On October 1st, 2011 more than 2,500 protesters marched across the Brooklyn Bridge.  Of those 2,500 protesters from the Occupy Wall Street (now sometimes called OWS) demonstration, more than seven hundred protesters were arrested by the police while trying to cross the Brooklyn Bridge.  Police defend their actions of arresting the protesters by saying the marchers’ actions led to the intervention.   Only those who were walking in the road portion of the bridge were arrested while those who used the Brooklyn Bridge walkway were not arrested.  The protesters who were walking in the street portion of the bridge were arrested due to the laws that were enacted to ensure reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protests to prevent any unsafe conditions for the public.  By choosing to march in the street, demonstrators were creating a public safety hazard while also impeding the flow of traffic across the bridge.

The New York Police Department had warned protesters in the days preceding October 1st arrests.   The police department had issues several warnings to the protesters that walking in the roadway instead of on the pedestrian walkway, would lead to arrests of those who did not abide by the law.  Many of those who were arrested have since been released with a summons.

In the weeks since it began, the OWS protests have become violent.  Over a dozen New York Police Department officers have been injured in protest related incidents including five officers who were sent to a hospital for injuries including hand and ankle injuries, and at least one head trauma injury.   Injuries were sustained at events including marches in Times Square on Oct. 15, and on Oct. 14 when OWS protesters marched down Broadway from Zuccotti Park toward the New York Stock Exchange in a celebration of the postponing of the cleaning of the park by the owners – Brookfield Properties.  First Precinct Commander Edward Winski suffered an elbow injury after a protester fought with a deputy inspector while being arrested because they refused to move from the street to the sidewalk.  The protester was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing government administration, and criminal mischief.

Written by Samantha Barringer – Intern with Collins Law Firm

Amanda Knox will be at home in Seattle this week for the first time in over four years.  The Italian appeals court overturned her murder conviction.  After arriving back in the United States, she said: “What’s important for me to say is just thank you, to everyone who has believed in me, who has defended me, who has supported my family,” she said. “Thank you for being there for me.”
Knox became fluent in Italian since being jailed in Italy for so long.  Before beginning her remarks, Knox smiled and said, “They’re reminding me to speak in English.”

Knox was convicted of murder in the 2007 death of her roommate – Meredith Kercher.  Knox had been sentenced to 26 years in prison.  Knox said she wanted the Kercher family to be remembered.

While the appeals court exonerated Knox of the most serious charges,  the court upheld her conviction on the charge of defamation against Patrick Lumumba, based on Knox accusing him of killing Kercher.  She was sentenced to three years in prison, which she has already served.

Kercher’s body was found partly naked, with more than 40 stab wounds and a deep gash in her throat, in the flat she was a roommate with Knox in Perugia where they were studying.

The Italian prosecutors announced they intend to appeal Knox’s case to Italy’s highest appellate court.  If Italy’s highest court – the Corte Suprema – rules in the prosecutor’s favor, it could reinstate the murder charge against Knox.  Italy then could seek her extradition from the United States to be sentenced.

Knox was a popular girl in Seattle before she went to Italy.  She had won her school’s highest award – the  Manvel Schauffler Award – named after a founder of the school.

Candace Dempsey – a Seattle-based author of one of about a dozen books that have been written about the Knox case, said “She has earning power now that she is free. . . .  She can write a book and she can certainly help her family pay back the bills” they incurred in her defense, and on their prolonged visits to Italy.

There is a large debate over the legality and rights of same sex marriage and whether it is a constitutionally given right.  While it is up to the fifty states to decide whether same sex marriage is legal, there is a large debate occurring in our nation about whether it should be legal.  Some people are against same sex marriage for religious reasons or cultural reasons.  There is a clause in the US Constitution known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that all of the States within the United States must respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”  The clause is Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  This clause was created to ensure that decisions made by a judicial system in one state are recognized and honored in every other state.

Since the Full Faith and Credit Clause is a part of the US Constitution, some think that when one state legalizes same sex marriage, that other states are bound to honor those marriages that are produced from that state.  Those opposing same sex marriage are against honoring any marriage certificate from a same sex marriage based upon passing constitutional amendments and acts passed by Congress.

The State of North Carolina does not recognize same sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996.  This act defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. While same sex marriage is already considered illegal in North Carolina, some members of the North Carolina Legislature want to pass an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit any legal recognition of same sex partners, including prohibiting private companies from allowing same sex couples from enjoying insurance benefits, retirement pay outs, and other benefits provided to married couples.  This amendment would make it a difficult task for future legislature to overturn the ban on same sex marriage.

The North Carolina legislature has deemed same sex marriage to be illegal and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The recent bill to create an amendment to ban same sex marriage shows that there is a strong desire among many members of the new republican legislature to prevent same sex marriage from ever being considered legal in the state of North Carolina in the future.

Written by Samantha Barringer – Intern with Collins Law Firm

The Wilmington Star News, based in New Hanover County, NC, recently reported updates on the rift between the Brunswick County District Attorney Jon David and Chief District Court Judge Jerry Jolly.  The paper reported that Administrative traffic court resumed Wednesday, September 7, 2011 in Brunswick County, NC, about five months after it was canceled by Judge Jolly, and  about 135 people filed into a line to speak with a prosecutor and judge.  It’s going to take a little while to load up the pipeline,” said Mr. David. He also said that the court could handle around 1,000 people in a traffic court session, he said.

The star news also indicated that the return of Traffic Court was presumed because legislators approved a bill requiring Traffic Court in every  judicial district by October 1, 2011, and that  filings in the appeal at the North Carolina Supreme Court revealed tensions that exist within the Brunswick County courthouse.

