Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

‘Moorish Nation’ Defense Clogging Up Mecklenburg County Courts

Published on: July 26, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Meck County Courthouse.bmp Mecklenburg County defendants’ use of the “Moorish Nation” defense is interfering with District Attorney Andrew Murray’s new policy of taking more cases to trial. By invoking this “defense,” defendants force assistant district attorneys to deal with frivolous motions that delay the case. However, the real losers with this defense are those who try to use it, who, according to Charlotte criminal defense attorney Brad Smith, is one in which people are duped into believing it will work. Even the Moorish Nation’s national chapter has denounced the defense stating that their organization “is for peace and not destruction” and its members are “part and parcel of this government.”

The details of this strategy vary throughout the nation, but the underlying theory is that a defendant is of Moorish decent, and is not subject to the laws of the United States. According to the Mecklenburg County version, the defendant takes on a new name, and declares that he cannot be prosecuted for any crimes which occurred under his prior name. Another version which defendant Frederick R. James attempted in federal court submitted a “security agreement” for the use of his name which declared that anyone who used his name would have to pay him the sum of $500,000. He refused to submit to the Court’s authority without the judge, the prosecutor, and all court personnel submitting to this agreement. And at the end of trial, he submitted a bill to the judge for $151 million for the use of his name throughout the court proceedings.
While the fact that these defendants are attempting to circumvent the justice system by invoking a centuries old treaty may seem laughable, there are serious consequences to this theory. People have paid good money for this so called “advice” and have subsequently refused representation and proceeded on their own behalf believing that this defense will save them. Unfortunately, as many defendants have found out after-the-fact, this defense is nothing more than a scam and there are no reported cases of this theory succeeding at any level of the justice system.

Man Decides to Represent Himself on Murder Charges

Published on: July 19, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In May, Robert Allan Lehmann was charged with murdering his ex-wife Emily Ford and her father, Russell Ford, after Lehmann lost a custody battle earlier that day. Orange County, CA Prosecutors allege Lehmann sent his current wife and his daughter out for ice cream and waited for Emily and her father to come to take custody of their 7-year old daughter. Prosecutors claim once Emily and her father arrived, Lehmann opened the door and then opened fire on Emily and her father as they tried to run away. Prosecutors further allege that after Emily and her father fell, Lehmann reloaded and then executed them both by shooting each in the back of the head.

On July 8, Lehmann told the Orange County Superior Court’s permission that he was refusing counsel, and therefore he will proceed in his defense representing himself.

According to the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that every criminal defendant charged with a felony has the right to the assistance of counsel. This ruling was later expanded to guarantee the right to counsel at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated.

Just as now a person has the right to counsel, a person likewise has the right to proceed pro se, or without the assistance of counsel, as Mr. Lehmann has chosen to do. However, as the old proverb says, “A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.” If you or someone you know has been accused of a crime, assert your constitutional right for an attorney.

Charlotte Accused Rapist is back on the Street – Not a Magistrate Mistake?

Published on: June 8, 2011 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

In May 2011, Martin Diamond, 23, was released on a promise to appear in court for rape and kidnapping charges against his estranged girlfriend. The bond was originally set as a secured bond of $105,500, but was soon changed to an unsecured bond which meant Diamond could sign himself out of jail.

A “secured bond” means that the suspect has to provide some security such as a personal property which equates to the bond amount. The suspect could also hire a bail bondsman who would charge a percentage of that bond amount to the suspect and provide an insurance in order to allow the suspect to be realeased. On the other hand, an “unsecured bond” means that a suspect does not have to provide any financial or real property collateral.

Magistrate Sylvia Cherry was overseeing this process. As a result of this incident, the Magistrate overseeing the bond for Diamond was placed on suspension to allow for further investigation into this and related incidents. Judge Lisa Bell manages the Mecklenburg county magistrates and released a statement defending Cherry’s actions.

According to an article featured on the WSOC TV Channel 9 website, “Bell said a number of factors could have played a role in Cherry’s decision, including the fact that Diamond had no prior arrests or convictions, did not appear to be a flight risk, had a confirmed residence and was a student.” On the other hand, CMPD issued a statement calling the bond a “mistake”, according to local news affiliate WCNC Newschannel 36.

Understandably, the victim’s mother is outraged with this decision and is concerned that authorities will have a difficult time finding Diamond when he court date comes up.
The actions of the magistrate can often have significant impact a case regardless of the facts surrounding the matter. There are a number of motions that are filed which relate to magistrate misconduct and can have a bearing on the judge’s decisions in cases. This is yet another example of how critical the magistrate role is in the court system and it should not be taken lightly.