Recent blog posts

Suppose you are a prosecutor and you want to subpoena a witness from another state to testify at an upcoming trial. How might you go about doing that? What forms do you use? Do you need some sort of certificate from a judge? Is the witness entitled to compensation? If so, how much? Can you pay in advance?

If you are getting ready for trial, all of these questions might occur to you, and you might wish there was a one-stop shop for an answer, given all the other items on your trial prep list. Guess what? There is!  It’s a new application called NC Prosecutors’ Resource Online (NC PRO) and you can find it here.  Just type “out of state witness” into the search box, and click on the entry titled “Securing Attendance of Witnesses.”  There you will find the answers to every question posed above and links to the relevant forms.

Is a suspect’s race relevant when determining whether the suspect’s consent to search is voluntary? In a recent case, the court of appeals stated that it may be.

The disappearance and suspected murder of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi captured international headlines this week with news reports suggesting that Khashoggi was the victim of a state-sponsored hit that reads like something from a spy novel. Khashoggi is a prominent journalist who was living in the United States after fleeing Saudi Arabia late last year. He disappeared upon entering a Saudi consulate in Turkey earlier this month to obtain marriage documents, and it is widely suspected that he was murdered and dismembered there by highly trained Saudi security operatives and a forensic specialist. Saudi officials have denied any involvement in Khashoggi’s disappearance. Keep reading for more news.

It was an epic throw down between two powerhouse teams on Monday in the heart of London. I don’t mean basketball. I certainly don’t mean football. I mean the moot court competition between UNC’s School of Law students and Middle Temple’s barristers-in-training (see earlier post this fall about Middle Temple). No winner was declared, to the disappointment of my students who were rooting on their fellow Tar Heels. But, the teams racked up the legal and educational points.

Last year was a difficult one for North Carolina’s prison system. One correctional officer was killed by an inmate at Bertie Correctional Institution. Four staff members were killed during an attempted escape at Pasquotank. Today’s post summarizes some of the statutory and regulatory changes made in response to those incidents.

Back in February, I blogged about State v. Bridges, ___ N.C. App. ___, 810 S.E.2d 365 (Feb. 6, 2018), and drug identification. In short, Bridges held that the defendant’s out-of-court admission to an officer that a substance was “meth” was sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proving the identity of the substance, at least where the defendant failed to object to the testimony. This decision arguably signified an expansion of the Nabors exception to the Ward rule that a chemical analysis is generally required to establish drug identity (subject to other exceptions covered in the post). For a more thorough review of the topic, see that previous post. The Court of Appeals recently decided another drug ID case, State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 2, 2018), adding a new wrinkle to the rules.

It is settled law that the police may rummage through a person’s trash once it is put out to the curb for collection. “Trash pulls” are a routine part of drug investigations, where sufficient evidence of drug activity found in the garbage may support a search warrant for the associated residence. But how much evidence is enough? For example, if a person’s garbage contains the remains of a single marijuana cigarette, does that provide probable cause to believe that further evidence of drug activity will be present inside the house?

In the culmination of a nomination process that divided the nation, Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice on Saturday night. As USA Today reports, the final Senate vote was 50-48, with Joe Manchin the lone Democrat voting in favor of Kavanaugh’s appointment and Lisa Murkowski the lone Republican voting against. Kavanaugh was sworn in shortly after the vote by Chief Justice John Roberts and retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in a private ceremony. Kavanaugh once served as a law clerk for Justice Kennedy, as did Justice Neil Gorsuch. In another overlap, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each attended high school at Georgetown Preparatory School.

For U.S. readers, the title of this post may not seem quite right. You’ve heard of stops, based on either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and frisks for weapons following a stop. You know about racial disparities in criminal justice data. But, what’s stop and account? Stop and search? And, how do they differ from stops and frisks? As I’m in London for the fall, the answer is pretty obvious that these terms refer to police authority in the UK. What may be less obvious is how this authority resembles the stopping powers of law enforcement officers in the US.

Like most of the rest of the country, I followed the recent confirmation hearings for Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh with great interest.

As the readers of this blog already know, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. Much of her testimony recounted her recollection of that event, but some of her testimony was of a different nature. In addition to telling the Committee what she recalled, Dr. Ford also described the biological and chemical processes of memory itself, such as the way that neurotransmitters encode memories into the hippocampus.

In other words, Dr. Ford testified in dual roles: she was both a fact witness and a de facto expert witness.

Most of us will never participate in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but a similar type of dual testimony can arise in criminal trials in state court, and it raises some interesting issues.