BLOG
The School of Government has just launched a redesigned website. It’s better looking, plays well with mobile devices, and is driven more by searches than by click-through navigation. I’m sure it has plenty of kinks that we will need to work out but it is a major effort to revamp the website in accordance with current best practices and usage patterns.
I’ve just finished Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Justice by Drexel University law professor Adam Benafordo. The reviews I’ve seen online have been positive. For example, the Boston Globe opines that the book “succinctly and persuasively recounts cutting-edge research testifying to the faulty and inaccurate procedures that underpin virtually all aspects of our criminal justice system.” And the book has attracted enough attention for Professor Benafordo to be interviewed on NPR’s hit show Fresh Air. This post briefly summarizes the book and then offers a few thoughts about it.
It’s a bird, it’s a plane . . . no, it’s a drone over the skies of North Carolina. And soon it may be operated by law enforcement. The News and Observer reports that the General Assembly is poised to enact S 446, which flew through the House yesterday and has been returned to the Senate for concurrence with relatively minor amendments. The bill repeals the prohibition on governmental use of unmanned aircraft enacted in 2013 and authorizes the State’s Chief Information Officer to approve the procurement and operation of unmanned aircraft systems by State agencies and local governments.
Come December 1, dips will be the new dunks for Structured Sentencing misdemeanants.
Once a plea is entered pursuant to a plea agreement, the parties are bound by the agreement and failure to comply with it constitutes a breach. Occasionally questions arise about whether a breach has occurred and if so, what remedy should apply.
[Editor’s note: This post was originally published on the SOG’s civil law blog, On the Civil Side. Given its coverage of criminal law, we thought that it would be of interest to many of our readers.]
You are appointed to represent a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding. The petition alleges the juvenile assaulted his stepfather. When you meet with your client, he discloses that his stepfather has been beating him for years. This time, his stepfather went after his younger sister, and your client tried to protect her. In another case, you are hired to represent a father in a child custody action. Your client tells you that he just moved out of the home, where his baby and the baby’s mother live. He discloses that the mother has a drinking problem and frequently attacks him physically when she is intoxicated, sometimes while she is holding the baby. He also tells you that he has come home from work to find the baby is in dirty diapers and crying in the crib while the mother is passed out on the couch.
In both these scenarios, you have cause to suspect a child is being abused or neglected. Are you required to report to the county department of social services or keep your client’s communication confidential? What are the possible repercussions of your decision?
The Fourth Circuit just decided United States v. Graham, an important case about law enforcement access to cell site location information (CSLI). This post summarizes the case, explains its importance for North Carolina proceedings, and puts it in context in the broader debate about this type of information.
The trial of the week this week is in Charlotte, where former CMPD officer Randall Kerrick is charged with voluntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of former college football player Jonathan Ferrell. The case has attracted some national attention, as evidenced by the CNN coverage here, perhaps in part because Kerrick is white and Ferrell was black. The parties disagree about the extent of the danger posed by Ferrell when he ran towards, and made contact with, Kerrick.
Do DWI sentences really get cut in half? Can DWI inmates be paroled? What happens when the minimum and maximum sentence for a DWI are the same? These questions and more are answered in today’s video post.
Here’s a fact pattern that comes up from time to time: Dan walks into a store, takes some merchandise, and leaves without paying for it. Eric, a store employee, sees Dan stealing the merchandise. He follows Dan into the parking lot and confronts him. A scuffle ensues. What’s the proper charge?