Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

DNA found on cigarette butt clears men who served 30 years for rape, murder

Published on: September 2, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I talk to the police?”

Two men imprisoned over 30 years for the 1983 rape and murder of an eleven-year-old girl will be freed today after a Robeson County Superior Court judge overturned their convictions.

Robeson County Prosecutor Johnson Britt told Judge Douglas Sasser that new DNA tests of a cigarette butt found near the victim’s body negated the evidence presented at the men’s trials. Even if the men were granted new trials, Britt said, “The state does not have a case to prosecute.” Britt was not involved in the men’s earlier criminal trials.

After hearing from Britt and other witnesses, Sasser ordered the men to be released.

The men—Henry McCollum and Leon Brown—were just 19 and 15, respectively, at the time of the murder. They alleged that they were coerced into confessing to the crime under pressure from law-enforcement officials. McCollum told the Raleigh News & Observer that he had never been under so much pressure, “with a person hollering at me and threatening me.” He said he made up a story about how he and three other youths attacked and killed the girl so that investigators would let him go home.

Ohio incident shows “Pants on the Ground” still making waves after all these years

Published on: August 28, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I talk to the police?”

If you missed the “Pants on the Ground” craze that swept the nation in 2010 courtesy of Atlanta native General Larry Platt’s American Idol audition, then you missed a certified true slice of Americana.

The precise origins of the insuppressible phenomenon known as the sagging-pants look are unknown, however most sources allege that the look originated in the American prison system. Prisoners are not allowed to wear belts, since they can be used as weapons or as means to suicide. So “ill-fitting generic pants, too large to stay up on their own,” ride low on prisoner’s hips. Hip-hop artists glommed on to the look in an effort to show their street credibility, and voila! A fashion craze was born.

Not everyone was amused. The City of Ocala, Florida, was not the first to attempt a ban on sagging pants. Last month, its city council passed an ordinance making it a criminal offense for someone to wear his or her pants two inches or more “below the natural waistline,” whatever that is. Waistline violators are subject to a $500 fine and 60 days in jail.

After the ordinance came under fire by the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and others, Ocala Mayor Kent Guinn asked council members to reconsider the ordinance. One option now before the council would be to make a sagging-pants violation a $125-fine-with-no-jail-time civil infraction instead of a criminal offense; the second option would be to repeal the ordinance altogether.

Citizens need to become educated about the right to trial by jury before November election

Published on: August 26, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?”

It is no exaggeration to posit that millions of men and women have fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. At the very bedrock of our Constitutional system is the right of criminal defendants to trial by a jury of one’s peers.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” It is the job of judges and courts to determine what laws mean—including the text of the Constitution.

In general, the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right has been interpreted to apply in both civil and criminal cases in which a defendant is threatened with an active prison sentence. Traditionally, felonies were defined as the more serious criminal offenses for which punishment often meant an active prison sentence, so defendants charged with felonies were generally entitled to trials by jury. Defendants charged with misdemeanors who did not face a potential prison sentence did not enjoy the right to trial by jury. Their cases were heard by a judge. Those cases are called “bench trials.”

With the advent and expansion of modern criminal codes, states have blurred the lines between crimes that may result in an active prison sentence. Many states—North Carolina among them—have different classes of felonies and misdemeanors, and some of the more serious misdemeanor offenses may subject a criminal defendant to an active prison sentence. That means nowadays some misdemeanor criminal defendants enjoy the right to trial by jury.

Following the rules the best course when visiting the courthouse

Published on: August 21, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “If I have an outstanding warrant, what should I do?”

Many defendants in criminal cases may find coming to the county courthouse for mandatory court appearances to be an unpleasant experience in the company of unpleasant people. Criminal defense attorneys visit courthouses every day, so we are very much in tune with the procedures—and personalities—of courthouses and courthouse staff.

Although, technically speaking, we are “officers of the court,” we are subject to many of the same processes to which the general public and criminal defendants are subject. In theory and sometimes in practice, attorneys have the credentials to bypass security checks at the entrances to courthouses, but many times it is easier and more expeditious to just go through security than to try to explain to an officer why one should not have to take one’s belt and shoes off and pass through a metal detector.

Attorneys who do not appear in court very often or who are handling a case in a county for a first time may be asked by deputies stationed in courtrooms to produce identification. All of this is done to protect courtroom staff—judges, prosecutors and clerks—as well as jurors, defendants and the public.

While spending time in the company of dozens of armed guardians may not meet the definition of “pleasant,” an incident in a Charlotte courtroom on Tuesday underscores why officers are understandably wary of nearly every face they see entering a courthouse and courtroom.

CMPD police body cameras may mean Ferguson never comes to Charlotte

Published on: August 19, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Do I need to hire an attorney if I have been falsely accused?”

The shooting death of teen Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer—and the subsequent protesting, rioting and looting—has many Charlotteans asking “Could that happen here?”

NAACP Charlotte President Kojo Nantambu said during a Thursday press conference that Charlotte, like Ferguson, is a hotbed of racial hostility. “NAACP” stands for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. “Police are supposed to be protecting us,” Nantambu said, “but they are killing us instead.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. echoed Nantambu’s sentiments in a USA Today editorial, writing that anywhere Americans look, “There’s a Ferguson near you.”

Like the Brown case, the killing in Charlotte last year of 24-year-old Jonathan Ferrell made headlines around the world. Ferrell was shot to death by CMPD Officer Randall Kerrick after a car crash. Both Brown and Ferrell were unarmed at the time of their shooting deaths. In the Ferrell case—unlike in the Brown case—Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police quickly named Kerrick as the officer who fired the shots that killed Ferrell. After an investigation, Kerrick was charged with voluntary manslaughter.

DOJ wants Alamance County Sheriff to respect the Constitutional rights of Latino drivers

Published on: August 14, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I talk to the police?”

Driving-while-Latino makes you ten times more likely to be pulled over in Alamance County for committing a traffic infraction. That is according to a 2012 statistical study commissioned by the United States Department of Justice. Sheriff Terry Johnson told officers manning vehicle checkpoints to “go out there and get me some of those taco eaters,” according to a civil rights lawsuit brought against Johnson in 2012. A trial in that case began on Tuesday in United States Federal Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

In its lawsuit, the United States asked the court to order Johnson and sheriff’s deputies to stop discriminating against Latinos and to adopt systems and policies that eliminate discrimination. Johnson denied the allegations in his answer to the lawsuit and moved for dismissal.

In order to prove its case, the United States must show that law-enforcement officers engaged in “a pattern or practice” of activities that denied Latinos in Alamance County their Constitutional rights. One of the most difficult elements of proving such a claim is demonstrating that the accused had “discriminatory intent.”

The United States has used Johnson’s past statements, emails sent to and from the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office, and statistics on law-enforcement activities in an effort to show Johnson’s alleged bias. Johnson has responded that statements of opinion or political belief have been misconstrued by the government as evidencing bias on the part of law-enforcement officers against Latinos. Regarding law-enforcement efforts, Johnson alleged in his trial brief that, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, ninety-percent of drug traffickers in Alamance County are Mexican, while one-hundred percent of drug and money couriers are Mexican.

North Carolina legislature moves to regulate drones

Published on: August 12, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?”

The law is catching up with drones. If you plan to operate a drone in the state of North Carolina, you need to know about some new laws the North Carolina General Assembly passed this summer. The provisions regarding drones were included in “The Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2014,” also known as Senate Bill 744.

Most of the new laws regarding drones go into effect on October 1 of this year. The laws add to North Carolina’s criminal code to establish, in effect, a class of “drone crimes.” Drones are called “unmanned aircraft” in the law, and are defined as “aircraft operated without the possibility of human intervention from within or on the aircraft.” The act excludes model aircraft from the act.

It will become illegal on October 1 to use drones to conduct surveillance of a person, an occupied dwelling or private real property without consent. Private real property means land that is owned by private individuals or companies. “Occupied dwelling” refers to any houses or buildings that have people in them. The act prohibits photographing people using a drone without their consent if the purpose for taking the photograph is to publish it or publically disseminate it.

Law enforcement officers may use drones in ways the act prohibits. The act carves out exceptions for officers who are using drones to counter a “high risk of terrorist attack.” Officers can also conduct drone surveillance of areas within their plain view from places they have a legal right to be. They can use drones in connection with serving a search warrants. They can use drones when they have “reasonable suspicion of specified imminent circumstances,” and they can use them to photograph gatherings to which the general public is invited.

Wiener’s ban on nudity drives opponent to nude show on opposite coast

Published on: August 7, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?”

Scott Wiener wants public nudity banned in San Francisco.

Mr. Wiener’s opponent in a race for a spot on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is George Davis. Mr. Davis believes that nudity is free speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Yesterday he went to Times Square and stripped naked, then gave interviews in the nude while “onlookers gawked, laughed and took photos” and one man “loudly read Bible passages.”

Times Square is in Manhattan, a borough of New York City, which is 2,908 miles away from San Francisco. Mr. Davis could just as easily have come to Charlotte to strip, but if he had, he would have been arrested and he probably would not have garnered as much publicity.

Stripping naked in North Carolina would have subjected Mr. Davis to criminal penalties under state law. It is a misdemeanor for anyone to willfully expose his or her “private parts” in a public place “and in the presence of any other person or persons.” It is a felony if the exposure is made to arouse or gratify sexual desire.

State law does not define what “private parts” are, but North Carolina courts have provided an answer. In 1995, Mark Edward Fly pulled his shorts down to his ankles and bent over, exposing the “crack of his buttocks” and his “fanny” to Barbara Glover on the landing outside her condominium. He was convicted of indecent exposure, but the state Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, ruling that “private parts” means “genital organs.” Genital organs, the court observed, are those organs related to “biological reproduction.”

Mecklenburg County tries to use law banning “smoking” to ban more than smoking

Published on: August 5, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Should I talk to the police?”

Smoking outside is not far enough to health officials in Mecklenburg County. They want smokers to quit their habit altogether on any government-owned grounds. They also want to ban chewing tobacco and electronic cigarettes because, they say, they want to send a message to kids that smoking is not cool.

The legislature held public hearings five years ago as it debated a smoking ban in bars and restaurants in the state. The Tar Heel State, through its North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, considers smoking a health hazard. It also reports that secondhand smoke increases nonsmokers’ risks of developing lung cancer and heart disease, and can cause asthma in children or trigger asthma or heart attacks.

The Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law became effective on January 2, 2010. It requires enclosed areas of nearly all restaurants and bars in the state to be smoke free. Smoking is also banned in enclosed areas of hotels, motels and inns if food and drinks are served. Like many laws, The Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law does more than its title portends. It gives local governments the authority to place greater restrictions or prohibitions on smoking than are found in state law.

Local governments can restrict or prohibit smoking in “unenclosed areas owned, leased, or occupied by the local government,” in any passenger-carrying vehicles used by government, and in enclosed areas used by the public. Aside from a few narrow exceptions, the only places local governments cannot restrict or prohibit smoking are in people’s private cars and homes.

The effects The Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law are being felt, according to Cynthia Hallett, the Executive Director of Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. She said visits to North Carolina emergency rooms for heart attacks have dropped 21-percent since the law took effect. Thousands of people have avoided heart attacks because of the law, she said.

Charlotte’s Growing Heroin Problem

Published on: July 29, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Charlotte has a major heroin problem. The city is ranked fifth in the country when it comes to the sale and distribution of black tar heroin, much of which occurs in Charlotte’s more affluent communities. This problem has been described as Charlotte’s “invisible drug epidemic” and there are some disconcerting numbers to prove it.

In 2013, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department – South Division, released reports showing that in 2013 south Charlotte heroin related overdoses and arrests increased by over 30 percent. What is also alarming is the average age of heroin users is decreasing as well. In a survey of heroin users, 33.3 percent first used heroin when they were 16-18 years old. Of those users surveyed, 53.2 percent said they could usually obtain heroin within 30 minutes. This easy accessibility can be attributed to the largely untouched market in the south charlotte area, which has generally had low gang activity making it a target for drug dealers to expand their market and find new customers.

Heroin is an opiate that shares properties with commonly abused prescription painkillers such as OxyContin and Vicodin. These painkillers are being abused more and more over the last decade, causing addictions that required constant use just to feel “normal”. As more state governments began regulating these drugs the illegal market’s supply dwindled causing a substantial increase in prices. As prices rose, those abusing these painkillers have begun to turn to heroin as a much cheaper alternative at around nine dollars per bag versus 60-100 dollars per pill. It has also become a common practice for heroin dealers to offer deals for buying in bulk.

The sale of heroin in Charlotte has become increasingly easy. Phone numbers float around where a user can call and make an order, the dispatcher instructs the customer where to go (usually a safe place like a mall parking lot or a public park) and a runner meets the customer with the heroin; the exchange can take place without ever leaving the car.