Two days ago, in a case that made headlines across America and around the world, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first degree murder, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and aggravated child abuse by a jury of five men and seven women. However, she was found guilty of four counts of providing false information to law enforcement officers, which are misdemeanors. On July 7, 2011, Anthony received a sentence to one year for each of her four counts of lying to investigators, with credit given for time served already in jail.  The judge said that because Anthony has served almost three years and because of good behavior she could go free in late July or early August.

After almost six weeks of testimony, the jury did not agree with the prosecution’s position that there was adequate evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Anthony murdered her child by dosing her with chloroform, suffocating her with duct tape, and dumping her body in a wooded area.  The jury did not ask to review any evidence and reached a decision in less than 11 hours.  The jurors had been sequestered for six weeks, and declined to talk with reporters and returned home to Pinellas County.

This court case was sensationalized by talk show hosts, such as Nancy Grace, on news networks for the duration of the trial.  Millions of Americans were enthralled with the coverage and were quick to jump to conclusions before the jury rendered their verdict.  It appears that a large percentage of the pundits and the public believed that Casey Anthony was guilty before the jury decided two days ago that she was not.  In our justice system, all of our citizens enjoy the fundamental right that they are presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury, and the jury’s verdict is what determines whether someone is guilty of a crime or not. The duty of a jury in our system is not to determine whether or not they think someone probably did something.  Instead, the solemn duty of a jury is to determine whether or not the government, with all of its vast resources, can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the presumption of innocence has been overcome by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The American jury system has its origins in medieval England.  Early English juries were seen as a protector of the accused against the very harsh criminal laws of the days.  Several cases in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries helped build the jury’s reputation as a protector of individual liberty.  One example was Bushell’s Case which established the right of English juries to deliver a verdict free from judicial coercion and must be independent (source.)  Here, the judge involved told the jury that they “shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept.”  When the jury acquitted the two men, the judge refused to accept the verdict, fined them and sent them back to deliberate further.  Edward Bushel, a member of the jury, refused to pay the fine, at which point the judge threatened him, saying, “you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco.  You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.”  A higher court ruled that a jury could not be punished because of the verdict it returned.

The right to a trial by jury in the United States has its roots from when the United States was still a British colony.  The British crown tried to deny American colonists their right to trial by jury with respect to the British Navigation Acts (source.)  These acts attempted to secure British control over trade with the American colonies by requiring that goods going to and from the colonies be carried on British ships.  Colonists viewed the Navigation Acts as harmful to their economy, and colonial juries would often refuse to convict individuals charged with violating these laws.  In response, the British set up special courts that did not use trial by jury. This became one of the major complaints of the colonists against the British as America moved toward revolution.

Trial by jury is a vital part of our democracy.  The U.S. Declaration of Independence accused George III of the United Kingdom of “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury,” (source) and Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that all trials shall be by jury (source.)  The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, “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,” and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a jury trial in civil cases.  Thomas Jefferson described trial by jury as “the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution” (source.)

Before people rush and blame the jury that they returned the wrong verdict, we must realize that they had a duty to look at all the evidence and make the best decision based on what they saw at the trial.  Second guessing the jury and calling for retribution makes a mockery of the American justice system and is not what this country is about.   People who are denigrating the jury’s decision are showing their lack of understanding and lack of appreciation of our American system of jurisprudence and criminal justice.  It is especially shocking to hear people who are actually lawyers, and former prosecutors such as Nancy Grace, criticizing the result of this important trial, which could have resulted in the government killing one of our citizens – via the death penalty.  By inflaming the public in the way she has and continues to do, Nancy Grace continues to breach the ethical duties she swore to uphold when she was sworn in as a lawyer, and as a prosecutor, as she was admonished on more than one occasion by more than one court of appeals for prosecutorial misconduct.  The Supreme Court of Georgia wrote about Nancy Grace that “the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable.”  (source.)  United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote about her conduct in a murder trial she prosecuted that Nancy Grace  “played fast and loose” with her ethical duties and failed to “fulfill her responsibilities” as a prosecutor  (source.)

Thank God that we have United States citizens who can serve as jurors and follow the law, and not give in to the mob mentality perpetuated by the likes of Nancy Grace.

We in no way mean to minimize the tragic loss of little Caylee, who was a precious little girl.  May her soul rest in peace!

The Fourth of July celebration is commonly associated with fireworks, parades, hot dogs, picnics, and other parties.  Also, it is a day where many Americans will be consuming alcohol.

As North Carolinians across the state flock to the Southeastern North Carolina coast to celebrate the 4^th of July Weekend, the state has begun “Booze It & Lose It: Operation Firecracker” to deter drunk drivers across the entire state and remove impaired drivers from the roads.  Operation Firecracker began Monday, June 27, and continues through Monday, July 4.

Operation Firecracker is conducted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and it coordinates the Highway Patrol, sheriff’s offices and police departments.  During this period there will be additional checkpoints and stepped up patrols that will be conducted across the state.

The Fourth of July holiday is considered one of the deadliest for highway travel.  In 2010, according to the North Carolina Department of Transportation, there were 205 alcohol-related automobile accidents during the Independence holiday, which resulted in six deaths.  Additionally, alcohol-related crashes also accounted for 105 injuries in the state during the same week last year.  During the 2010 “Booze It & Lose it: Operation Firecracker” campaign officers conducted more than 4,600 patrols and checkpoints, which resulted in more than 1,200 North Carolina motorists being charged with driving while impaired.

This means there will be an increased police presence at the beaches in Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties.  The beaches that will be affected will be Surf City, Topsail Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach, Holden Beach, Ocean Isle Beach, and Sunset Beach.

Collins Law Firm always urges people not to drive while impaired.  If you consume alcohol, we encourage you to have a designated driver or to take a taxi home.  However, if you are charged with a DWI/DUI, underage drinking, or any other crime in or around Wilmington, NC in New Hanover County, Brunswick County (Bolivia, NC), or Pender County (Burgaw, NC) and need a lawyer or attorney to represent you, call Collins Law Firm at: 910-793-9000 for a confidential consultation.

Last month on May 25, 2011, Judge John Joseph Carroll, III passed away shortly after learning he had pancreatic cancer at only 50 years of age. His death was unexpected to almost everyone, and he is dearly and sorely missed by those of us left behind.  Judge Carroll was extremely well respected and there was a huge turnout at the services to honor his life. He was a man who honored God, his family, and his country.  “He was happiest when he was serving others,” said the Rev. Jeff Nichols. “The attendance is a tribute to the respect this community had for this great man.” His beloved wife, Charlene, said:  “He was a great, great family man . . . . His hobby and his sport was just hanging out with the children.”

On June 6, 2011, Jenna F. Butler, President of the 5th Judicial District Bar sent out a Notice of Special Meeting to Select Nominees for District Court Vacancy to the members of the 5th Judicial District Bar which is comprised of New Hanover County (County Seat Wilmington NC) and Pender County (County Seat Burgaw NC). The Notice read: Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-142 and Article XI of the Bylaws of the Fifth Judicial District Bar, notice hereby is given that a SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT BAR will be held on WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. in Courtroom 403 of the New Hanover County Courthouse for the sole purpose of selecting nominees to submit to the Governor to fill the District Court Vacancy occasioned by the unfortunate loss of The Honorable John J. Carroll, III. The notice also contained the following note: We regret the expediency of this notice and meeting so soon after Judge Carroll’s passing. This was not our preferred timeframe and no disrespect is intended. By statute, our membership must submit its nominations within thirty (30) days of the date of the vacancy or the Governor may fill the vacancy without our input. Thank you for your understanding.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2011, lawyers and Judges from the 5th Judicial District Bar met Wednesday at the New Hanover Courthouse and voted for the top three candidates for the new district court judge, to be appointed by the Governor of North Carolina – Beverly Perdue. The Wilmington Star newspaper reported that from the list of candidates, the group of attorneys selected three.  The candidate with the most votes was attorney Robin Wicks Robinson who narrowly lost a judicial race in November 2010 and has twice previously been nominated for judicial vacancies.  The other two candidates selected were Nora Hargrove, an assistant public defender for the New Hanover County Public Defender’s Office, and Kent Harrell, a Burgaw attorney who’s practice includes family law, civil litigation and criminal defense.

Today’s news headlines are dominated by the weekend arrest of the head of the International Monetary  Fund – Dominique Strauss-Kahn.  He is accused of a violent sexual attack on a hotel maid at the luxury Sofitel hotel, near Times Square, and he is charged with a criminal sex act, attempted rape, and unlawful imprisonment.  This is an extremely high profile case because as a member of France’s Socialist party, Strauss-Kahn had been considered the strongest potential opponent to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in next year’s election.

Strauss-Kahn was examined by authorities over the weekend for physical evidence that could incriminate him, or which could be exculpatory, in the alleged sexual assault of a hotel maid.  His criminal defense lawyer, or at least one of his attorneys is William Taylor, who said that Strauss-Kahn voluntary submitted to the “forensic examination” requested by prosecutors.  Another criminal defense attorney, Benjamin Brafman, said that Strauss-Kahn “intends to vigorously defend these charges and he denies any wrongdoing.”  Strauss-Kahn was in custody over the weekend at a Harlem precinct where police say the maid identified him from a lineup.  He will have his arraignment in a Manhattan court this Monday, May 16, 2011.

