DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Law, Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Law, Final The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Evaluation of North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Law, Final Report Author(s): James J. Collins, Donna L. Spencer, George H. Dunteman, Harlene C. Gogan, Peter H. Siegel, Brad A. Lessler, Kenneth Parker, Thomas Sutton Document No.: 187349 Date Received: March 21, 2001 Award Number: 96-CE-VX-0013 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE Final Report Evaluation of North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Law PROPERTY OF National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Box 6000 Rockflle, MD 20849-60C)@ James J. Collins Donna L. Spencer George H. Dunteman Harlene C. Gogan Peter H. Siege1 Brad A. Lessler Research Triangle Institute and Kenneth Parker Thomas Sutton North Carolina Department of Correction September 30,1999 FINAL REPORT- . National Institute of Justice Approved By: Grant No. 96-CE-VX-0013 RTI Project No. 6780 m was supported by the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice )6-CE-VX-0013. Points of view expressed in the report are those of the authors 00 necessarily reflect the policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. lis Road Post Ofiice Box 12194 ResearP Trima’e %rk Nor‘h Caroin2 27709-210-11 IC;? This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Numerous individuals made important contributions to this study. Stevens Clarke and James Drennan of the University of North Carolina Institute of Government were members of the study’s advisory group. Mr. Clarke, who has conducted previous sentencing evaluation studies in North Carolina, was especially helpful and generous with his time. Staff at the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) were members of the advisory group and provided the data used for assessing the effects of the 1994 structured sentencing legislation on the adjudication process. Mr. Thomas Havener was particularly helpful in the latter regard. Dr. LeAnn Wallace and Ms. Laura Donnelly helped us to interpret the AOC data. Mr. Robin Lubitz,* Dr. Susan Katzenelson, and Dr. Kitty Herrin of the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission were important advisors for understanding and interpreting the legislative history and operational aspects of the 1994 structured sentencing law. I Dr. Herrin provided important advice in connection with our analysis of the AOC data. Dr. Kenneth Parker, Mr. Thomas Sutton, and Mr. Frank Proctor from the North Carolina Department of Correction had key roles in designing the prison infractions component of the study, and they provided advice for interpreting these data. I The Honorable James C. Spencer, Jr., Superior Court Judge, and David Freedman, Attorney at Law for the firm White and Crumpler, attended our initial advisory group meeting I and provided an important perspective from the points of view of judge and defense attorney. Mr. Richard Straw, RTI editor, and Ms. Catherine Boykin, RTI document specialist, I helped to generate what we believe is an easily readable final report on a complex set of findings. Dr. Jordan kiter** and Ms. Janice Munsterman of the National Institute of Justice I provided useful technical and administrative advice for the conduct of the study. Errors of omission or interpretation are, of course, the responsibilities of the report authors. * Mr. Lubitz is currently Deputy Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. ** Dr. Liter is currently with the Office of Policy and Legislation of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Department of Justice. .. 11 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. CONTENTS Chapter Page .. Acknowledgments ................................................... 11 Tables .............................................................. v Abstract ........................................................... vi 1. Introduction and Background ............................................ 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................... 1 1.2 Background and Effects of Sentencing Reforms ........................ 3 1.3 North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Law .......................... 7 1.4 AdvisoryGroup ................................................. 9 2 . Effects of Structured Sentencing on the Adjudication Process ................. 11 2.1 Literature Review .............................................. 11 2.2 Methods ...................................................... 12 2.2.1 Overview .............................................. 12 2.2.2 Analysis of AOC Data .................................... 13 2.2.3 Interviews with Court Personnel ............................ 19 2.3 Findings ...................................................... 22 2.3.1 Analytic Approach ....................................... 22 2.3.2 Description of AOC Samples ............................... 23 2.3.3 Charges ............................................... 25 2.3.4 Dismissals ............................................. 29 2.3.5 PleaNegotiations ........................................ 31 2.3.6 JuryTrials ............................................. 38 2.3.7 Adjudication Time ....................................... 