Procedure Archives – Page 12 of 75 – North Carolina Criminal Law

North Carolina’s First Appearance Process Amended for Second Time in this Legislative Session

November 29, 2021 Tom Thornburg

In this earlier blog post, I discussed changes made to North Carolina’s first appearance process, to be effective for criminal processes served on or after December 1, 2021. Additional amendments have been made in new legislation.

In Session Law 2021-182 (S183), Section 2.5.(a) revised G.S. 15A-601 as previously amended by S.L. 2021-138.

Defendants charged with misdemeanors and in custody to get first appearance

This amendment does not affect a significant change made by S.L. 2021-138–the expansion of first appearance to include defendants charged with misdemeanors who are in custody. Under current law, only criminal defendants with felony charges are required to get first appearance.

Grappling with Juror Discrimination, 35 Years After Batson v. Kentucky

November 23, 2021November 23, 2021 Emily Coward

Note from John Rubin: I regret to report that Emily Coward is leaving the School of Government. In her nine years at the School as part of our Public Defense Education group, Emily co-authored our defender manual, Raising Issues of Race in North Carolina Criminal Cases; directed the North Carolina Racial Equity Network, a program providing a series of trainings for interested North Carolina defenders; and became a national expert in, among other areas, efforts to address racial disparities and bias in jury formation and selection. The good news is that Emily is launching the Inclusive Juries Project (IJP), which will partner with lawyers, scholars, students, court actors, and community members on initiatives aimed at ensuring fair and inclusive juries in North Carolina and nationally. Through research, scholarship, consulting, and educational initiatives, IJP will contribute to jury reform efforts, develop tools and strategies to address juror discrimination, and work to ensure the constitutional promise of the American jury system. We are grateful for Emily’s many contributions while at the School of Government and wish her all the best in her new endeavors.

A Glynn County, Georgia jury will soon determine the fate of Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, and William Bryan for their roles in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia last year. You may have read that the defense attorneys struck eight of the nine, or 88%, of all eligible black jurors. If you haven’t followed the case, the defendants are white, and the victim, Mr. Arbery, was black. Mr. Arbery was out jogging when he was pursued, cut off, and killed by the defendants in their trucks. The jury hearing the case is comprised of 11 white jurors and one black juror; all four alternates are white. Black jurors are underrepresented on this jury in relation to their representation in the county, as 26.6% of Glynn County residents are black.

New Video on Working with Experts

November 16, 2021 Phil Dixon

I’m pleased to announce a new collaboration between the Public Defense Education team at the School of Government and Indigent Defense Services. I frequently get questions from defense lawyers about expert witnesses. Where do you find experts? How do you know which expert is right for your case? How do you go about getting funding … Read more

Final Report: Judicial District 2 Bail Project

November 3, 2021 Maggie Bailey

In January 2020, North Carolina’s Second Judicial District (Beaufort, Hyde, Martin, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties) implemented two consensus bail reform initiatives. First, they implemented a structured decision-making tool for magistrates to use when making bail decisions. Among other things, the tool:

creates a presumption for conditions other than a secured bond for people charged with Class 3 misdemeanors;
provides screening factors to quickly identify individuals charged with intermediate-level cases (defined by local policy to include Class A1 – 2 misdemeanors and Class F – I felonies) who can be released on a condition other than a secured bond;
affords those charged with Class A – E felonies no special presumptions or screening; and
embeds within the decision-making process the statutory requirement that conditions other than a secured bond must be imposed absent a risk of non-appearance, injury to any person, or interference with the criminal proceeding.

Second, stakeholders implemented new first appearances for individuals detained on misdemeanor charges to ensure timely judicial review of bail.

These reforms were developed by a stakeholder team including judges, prosecutors, public defenders, clerks, magistrates, and law enforcement leaders. One of the team’s goals was to reduce pretrial detentions of individuals who do not pose a pretrial risk but are detained due to inability to pay bail. The UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab supported stakeholders in the development and implementation of reforms and, with support from local stakeholders, conducted an empirical evaluation of their implemented reforms. We recently released a final report (here) on that evaluation. This post summarizes key findings.