Every year, court costs increase, but this year is different.  With the new republican controlled legislature and the budget crisis, the government is looking to increase revenue and it seems they have looked to court costs.  While in the past, there have been nominal increase – usually once a year, this year there have been two already, and another one set to hit later this year.

The court costs for an improper equipment violation (a non moving violation to which many traffic offenses may be reduced to avoid both DMV points and insurance points) increased effective October 1, 2010 from $161 to $166.  On July 1, 2011 court costs went up for an improper equipment (IE) from $166 to $195. And effective August 1, 2011 court costs for an IE went up from $195 to $263.

Not only are the costs increasing, but they are becoming more complex!  The amount of the court costs in a criminal case now depends on the class or type of crime alleged.  The costs are different for infractions and misdemeanors, and different for chapter 20 violations (traffic violations) and other crimes.  Check out the official documents giving notice of the changes and the charts provided to explain the costs and how to calculate them:  http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/Trial/Costs/Default.asp

In addition to the changes and increases, the lack of advance notice have been especially frustrating. For example, look at the at the 2011 Court Costs Memo – effective July 1, 2011 in the list of documents at the AOC link above. The date of the memo is: June 28, 2011, and it refers to:  “Legislative Increases in Court Costs and Fees, July 2011; EFFECTIVE July 1, 2011, unless otherwise noted.”

These changes have not only been costly to our clients but they have also been very confusing and cumbersome to everyone involved!  The staff in the courts have been expressing frustration, understandably so, including some of the clerks and the District Attorneys’ staff.  Even some of the judges have been making comments about the changes and uncertainty associated with the changes and the implementation thereof.

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.

It was reported that on June 3, 2011 former Presidential Candidate John Edwards was indicted on four counts of illegal campaign contributions and charges of conspiracy and false statements after federal prosecutors said he used more than $900,000 from his 2008 presidential campaign to cover up his affair with staffer Rielle Hunter and the birth of their daughter. Edwards was ordered to give up his passport.  So it is likely that as this case move forward, Edwards will either be at his home in Chapel Hill, NC or at his beach house in Figure Eight Island, NC, which is just north of Wrightsville Beach in New Hanover County.

The Wilmington Star News reported that Edwards pleaded not guilty to these charges. Edwards defense team says the money he received from his former campaign finance chairman were personal gifts, while the indictment said the payments were a scheme to protect Edwards’ White House ambitions. The indictment stated that, “A centerpiece of Edwards’ candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man.

John Edwards of Robbins, North Carolina came into the national spotlight in the 1980s and 1990s as a successful trial lawyer. He repeatedly won millions of dollars for his clients.  Later he and another attorney created their own firm. He was elected to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate in 1998, and ran for President in 2004 and 2008. During Edwards’ 2004 presidential run he came to Wrightsville Beach, NC to mingle with North Carolinians at the beach crowd.  His activities during his 2008 campaign for President are what are under scrutiny.

The National Enquirer, a tabloid newspaper, first reported the extramarital affair in 2007, but both Edwards and Hunter denied its truth. The mainstream media ignored the story because they said there was no evidence showing it was true.  In August of 2008, Edwards admitted to the affair, but denied he was the father of the child. It was not until January of 2010 that Edwards admitted he was the father.

The federal investigation took more than two years and searched every moment of Edwards political career to examine if he did anything improper. The focus of the investigation had been on the hundreds of thousands of dollars that two of Edwards’ supporters had provided him. This money went to keep Hunter and her baby in hiding in 2007 and 2008.

The legal case against Edwards will focus on whether the money that his two supporters spent to keep his mistress in hiding were campaign contributions that should have been reported publicly, or private gifts from friends. If convicted he faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count.

Americans were not discouraged by high gas prices, which at $3.77 a gallon was one dollar a gallon higher compared to last year, and took to the road this past weekend in enormous numbers to celebrate Memorial Day Weekend.  According to a  AAA report 34.9 million travelers journeyed at least 50 miles from home, which was an increase of 100,000 travelers compared to the same weekend last year.  The report declared that 41 percent of the people traveling in the South Atlantic region went to a beach.

In North Carolina that meant that people came to our beautiful beaches up and down the coast.  North Carolinians spent the holiday weekend at the beaches in Pender County, New Hanover County, and Brunswick County.  The beaches in our area that saw a dramatic rise in population this past weekend was Surf City, Topsail Beach, Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, Carolina Beach, Holden Beach, Ocean Isle Beach, and Sunset Beach.

The increase in driving led to more dangerous conditions on the roads.  The roadways going to and from the beaches had many traffic jams because so many people descended on the beaches in our part of the state.  In addition to more cars clogging the roads, people were more likely to be drinking and driving.  The North Carolina Highway Patrol announced that at least nine motorists died during the Memorial Day Weekend.  Last year, eleven motorists died and 358 people were injured in car accidents.

The Star News (Major newspaper in Wilmington, NC) published before the holiday weekend that the Wilmington Police Department would host a multi-agency traffic checking station on Sunday afternoon and evenings.  Officers involved in the operation will target impaired driving as well as underage possession of alcohol, open containers of alcohol, or failure to use seatbelts.  It is highly recommended to find experienced attorneys or lawyers to help you if you were caught in one of these checkpoints.

If you were hurt in a car accident, or you were charged with any crime or issued a traffic citation during the Memorial Day Weekend in or around Wilmington, NC scheduled for court in New Hanover County, Brunswick County (Bolivia, NC), or Pender County (Burgaw, NC), you should contact a lawyer or attorney at Collins Law Firm at 910-793-9000 for a consultation.