40 2.4 Summary of Findings ........................................... 44 2.5 Limitations .................................................... 46 3. Effects of Structured Sentencing on Prison Infractions ....................... 48 3.1 Literature Review .............................................. 48 3.2 Methods ...................................................... 52 3.2.1 Poisson Regression ...................................... 53 3.2.2 Control Variables ........................................ 54 3.2.3 Dependent Variables ..................................... 56 3.2.4 Multivariate Analyses .................................... 56 3.3 Descriptive Findings ............................................ 57 3.4 Modeling Results ............................................... 61 3.4.1 Poisson Replications of Earlier Analyses ..................... 61 3.4.2 Extended Poisson Analyses of Structured Versus Fair Sentencing ............................................. 61 3.4.3 Seriousness of Crime ..................................... 64 3.4.4 Prior Time Served ....................................... 65 iii This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page 3.4.5 Jail Credit Time ......................................... 65 3.4.6 RaceEthnicity .......................................... 66 3.4.7 Age ................................................... 66 3.4.8 Probation Violator Versus Nonviolator ....................... 67 3.4.9 Expected Time Served .................................... 67 3.4.10 AlcoholDependency ..................................... 68 3.4.11 ChemicalDependency .................................... 68 3.4.12 Prior Prison Infractions ................................... 69 3.. 4.13 Summary of Results ...................................... 69 3.5 Limitations .................................................... 70 4 . Summary and Implications ............................................ 72 4.1 Background ................................................... 72 4.2 North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Law ......................... 73 4.3 Effects of Structured Sentencing on the Adjudication Process ............ 74 4.4 Structured Sentencing and Prison Infractions ......................... 76 4.5 Implications ................................................... 77 References ............................................................... 80 Appendix A . Unknown Offense Class Due to Obsolete and Split Offenses. by Most Serious Charge (Defendant Episodes with Conviction(s) Only) ................ 84 I iv This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I I TABLES I Number Page 2.1 Hierarchy for Determining Most Serious Charge Within Defendant Episodes . 16 I 2.2 Comparison of Prestructured Sentencing and Structured Sentencing Defendant Episodes ........................................................... 24 2.3 Distribution of Most Serious
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rate My District Attorney: Toward a Scorecard for Prosecutors' Offices
    Rate My District Attorney: Toward a Scorecard for Prosecutors’ Offices Katherine K. Moy, Dennis M. Martin, and David Alan Sklansky 2018 Rate My District Attorney: Toward a Scorecard for Prosecutors’ Offices A Report of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center January 2018 Katherine K. Moy, Dennis M. Martin, and David Alan Sklansky* * Katherine K. Moy and Dennis M. Martin are third-year students at Stanford Law School. David Alan Sklansky is Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Faculty Co-Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. 1 The Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC), led by faculty co-directors Joan Petersilia, David Sklansky, and Robert Weisberg and executive director Debbie Mukamal, serves as a research and policy institute on matters related to the criminal justice system. For more information about our current and past projects, please visit our website: http://law.stanford.edu/criminal-justice-center. Copyright © 2018 Stanford Criminal Justice Center All rights reserved. Stanford, CA Stanford Criminal Justice Center Stanford Law School 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 Prior Efforts at Developing Metrics for Prosecutors’ Offices ................................................ 6 Fig. 1: NDAA Chart
    [Show full text]
  • A Lack of Conviction
    A LACK OF CONVICTION DEDICATION On June 23, 2015, 34-year-old Alvin Cochran Jr., of Columbia, died from injuries sustained when his motorcycle was struck by a drunk driver on Father’s Day weekend. A Good Samaritan stopped to assist Alvin and granted his dying wish to call his family. Alvin never regained consciousness after the call. Alvin’s family was forced to endure more stress due to complications with the investigation that threatened their need for justice. Alvin was the only child to his parents, Alvin Sr. and Ramona Huff. He was a loving father to his children, Alvin III and Alaisia. He was a hard worker who always wanted the best for his children, family, and friends. He loved spending time with his children, playing basketball, riding his bike and working on cars with his friends. Alvin’s mother states that the hardest part of losing her son was telling his children, then ages 12 and 5 that their daddy was gone. Alvin’s family now celebrates Father’s Day beside his grave. He has not been there for his children’s birthdays, award ceremonies or to see them off on their first day of school. As they continue to struggle with their loss, Alvin’s family is committed to seeing MADD’s mission of NO MORE VICTIMS realized. His family hopes that no other family is left with only memories, photos, and videos. For them, it is all they have left, photos of him with his children and videos of him dancing to “Before I let you go” by Frankie Beverly and Maze.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2014
    Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary Fiscal Year 2014 Table of Contents Texas Courts: A Descriptive Summary Court Structure and Jurisdiction Court Structure Chart ................................................................................................................................3 Funding of the Texas Judicial Branch .........................................................................................................4 Figure 1 - State Judicial Branch Funding Sources ............................................................................................................4 Figure 2 - Appropriations for Operating Costs for the State Judicial Branch ...................................................................4 Figure 3 - District Judge Compensation as Percentage of Total State Appropriations for the State Judicial Branch .......4 Figure 4 - State Judicial Branch Appropriations ...............................................................................................................5 Court Structure and Function ....................................................................................................................5 Figure 5 - Administrative Judicial Regions .......................................................................................................................11 Assigned Judges in the Trial Courts ............................................................................................................12 Judicial Administration ..............................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL JUSTICE STATISTICS, 2015-2016 | JANUARY 2019 2 Supervision (Table 1)
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics January 2019, NCJ 251770 Bulletin Federal Justice Statistics, 2015-2016 Mark Motivans, Ph.D., BJS Statistician FIGURE 1 his report describes persons processed by Suspects and defendants processed in the federal the federal criminal justice system. Data justice system, FY 1994–2016 are from the Federal Justice Statistics TProgram (FJSP). The FJSP collects, standardizes, Number and reports on administrative data received from 200,000 six federal justice agencies: the U.S. Marshals 150,000 Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 100,000 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Federal 50,000 Bureau of Prisons. 0 ’94 ’96 ’98 ’00 ’02 ’04 ’06 ’08 ’10 ’12 ’14 ’16 From fiscal year (FY) 2015 to FY 2016, federal Suspects Suspects Defendants Defendants Defendants arrests decreased by 1%, from 153,478 arrests to investigateda arrestedb chargedc convictedd sentenced 151,460 (figure 1).1 The number of defendants to prisond sentenced to federal prison decreased by 3%, aSuspects in matters investigated by U.S. attorneys. from 56,018 in FY 2015 to 54,274 in FY 2016. bSuspects arrested by federal law enforcement. Excludes D.C. Superior Court arrests. Of the nearly 380,000 persons under federal cDefendants charged with a felony or Class A misdemeanor offense correctional control on September 30, 2016 in U.S. district court. Defendants charged in more than one case are (fiscal year-end), 59% were in secure counted separately. dDefendants in cases terminated with a felony or Class A confinement and 41% were under community misdemeanor offense in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 In 1995 victim surveys, crime rates for robbery, assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft are higher in England (including Wales) than in the United States. Survey crime rate per 1,000 population SurveyRobbery: crime Survey rate percrime 1,000 rate population per 1,000 population Assault: Survey crime rate per 1,000 population 8 21 Robbery Assault 18 United States England 6 15 12 4 England 9 United States 6 2 3 0 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 1981 1986 1991 1996 Burglary: Survey crime rate Motor vehicle theft: Survey crime rate Surveyper 1,000 crime households rate per 1,000 households Surveyper 1,000 crime households rate per 1,000 households 120 30 Burglary Motor vehicle theft 100 England United States 80 20 60 England 40 10 United States 20 0 0 1981 1986 1991 1996 1981 1986 1991 1996 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 By Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D. BJS Statistician and David P. Farrington, Ph.D. BJS Visiting Fellow, University of Cambridge October 1998, NCJ 169284 Contents U.S. Department of Justice Highlights iii Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime rates from victim surveys 1 Crime rates from police records 4 Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Reporting of crime to police 7 Director Police recording of crime 10 Victim surveys versus police records 12 Patrick A.
