Uncategorized

blank

News Roundup

Three years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Corbett, 2021-NCSC-18, ___ N.C. ___, 855 S.E.2d 228, 252 (2021), affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal of the defendants’ convictions for second degree murder. The case garnered national and international attention. The victim, Jason Corbett, was a citizen of Ireland, who had relocated to Davidson County, North Carolina, in 2011 following the 2006 death of his first wife, who was the mother of his two children. Jason moved to North Carolina with his two children and his then-romantic partner, Molly Martens, who had been his children’s au pair in Ireland. Jason and Molly married later that year.

Molly’s parents, Thomas and Sharon Martens, who lived in Tennessee, visited the Corbett home on August 1, 2015. Thomas, a retired FBI agent and former attorney, testified that he awoke to the sounds of a struggle in the middle of the night and discovered Jason choking Molly. Thomas said he attempted to stop Jason by hitting him with an aluminum baseball bat. Molly also hit Jason with a brick paver. Jason’s skull was fractured from multiple blows, and he died at the scene. Both Thomas and Molly were charged with murder. The North Carolina Supreme Court determined that the trial court erred by (1) excluding hearsay statements from the children that their father was abusive toward Molly and that their father had become angry that evening upon his daughter awakening him, and (2) by excluding testimony from Thomas that he heard Molly yell “don’t hurt my dad” during the altercation.

Molly and Thomas were released from prison on Thursday: Molly from the the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women in Raleigh and Thomas from the Caldwell Correctional Center in Lenoir. Following the state supreme court’s decision, each entered pleas to voluntary manslaughter and served about seven more months behind bars.

Keep reading for more criminal law news.

Read more

Estimating Earnings Impact of Driver’s License Revocations in North Carolina

and

In North Carolina, driver’s licenses are revoked for failure to appear in court (FTA) and failure to pay court-ordered monetary obligations (FTP).

Not having a valid driver’s license is at best an inconvenience—relying on others to drive to get groceries—but at worst can have a major impact on life—losing a job that requires driving.

To get a handle on the consequences of losing a license, we were asked to provide a high-level estimate of the earnings impact of revocations due to FTP or FTA.

The result? We found that the statewide estimated earnings loss in 2024 dollars one year after revocation is between $6.5 and $8.8 billion (Figure 1).

The North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (NC DMV) reports that as of December 31, 2020, 996,000 people had active driver’s license revocations for FTA and FTP. These revocations occurred over time. To estimate earnings impact, we assume that about half of those people—500,000—were working at the time of the revocation and earning the North Carolina median wage ($42,095/year). Based on other research, we made two additional assumptions to assess the impact of revocation on earnings one year later. First, that 9% to 12% of people lost their jobs and were unemployed. And second, that those who were employed experienced an earnings reduction of 24% to 43%.

Even if we reduce the median wage to $30,000/year—to account for the fact that people with an FTA or FTP may earn less than the statewide median wage—the estimated earnings impact is between $4.6 and $6.3 billion.

Figure 1. Estimated earnings impact of revoking driver’s licenses for FTA and FTP

For details about how we computed this estimate, see the notes to our briefing paper here.

blank

News Roundup

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies in his “hush money” trial in New York yesterday, making him the first former president in U.S. history to be convicted of a crime. On their second day of deliberations, the jury found that Trump illegally falsified business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to an adult film star before the 2016 election. He could face up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine for each count and is set to be sentenced on July 11.

Read more

Confidential Informants, Motions to Reveal Identity, and Discovery: Part II, What Statutes Apply?

In Part I of a series of posts on confidential informants, I revisited the landmark case of U.S. v. Roviaro, which began when a Chicago police officer hid in the trunk of an informant’s car to listen in on a heroin deal. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the officer in the trunk was no substitute for the confidential informant (“CI”) in the driver’s seat and required disclosure of the CI’s identity to the defense. I also introduced the basic dichotomy set out in Roviaro: generally, where the CI is more of a tipster, the CI’s identity need not be revealed, but where the CI is an active participant, the defense is entitled to it. The constitutional underpinnings of this distinction, based on due process and confrontation principles, continue to guide courts today, although the analysis has evolved.

