BLOG
There are two different kinds of contempt that judicial officials may impose: civil and criminal. Civil contempt is imposed when a person has not complied with a court order and […]
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on March 19, 2025. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
As one of his first acts as in office, President Trump issued sweeping pardons and commutations for the people convicted of crimes stemming from their involvement in the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. Most of the defendants received full and unconditional pardons, while fourteen people convicted of seditious conspiracy received commutations of their sentences, according to this report by the AP. The President has also directed the U.S. Attorney General to dismiss the remaining pending prosecutions of January 6th defendants (around 450 cases). This sweeping grant of relief serves as a rejection by the executive branch of the outcomes of what was “the largest investigation in Justice Department history,” according to the story. Supporters of the move praised the President’s actions as undoing what they consider politically motivated prosecutions, while detractors have categorized the relief as a blow to the justice system, pointing to the hundreds of defendants duly convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers and other serious crimes. At least one defendant convicted of a misdemeanor relating to January 6th is attempting to refuse her pardon, although the legal support for such a move is unclear, according to this story. Additionally, President Trump issued a full pardon to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, an online marketplace for drugs and other contraband. Ulbricht was convicted of various drug, conspiracy, and computer offenses in 2015 and was sentenced to life without parole. Read on for more criminal law news.
I am pleased to announce that the updated chapters in the Criminal Series of the Clerks’ Manual are now available.
I recently taught a session at the magistrates’ conference about arrestable conditions of pretrial release. The session sparked a lot of discussion about the law surrounding pretrial conditions for in-custody defendants. It is well understood that when a defendant violates pretrial release conditions after being released from custody, the law allows several mechanisms for enforcement, including revocation of pretrial release, arrest of the defendant, and the setting of new, potentially stricter conditions of pretrial release. What’s less clear is (1) whether or not conditions of release are enforceable if a defendant has not yet been released, and (2) if they are, what tools judicial officials have for enforcement. This post addresses these questions.
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 3, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
Session Law 2024-17 enacts changes to the law regarding the scope of original juvenile jurisdiction beginning with offenses committed on or after December 1, 2024. Law changes regarding the existing process to transfer a case from juvenile to superior court will also take effect at that time. Read on for a description of the changes.
Session Law 2023-114 includes many provisions that change the law governing delinquency cases. This is the first in a three-part series of blogs detailing those changes. It covers the changes to the laws that govern transfer of cases to superior court for trial as an adult and the mandate to assess mental health needs before disposition through the comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) and care review processes. All of the S.L. 2023-114 changes described in this blog will apply to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023.
Last month, my colleague Jeanette Pitts blogged about the new Pretrial Integrity Act enacted under S.L. 2023-75 (H 813). Since the bill was passed, I have gotten a few questions about potential issues that might arise once it goes into effect on October 1. This post addresses some of those concerns.
As a general rule, most defendants are entitled to have conditions of pretrial release set without unnecessary delay, and this typically happens at the initial appearance before a magistrate. G.S. 15A-511; -534. There is a carve out for capital defendants—only a judge can set conditions in a capital case and conditions are in the judge’s discretion. G.S. 15A-533(c). The statute contains other exceptions to the general rule, such as the 48-hour hold rule for domestic violence cases, providing that only a judge can set conditions within the first 48 hours of arrest. G.S. 15A-534.1(a). North Carolina’s new Pretrial Integrity Act, effective October 1, 2023, and applying to offenses committed on or after that date, creates significant additional exceptions to the general rule.