Understanding Pretrial Release and Judicial Discretion: A Response to the Cornelius Police Department’s Statement

Moreover, the Police Department named the particular magistrate who set the conditions of release—a step that seems likely to alarm the legal community because it can be seen as a direct public challenge to judicial discretion. While crimes involving minors warrant serious attention, this approach raises fundamental questions about the presumption of innocence, the purpose of pretrial release, and the constitutional obligations that bind both police officers and judicial officials.

As criminal defense attorneys, our role is not to diminish the seriousness of child exploitation crimes, but rather to clarify how our legal system ensures due process, preserves constitutional rights, and balances public safety with core legal principles such as “innocent until proven guilty.”

To be clear, we do not represent the young defendant in this case; this blog post is intended simply to explain how North Carolina’s pretrial laws work—particularly in Mecklenburg County—and to highlight why law enforcement agencies are not judge and jury. We also explore why judicial independence is essential to a fair, just society governed by the rule of law.

If you have questions or a pending legal matter, seek legal counsel. The Powers Law Firm legal team may be reached by phone or by texting 704-342-4357.

The Cornelius Police Department’s Statement

The Cornelius Police Department’s Facebook statement goes well beyond a standard update or expression of concern. By asserting that the defendant’s release “undermines the gravity of the situation” and that those charged with such offenses “should be held in custody, pending further legal proceedings… to send a definitive message,” the Department is effectively calling for punitive detention before guilt is legally established.

The call to detain people ‘to send a message’ directly conflicts with the foundational principle in American criminal law that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty —Bill Powers, Lawyer & Advocate for Constitutional Rights

Furthermore, the Department publicly named the magistrate who made the release determination. While law enforcement may disagree with a judicial decision, singling out the magistrate in a public forum sets a disturbing precedent by placing undue pressure on individual judicial officers. It not only undermines the independence magistrates and judges must maintain to ensure fairness, but it also could endanger the personal safety of the judicial official.

The Rule of Law and the Role of Law Enforcement

Police Must Follow Constitutional Precepts

In the United States, the rule of law requires every individual and institution—including the police—to adhere to constitutional standards. This includes respecting the presumption of innocence and recognizing that no person should be stripped of liberty without due process. Among the key constitutional protections are:

• Due Process
  Guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, ensuring fair treatment via established judicial procedures.
• Right to Counsel
  The Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to legal representation.
• Right to a Fair and Impartial Jury Trial
  Also under the Sixth Amendment, this right is meant to ensure a trial free from bias or undue influence.
• Right to Gather Evidence and Confront Witnesses
  Defendants are entitled to review and challenge the evidence against them, including cross-examining accusers.

“Sending a message” through pretrial detention may appeal to public sentiment, but it could violate these constitutional principles if there is no demonstrated need—backed by evidence—that the defendant presents a danger to the community or is a flight risk. Our constitutional safeguards protect every citizen—innocent or guilty—from being punished before a court of law has established guilt.

Subservient Role of Law Enforcement

While the police have an essential duty to protect the public, investigate crimes, and collect evidence, they belong to the executive branch of government. By contrast, magistrates, judges, and the broader court system are part of the judicial branch, responsible for interpreting the law, determining guilt or innocence, and setting bail or conditions of release.

When a police department publicly challenges a judicial decision by blaming a named magistrate, it undermines the judiciary’s independence and the delicate balance of power among government branches. The police have a supporting role in charging decisions and warrant execution; they do not decide guilt or impose punishment. Criticizing a judicial official by name exceeds that role and invites political, emotional, and public pressure into decisions that should rest on impartial legal standards and objective evidence.

Why the Presumption of Innocence Matters

Constitutional Roots

The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, rooted in due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It obligates the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing criminal penalties. This principle cannot be pushed aside simply because an allegation is serious or unsettling.

Practical Implications

Absent a presumption of innocence, defendants—especially young or first-time offenders—can face severe repercussions well before their case is tried. Loss of employment, eviction from housing, or the suspension of educational opportunities may occur simply because bail is set prohibitively high or because pretrial detention is automatically imposed. Clearly, indefinite detention hinders the ability to gather exculpatory evidence and fully prepare a defense, thereby undermining the right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.

Demanding pretrial detention “to send a message” or setting an exorbitant bond solely to keep someone behind bars can itself violate state law, including N.C.G.S. 15A-533 (Right to Pretrial Release) and N.C.G.S. 15A-534 (Conditions for Pretrial Release).

The recently enacted 2023 Pretrial Integrity Act—developed in consultation with prosecutors and law enforcement—likewise mandates a balanced, constitutionally sound approach to bail and release. If we disregard these safeguards, we flirt with the kind of police-state approach our Founding Fathers deliberately sought to avoid.