This second post will address the North Carolina statutes at play. These statutes complicate and refine the basic constitutional question of whether fundamental fairness requires the State to turn over the CI’s identity.

Read more

blank

Disposition Continuance to Provide for Time in Secure Custody Not Allowed

Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024).  The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Read more

News Roundup

The trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump for alleged falsification of business records is nearing its conclusion. The prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen, was on the stand for four days, describing what he and Trump discussed back in 2016 and 2017 when Cohen served as Trump’s lawyer. He outlined a plan to conceal a sexual affair from the public by making hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump’s intent in making these payments, and whether a falsification occurred in furtherance of another crime, are the central questions of the trial. The defense engaged in a lengthy cross-examination to undermine Cohen’s credibility.

The prosecution then rested, and the defense presented the testimony of one witness, also an attorney. The witness, Robert Costello, had previously given legal counsel to Cohen after Cohen’s house was raided by FBI agents. After the defense rested, the parties debated the appropriate jury instructions. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, and the jury could begin deliberations Wednesday.

Read more

Changes to Basic Law Enforcement Training

With few exceptions, new law enforcement officers in North Carolina are required to complete a course called Basic Law Enforcement Training, or BLET. The curriculum for the course is established by the North Carolina Justice Academy, but the training is typically delivered at dozens of community colleges and through recruit academies run by some of the larger law enforcement agencies in the state. The curriculum has been significantly revised over the past few years, and I thought readers might be interested in a summary of the major changes.

Read more

News Roundup

It sounds like there’s a criminal trial of some kind going on in New York, but the big trial this week here in North Carolina was the retrial of self-proclaimed billionaire insurance magnate Greg Lindberg. Lindberg was once the state’s leading campaign donor. According to this AP story, a federal jury in the Western District of North Carolina has convicted him of “attempting to bribe the state’s insurance commissioner to secure preferential regulatory treatment for his insurance business.” Lindberg was previously convicted of essentially the same crime in 2020, successfully appealed, and was released from prison in 2022. He now appears likely to be headed back into custody. He is also awaiting trial on another set of federal charges. Keep reading for more news.

Read more

Fourth Circuit Strongly Suggests Including Temporal Limitations on Search Warrants for Social Media Account Information

and

Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Zelaya-Veliz, 94 F.4th 321 (4th Cir. 2024). Phil summarized it here when it came out, but we thought it merited its own post because of its extended discussion of how the Fourth Amendment applies to search warrants for social media account information. The court’s discussion of the need for temporal limitations in such warrants is especially noteworthy, as is the court’s analysis of the scope of the information seized pursuant to the warrants approved by the court. We’ll start with a recap of the case, and then end with some thoughts for law enforcement and prosecutors, and for defenders.

Read more

blank

News Roundup

The first criminal trial of a former U.S. President continues to dominate the news. Trump’s trial on state charges of falsifying business records in furtherance of a felony in New York is now several weeks along. However the trial shakes out, the former president has already been adjudicated guilty of ten counts of criminal contempt for violating a gag order prohibiting him from talking about jurors and witnesses in the case. The trial judge has expressly warned Trump that further violations may result in jail (while also noting the practical difficulties that a jail term would entail). Politico has the latest on the contempt cases here.

Meanwhile, one of Trump’s other criminal cases involving the alleged mishandling of classified records in federal court in Florida is currently in limbo. While a trial date of May 20 had previously been set, the judge recently ruled that more time was needed to resolve pending pretrial motions and removed the case from the trial calendar without setting a new date for trial. It now seems likely that the Florida trial will not occur before the presidential election in November, as this story reports. Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more