Reuters reports that threats against federal judges have substantially increased over the last several years. Threats deemed “serious” by the U.S. Marshals Service rose from 179 incidents in 2019 to more than 450 in 2023. A majority of these threats seem to be motivated by politics and are coming from people without a direct connection to any litigation before the judges. The phenomenon is not unique to federal court judges. A 2022 survey by the National Judicial College of primarily state-court judges revealed that almost 90% of the 398 judges polled expressed concerns for their physical safety. A “true threat” is punishable under state and federal law under any number of different statutes, but many disturbing or offensive comments are protected speech under the First Amendment, as my former colleague Jonathan Holbrook discussed here. Read on for more criminal law news.
Uncategorized
North Carolina 2024 Public Defender Expansion
In 2023, the North Carolina General Assembly approved funding to create eight new public defender districts. The eight new districts will cover twenty-two counties. Once they are in place, sixty of North Carolina’s 100 counties will be served by a public defender. Seven of the new districts were fully funded starting January 1, 2024; for the eighth, full funding is effective July 1, 2024. Because new public defender offices need time to hire and train staff, they will not start taking cases right away.
Are Prosecutors Entitled to Immunity When Advising Law Enforcement Officers?
Law enforcement officers frequently call on prosecutors for advice. Prosecutors generally see responding to such requests as part of their duties, as the North Carolina Constitution directs that District Attorneys “advise the officers of justice” in their districts. N.C. Const., Art. IV, § 18. But are prosecutors protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity when they give such advice? Or something less? Read on to find out.
GiveUNC Is Today
Today is GiveUNC. According to the GiveUNC website, this is “a day when alumni, friends, faculty [and staff] and other Carolina supporters come together to support the causes they care about most.” We hope that the School of Government provides value to you. The School is unique in our focus on providing training, consulting, and … Read more
News Roundup
On Monday, the Louisiana Senate unanimously passed a bill that would make it a crime to knowingly import, transport, buy, sell, manufacture, or possess a child sex doll. According to proponents of the bill, the dolls resemble children 12 and younger and are used for sexual gratification (for all the Law & Order: SVU fans, this issue was illustrated in an episode of the current season). Depending on the circumstances, intent, and whether or not the doll is imported, a conviction could result in up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to $20,000. A number of other states have passed laws outlawing child sex dolls since 2019, including Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, South Dakota, and Tennessee.
Immigration Consequences of DV Offenses: Stalking and Violation of DVPOs
Last week, in the first part of this two-part series, I talked about the “crime of domestic violence” ground of deportability for noncitizens and what role convictions of North Carolina offenses play in triggering that ground. This post covers immigration consequences of the “stalking” and “violation of protection orders” grounds of deportability.
News Roundup
Raleigh is ending its red-light camera program after two decades of operation. The News and Observer has the story here. Red-light camera programs across North Carolina have steadily folded following court rulings that their funding model (in which the camera vendor is paid more than 10 percent of the net proceeds of fines) runs afoul of the fines and forfeiture clause of the state constitution.
Of course, the city still wants people to stop at red lights. Last year, it installed reflective backplates, a border on traffic signals to make them stand out, at red-light-camera-intersection signals.
Keep reading for more local, national, and international criminal and court-related news.
Immigration Consequences of DV Offenses: Crimes of Domestic Violence
A noncitizen can lose status—that is, the right to be in the U.S.—and be forced to leave if he or she comes within a ground of deportability. In general, the grounds of deportability apply to noncitizens who have been lawfully “admitted.” This includes both lawful permanent residents (“green card” holders) and holders of temporary, nonimmigrant visas.
There are several criminal grounds of deportability in the federal immigration statutes, provided in Title 8, Section 1227 of the United States Code. One of these grounds is conviction of a crime of domestic violence. In order to be a crime of domestic violence under federal immigration law, the offense must meet the federal definition of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. 16 and must also be against a person in a domestic relationship with the defendant. This provision of the statute also includes deportation for crimes of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, but discussion of those grounds is outside the scope of this post.
This post is the first in a two-part series and examines immigration consequences of convictions of offenses involving domestic violence under North Carolina law. It is not intended to be a comprehensive analysis of immigration law; rather, it assesses the immigration consequences of selected North Carolina offenses and only within the scope of the domestic violence ground of deportability.
News Roundup
A bill to “recriminalize” the possession of certain dangerous drugs is moving forward in Oregon. Oregon became the first state to decriminalize the possession of drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl when voters approved of a 2020 ballot initiative, with 58% in favor. If Governor Tina Kotek signs the new legislation (she states she will), possession of these drugs will again be classified as a misdemeanor. The new law would provide for a range of responses, including treatment alternatives to incarceration, diversionary options such as conditional discharges, and up to 180 days in jail. Proponents argue that the surge in fentanyl overdoses requires that penalties be reinstated, while others argue that decriminalization was not the cause of increased fentanyl use.
Read on for more criminal law news.