North Carolina State Bar Case Study

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

The 2006 Duke Lacrosse Case brought to light many of the issues and divisions currently plaguing our media sphere. This terrible act of injustice, which blamed three innocent Duke lacrosse players, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, for the rape of an African-American stripper, garnered extensive media attention that gripped America for almost an entire year (Wasserman, 3). Today, many scrutinze the media’s methods of covering the case, and deem that certain codes of ethics were not adhered to. Rather than remaining neutral, newspapers and TV outlets allowed themselves to “be used” by Mike Nifong, the former District Attorney for Durham and prosecutor of the case, by reporting

Mr. Nifong from the beginning of the investigation seemed to have his mind set on convicting these white males of the allegations they faced from the accuser. The unethical manner in which Mike Nifong proceeded in the investigation tested the judicial system. The tactics that were used in the case undermined that you are innocent until proven guilty. A Duke was facing a crisis little did the judicial system in North Carolina know that they were about to have their work cut out for them as Mr. Nifong continued his journey to find these three lacrosse players guilty. According to

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

District Attorney Mike Nifong should not have behaved the way he did; his actions jeopardized the lives of the three lacrosse players. The North Carolina State Bar submitted ethics charges against Mike Nifong and he was subsequently removed from office. I believe that the act of Mike Nifong having been disbarred was the ultimate and most righteous stance that could have been taken. I also feel that the Durham Superior Court should have ordered Mike Nifong to spend more than one day in jail. Aside from this piece, I found that no further actions needed to be taken.

Hernandez filed suit against Baylor University, Art Briles (Baylor’s former head football coach) and Ian McCaw (Baylor’s former athletic director) all three of which are considered Defendants in this case. Hernandez seeks to hold these three Defendants liable because she states that they all knew Elliott had six previous sexual assault allegations and did nothing to discourage his actions or protect her from him. Furthermore, following the assault, the university

Like police officials, the public views prosecutors as the heroes in criminal cases because they are the ones who are acting for the good of the people, helping to fight crime, and ensuring the safety of the public. Or so we are lead to believe. However, many cases like the Nicarico case or the Rivera case show that the prosecutors are doing the opposite, and are instead hurting innocent people. In the Nacarico case, one instances of misconduct was when the prosecutor collaborated with their lieutenant, stating that he had been aware of the statement made by Cruz and was listed by the prosecution as a witness. However, later it came to light that the lieutenant was not in fact made aware of the “statement.” Even though there had been no written record of such a statement, simply because the right people claimed it occurred, the common trust bias in prosecutors and police officials cause the state of Illinois to pursue Cruz for over twelve

* The charges against Williams included that she lied to investigators, tyrannical behavior, especially in running her drug court. Williams had imposed indefinite jail terms on drug defendants, deprived some of contact with their lawyers and jailed one man 14 days for questioning a positive drug test. The commission also accused Williams of giving favorable treatment to family members of friends and those of high social standing. She was also accused of nepotism for allowing family members to practice before her. In one case, Williams warned parties they would be subject to contempt should they fail to pay a $1000 fee to her daughter within 30 days. Other charges include ordering that a

Since Womack attended West Point, the people believe that school would instill the importance of values. (Values and Ethics. n.d.). The Army would also have instilled these values into their officers’, like Colonel James Womack. On the other hand, Womack lives a secret and duplicitous, and the true nature of Womack is about to erupt. Don't cross Womack or he'll threaten you as he did a fellow commissioner, Crumpton. Womack goes into great detail, telling how he will destroy his opponent and then states “Right now, I am looking for something to run over.” (Ball, 2013) In numerous cases, Womack acting as chair or as Commissioner is a good opportunity to practice being supercilious and duplicitous. Attorney, Susan Lundberg, for the North Carolina State Ethics Commission states “Unethical it may be, Nadler says, but illegal? Probably not, according to Susan Lundberg.” (Ball,

The Duke Lacrosse team’s story illustrates how a single lie can set off a storm of racial and status related tension that has been simmering for years. The events that took place can be best described by the ideas associated with the Conflict Theory Approach to socialization. The clash of white versus black, rich versus poor, and privileged or entitled versus normal, made this the perfect opportunity for media outlets to shed light on this idea of entitlement in society. Ultimately, turning what was supposed to be a criminal investigation into a full on status war within Durham, North Carolina and communities across the nation. This snap judgment of guilt that was portrayed throughout the media without the presence of facts or real evidence,

North Carolina, the concurrence states, “If the statue is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgement requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake.” Based on this statement, it gives us support to consider whether Officer Raymond’s stop was objectively reasonable or not. Also, The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Darryl Hunt is an African American born in 1965 in North Carolina. In 1984, he was convicted wrongfully of rape and murder of Deborah Sykes, a young white woman working as a newspaper editor. This paper researches oh his wrongful conviction in North Carolina. Darryl Hunt served nineteen and a half years before DNA evidence exonerated him. The charges leveled against him were because of inconsistencies in the initial stages of the case. An all-white bench convicted the then nineteen-year-old Hunt, even though there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. A hotel employee made false claims that he saw Hunt enter the hotel bathroom, and later emerge with bloodstained towels. Other witnesses also fixed Hunt to the case.

LeBlanc said that George Washington University would continue deciding responsibility in sexual assault cases using the “preponderance of evidence,” or more likely than not standard, something that has been around since before it was federally mandated in 2011.

The mission of the agency is to “develop potential procedures to decrease the possibility of conviction of the innocent in North Carolina, thereby increasing conviction of the guilty.” In 2003 the proposal of the commission was implemented by the instruction and teaching committee of the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standard Commission and was incorporated into State Basic Law Enforcement Training. These were eventually made into statutory law in 2008. The NCIAC takes thousands of claims and has taken multiple cases to court (Garrett 2013). Agencies like the NCIAC work to bring justice to those who were served injustice. The innocent who end up in prison can’t exonerate themselves on their own. They need help and commissions are their last chance to the freedom they deserve. Commissions have been a helpful asset to pardon the innocent but the largest cause for exonerations is based on DNA testing.

It is a late summer morning and without air conditioning the environment at the not-for-profit law center, Northern County Legal Services (NCLS), is reminiscent of an overcrowded Department of Motor Vehicle office. The center does not have a variety of comfortable places to sit as chairs were donated or purchased. The aesthetics of the center, the lack of efficiency, and the frustration of the volunteers surely sets a negative tone for the customers who are already frustrated due to their legal woes. Customers are there to receive assistance with domestic violence, employment, family or housing law. Tempers flare among surly but needy customers who often are forced to wait past their