The physical evidence will be very important in this high profile case.  Eye witness testimony has been one of the major sources of wrongful convictions historically.  There are laws in many states proscribing procedures by which eyewitness identification must follow to be admissible in court.  For example North Carolina has the Eyewitness Identification Reform Act codified at § 15A-284.52. This Act requires that:  Before a lineup, the eyewitness shall be instructed that:  “a. The perpetrator might or might not be presented in the lineup, b. The lineup administrator does not know the suspect’s identity, c. The eyewitness should not feel compelled to make an identification, d. It is as important to exclude innocent persons as it is to identify the perpetrator, and e. The investigation will continue whether or not an identification is made. The eyewitness shall acknowledge the receipt of the instructions in writing. If the eyewitness refuses to sign, the lineup administrator shall note the refusal of the eyewitness to sign the acknowledgement and shall also sign the acknowledgement. (4) In a photo lineup, the photograph of the suspect shall be contemporary and, to the extent practicable, shall resemble the suspect’s appearance at the time of the offense. (5) The lineup shall be composed so that the fillers generally resemble the eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator, while ensuring that the suspect does not unduly stand out from the fillers. In addition: a. All fillers selected shall resemble, as much as practicable, the eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator in significant features, including any unique or unusual features. b. At least five fillers shall be included in a photo lineup, in addition to the suspect. c. At least five fillers shall be included in a live lineup, in addition to the suspect. d. If the eyewitness has previously viewed a photo lineup or live lineup in connection with the identification of another person suspected of involvement in the offense, the fillers in the lineup in which the current suspect participates shall be different from the fillers used in any prior lineups. (6) If there are multiple eyewitnesses, the suspect shall be placed in a different position in the lineup or photo array for each eyewitness. (7) In a lineup, no writings or information concerning any previous arrest, indictment, or conviction of the suspect shall be visible or made known to the eyewitness. (8) In a live lineup, any identifying actions, such as speech, gestures, or other movements, shall be performed by all lineup participants. (9) In a live lineup, all lineup participants must be out of view of the eyewitness prior to the lineup. (10) Only one suspect shall be included in a lineup. (11) Nothing shall be said to the eyewitness regarding the suspect’s position in the lineup or regarding anything that might influence the eyewitness’s identification.”

The Strauss-Kahn case will be interesting to follow to see how the physical evidence supports, or contradicts, the eyewitness evidence.

Recently, the Winston-Salem Journal reported that greater than half of the defense lawyers on the court appointed lists in Forsyth County removed their names from the lists when they heard that the $75-per-hour fee may be reduced by $25 under the next state budget.  Danielle Carman, assistant director of the state Office of Indigent Defense Services, said that the move could result in defendants having less-experienced attorneys representing them and could lead to a backlog of criminal cases. She also said that the move would mean that there will be fewer attorneys on the court-appointed lists available to represent clients who can’t afford to hire their own attorneys.  Judges have authority to appoint lawyers who are not on the lists, and attorneys with little to no criminal defense experience may be assigned to represent defendants.  “If I were buying a house, I would want a real estate lawyer,” Carman said.  “If I were a criminal defendant, I would very much prefer a criminal attorney representing me.”
The Journal reported that David Botchin, a Winston-Salem criminal defense lawyer, organized a meeting of criminal defense attorneys.  Thirty-eight attorneys out of 68 on court-appointed lists removed their names from the lists, and more lawyers are planning to remove their names. He said attorneys in Durham, Catawba and Wayne counties are considering a similar move.
The vast majority of the criminal lawyers in Bladen County,  if not all, have removed their names from the court appointed lawyer list, Carman said.  About most of the criminal defense attorneys in Alamance County have removed their names from the lists, she said.
Carman said that if the Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) cuts the fees, it will mean that attorneys would receive $50 an hour for handling cases for indigent clients. She said that most lawyers spend about $58 an hour in overhead, including rent, computer access, office assistants and other expenses.
The Journal reported that David Freedman, a Winston-Salem criminal defense attorney, said that private criminal defense attorneys can charge from $200 to $400 an hour depending on their experience.
In Wilmington, NC, located in New Hanover County, we have a Public Defenders Office which handles the majority of the appointed counsel cases.  Private assigned counsel in New Hanover County handle overflow and conflict cases for the Public Defender’s Office.  Private assigned counsel in Pender County, in the court house in Burgaw, handle the bulk of criminal cases in that County.  In Brunswick County, at the courthouse located in Bolivia, NC, there is no public defenders office, and the vast majority of court appointed cases are handled by local private attorneys.
The times news reported that attorneys say they can’t pay assistants, receptionists, pay rent and run their offices on less than $75 an hour. IDS estimates that attorneys pocket less than $17 of the hourly rate. If trials last longer than a day or two, several attorneys said Friday that they operate at a loss.  Rep. Alice Bordsen, D-Alamance, who is on the judicial and appropriations committee says the cuts threaten to undermine the justice system.  She said that she is concerned that indigent defendants will not receive fair representation if experienced lawyers can’t afford to remain on the court appointed counsel lists.

A new North Carolina law, N.C.G.S. § 15A-266.3A entitled “The DNA Database Act of 2010” takes effect today, Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

The law permits law enforcement officers to take swabs to collect a person’s DNA when a defendant is arrested, and before they are convicted, for certain crimes, including both felonies and misdemeanors. Examples include such offenses as first degree murder, second degree murder, some sexual offenses, manslaughter, assaults, kidnapping, stalking, and burglaries. The law has provisions for removal of a defendant’s DNA from the database if the person is acquitted of the charges which qualify the defendant’s DNA from being taken under the new law. At least 20 other states have similar laws on the books, including Virginia.

While the new law will most certainly help solve crimes, and especially cold crimes because of the increased collection of DNA samples, some find the new law controversial because it allows for the collection of DNA before the defendants are convicted. The new laws allowing DNA collection without convictions implicate Fourth Amendment issues for the criminal justice system. Good discussions about these issues can be found in the UNC School of Government Blog on Criminal Law and in bulletins by the National Institute of Justice.

The holidays are upon us and most people are attending holiday parties and other holiday events.  Many of these events offer alcohol and law enforcement is aware of that fact.    Enforcement of traffic laws are often increased during holidays and this season is no exception.   Last week alone, for example, there were over 70 people charged with driving while impaired (DWI/DUI) in New Hanover County, NC.  Here is an article in the Wilmington Star News about the stepped up enforcement in New Hanover and Brunswick Counties.

It is not illegal in North Carolina to drive after drinking alcohol, however it is illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or
higher, or while appreciably impaired due to any impairing substance including alcohol.   Most people are not able to easily determine whether or not their blood alcohol level is above 0.08.

We encourage everyone to use a designated driver, and no one should drive drunk.  While we are certainly not advocates of drinking and driving, if you are charged with driving while impaired, Collins Law Firm can help.  We have been representing people charged with criminal and traffic charges for over a decade in Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties.

If you are charged with DWI and registered a 0.08 or higher, your NC driving privilege will be revoked for 30 days immediately pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 20-16.5.  However, the statute provides the right for a hearing to contest the revocation if the proper request is filed within ten (10) days from the date of offense.   Defendants charged with DWI/DUI are notified of this right by the Magistrate in writing in the revocation order.   Collins Law Firm is often able to successfully challenge these revocations, and in those cases we are able to have our client’s driving privileges restored immediately without additional costs.   If not successful in the civil revocation hearing, or if the ten days has elapsed, we can usually obtain a pretrial limited driving privilege for the last 20 days of the initial 30 day revocation.  However, obtaining this privilege does require additional costs, and the driving privileges are limited.

Although most people charged with DWI are convicted, in many cases we have been able to avoid convictions altogether for our clients.   When we are not able to avoid a conviction, we can certainly help people understand the consequences of being charged and convicted with DWI/DUI, help our clients receive the minimum punishment upon conviction, and reduce the inconvenience and uncertainties involved with being charged.

If you or someone you know has been charged with impaired driving, or with any criminal or traffic violation, call us for a consultation at 910-793-9000.

A newly elected District Attorney will soon be sworn in the 13th prosecutorial district of NC.

The 13th prosecutorial district of North Carolina is comprised of Brunswick County, Columbus County, and Bladen County located in Southeastern NC. The district attorney’s office in Brunswick County is located in Bolivia, NC and is the largest office of the three counties.

The district attorney’s office prosecutes crimes committed within their district including felonies and misdemeanors. Most of the prosecutions in the courtroom are conducted by assistant district attorneys – all of which are lawyers licensed in the State of NC.

Rex Gore, who is the current elected district attorney, was defeated in the democratic primary by Butch Pope out of Whiteville, NC. He is challenged by Jon David, who is currently an assistant district attorney in New Hanover County and has his office located in Wilmington, NC. The result of the upcoming election will decide who will be the new District Attorney, and what, if any, changes will be made with the district attorney’s office in the 13th district.