, and before that, he pledged action to end the death penalty at the federal level. The families of the victims reacted to the commutations with a range of emotions.

Read more

Confidential Informants, Motions to Reveal Identity, and Discovery: Part VI, Motions to Suppress and the “Two Officer Rule”

For the final installment of this series on confidential informants, motions to reveal identity, and discovery, we will look at a unique statute in North Carolina concerning when the identity of a confidential informant (CI) must be revealed: G.S. 15A-978(b). This statute only applies to motions to suppress, rather than trial. Recall back to Part I of this series, which addressed Roviaro v. U.S., 353 U.S. 53 (1957). Roviaro established the basic factors to consider when deciding whether the State must disclose the identity of the CI to the defendant to ensure a fair trial. Another U.S. Supreme Court case decided ten years later, however, McCray v. State of Ill., 386 U.S. 300 (1967), addressed the separate but related question of when the defendant is entitled to learn the CI’s identity to have a fair opportunity to litigate a motion to suppress.

At a motion to suppress, the considerations are somewhat different from trial. The last several posts addressed the question of when testimony from the CI is material in determining whether or not the defendant is guilty. In contrast, the question at the motion to suppress stage is not the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The question in CI cases is usually whether a search or seizure violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The issues to be decided may be whether law enforcement had good reason to rely on information provided by the CI, whether law enforcement corroborated the information, or whether the officers are being truthful about their interactions with the CI. G.S. 15A-978(b) addresses a related, but narrow question: can we rely on the officer’s assertion that the CI exists?

Read more

News Roundup

After a plea deal between 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the U.S. government was declared void by order of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a military judge has now ruled that the plea agreement is valid, the AP reports. The plea agreement calls for a sentence of life imprisonment for Mohammed and his two-codefendants. The Defense Secretary had declared that the deal could not be struck without his approval and that the decades-old proceedings should continue through to trial and possible death sentences. Some families of 9/11 victims and lawmakers also opposed the plea deal. However, the military judge has ruled that it is too late to strike the deal because it was negotiated with proper government authorization and the top official at Guantanamo approved it.

Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more