Philadelphia’s recently elected district attorney implemented a No-Cash-Bail reform policy, providing that the district attorney’s office would stop asking for cash bail for defendants charged with 25 misdemeanor and felony offenses. A study of that policy change found, among other things, that it led to an increase in defendants released with no monetary or other conditions, a decrease in the number of defendants who spent at least one night in jail, but no accompanying change in failures to appear (FTAs) or recidivism. Aurelie Ouss & Megan Stevenson, Evaluating the Impacts of Eliminating Prosecutorial Requests for Cash Bail (George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper No. LS 19-08, Feb. 17, 2019). Those skeptical of eliminating cash bail have argued that taking a monetary incentive out of the system would result in higher FTAs and increases in pretrial crime. Id. at 5. The new study undermines those assertions.
Do Expunctions Matter?
Intuitively, the answer seems obvious—a clean record should reduce reentry barriers for employment and other opportunities. Yet, data on the impact of expunctions is elusive because, by their nature, expunged records are unavailable to analyze. No longer. A recent study by J.J. Prescott and Sonja B. Starr, law professors and co-directors of the Empirical Legal Studies Center at the University of Michigan, presents the results of a statewide study pursuant to a data-sharing agreement with the State of Michigan.
United States Supreme Court Rejects Another Challenge to Another Method of Lethal Injection But Leaves the Door Open to Future Litigation
The Supreme Court decided Bucklew v. Precythe today, rejecting a death row inmate’s challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol. Challenges to lethal injection are now 0-for-3 in the Supreme Court, but the Court did not foreclose future litigation. To the contrary, it left the door open to further challenges, and so did nothing to break up the litigation logjam that has resulted in a de facto moratorium on executions in North Carolina.
News Roundup
Late last week Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Attorney General William Barr wrote a summary of the report to members of Congress on Sunday, saying that the report has two parts, one focusing on whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government and the other focusing on whether President Trump obstructed justice. Barr quotes the report as stating that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Barr’s summary says that the Special Counsel did not “make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” on the question of obstruction, and quotes the report as stating that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Barr said that he had concluded that the evidence in the report is “not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” Keep reading for more news.
A Case of Actual Absconding
A string of recent cases have shown what absconding isn’t. A case from the court of appeals this week gives us an example of what absconding is.
Appellate Bracketology
This March, you almost need a bracket to keep up with recent personnel changes in the state’s judicial branch. Not only were a handful of new appellate judges elected to office in 2018, but, just in the last month, the governor appointed a new chief justice and announced plans to appoint a sitting court of appeals judge to fill the associate justice seat she vacated. In the same time frame, the General Assembly passed legislation to prevent the departure of a sitting court of appeals judge from reducing the size of that court. Having trouble keeping up? This post will review recent events impacting the composition of the state’s appellate courts and judicial branch leadership and preview potential changes to come.
Juvenile Justice Changes in Federal Law
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (JJDPA) is the central federal law that establishes core requirements for state juvenile justice systems. 34 USC §111. In return for compliance with these core requirements, the statute authorizes federal funding for states to use in their juvenile justice systems. The JJDPA expired in 2007 and was recently reauthorized in the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018. Public Law No 115-385. The reauthorized statute made several significant amendments to the JJDPA. In this blog post I will discuss three of the highlights: a new focus on evidence-based and promising programs and practices, changes in the disproportionate minority contact core requirement, and new requirements regarding identification and treatment of mental health and substance use disorders.
Is a Single Drug Sale from a Residence Enough to Support a Conviction for Maintaining a Dwelling?
Last week, the court of appeals decided State v. Miller, a case in which the defendant was convicted of maintaining a dwelling based almost entirely on the fact that he conducted a drug sale there. Would the court of appeals find the evidence sufficient under State v. Rogers, __ N.C. __, 817 S.E.2d 150 (2018), which substantially expanded the scope of maintaining a dwelling and related offenses?
News Roundup
A stunning and tragic mass shooting in New Zealand late last week is one of the biggest international criminal law news stories in recent memory. Last Friday, an Australian man motivated by racism killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch. In a disturbing use of modern technology, the attack was streamed live to Facebook from a camera the gunman wore on a helmet. News reports say that the man was active on right-wing white nationalist internet forums, and that he posted a lengthy manifesto to one such forum just before the attack. In that document, he reportedly said that in addition to stoking racial discord, one of his goals was to further divide Americans on the controversial issue of gun laws. Keep reading for more news.
Overcriminalization & Ordinance Violations as Crimes
Think you can consult the North Carolina General Statutes to know everything that’s been made criminal in North Carolina? Think again. Under state law, counties, cities, towns, and metropolitan sewerage districts have authority to create crimes through local ordinances. G.S. 14-4(a) (providing that, as a general rule, violation of such an ordinance is a Class 3 misdemeanor). Apparently, some local governments don’t realize that when they write ordinance violations they are creating crimes. What makes me say this? A 2018 law (S.L. 2018-69) required cities and towns that have enacted an ordinance punishable pursuant to G.S. 14‑4(a) to “create a list of applicable ordinances with a description of the conduct subject to criminal punishment in each ordinance” and submit it to certain Committees of the General Assembly by December 2018. At least one town reported that its ordinances don’t create any crimes, but that statement is contradicted by the town’s own Code of Ordinances which creates a host of crimes including curfew violations. (Want to check? The submissions are here).