Updated Model Local Bail Policy

October 25, 2021 Jessica Smith

The North Carolina General Statutes require the senior resident superior court judge to, in consultation with the chief district court judge or judges, issue a local bail policy. G.S. 15A-535(a). But doing so is no easy matter given the many statutory rules and exceptions and areas for discretionary policy choices. Christopher Tyner and I have tried to facilitate that task, with a North Carolina Model Local Bail Policy. We first issued the Model Policy in the Spring and we just posted an updated version, incorporating the latest legislative changes to the state’s bail statutes. The Model Policy can be found here; it’s the first item under “Implement.” Read on for details.

New Reporting Requirements for Giglio Notifications

October 18, 2021 Shea Denning

Last November, I blogged about recommendations from the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association for legislation that would enable hiring authorities, certifying commissions, and state prosecutors to learn of misconduct by officers, including untruthfulness, that would impair an officer’s credibility as a witness in a criminal prosecution and which must be disclosed to the defense. This type of information often is referred to as Giglio material, adopting the name of the first U.S. Supreme court case to apply a disclosure requirement to evidence relevant to impeaching a government witness, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

This session, the General Assembly enacted legislation implementing some of the Association’s recommendations. Among the changes enacted by S.L. 2021-137 (S 536) and S.L. 2021-138 (S 300) are requirements that the certifying commission for an officer be notified when the officer is informed that he or she may not be called to testify at trial based on bias, interest, or lack of credibility. If the officer transfers to a new agency, the Criminal Justice Standards Division (in the case of State, municipal, company, and campus officers) or the Justice Officers’ Standards Division (in the case of deputy sheriffs, detention officers, and telecommunicators) must notify the head of the new agency and the elected district attorney in the prosecutorial district where the agency is located that the person has been previously notified that the person may not be called to testify at trial.

Court of Appeals Rules on Pretrial Self-Defense Immunity Hearings

October 13, 2021October 13, 2021 Jonathan Holbrook

Last month, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Austin, ___ N.C. App. ___, 2021-NCCOA-494 (Sept. 21, 2021), and a summary of the opinion is available here. Austin addressed several noteworthy self-defense issues, including the sufficiency of the state’s evidence to rebut the presumption of reasonable fear under the “castle doctrine” statutes added in 2011 and whether the trial court’s jury instructions on that issue were proper.

But first, the court had to decide whether the statutory language conferring “immunity from liability” meant that the defendant was entitled to have this issue resolved by the judge at a pretrial hearing. That’s a question I’ve been asked fairly often over the past few years, and my sense is that prior to Austin there were divergent practices on this point around the state.

This post takes a closer look at that portion of the court’s opinion, and explores what we now know and what we still don’t.

Model Implementation Plan for New First Appearances Required by S.L. 2021-138

October 12, 2021 Jessica Smith

I recently posted, on the UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab website, a model implementation plan designed to help stakeholders comply with S.L. 2021-138. That law requires first appearances for all in-custody defendants within 72 hours after the defendant is taken into custody or at the first regular session of district court in the county, whichever occurs first. The new law becomes effective December 1, 2021 and applies to criminal processes served on or after that date.

The Citation Project Report—1st Report

September 27, 2021 Ethan Rex

Editor’s Note: This is the first post by Ethan Rex, who has served as the Project Manager for the Criminal Justice Innovation Lab since June 2020. We welcome Ethan to the blog!

The UNC School of Government Criminal Justice Innovation Lab recently released a report of early findings for the Citation Project. Executed by the Lab and the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police (NCACP), the Citation Project seeks to improve policing practices through implementation and rigorous evaluation of a model citation in lieu of arrest policy. Initial findings from the first report are promising: citations are being heavily used in pilot sites, there were no racial disparities in warrantless arrests, implementation is strong, magistrates’ bail decisions suggest the policy is working as intended, and use of citations results in substantial time savings for police departments.