    [Show full text]
  • 02Annualreport.Pdf
    State of Florida ANNUAL REPORT __________________________________________________________ 2002 The Office Of Statewide Prosecution Annual Report For Calendar Year 2002 _________ with Caseload and Financial Statistics for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Office of Statewide Prosecution is authorized to investigate and prosecute multi-circuit organized crime. The Office utilizes a police/prosecutor team approach in multi-offender, multi-offense, multi-jurisdictional criminal cases. The goal of the teams is to dismantle the organizations through effective prosecution and civil, administrative, and regulatory sanctions where appropriate. To achieve this goal, the staff relies on four fundamental values: justice, integrity, innovation, and commitment. The priorities of the Office are: (1) white collar crimes (including identity theft, health care fraud, government contract fraud, insurance fraud, telemarketing fraud, title loan fraud, securities fraud, and fraud against the elderly); (2) computer crimes (including identity theft, fraud, intrusions, and child pornography); and (3) violent offenses (including narcotics trafficking and money laundering) perpetrated by organized groups. In FY 2001-2002, the Office handled a total volume of 1,067 complex criminal investigations, including 588 filed cases, and worked in conjunction with 115 law enforcement agencies and numerous State and Federal Task Forces. The conviction rate was 95%. The dispositions achieved are detailed herein. Financial benefit to the citizens of the State in the form of assessed fines, penalties, and restitution amounted to almost $29 million dollars. Collections exceeded the total operating budget. Law enforcement and victims gave the Office positive service ratings in annual surveys. For its work in the area of identity theft, the Office was commended in a Cabinet Resolution, recognized by Congress and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Vi Regional Overviews
    CHAPTER VI REGIONAL OVERVIEWS WESTERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPE VI CHAPTER 6 - REGIONAL OVERVIEWS WESTERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPE388 FIG. 94 Shares of detected victims of traffick- ing in Western and Southern Europe,* by age group and sex, 2018 (or most • Most detected victims are adult women, but recent) men and boys are being increasingly detected. • Sexual exploitation remains the most detected form of trafficking, however, trafficking for 28% 37% forced labour and trafficking for other purposes, mainly for criminal activity and exploitative begging, are being increasingly detected. 21% 14% • Convicted traffickers are mainly adult men. The majority are comprised of citizens of the country of conviction. However, a large share Source: UNODC elaboration of national data. of persons convicted for trafficking in persons *Based on information on the sex and age of 11,839 victims detected in 21 countries in Western and Southern Europe. is made up of foreigners. FIG. 95 Shares of detected victims of traffick- • Most detected victims are foreigners. Central ing in Western and Southern Europe,* and South-Eastern European victims are less by forms of exploitation, 2018 (or commonly detected when compared to the past. most recent) Victims from Sub-Saharan Africa remain a significant share of the victims detected in this subregion. • Countries in this subregion are increasingly detec- ting their own nationals as victims of trafficking. 44% Sexual exploitation 32% Forced labour Profile of the victims Other forms of 24% While the relative majority of the trafficking victims de- exploitation tected in this subregion continue to be women (37 per cent), the share of boys increased from 6 per cent in 2016 to 21 per cent recorded in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Report
    NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT HIGHLIGHTS FROM 2013 A MESSAGE FROM THE NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY As I start my second term as the New York County District Attorney, I am extremely proud of the work that my Office – the prosecutors, investigators, and staff – has done to fight all areas of crime and bring justice to victims and their families. And I am grateful for the opportunity to serve New Yorkers for another four years. To best fight crime, the Manhattan DA’s Office has pioneered an “Intelligence-Driven Prosecution” strategy to focus the collective resources of the Office on one goal: reducing crime, particularly violent crime, through the most effective and innovative law enforcement and community partnerships. We apply this philosophy of using intelligence to prosecute all areas of crime, whether it is human trafficking, domestic violence, cybercrimes, grand larceny, or white collar crime. Looking ahead, I remain committed to keeping our city’s crime rates at historic lows – on the streets, in our homes, and in the marketplace. I will continue to make it one of my Office’s top priorities to remove violent gangs, illegal guns, and drug traffickers from our neighborhoods. In 2013, our Violent Criminal Enterprises Unit removed hundreds of illegal guns from the streets. But we know that there are many more out there. In our effort to combat domestic violence and keep New Yorkers safe in their homes, I am proud to announce that the first ever Manhattan Family Justice Center has opened, bringing a variety of important services for victims under one roof.
    [Show full text]
  • Juice: North Carolina's Habitual Misdemeanor Larcency Statute, a Law Where Results Do Not Justify Costs William O
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 97 | Number 2 Article 5 1-1-2019 Lots of Squeeze, Little or( No) Juice: North Carolina's Habitual Misdemeanor Larcency Statute, a Law Where Results Do Not Justify Costs William O. Walker Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William O. Walker, Lots of Squeeze, Little (or No) Juice: North Carolina's Habitual Misdemeanor Larcency Statute, a Law Where Results Do Not Justify Costs, 97 N.C. L. Rev. 432 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol97/iss2/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 97 N.C. L. REV. 432 (2019) Lots of Squeeze, Little (or No) Juice: North Carolina’s Habitual Misdemeanor Larceny Statute, a Law Where Results Do Not Justify Costs* INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 432 I. THE “SQUEEZE”: THE COST OF CREATING MORE FELONS .......................................................................................... 436 A. Legislative Genesis: Rushing to Judgment .......................... 437 B. Financial Costs to the State ................................................... 438 C. The Cost to Society: Perpetuating Disparate Impacts ........ 442 D. Felon Status: The Highest Cost, and Not
    [Show full text]
  • Overstating America's Wrongful Conviction Rate? Reassessing the Conventional Wisdom About the Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions Paul Cassell S.J
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 10-2018 Overstating America's Wrongful Conviction Rate? Reassessing the Conventional Wisdom About the Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions Paul Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Cassell, Paul G., 60 Ariz. L. Rev. 815 (2018) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Law Scholarship at Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OVERSTATING AMERICA’S WRONGFUL CONVICTION RATE? REASSESSING THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM ABOUT THE PREVALENCE OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS Paul G. Cassell* A growing body of academic literature discusses the problem of wrongful convictions—i.e., convictions of factually innocent defendants for crimes they did not commit. But how often do such miscarriages of justice actually occur? Justice Scalia cited a figure of 0.027% as a possible error rate. But the conventional view in the literature is that, for violent crimes, the error rate is much higher—at least 1%, and perhaps as high as 4% or even more. This Article disputes that conventional wisdom. Based on a careful review of the available empirical literature, it is possible to assemble the component parts of a wrongful conviction rate calculation by looking at error rates at trial, the ratio of wrongful convictions obtained through trials versus plea bargains, and the percentage of cases resolved through pleas.
