Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: “What am I obligated to do if I’ve been pulled for Drinking and Driving?”
The United States Supreme Court has had a busy last few weeks when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. Two of its most recent opinions in particular underline how unpredictable the nation’s highest court’s decisions on search and seizure rights are after the death of Justice Scalia.
Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: “Am I allowed to videotape an interaction with police? Can they make me stop filming?”
An important decision in a Georgia death penalty case was finally revealed after the Supreme Court spent more than seven months debating the matter. The High Court issued a 7-1 verdict reversing lower courts that had denied a death-row prisoner’s appeals based on racial bias. Though the man was not freed, the ruling does dramatically increase his chance at receiving a new, and hopefully fairer, trial.
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC responds to: “I was found not guilty of a charge, but my record still shows the charge.”
A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling will have an important impact on dozens of people currently serving life sentences in North Carolina prisons. The ruling will require courts to reconsider their sentences as the inmates were all under 18 years old at the time of their crimes. Whether the life sentences without the possibility of parole are ultimately tossed out depends in part of the nature of the original crime and on the leniency of the judges presiding over the new hearings.
Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers : I was found not guilty of a charge, but my record still shows the charge
Today marks the start of the Supreme Court’s new term. Last year was a remarkable year, with important decisions touching on issues such as healthcare, gay marriage and privacy rights. This year appears to be no less interesting; with the court announcing that it would hear a range of controversial cases including ones on abortion rights and affirmative action. Amidst the more attention-getting cases, there are others of equal importance, including a very interesting one in the criminal realm about just how seriously the Sixth Amendment ought to be taken.
Charlotte DWI Lawyer Brad Smith answers the question: What are the long term effects of being convicted of a crime?
Observers at oral argument before the United States Supreme Court say high-court justices were so confused by provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act that they appeared poised to declare clauses in the act—or the Act itself—unconstitutionally vague.
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.”
Charlotte DWI and Criminal Defense Attorney J. Bradley Smith of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “What am I obligated to do if I’ve been pulled for Drinking and Driving?”
The United States Supreme Court is comprised of nine judges whose legal educations began at either Harvard or Yale. With the exception of Ruth Bader Ginsburg—who transferred to Columbia University School of Law—all nine obtained their law degrees from Harvard or Yale.
The (alleged) hoity-toity backgrounds of the justices—underscored in a January 22, 2015 Washington Post piece—came into laser focus in oral arguments in Rodriguez v. United States, according to Bloomberg News.
The issue in Rodriguez was whether police can use a dog to sniff for drugs around a vehicle during a routine traffic stop. Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who observed the arguments, suggested the “browbeating… conservatives” and “assist[ing]… liberals” on the court, through their questioning of lawyers for Rodriguez and the United States, revealed their ideological divides.
Those divides—and who the justices are—both Bloomberg and the Post suggested, are important issues that sometimes define and nearly always, at least, inform their decisions.
With respect to traffic stops, at least a few of the justices—unlike many high-profile political leaders who use professional drivers and have not driven a car in decades—actually have experience with roadway traffic. In 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia was cited after rear-ending a vehicle on George Washington Memorial Parkway. Justice Stephen Breyer was hit by a car while biking in 1993, proving he has at least had contact with an automobile.
Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog