252-634-9400

News & Events

Follow our blog to stay up-to-date about current events and get tips about common legal situations!

Category Archives: Federal and State Criminal Law

Greene|Wilson|Crow Attorney, Guy Smith speaker at Perinatal Mental Health and Criminal Justice Expert Witness Course.

The Perinatal Mental Health and Criminal Justice Expert Witness Course held on July 12, 2020 was presented by a panel of legal and clinical experts in the field of maternal mental illness and the law. The seminar was designed to increase the competence and proficiency of clinical professionals in preparation for the role of expert witness in the criminal justice system, using practical, evidence-based, and case-based information. The seminar lead faculty was criminal defense attorney George Parnham, JD, expert on the defense of individuals with mental illness and a passionate advocate for legal reform of their treatment in the criminal justice system. Attorney Guy Smith spoke about the role of the attorney and the role of expert witness.

Read More

When will Courts Reopen?

We would love to use this Blog entry to give you an update as to when courts will reopen, when defendants can face trial or resolve matters, when domestic situations can be worked out or at least litigated before a judge, when property disputes can be settled, damages ordered, and wills and estates clarified and settled and closed.  But, frankly, we just don’t know. What we can say, with some confidence, is that we are close.

North Carolina’s Chief Justice Cheri Beasley has engaged a Task Force (made up of district and superior court judges, DAs, Public Defenders and private attorneys) to handle the soft Court resumption date of June 1, and what that will look like.  The Task Force is working on how calendar backlogs will be caught up, large calendars managed while maintaining relative social distancing in the courthouse, handling of inmates to and from court, document and exhibit handling in the courtroom, and interaction with and between district attorneys, judges, clerks, bailiffs, and attorneys.  Juries are of course one of the most tricky issues to address. The grand jury (juries tasked to determine the existence of probable cause sufficient to indict a felony case) and the petite jury (juries summoned to sit and hear trials and find facts, usually in small stuffy rooms with a single toilet) are by their very nature sequestered bodies. We will keep you posted as soon as the Chief Justice releases the more defined findings and game plan from the Task Force (likely this week). Please understand, our clients in Craven might have a very different situation than our client in Carteret, Pamlico, or Jones—all counties are likely to put their own fingerprint on the Task Force’s recommendations.  Indeed, no two counties have the same physical facilities that are so determinative on how safe distancing will be navigated while the work of the courts is achieved.

Regardless, even now, be mindful of the following: 

  1. If you have matters pending before the court, particularly  of a criminal nature, it is a good time to get a very reasonable result in your case where there will be a priority on moving cases, so make sure your attorney has everything they need to resolve your case;
  2. Check with your attorney before going to their office or the Courthouse, even after June 1—you might not need to go (but check!) and spare yourself and others any risk to keep the curb flat or declining; and,
  3. Our courthouse personnel (be it Judges, bailiffs, clerks, DAs) are on the front lines of human interaction every day, trying to process aspects of your case and thousands of others. So be as respectful and polite as ever. They are putting themselves at risk to keep our society orderly and moving forward. 

Thank you and be safe. 

Tom Wilson

Read More

I was just…gestur’n…

pastedGraphic.png

On 9 January 2017, a day after Elvis’s Birthday (and my mom’s), a North Carolina State Trooper kindly responded to a stranded motorist who had run out of gas.  It was winter in Stanley County, North Carolina, and it was cold.  The Trooper, with the assistance of a local police officer, was rendering aid to the motorist on the side of the road when a SUV with two occupants passed them.  The passenger, Mr. Ellis, whose arm was waiving out the open window, modified his gesture when passing the officers, and began pumping his arm up and down with his middle finger raised. This is sometimes referred to as “flipping the bird.”  The Trooper noticed this particular bird and, believing he had observed the crime of disorderly conduct, got in his vehicle and pursued the SUV.  While in pursuit, the SUV made no observable traffic violations and was pulled over a short distance later.   

Mr. Ellis initially refused to provide his identification to the Trooper, but eventually did.  The Trooper charged Mr. Ellis with a citation of resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer under N.C.G.S. § 14-223.  At trial, Mr. Ellis moved to suppress the traffic stop as lacking reasonable suspicion and thus violative of his Fourth Amendment rights prohibiting unreasonable seizures. The trial court denied Mr. Ellis’s motion. On appeal from his conviction, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found there was reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and the Trooper lawfully stopped Mr. Ellis.  However, one appellate judge dissented, and the matter was automatically reviewable by the North Carolina Supreme Court. 

  Before the North Carolina Supreme Court, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Mr. Ellis’s middle finger. The North Carolina Supreme Court FRIDAY reversed the matter, finding indeed that “flipping the bird” at law enforcement alone does not trigger reasonable suspicion you are engaged in a particular criminal activity. See State v. Ellis.  https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=39340.  

The N.C. Supreme Court’s holding seems to assert that flipping a general bird, not necessarily directed at an individual or another driver, is not evidence of disorderly conduct where it was not likely to provoke a violent retaliation causing a breach of the peace.  I guess none of our justices drive the streets of my hometown, St. Louis. But there is precedent for this holding (though not cited by the Court). We can all (that is, men over 40) recall when Maverick made his inverted, mid-1980’s gesture of international communication to the Russians, which even then did not breach a fragile peace or cause violent retaliation (beyond the nuclear arms race).      

Tom Wilson

 

 

 

 

Read More
  • Latest News

  • Testimonials

    “They did what they said they would and I was very happy with the outcome of my case.” ~ Jimmy E. Jones

    Read More >

  • Contact Us

    • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.