appeals

What is the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission?

Published on: March 15, 2023 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

What is the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission?

If you were wrongfully convicted of a crime in North Carolina, there is something you can do about it. Besides filing an appeal, your case might qualify for review by the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. The Commission has the legal authority to evaluate and make a determination of innocence based on new information or evidence. The NCIIC recently celebrated its 15th anniversary.

What is the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission?

Police officer seeks dismissal of conviction related to fantasy of killing, eating women

Published on: March 26, 2015 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”

The prosecution of a former New York City police officer who federal prosecutors say participated in “a concerted criminal plot to kidnap and eat women” has raised concerns that his case will set a precedent for so-called “thought-crime” prosecutions.

Conviction overturned because man’s fish were not “tangible objects”

Published on: February 26, 2015 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”

Remember Enron?

It seemed like such a big deal until all the malfeasance that (allegedly) caused 2009’s Great Recession came to light, causing the collapse and usurpation of thousands of businesses large and small, nationwide.

Enron was an energy company. It collapsed. People were mad and, true to form, politicians seized on the madness, blamed their opponents for causing it, and proposed a solution politicians are often (or always) apt to propose: a new law.

Out came Sarbanes-Oxley, an Act designed to combat the kind of white-collar financial fraud that led to Enron’s demise. Like many laws, the Act was written broadly, was “too broad and undifferentiated,” according to United States Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, “with too-high maximum penalties, which give prosecutors too much leverage and sentences too much discretion.”