Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA                             Wak...
TABLE OFAUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES:Slaughter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 682 F.3d 317, 321 (4th Cir.2012)……………6State v....
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES       I. Whether the plaintiff’s due process rights were violated when the court ordered the final...
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT        Plaintiff M. Emmet Bryant moves this court to grant his motion for remittance of finaljudgm...
ordered. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.6 (2001). On March 2, 2013 only 140 days had passed.When extraordinary circumstances ex...
Sheriff Department did not notify the plaintiff of Mr. Batty’s release for 58 days. Before, during,and after the notificat...
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES        I hereby certify that on this 25th day of March, 2013 a true and correct copy of theforegoi...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Memorandum in Support of the Motion

359

Published on

A fictitious legal brief to remit the final judgment of bail forfeiture. Capt. Bryant issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who later failed to appear in court. Mr. Batty was in a Texas jail because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. Though Mr. Batty was not incarcerated in a North Carolina jail or a federal prison within the United States, Captain Bryant wants Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. to try and get the forfeited bail money remitted.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
359
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Memorandum in Support of the Motion"

  1. 1. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Wake DivisionM. EMMET BRYANT, captain, ret., ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) )vs. ) Civil Action No. 130325 )THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, by )and through the Wake County )Board of Education, ) ) Defendant. ) ) PLAINTIFF M. EMMET BRYANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION OF RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT OF BAIL FORFEITURE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
  2. 2. TABLE OFAUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................3STATEMENT OF THEISSUE…...................................................................................................4STATEMENT OFFACTS..............................................................................................................4SUMMARY OFARGUMENT…...................................................................................................5ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................5 I. M. Emmet Bryant is entitled to remittance of forfeited bail money because his due process rights were violated by the Wake County Superior Court when an order of final judgment of bail forfeiture was enforced 10 days prior to the expiration of the statute…...5 II. M. Emmet Bryant is entitled to remittance of the forfeited bail boney by public policy because when the surety expends money, time, and effort to recover the principal, some incentive and remedy must exist to ensure the return of forfeited bond money……….…..7CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………….........8CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE….....................................................................................................9 2
  3. 3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES:Slaughter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 682 F.3d 317, 321 (4th Cir.2012)……………6State v. Edwards, 172 N.C.App. 821, 828-829, 616 S.E.2d 634, 638 (2005)….............................7State v. Escobar, 187, N.C.App. 267, 270, 652 S.E.2d 694, 697 (2007)…....................................6State v. Fowler, 197 N.C.App.1, 20, 676 S.E.2d 523, 540 (2009)…..............................................6State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 448-449, 681 S.E.2d 293, 302-303 (2009)………….…………..6State v. McCarn, 151 N.C.App. 742,745, 566 S.E.2d 751, 753 (2002)…………………………....6STATUTES:N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.3(2009)...............................................................................................4N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.6 (2001)........................................................................................5, 6,8N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.8(b)(2)(2011)........................................................................................6LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIESJonathan Drimmer, When Man Hunts Man: the Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in theAmerican Criminal Justice System, 33 Hous. L. Rev. 731, 759(1996)..........................................7 3
  4. 4. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES I. Whether the plaintiff’s due process rights were violated when the court ordered the finaljudgment of bail forfeiture prematurely? II. Whether denial of the remittance of the plaintiff’s forfeited bond could incite othersureties and runners in the country to reconsider capturing bail-jumpers? STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is a bail bondsman who issued a bond for the release of Rutger Batty who wascharged for felony assault and battery. Mr. Batty failed to appear at his arraignment on October13, 2012 and pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.3, (2009), an entry for forfeiture of bail wasordered against the principal and the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s two runners began looking for Mr.Batty and in January 2012, Mr. Batty’s girlfriend informed the plaintiff that Mr. Batty wasincarcerated in Texas because of a prior illegal gun possession charge. The plaintiff informed the Wake County Sheriff’s Department of Mr. Batty’s incarcerationand the Wake County Sheriff’s Department called the Harris County Jail in Houston, Texas todiscover that Mr. Batty had been released in December 2012. After 58 days of delay, the WakeCounty Sheriff’s Department informed the plaintiff of Mr. Batty’s release and one of the runnerswas sent to locate Mr. Batty. On March 2, 2013, the Wake County Superior Court ordered the final forfeiture of thebail bond. The plaintiff’s attorney discovered on March 6, 2013 that 140 days had elapsed sincethe entry of forfeiture of bail was ordered and not 150 as ordered by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.6(2001). The plaintiff is moving for the final judgment of bail forfeiture to be set aside as thepremature order of final bail forfeiture violated his due process rights. 4
