As Shea discussed on Monday, the court system will look to expand operations on June 1. Today’s post describes a few of the issues related to probation that are likely to arise in the months ahead.
Uncategorized
Demonstrating With Guns: G.S. 14-277.2
Over the past couple weeks, North Carolina has joined the growing list of states in which armed demonstrators have gathered to express their opposition to virus-related restrictions on economic activity and social gatherings, or to more generally express their opposition to any restrictions on their Second Amendment rights. Dressed in patriotic or military-style gear, and armed with a variety of openly displayed handguns, rifles, or even an (inert) AT-4 anti-tank weapon, these groups have processed along city streets and sidewalks or gathered in public locations like a historic cemetery and a downtown restaurant.
Now, particularly in light of an incident over the weekend where two local attorneys walking with their children felt threatened by a demonstrator wielding a large pipe wrench, a lot of people are asking the same question: are these armed demonstrations legal?
The question seems simple. The answer is more complicated.
News Roundup
Yesterday afternoon United States Attorney Timothy Shea filed a motion to dismiss criminal charges that the Department of Justice brought against Michael Flynn, the retired Army General who briefly served as President Donald Trump’s national security advisor in early 2017, as part of the special counsel inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The charges were based on allegations that Flynn misled FBI investigators about conversations he had with a Russian diplomat soon after the election regarding sanctions. As the New York Times reports, the motion says that the interview where Flynn misled investigators was not “conducted with a legitimate investigative basis” and, for that reason, the government would be unable to prove that Flynn’s false statements were material to an investigation. Flynn had previously pleaded guilty to the charges. Keep reading for more news.
Case Summaries — N.C. Court of Appeals (May 5, 2020)
This post summarizes opinions issued by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina on May 5, 2020.
2019 Cumulative Supplement to North Carolina Crimes Available
We’re pleased to announce that the 2019 Cumulative Supplement to North Carolina Crimes: A Guidebook on the Elements of Crime is now available for purchase. The book includes cases and legislation through December 31, 2019.
Tune in Friday for Legal Updates from the Judicial College
John Rubin, Phil Dixon and I will host Legal Updates from the Judicial College this Friday, May 8, 2020, from 1 p.m. – 2 p.m. We will discuss recent criminal law decisions by the appellate courts. Below are the details for joining this webinar.
Case Summaries – N.C. Supreme Court (May 1, 2020)
This post summarizes published criminal decisions from the North Carolina Supreme Court decided on May 1, 2020.
News Roundup
As the Charlotte Observer reports, yesterday UNC Charlotte marked the one-year anniversary of the campus shooting that claimed the lives of two students on the last day of spring classes. In a ceremony that was conducted virtually because of the coronavirus, yesterday morning campus police officers placed two wreaths in front of the Kennedy Building, the site of the tragedy, to honor the two students who were killed, Reed Parlier and Riley Howell. Later, at 5:10pm, the Niner Nation streamed a live event with remarks from the chancellor and other members of the UNCC community. Keep reading for more news.
New Sentencing App Available
Six years ago (almost to the day) the School released its first version of the Structured Sentencing smartphone app. A new web-based version is available today.
Ramos v. Louisiana and the Jim Crow Origins of Nonunanimous Juries
Ramos v. Louisiana, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last Monday and summarized here, holds that the Sixth Amendment impartial jury guarantee gives defendants a right to a unanimous jury verdict in state trials. The case is making waves for reasons tangential to the dispute between the parties: in a dizzyingly split opinion, the justices argue more over the meaning of stare decisis (the court’s obligation to follow its prior holdings) than whether defendants in state courts may be convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury. This aspect of the opinion has been widely discussed (see analysis here, here, here, and here), and foreshadows the justices’ likely battle over an upcoming reproductive rights case. Since the divergent perspectives on stare decisis have been covered elsewhere, I will consider another issue that split the justices: the legal relevance of the nonunanimous jury law’s Jim Crow origins.
First, a pop quiz
Did North Carolina ever allow non unanimous jury verdicts in criminal trials? Read on for the answer.