Articles in the Procedure category - Page 2 of 77

In Part I and Part II of this three-part series revisiting the landmark calendaring case, Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358 (1994), I explored the key issues of pretrial delay […]

The 2025 legislative session was relatively quiet for expunction law but still potentially important for some people. I have incorporated the changes in the law into the latest version of […]

Debbie Defendant is charged with misdemeanor stalking under G.S. 14-277.3A. She fails to appear in district court on January 23, 2026. The district court judge issues an order for Debbie’s […]

In Part I of this three-part series revisiting Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358 (1994), I explored the district attorney’s calendaring practices that were challenged in the landmark case, and […]

A short-form murder indictment generally will not support a conviction for assault. That, at any rate, was the rule prior to State v. Singleton, 386 N.C. 183 (2024) (holding that […]

The last few years have brought about several changes to the laws surrounding pretrial release. Before many of these changes, there was a general rule that a defendant charged with […]

In an earlier blog post, I summarized North Carolina’s harm reduction immunity laws, including our safe syringe exchange law, G.S. 90-113.27, our Good Samaritan law, G.S. 90-96.2, and others.  North […]

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 26 of the North Carolina Constitution prohibit the exercise of peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors based on their race. […]

Last month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-93 (H 307), also known as Iryna’s Law. The legislation makes a number of changes to proceedings involving pretrial release; adds a new aggravating sentencing factor; alters the way magistrates may be disciplined; and expands the permissible methods of execution, among other things. This post focuses on the changes affecting pretrial release, most of which will take effect on December 1, 2025.

Law enforcement officers regularly work with Confidential Informants (CIs) when investigating organized crime or building cases against individuals in leadership positions within criminal enterprises. CIs are most commonly involved in drug cases, ranging from high-level trafficking to street-level dealing, but they may also play a role in the investigation of other crimes such as bribery, fraud, or firearms trafficking.

When cases involving CIs make it to North Carolina courts, difficult questions often arise as to how to balance the state’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity with the defendant’s rights to a fair trial and open-file discovery. These questions go beyond the traditional binary of whether the CI’s identity should or should not be revealed to the defense. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). Especially as technology evolves and CI activity is regularly captured through audio/video recordings, judges must navigate challenging decisions regarding precisely what should be turned over to the defense.