  5. 5. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Plaintiff M. Emmet Bryant moves this court to grant his motion for remittance of finaljudgment of bail forfeiture because Wake County Superior Court’s abuse of discretion violatedthe Plaintiff’s due process rights when the Court ignored N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.6 (2001),and ordered the final judgment of bail forfeiture against the surety and plaintiff at 140 days andnot 150. The Plaintiff M. Emmet Bryant also moves this Court to grant his motion for remittance offinal judgment of bail forfeiture for public policy. The plaintiff did expend additional time, money,and effort trying to locate Mr. Batty because the Wake County Sheriff Department failed to notifythe plaintiff of Mr. Batty’s release in a timely manner. The violation of the plaintiff’s constitutionalrights, and the premature order of the final judgment of bail forfeiture could mar the criminalcourt system that relies heavily on sureties to ensure that bail-jumpers appear at court on time orwhen captured. An unprecedented violation of a surety’s constitutional rights and irrevocableforfeiture of bail could incite other sureties runners across the nation to reconsider capturing bail-jumpers because additional time, money, and effort is lost. Therefore, as a matter of law andfairness, this court should grant Mr. Bryant’s motion for remittance of the final judgment of bailforfeiture. ARGUMENTI. M. Emmet Bryant is entitled to remittance of forfeited bail money because his dueprocess rights were violated by the Wake County Superior Court when the order of finaljudgment of bail forfeiture was enforced 10 days prior to the expiration of the statute. The final judgment of bail forfeiture is invalid because the court prematurely ordered thefinal judgment of bail forfeiture, violating the plaintiff’s due process rights. The enforcement ofthe final judgment of bail forfeiture occurs on the 150th day after the entry of forfeiture is 5
  6. 6. ordered. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.6 (2001). On March 2, 2013 only 140 days had passed.When extraordinary circumstances exist, the court, in its discretion, determines if the finaljudgment of forfeiture should be remitted. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.8(b)(2)(2011). Thedetermination of extraordinary circumstances relies upon a heavily fact-based inquiry and isreviewed on a case by case basis. State v. Escobar, 187, N.C.App. 267, 270, 652 S.E.2d 694, 697(2007). The plaintiff argues that the extraordinary circumstance is the violation of his due processrights via the court’s abuse of discretion. The touchstone of due process is the protection of theindividual against arbitrary government action, especially government action that shocks theconscious. Slaughter v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 682 F.3d 317, 321 (4th Cir. 2012).Also an abuse of discretion results when an act is done according to the will alone and withoutreason. State v. McCarn, 151 N.C.App. 742,745, 566 S.E.2d 751, 753 (2002). Such an act ismanifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of areasoned decision. State v. Locklear, 363 N.C. 438, 448-449, 681 S.E.2d 293, 302-303 (2009).Though the remittance of the final judgment of bail forfeiture for extraordinary cause is within thecourt’s discretion, the final judgment of bail forfeiture may be reversed upon showing that theorder was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. Escobar at271. Had the final judgment of bail forfeiture been ordered at 150 days instead of 140, then thecourt’s action would have been implemented in a fair and reasoned manner. State v. Fowler, 197N.C.App.1, 20, 676 S.E.2d 523, 540 (2009). The final judgment of bail forfeiture should beremitted.II. M. Emmet Bryant is entitled to remittance of the forfeited bail money by public policybecause when the surety expends money, time, and effort to recover the principal, someincentive and remedy must exist to ensure the return of forfeited bond money. The plaintiff’s efforts to locate Mr. Batty were suboptimal because the Wake County 6
  7. 7. Sheriff Department did not notify the plaintiff of Mr. Batty’s release for 58 days. Before, during,and after the notification, the plaintiff expended considerable time, money, and effort in locatingMr. Batty. The unprecedented violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, plus the irrevocableloss of additional monies while searching for Mr. Batty could cause sureties and runnersnationwide to reconsider recapturing bail-jumpers. The country’s crime rate already costs the nation hundreds of billions of dollars each year.Jonathan Drimmer, When Man Hunts Man: the Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in theAmerican Criminal Justice System, 33 Hous. L. Rev. 731, 759 (1996). Because of the costeffectiveness of the private bail system in pretrial detention, states increasingly rely on bondsmenand runners to help relieve costs associated with incarceration. Id. at 760. Based on their expertiseand economic incentives, bounty hunters are significantly more effective at retrieving fugitivesthan the police, returning 99.2% of suspects committed to the custody of bondsmen. Id. at 762.Consider the economic consequence of the police absorbing into their daily duties the burden oflocating and capturing all of the nation’s bail-jumpers. Id.at 759-760. There must be somecontinued incentive to assure sureties that a viable remedy for the return of forfeited bond moneyexists if the surety expends money, time, and effort to recover the principal. State v. Edwards, 172N.C.App. 821, 828-829, 616 S.E.2d 634, 638 (2005). Therefore, as a matter of law and fairness,this court should grant Mr. Bryant’s motion for remittance of the final judgment of bail forfeiture. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff M. Emmet Bryant respectfully requests thatremittance be granted. The Court failed to follow N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.6 (2001) andviolated the plaintiff’s due process. Furthermore, public policy demands that the plaintiff’s bail bereturned to avoid a potential chilling effect in the operation of the criminal court system. 7
  8. 8. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES I hereby certify that on this 25th day of March, 2013 a true and correct copy of theforegoing PLAINTIFF M. EMMET BRYANT’s MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORTOF REMITTANCE OF FINAL JUDGMENT OF BAIL FORFEITURE was served via U.S.mail, postage prepaid, upon Defendant’s counsel as follows:Dated: March 25, 2013 Respectfully submitted, By: _____El v i s Ha s s Weft ________ Elvis Haas Weft (No. 007069) Weft and Wright, P.L.L.C. 11 Middle Street Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: (919) 723-2820 Facsimile: (919) 723-2825 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Capt. M. Emmet Bryant, ret. 8

×