North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services
// by Daniel Spiegel
Reposted from North Carolina Criminal Law, a UNC School of Government Blog Last September, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Thomas, No. COA23-210, __ N.C. App. __ (2024), a case involving law enforcement’s retrieval of ankle monitor location data gathered while the defendant was on post-release supervision. This is the first North Carolina appellate case …
Can Law Enforcement Review Ankle Monitor Location Data Without a Warrant?Read More
// by Phil Dixon, Jr.
As regular readers know, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), this past June. The decision undercut the reasoning used by North Carolina courts to justify the practice of permitting substitute analysts to offer an independent opinion about the forensic report of another, nontestifying analyst (as discussed here and here). Until this week, no …
// by Phil Dixon, Jr.
This update was originally posted on Apr. 10, 2024 on North Carolina Criminal Law, a UNC School of Government Blog available here. In Part I of my Spring 2024 cannabis update, I discussed the search and seizure issues arising in North Carolina courts around cannabis. Part II explores drug identification evidence issues surrounding marijuana prosecutions and examines …
// by Phil Dixon, Jr.
This update was originally posted on Apr. 8, 2024 on North Carolina Criminal Law, a UNC School of Government Blog available here. It has been a while since my last post on cannabis and criminal law issues, and it is past time for an update. In addition to a number of state cases grappling with …
// by Phil Dixon, Jr.
Originally posted on North Carolina Criminal Law, A UNC School of Government blog I mentioned in a recent News Roundup that the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Smith v. Arizona. The case tees up a question that has been lingering since at least 2012: Does the Confrontation Clause permit the admission of substitute forensic analyst testimony? This …
// by Sacejewia White
The Maryland Supreme Court granted a new trial after deciding that a firearms examiner should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion that the crime scene bullets were fired from the defendant’s gun. Specifically, the reports, studies, and testimony relied on by the examiner did not demonstrate that the firearms identification methodology employed …
Limits Imposed on Ballistics Evidence by MD Supreme CourtRead More
// by Sacejewia White
Case Background Last September, the NACDL joined forces with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to file an amicus brief in support of the defense in New Jersey v. Arteaga. The question before the Appellate Division was whether the defense is entitled to information about how a face recognition search …
NJ Appellate Decision: Defense Entitled to Face Recognition InformationRead More
// by Phil Dixon, Jr.
In case you missed it, the COA released State v. Booth on Oct. 18, 2022, dealing in part with lay opinions by officers identifying marijuana as such based on sight and odor only and without a proper lab test identifying the levels of delta-9 THC. The officer in Booth was permitted to testify that he could …
// by Sarah Olson
With Governor Cooper signing it into law yesterday Senate Bill 455 which permanently excludes hemp from the legal definition of marijuana under state law in NC, hemp’s future as a widely-available consumer product in our state seems secure. Under the new legislation, the previous requirement that the hemp be cultivated or possessed by a grower …
// by Sarah Olson
On Mar. 4, 2022, a federal judge ruled that use of geofence data in a Virginia case violated the Fourth Amendment. The decision in US v. Chatrie is available here. A geofence is law enforcement use of Google location data to find people who were near a crime scene. Geofence searches have been used in …
// by Sarah Olson
State v. Andre Dawson (2021) – Connecticut Supreme Court found that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of constructive possession where the defendant could not be excluded from a DNA mixture containing a partial profile found on a firearm.
// by Alec Rees
On May 19th, 2020 the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued its opinion State v. Sasek. Mr. Sasek was convicted in March of 2019 of possession with intent to sell or deliver a schedule II controlled substance and sale of methamphetamine, which led to the revocation of his probation. Defense counsel should be aware of …
State v. Sasek: Importance of making 702 challenges at trialRead More
// by Sarah Olson
Defenders should take note of State v. Koiyan, COA19-951, an April 7, 2020 decision where the NC Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by admitting fingerprint testimony where the examiner “failed to demonstrate that he ‘applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case,’ as required by Rule 702(a)(3).” …
// by Sarah Olson
State v. Phillips, COA19-372 (Dec. 2019) – NC Court of Appeals found that the admission of testimony about an inconclusive DNA mixture was expert testimony, was not based on sufficient facts or data nor is the product of is the product of reliable scientific principles and methods, and that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony which prejudiced the defendant.
// by Sarah Olson
Oct. 2019 – United States District Judge found that in a case involving interpretation of a complex DNA mixture where the relevant contributor contributed 7% of the DNA in the mixture, the STRmix software report did not meet the Daubert reliability standard for admissibility as evidence.
MI federal judge disallows testimony about DNA mixture interpretationRead More