Recent blog posts - 116 of 401

Last week the News Roundup noted that staff at prisons and jails are expected to be among the first Americans to receive COVID vaccinations when they become available and that there is an ongoing national debate about how to prioritize vaccination of incarcerated people.  The Charlotte Observer reported this week that the Mecklenburg County jail has been placed on lockdown for at least two days because of a massive surge in the number of cases at the facility.  In a statement released Thursday, the sheriff’s office said that 107 inmates and 20 staff members recently tested positive for the virus.  Keep reading for more news.

Nearly half of the 7.7 billion people in the world are on social media, and each of those users has an average of 8 different accounts. The rate is even higher in the U.S., with around 70% of the population active on social media for an average of 2 hours every day. You can find more jaw-dropping statistics here.

Given these trends, it’s no surprise that social media evidence is showing up more frequently in criminal cases. A quick search for criminal cases mentioning the most common social media platforms brought up well over 100 North Carolina cases decided in the last decade, but only a few of those cases have directly analyzed the authentication requirements for this type of evidence. The Court of Appeals recent decision in State v. Clemons, __ N.C. App. __ (Dec. 1, 2020) provides some additional guidance in this important area.

There have been a number of encouraging recent announcements about coronavirus vaccines, with several pharmaceutical companies saying that they have developed vaccines with a high degree of effectiveness and minor side effects.  This week, discussions about how to prioritize distribution of the vaccines raised interesting questions related to the criminal justice system.  Keep reading for more on this story and other news.

This post summarizes published opinions issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 1, 2020.

Yesterday, Chief Justice Cheri Beasley entered an order further extending the time in bail bond forfeiture proceedings for the filing of motions to set aside and objections to motions to […]

When I wrote about down-ballot election results a few weeks ago, I said that the election for Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court was too close to call. That remains the case. Current Associate Justice Paul Newby has a 409 vote lead over current Chief Justice Cheri Beasley and a recount is underway.

Most people know that the Chief Justice is one of seven jurists on the North Carolina Supreme Court and that, like his or her fellow Associate Justices, the Chief Justice is elected to serve an eight-year term. Given the pandemic, many may also be familiar with the Chief Justice’s authority in response to catastrophic conditions to extend deadlines and periods of limitation and to issue emergency directives necessary to ensure the continuing operations of the courts. G.S. 7A-39. Readers may, however, be less familiar with other aspects of the Chief Justice’s authority and responsibilities that are essential to the administration of justice. The remainder of this post will highlight some of these lesser known roles and responsibilities, particularly as they relate to criminal proceedings.

How does the appointment of counsel to represent juveniles with cases that are transferred to superior court for trial as adults work? This can be a confusing question to answer given that the legal authority for the appointment of counsel changes at the time of transfer, there are important immediate legal issues following transfer, and there are so many different ways in which indigent defense services are provided across North Carolina. This blog will (1) identify the law that governs appointment of counsel when cases are in juvenile court and following transfer, (2) share recently released guidance from the N.C. Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) regarding appointment of counsel in matters that are transferred, and (3) suggest a procedure that could be followed to ensure that the rights of juveniles regarding appeals of transfer orders and conditions of pretrial release are ensured.

The North Carolina Judicial College was founded in 2005 to expand the education and training the School of Government has provided for judicial branch officials since the 1930s. Judicial College […]

Houston news outlet FOX 26 recently highlighted a new report from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at UT Austin that examines COVID deaths in Texas prisons and jails, where the positive test rate is 490% higher than the rate in Texas as a whole.  There are a number of notable findings in the report, including that 80% of people who died from the virus in jails were pretrial detainees and that nine people died after being approved for parole but before they were released. Slightly more than 10% of the people who have died in association with Texas correctional facilities were staff members.  The full report is available here.  Keep reading for more news.

This post summarizes published opinions issued by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina on November 17, 2020.