Orange County Criminal Attorney Blog

The trial of a man accused of murdering the University of North Carolina student body president in 2008 began on December 7, 2011 in Orange County Criminal Superior Court in Hillsborough. Laurence Alvin Lovette is charged with murder in the death of Eve Carson on March 5, 2008. Jury selection proceeded for a week and ended the afternoon of Tuesday, December 6. Lovette's alleged co-conspirator, Demario Atwater, previously pleaded guilty to both state and federal murder charges and received two consecutive life sentences. Lovette is charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping, larceny, armed robbery, and possession of stolen goods, all felonies. Because he was only 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense, he does not face the death penalty. If convicted of the murder charge, though, he could face life in prison.

Chapel Hill police found Carson's body after responding to 911 calls reporting a woman screaming and gunshots. Carson had been shot five times with two different guns and left in the middle of the street in a neighborhood near the UNC campus. Prosecutors allege that Lovette and Atwater kidnapped Carson and took her in her car to an ATM. They then allegedly made her withdraw $700, the maximum daily withdrawal amount. The two allegedly continued to use her ATM card after her body was found and withdrew another $700. Police arrested both Lovette and Atwater and charged them with her murder.

The Washington Post provided coverage of the opening statements to the jury. According to prosecutors, both physical evidence and witness testimony will connect the two defendants to the murder. They claim police found Lovette's DNA on the inside door of Carson's vehicle. ATM surveillance footage allegedly shows a man matching Lovette's Description using Carson's card. Friends of the two defendants, including Atwater's girlfriend, will apparently testify as to statements and actions of the two that connect them to the crime. Observers of the trial doubt that prosecutors will call Atwater as a witness.

Lovette's attorney has stated that, although her client knew Atwater, he was not there when the murder occurred. She also observes that many of the prosecution's witnesses have extensive criminal records, with potential motivation to lie. None of the forensic evidence touted by the prosecution, she notes, connects Lovette to the actual murder. Even if his DNA is inside the vehicle and he used the ATM card, that does not prove he committed the alleged crime. The prosecution is instead trying to use the heinous nature of the crime and the popularity of the victim as a means of inflaming the jury and hiding flaws in their case.

Continue reading "Trial Begins for Alleged Murder of North Carolina College Student" »

Philadelphia police arrested three people this weekend after a landlord found four mentally disabled adults held captive in the basement of his building. He found them while investigating a dog dish he found in the basement, expecting to find a dog hidden somewhere. Investigators believe the four spent a week trapped in a tiny room, 10 feet by 15 feet, with little food or water. One person was chained to a radiator. The three suspects and the four captives apparently traveled together from Texas to Florida and then Philadelphia. The suspects are accused of holding the people captive in order to steal their social security checks and face numerous criminal charges.

Both Philadelphia police and the FBI are investigating the case. The suspects face multiple charges, including aggravated assault, kidnapping, and criminal conspiracy. Since the group may have crossed state lines in the course of committing various crimes, they could face prosecution under both Pennsylvania and federal criminal statutes.

Authorities have charged the suspects with multiple offenses related to the crime of kidnapping. "Kidnapping" is legally defined as the act of transporting a person against that person's will, often with the intent to keep the person confined. The purpose of the kidnapping is not as important as the intent to move the person without consent, although punishment may be enhanced if the kidnapping is for ransom or if the defendant used a weapon. Kidnapping is considered a serious felony. The suspects also face charges of unlawful restraint and false imprisonment. These offenses refer to the act of holding a person against the person's will, particularly by restraining someone to an object like the radiator. False imprisonment is both a felony criminal offense and a civil tort claim.

The suspects have also been charged with aggravated assault. This could refer to the act of transporting the people or holding them against their will, as well as the harsh conditions in which they kept them. Besides lacking food and water, police reported that the room reeked of human waste. The crime of assault can include more than a stab or punch. It can involve any sort of physical contact without consent. The severity of the peoples' confinement allows authorities to enhance the offense by adding the "aggravated" factor.

Continue reading "Four Mentally Disabled People Kidnapped and Held Captive in Philadelphia" »

Mourad Samaan abducted his daughter after receiving notice the child's mother had been awarded full custody. Although the two were subject to an Amber Alert, the abduction ended in tragedy. Mourad Samaan and his two-year-old daughter Madeline were found dead with gunshot wounds inflicted by the father.

This type of cowardly act is still rare but becoming more commonplace. The first time I heard of this type of crime was many years ago in Orange County when a man set his son on fire in a hotel room. Apparently, the father was going to commit suicide too, but turned yellow and fled instead. This type of crime has now occasionally surfaced throughout the United States.

Although these horrific crimes come under the umbrella of criminal law, they are really a result of some family law conflict. This may appear to be an academic designation, but I think it is important. Once these types of events happen, the criminal justice system is left to pick up the pieces.

While I am no expert in family law, I have had some exposure to the system. Many friends of mine practice family law and, although every case has its own unique headaches, each attorney is fully aware of his "problem cases." It goes without saying, if attorneys know which cases are problematic, the judge probably does too.

I can understand the reluctance of family courts to use harsh measures against people engaged in a divorce and/or custody battle. The people are definitely going through the most difficult time in their lives. However, the outright hatred and vengeance some of these parties inflict upon one another surpasses just about anything in criminal law.

It seems to me, many parties get away with conduct in family law which would result in jail time in the criminal courts. I am not advocating bail be set in family law cases (although I am sure many a family law attorney would welcome it). What I am advocating, however, is more responsibility in problem cases. I remember, many years ago, when there was an explosion of allegations of sexual abuse claims against fathers. Undoubtedly, some were true but many of these claims were determined to be fictitious creations of the other parent and their attorney. This was an obvious attempt to get leverage on the opposing party by using outrageous, false claims. Fortunately, the courts did a good job weeding these cases out.

I think family law courts should institute a zero tolerance policy with respect to major problem cases. That is, the cases should be moved along quickly and severe penalties handed down for conduct which is either litigious or vexatious.

There may be nothing that can be done to stop these horrific crimes; however, a hard line approach to problem cases may cause some parties to realize their outrageous conduct is not just an assault on the opposing party but on the court system as well.

Antonio Nunez was sentenced to 5 life terms plus 100 years after he sprayed police with AK-47 fire during a kidnap attempt at age 14. Nunez would have been unable to seek parole for 175 years.

A California Appeals Court, however, ruled it was unconstitutionally harsh to sentence a juvenile to life without even the possibility of parole. Nunez has been in custody since 2001. The appellate court's decision is based upon a United States Supreme Court case which set aside a life sentence in a juvenile, non-homicide case.

The Appeals Court sent the case back to the lower court for resentencing. This will be the second resentencing. Nunez was originally given 1 life without the possibility of parole sentence, 4 life sentences and 111 years. The original sentence was also overturned.

Although some may hail this decision, the actual result may not be great. There has yet to be a determination as to how many years a juvenile should serve before he/she becomes eligible for parole. Is it 20, 30 or 40 years? Regardless of the amount, Mr. Nunez will likely be a very old man before he is released from prison.