No. COA18-817
Filed: 20 August 2019
No. COA18-817
Filed: 20 August 2019
No. COA17-477-2
Filed: 20 August 2019
Search Warrants are subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Without “probable cause,” a search is ordinarily deemed “unreasonable” and therefore improper. As is the case with many legal issues involving criminal charges, there are certain exceptions.
Searches of a home or residence invite additional scrutiny by Courts, given there is a substantial expectation of privacy within “hearth and home.”
A recent unpublished opinion by the NC Court of Appeals reminds family law attorneys and criminal defense lawyers alike that “fear of imminent bodily injury” is a subjective standard and need not be objectively reasonable.
That may come as a surprise to some, given the Court also recently pointed out some of the dire consequences of even being accused of Acts of Domestic Violence.
It happens. Sometimes people charged with a criminal offense forget about a court appearance and need help “recalling warrants” or striking an Order for Arrest.
You may have even been scared and decided not to appear in court on the assigned date, later realizing that only made a bad situation worse.
It’s also possible to have multiple cases pending in the same or even different jurisdictions, making it hard to keep track of everything. Missing court can happen for a lot of very good reasons and is not terribly unusual.
A lot of people don’t have experience with legal matters. As such, it’s understandable you may not know what to expect, what to do, or how to act in court. That’s normal.
Two of the most common questions we get is, “What should I expect in court?” and “What should I wear?”
I sat there in church, angry.
I tried to quiet my thoughts and focus on the purpose of being there.
It was a cavernous sanctuary, which was necessary. Funerals for young people are well-attended.
Let’s call him Andrew. We spent some time together last week. Quick to smile, self-deprecating, and genuinely appreciative as a client, I’ve liked him from the start.
I could immediately see Andrew was agitated, but most people wouldn’t have picked up on that. I gave him the head nod and we silently walked out of the courtroom and into the hallway to talk.
Andrew didn’t start this conversation with his usual smile. He was polite as ever, immediately apologizing for the purpose of our being there. This time, things were different.
The following legal reference materials are in addition to those previously posted by our law firm. While discovery materials pursuant to Brady v. Maryland supplement the NC criminal laws relevant to voluntary discovery or a Motion for Discovery, they are technically distinct from the State providing Giglio content.
One way to think of it is that, generally speaking, all Giglio v. United States content likely falls within the Brady Rule, but not all Brady materials are Giglio disclosures. Brady has to do with the voluntary disclosure of favorable information that may be exculpatory in nature.
The State of North Carolina (through the prosecutors) is required to turn over certain types of evidence to the accused (the Defendant in NC). Criminal lawyers in Charlotte, and other attorneys throughout the state, often refer to that as Giglio or exculpatory Brady material.
Both Brady and Giglio, and the associated release of documentation, are related to one another, at least in part. Neither is strictly what may you think of as a Motion for Discovery or N.C.G.S. 15A-903, the NC discovery law.
It’s more than that. Prosecutors have enhanced duties to provide certain materials pursuant to ethical responsibilities and constitutional precepts.