A UNC School of Government Blog
In Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), the Supreme Court held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane.” In other words, a defendant who was sane at the time of the crime, and competent at the time of his trial, but … Read more
Editor’s note: Jessie has prepared a series of posts about the law of relevancy. They’ll run as an intermittent series over the next several weeks. In this and upcoming posts, I will explore several relevancy issues that arise with some frequency. Perhaps the most litigated relevancy issue in North Carolina criminal cases is the admissibility … Read more
Last month the court of appeals decided State v. Mauer, an animal cruelty case. The defendant, Barbara Mauer, was charged with misdemeanor cruelty to animals after Cumberland County animal control officers found at least 15 to 20 cats living in deplorable conditions in her house. The floor of the house was covered with cat urine … Read more
Among the most frequently asked motor vehicle law questions is whether a person convicted of impaired driving for an offense that occurred when the person was less than 21 years old is eligible for a limited driving privilege. The answer is no. The reason? No statute confers authority for the granting of a limited driving … Read more
A number of interesting news stories have appeared over the past week or so: 1. In the aftermath of the Greg Taylor case, the News and Observer reports that the SBI “will examine thousands of old cases analyzed in its forensic lab two decades ago to look for crucial evidence that may have been withheld … Read more
Who has the final say about whether to strike a prospective juror – the defendant or his lawyer? That’s the question addressed by the court of appeals today in State v. Freeman. The defendant in Freeman was charged with murder. During jury selection, the defendant and his attorney disagreed about whether to use a peremptory … Read more
Defendants sometimes argue, usually in sexual assault cases, that the complaining witness should not be called a “victim” during court proceedings. The basis of the argument is that using that term assumes the very fact to be proved, namely, the the defendant committed a crime against the complainant. Several courts around the country have accepted … Read more
It was a busy week at the U.S. Supreme Court. Among other things, the Justices issued the two Miranda opinions Jeff wrote about yesterday and heard oral argument in two cases considering whether federal sex offender laws violate the Ex Post Facto Clause (Carr v. United States and United States v. Marcus). A summary disposition … Read more
The United States Supreme Court has decided two Miranda cases in the past two days. The prosecution won both cases. Tuesday, the Court decided Florida v. Powell. In Powell, the defendant was arrested, apparently for robbery. Before questioning him, the police told him, inter alia, that “[y]ou have the right to talk to a lawyer … Read more
When a person over 16, using a computer or other electronic device, and with the “intent to commit an unlawful sex act, entices, advises, coerces, orders, or commands” a person under 16 and at least five years younger than the first person to meet for the purpose of committing an unlawful sex act, the first … Read more