Lawyer

North Carolina Prepares For Possible Change Regarding Jury Trials

Published on: March 25, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Do I need to hire an attorney if I have been falsely accused?”

A public hearing took place earlier this week in Raleigh regarding a possible constitutional amendment in North Carolina that would allow criminal defendants to waive their right to a jury trial. If implemented, the measure would permit anyone except those facing a possible death sentence to choose to waive the right to a jury and instead let a judge hear the case.

Both houses of the General Assembly passed the constitutional amendment last year with almost unanimous support. Before the amendment can be officially implemented, it will first need to be approved by a majority of voters in an election scheduled for the fall.

Those who support the measure say that it offers defendants added choices when preparing their defense and also could save the court system serious money. By allowing for a speedier trial process when defendants believe a jury is not in their best interest, the hope is that everyone can benefit.

Though the measure passed the legislature with wide margins of support, there are some critics to the proposed change. Public defenders have been especially cautious about the measure, saying that they worry about the possibility that a judge or a prosecutor could exert pressure on a defendant to accept a bench trial. The interest of speed and judicial economy might come to outweigh a defendant’s wishes in some cases, a possibility that worries those in the criminal defense world.

Small Time Theft Leads To Big Time Felony Charges

Published on: March 20, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?”

In a curious case out of Rowan County, North Carolina, a couple is facing serious criminal charges after getting caught stealing a pair of cheap sunglasses. The case should serve as a glaring reminder that even relatively minor crimes like shoplifting can spiral into much bigger issues given the right set of circumstances.

According to the Rowan County Sheriff’s Office, things started going badly for Ana Marie Isenhour and Michael Shane Hooks one evening in late January. The couple, who live together in Gold Hill, NC, were shopping at the Gold Hill Market located on Highway 52.

The clerk at the store says the two were shopping together for some time and actually ended up buying several items, but the clerk noticed that they had picked up a pair of $14.99 sunglasses and never paid for them. The concerned store employee followed the pair to the parking lot and asked to have the sunglasses back. This confrontation quickly soured and the two pulled handguns out of their vehicle and threatened the clerk.

Police say that Hooks was carrying a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber handgun while Isenhour had a .380 semiautomatic handgun. Interestingly, the couple returned to the same market the very next morning to buy gas, this time driving an easily identified vehicle. The owner of the market emerged and insisted that the two leave before he called the cops. Thankfully both drove off without another show of force.

Toe-Sucking Case Hits Close To Home

Published on: March 18, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “The person that called the police doesn’t want to press charges.”

A man from Concord, North Carolina made national headlines when he was arrested for sucking on a woman’s toes in a Lincolnton Walmart. The arrest of Michael Brown was sensational and prompted a flurry of articles in newspapers across the country. Now that Brown is behind bars, he faces serious criminal charges despite the generally silly tone of many articles

Police say that the incident began when Brown walked into the Walmart located on North Generals Boulevard a little after 11 a.m. Shortly after entering the store, Brown approached a female shopper and said that he was a podiatry student. The two struck up a conversation and eventually Brown talked the woman into trying on several pairs of shoes, all with his eager assistance.

At some point during the shoe fitting, Brown is said to have held the woman’s foot, put it up to his mouth and began sucking on her toes. The woman was understandably horrified and says that she believed Brown was a Walmart employee. Brown attempted to smooth things over and offered to pay for the woman’s groceries, but that did not do the trick.

North Carolina Grapples With Outdated Juvenile Justice System

Published on: March 13, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?”

A recent article in a Colorado newspaper discussed the current movement here in North Carolina to change the state’s laws regarding juvenile criminal offenders. As it stands now, 16 and 17 year olds arrested in North Carolina are automatically treated as adults, rather than children.

Advocates for change note that North Carolina is nearly alone in its harsh treatment of teenage offenders. In fact, New York is the only other state in the country where juvenile offenders in their late teens are automatically treated as adults in the criminal justice system, regardless of the nature of crime that was allegedly committed.

Opponents of the current laws point out that 48 other states have gradually shifted away from such a harsh approach, realizing that locking young people in adult prisons seldom does anyone any good. The problem is that teens who are exposed to such violent surroundings often never receive the kind of rehabilitative care they need and instead end up learning even more dangerous habits from the more experienced criminals they are surrounded by.

For those young people sentenced to adult punishment for their crimes, the experience can be a traumatizing one. Some who have survived discuss incidents of rape, physical violence and intimidation from the other adult male inmates. With an interest in survival, many young offenders gravitate towards the long-term prisoners and learn new tricks, often becoming more adept criminals rather than reforming their ways.

North Carolina Student Jailed For Month After False Arrest

Published on: March 11, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “A past conviction is keeping me from finding work what can I do?”

A terrible recent story out of North Carolina seems to support the idea that no good deed goes unpunished. According to news reports, 20-year-old Lewis James Little, a sophomore at North Carolina Central University, spent nearly a month behind bars after reporting a crime to local police officers who wrongly concluded that he was involved in the matter.

The debacle began last summer when Little and a group of his friends from NCCU were getting together at another person’s home for an evening of hanging out. As they were walking into the house, Little and his friends spotted the body of a 25-year-old in the middle of the street.

Little says he and his friends were alarmed and while many wanted to call the cops, they were afraid at involving themselves in the matter. Little decided he needed to do the right thing and report the dead body, so he called the local police department.

Things started to go bad quickly after officers arrived on the scene when Little says he found himself facing intense questioning and was soon in handcuffs. Police say they thought he played a role in the break-in at a nearby home and that the robbery may have had something to do with the subsequent murder that left 25-year-old Michael Lee dead.

Charlotte Government “Bans The Box”

Published on: March 6, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “I was found not guilty of a charge, but my record still shows the charge?”

In a surprising and welcome move, Charlotte’s city manager, Ron Carlee, has said that the box that asks candidates to disclose their criminal histories will be removed from applications for most city jobs.

The announcement means that Charlotte joins a league of a growing number of cities across the country that has decided to “ban the box.” These cities include Minneapolis, Seattle and, closer to home, Durham. In each case, city governments decided it was not only better for job applicants, but for the city itself to eliminate the question about whether a person has a criminal record.

Opponents of the trend argue that by eliminating the question, it is possible that city government will employ those who pose serious dangers to their co-workers or even the public. These people believe that criminal records should definitively rule applicants out for jobs, seemingly forever.
Thankfully, these critics have not been able to sway the opinions of managers in places like Charlotte. Instead, supporters of “ban the box” efforts have convinced officials that ex-convicts desperately need work and that by eliminating all of those with criminal records from consideration, the city could wind up losing out on talented and qualified applicants.

Supporters point out that a mistake made years or even decades ago should not singlehandedly make a person unemployable for life. By implementing such rigid rules that come along with the box, cities lose out on talented individuals who are often highly qualified and merely looking for a chance to show their skill.

North Carolina Defendant Sent To Jail For Mooning Judge

Published on: March 4, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What am I obligated to do if I’ve been pulled for Drinking and Driving?”

In a case that highlights just how important it is for those facing criminal charges to behave properly while in court and before a judge, news reports indicate that a teen from North Carolina is now facing jail time after he chose to moon a judge that he was unhappy with.

According to witnesses, Jonathan Lee Gaddy, a 19-year-old from Burlington, was in court this past week to face charges related to underage drinking. Though the initial charge was relatively minor, Gaddy managed to make his situation much worse by failing to control his behavior while in front of the judge.

Those in attendance at the time say that Alamance County District Court Judge Jim Roberson asked Gaddy to pull up the waistband of his sweatpants at least two separate times. Judge Roberson was evidently upset that he could see Gaddy’s underpants. Gaddy decided he did not want to pull up his pants and continued ignoring the judge’s direct requests.

On his way out of the courtroom, Gaddy is alleged to have pulled his pants down completely, to below his knees, as he was walking away. Though he never showed any skin, reports indicate that his underwear was entirely exposed.

Drunk Driver Arrested After Deadly Hit-And-Run

Published on: February 27, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Is there more than one way for police to convict a DWI?”

In a sad case out of Raleigh, one young man is behind bars after he hit and killed two others who were stopped on the side of I-40 last weekend. The accident occurred around 8 p.m. on I-40 in Raleigh and ended with 21-year-old Marshall Doran facing serious criminal charges.

According to police, the deadly evening began when a tractor-trailer driven by Cardell Gayfield hit a patch of snow and began to lose control. His truck eventually spun out and ended up off the side of the road near U.S. 70. Two other passing motorists stopped their cars to see if they could help Gayfield and right as they did Gayfield says he noticed an oncoming vehicle moving towards them at around 60 miles per hour. The next thing Gayfield noticed was an interstate sign shaking as if it had been hit by a car and looked down to discover that both men had been hit.

Police say they don’t yet know where the two good Samaritans were standing when Doran’s 2001 Volvo struck them, but they are working with crash scene investigators to reconstruct what happened that night. They do know that after the deadly accident, Doran fled, leaving both men’s bodies on the side of the road.

Police say that they used cop cars and a helicopter to search the area for Doran’s Volvo and eventually found Doran hiding in the woods about 10 miles away from the accident scene. Doran eventually walked out of the woods, where police then arrested him. Authorities say that Doran was initially charged with second-degree murder, but that his charges have since been reduced to felony death by motor vehicle.

Supreme Court Sides With Prosecutors In Asset Seizure Case

Published on: February 25, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What is an expungement?”

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision earlier this week regarding the government’s ability to place a freeze on a criminal defendant’s assets prior to trial. The Supreme Court found that prosecutors are allowed to freeze assets without first seeking approval from a judge.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan said that Johnson & Johnson sales rep Kerri Kaley and her husband were not entitled to a pretrial hearing before their assets could be frozen. Kagan wrote that the results of the grand jury indictment showed that there was probable cause to believe the couple had committed a crime, which served as the basis to freeze their assets. Kagan found that the defendants had no right to relitigate the matter in a pretrial hearing.

The Kaleys were indicted back in 2007 on charges related to stolen prescription medical devices. The two were accused of stealing used devices from hospitals that they had relationships with and then reselling them on the black market. The couple anticipated criminal charges and took out a $500,000 home-equity loan to help fund their defense. However, after the indictment was issued the couple’s assets were frozen. Prosecutors claimed that the assets were linked to the illegal scheme, which was why they could not then be turned around and used to benefit the suspected thieves.

Dozens Of UNC Charlotte Students Cited For Underage Drinking

Published on: February 20, 2014 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What happens if I am convicted of a DUI or DWI in North Carolina?”

Drinking and college often go hand in hand. Drinking and frat parties? Even more so. However, trouble can arise when the people doing the drinking at the frat parties are not of legal age to freely imbibe.

This past weekend, dozens of students from UNC Charlotte learned the hard way that authorities take the issue of underage drinking quite seriously. That’s because officers with the university police force and the North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement office responded to complaints about a wild party going on at the Chi Phi frat house on E. Mallard Creek Church Road.

The police got reports that the Saturday night bash had underage students consuming large amounts of alcohol, with some compounding their legal troubles by then driving home. News reports indicate that 75 people were cited at the party, many for underage drinking and others for DUI. Several other students were arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession and aiding and abetting possession of alcohol.

One of those arrested was the 19-year-old president of Chi Phi who now faces the embarrassing reality of tackling criminal charges after what was supposed to be a fun weekend party. University officials say this is not the first time Chi Phi has been disciplined for similar conduct and, as a result, it has now been placed on interim suspension. The group has been chastised for violating not only university policies and their own national rules, but also state law by allowing underage students to consume alcohol.