    [Show full text]
  • 99.8% Conviction Rate in U.S. Federal Courts Can Make Japanese
    2,900% more likely to be convicted than in 99.8% Conviction Rate the early 1970s. In U.S. Federal Courts Although overall federal courts generate Can Make Japanese convictions at a remarkable rate, there were Prosecutors Jealous twenty federal judicial districts that had a 100% conviction rate in 2015. Not a single he presumption of innocence is often defendant was acquitted in: Ttouted in the United States as the funda- ● Colorado: 466 convictions, 0 acquittals. mental principle shielding an accused person ● Delaware: 88 convictions, 0 acquittals. from being unjustly convicted of a crime. Federal Court House with ‘Abandon hope all ye ● District of Columbia: 262 convictions, 0 The basis of that claim is that to overcome who enter here’ inscribed above entrance. acquittals. the presumption of innocence the govern- quently about 1 of every 63 defendants in ● Illinois, Central: 346 convictions, 0 ac- ment is required to present substantial evi- quittals. dence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt federal court is convicted by a jury -- and 1 out of 42 is convicted after a trial of any ● Illinois, Northern: 898 convictions, 0 ac- the defendant’s guilt of every essential ele- quittals. ment of his or her accused crime(s). kind. State courts aren’t appreciably differ- ent, since about 4% of state court defen- ● Illinois, Southern: 412 convictions, 0 ac- dants are convicted after a jury or bench trial. quittals. There is, however, a sharp disconnect be- ● Indiana, Northern: 266 convictions, 0 ac- tween the reality of how the legal system quittals. actually works, and the theory that the pre- Whether tried by a jury or a judge, it is a shaky roll of the dice for a defendant to go ● Indiana, Southern: 386 convictions, 0 ac- sumption of innocence provides a protec- quittals.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Investigation & Adjudication
    CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION & ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE REPORT [APPENDIX D: IMPROVING INDIGENT DEFENSE] In September 2015, Chief Justice Mark Martin convened the North Carolina member, multidisciplinary commission, requesting a comprehensive and Commission on the Administration of Law and Justice (NCCALJ), a sixty-five independent review of North Carolina’s court system and recommendations for improving the administration of justice in North Carolina. The Commission’s Investigation and Adjudication, (3) Legal Professionalism, (4) Public Trust membership was divided into five Committees: (1) Civil Justice, (2) Criminal recommendations within its area of study. and Confidence, and (5) Technology. Each Committee independently made This is the report of the Criminal Investigation and Adjudication Committee along with Appendix D, Improving Indigent Defense. To access the Committee’s full report and all four appendices, or to access the full report of the NCCALJ, including all five of the Committee reports, visit www.nccalj.org. North Carolina Administration on of Commission the Law & Justice North Carolina Administration on of Commission the Law & Justice CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION & ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE REPORT This report contains recommendations for the future direction of the North Carolina court system as developed independently by citizen volunteers. No part of this report constitutes the official policy of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, of the North Carolina Judicial Branch, or of any other constituent official or entity of North Carolina state government. EVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE STATE’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM COMMITTEE CHARGE & PROCEDURES The Criminal Investigation and Adjudication composed of representatives from a broad range Committee of the North Carolina Commission on of stakeholder groups and was supported by a the Administration of Law and Justice (NCCALJ) reporter.
    [Show full text]