The Proper Role of Police vs. the Courts

Investigation vs. Adjudication

Police agencies exist mainly to investigate crimes and collaborate with prosecutors in the timely disposition of charges. It is the judiciary’s responsibility to set bond, establish pretrial release conditions, and render judgment if guilt is determined. By publicly singling out the magistrate and suggesting that judges should defer to “sending a message” rather than following established legal criteria, the Cornelius Police Department blurs the vital line between executive and judicial functions.

Judicial Independence

We rely on an independent judiciary to guard against arbitrary incarceration and ensure equal justice under the law. A magistrate or judge must weigh the specifics of each case—severity of the charges, potential risk to the community, and risk of flight—while imposing lawful conditions to protect the public and honor the Constitution. Although law enforcement is free to present arguments and evidence suggesting a defendant poses a danger, it is the court’s duty to evaluate all information objectively.

Criticizing a judicial official’s discretion or publicly suggesting custody “to send a message” overlooks the fact that magistrates and judges are legally bound by statutory requirements, local bail policies (like the Mecklenburg Bail Policy executed by a senior resident superior court and chief district court judge), and the constraints of constitutional law.

The separation of powers ensures that courts remain independent from the executive branch—of which law enforcement is a part. This independence is vital for fair decision-making and helps avoid a system in which those accusing an individual (the police) also decide guilt and punishment.

It’s also exactly the type of abuse the Founders of the United States knew well and very much intended to address in response to the pervasive abuse of power by constables in colonial America.

When a police department publicly rebukes a judicial decision (and in fact calls out the judicial official by name), it undermines public confidence in the judiciary and encourages a misunderstanding of legal procedures.

North Carolina’s Pretrial Integrity Act & Local Bail Policies

North Carolina Pretrial Integrity Act

The North Carolina Pretrial Integrity Act exists to balance community safety with constitutional rights. Under this Act and related statutes, judicial officials must consider factors such as:

1. The nature and gravity of the alleged offense
2. The defendant’s prior record, family and community ties, and personal circumstances
3. The risk of flight or further offenses if released
4. The safety of the public, including any alleged victims

If specific conditions—like a secured bond, electronic monitoring, no-contact orders, or a responsible custodian—can reasonably mitigate risks, the law favors release over pretrial detention.

Local Bail Policy

Additionally, North Carolina courts adhere to local rules that govern the terms and conditions of release, such as:

• Secured vs. Unsecured Bonds
• Custody Release (e.g., for younger defendants or those with substantial ties to the community)
• Risk-Mitigation Measures such as no-contact orders, restrictions on internet usage, curfews, or electronic monitoring

These guidelines enable judicial officials to tailor conditions to the risk profile of each individual case. Releasing an 18-year-old to parental supervision, for instance, may be entirely appropriate under these policies if the judicial official concludes that the accused is neither a flight risk nor poses a direct threat when subject to oversight.

Concerns with the Cornelius Police Department’s Public Statement

A. The Danger of “Sending a Message”

Detaining someone merely “to send a message” may be emotionally compelling, but it effectively imposes punishment before the defendant has been proven guilty. The presumption of innocence exists to guard against governmental overreach and protect potentially innocent persons from the devastating consequences of pretrial incarceration.

B. Naming the Magistrate

Although law enforcement can and should voice genuine safety concerns, the proper forum to seek higher bail or stricter conditions is the courtroom—through the district attorney and formal bail hearings. Publicly chastising a judge or magistrate for complying with established legal procedures can mislead the public into thinking that the judicial official ignored public safety, when in fact they may have imposed substantial conditions to protect the community.

By specifically naming the magistrate, the Cornelius Police Department introduces an element of intimidation, potentially pressuring other magistrates or judges to consider public perception over legal merit. Moreover, the National Center for State Courts’ Personal Safety Tips for Judges and Court Staff makes it abundantly clear that publicizing a judge’s name or personal details can greatly increase the risk of harassment or physical harm.

C. Public Confidence in the Justice System

When the police publicly criticize the courts, it creates confusion about the roles each branch occupies in our government. Statements that call for detentions beyond legal standards can likewise reduce confidence that law enforcement respects constitutional boundaries.

Ultimately, the careful balance of powers—investigations by the police, adjudications by the courts—forms the backbone of a functional criminal justice system.

Citizens who infer the court system doesn’t care about child victims may be unaware that judges follow stringent guidelines to consider flight risk, risk to minors, and the best interests of justice —Bill Powers, Attorney at Law

Further, the police always have the option of presenting additional or updated evidence to request a higher bond or more restrictive conditions. Public admonishments and naming of judicial officials do little more than sow distrust and potentially threaten judicial independence—and possibly endanger the personal safety of a judicial official.

According to the Conference of Chief Judges:

Judicial officers throughout the nation are subjected to threats of violence daily. In 2021, individuals protected by the U.S. Marshals Service—including federal judges, prosecutors, and court officials—faced over 4,500 threats, a 400% increase since 2015. Numerous threats have also been made toward state and local judiciary members, including the October 2023 murder of Washington County Circuit Court Judge Andrew F. Wilkinson outside his Maryland home and the 2022 murder of Former Juneau County Circuit Court Judge John Roemer in his Wisconsin home.

Balancing Youth, Serious Charges, and Public Safety

The Defendant’s Age

According to the National Institutes of Health, the cognitive development, social circles, and reliance on parental oversight of an 18-year-old male may be similar to those of a juvenile. Courts frequently consider such factors when deciding pretrial conditions, concluding that supervised release may address concerns about flight or community safety while avoiding the severe consequences of detention for a young defendant.

Public Safety Considerations

In allegations of child sex offenses, courts do not take risks lightly. If evidence suggests a defendant is likely to reoffend or poses a threat, a judge may indeed opt for secured detention or very stringent conditions. If the accused in any case is released, judicial officials—given the evidence and materials presented by law enforcement (or the lack thereof)—may conclude that strict supervision or protective measures (electronic monitoring, no contact with minors, etc.) sufficiently reduce any risk to the public.

The Importance of Judicial Independence

Why Judges & Magistrates Must Remain Impartial

The North Carolina Bar Association underscores that judicial independence empowers judges to make decisions grounded in evidence and law, without undue influence from public opinion or external pressure. This impartiality ensures that all defendants—whether actually guilty or ultimately found innocent—receive fair, equal treatment.

Potential Impact of Police Criticism

When a police department publicly blames a court for not taking any matter seriously, judges may feel compelled to place defendants in custody merely to avoid criticism. Such pressure can lead to inconsistent rulings, unnecessary incarceration, and diminished trust in the justice system overall. An impartial judiciary, independent of political or law-enforcement control, is fundamental to the rule of law.

Upholding Rights, Ensuring Safety, and Preserving the Rule of Law

Striking the right balance between community safety and individual rights is at the heart of the American criminal justice system. The North Carolina Pretrial Integrity Act and local bail rules work to ensure that defendants who do not pose a serious flight or safety risk can be released under conditions that protect the public while respecting constitutional principles.

The Cornelius Police Department’s concern about crimes against minors is certainly understandable. However, demanding indefinite or punitive detention prior to conviction “to send a message” contradicts our longstanding presumption of innocence. In truth, the rule of law depends on all government branches honoring constitutional boundaries. The police investigate; the courts adjudicate. Recognizing and respecting these distinct roles—and principles like due process, the right to counsel, and the right to a fair trial—is what makes our system both strong and just.

While the public may be uneasy at seeing a defendant accused of a serious crime remain free pending trial, we should remember that the individual has not yet been found guilty. Our system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before imposing punishment. Constructive dialogue about pretrial release decisions is valuable, but it must reflect the understanding that constitutional protections exist to shield the innocent and ensure fairness for the guilty alike.

Additional References and Resources

1. North Carolina Pretrial Integrity Act
   Outlines risk-based criteria and balances public safety with the presumption of innocence.
2. Mecklenburg County Bail Policy
   Provides detailed instructions for setting secured or unsecured bonds, electronic monitoring, and other release conditions.
   Bail Policy
3. Presumption of Innocence
   A foundational tenet of U.S. law, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and North Carolina Constitution, requiring proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

CarolinaAttorneys.com provides commentary on legal issues in North Carolina, including topics relating to:

• Probable Cause 
• Burdens of Proof in Criminal & Civil Court 
• Indictments:  What Indicted Means 
• Who Dismisses Charges & the Role of Prosecutors in North Carolina
• Plea Negotiations & Plea Bargains 
• Police Searches & Patdown Frisks  
• The Role of the Fourth Amendment in Traffic Stops 
• Expert Witnesses & Courtroom Testimony 
• The Psychology of Hit & Run Offenses

By understanding the foundational and historical principles of criminal charges in North Carolina, we can engage in meaningful discussions about pretrial release, the distinct roles of law enforcement and the courts, and the vital importance of preserving judicial independence—even in emotionally charged cases.

Conclusion

Protecting children from abuse and exploitation is unquestionably important, and law enforcement’s concern for public safety is understandable. Yet these legitimate interests must be balanced against constitutional safeguards like the presumption of innocence and the independent role of the judiciary. Publicly naming and criticizing a magistrate for following statutory guidelines threatens judicial independence and risks sowing confusion about the legal process. Ultimately, every defendant—no matter the charge—has the right to due process and a fair hearing before any punishment is imposed.

This blog post is intended for informational and educational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. The Powers Law Firm does not represent the named defendant, and anyone facing criminal charges in Charlotte, North Carolina in Mecklenburg County should consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney for guidance on their specific situation. Have questions or need legal advice? Feel free to call or TEXT Attorney Bill Powers at: 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation.