Judges welcomed students to the Robert E. Long Courtroom on April 11 before lawyers for a convicted drug trafficker argued that a search warrant in his case was constitutionally defective, while a separate case had attorneys seek a new civil trial for their client - a drunk bicyclist injured by a driver under the influence of marijuana.
Elon Law students with an interest in the judiciary saw for themselves the intricacies of oral arguments before an appellate court when three judges from the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard cases this week in the Robert E. Long Courtroom at the university’s downtown Greensboro law school.
Judge Rick Elmore, Judge Robert N. “Bob” Hunter Jr., and Judge Mark Davis welcomed the students prior to arguments on April 11, 2018, involving a convicted drug trafficker arguing that a search warrant was constitutionally defective, and the case of a drunk North Carolina lifeguard injured when he was struck from behind on his bike by a motorist under the influence of marijuana and pills as both men were headed home from bars.
The three judges also held a question-and-answer event with several students following oral arguments.
“The Court of Appeals is very generous in using its arguments to help our students learn,” said Asociate Dean Enrique Armijo, who helped coordinate the visit. “It helps students understand how all of the discrete topics and issues they study in their classes come together in real cases and in people’s real lives.”
ABOUT THE CASES
State v. Winchester involved a defendant’s conviction for multiple drug trafficking offenses. The defendant is challenging the lower court’s finding that the search warrant leading to his arrest, which relied on several “trash pulls” that did not reveal any evidence of drug-related activity traceable to the defendant and the allegations of a confidential informant, was supported by probable cause and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
Attorneys also argued that the officers executing the constitutionally defective warrant failed to comply with the “knock and announce” rule when they searched his home, and that he was interrogated by the police without receiving constitutionally required warnings.
Brubach v. Peterson involved the case of a Wrightsville Beach lifeguard who rode his bike to a sports bar and was struck from behind on his way home by a motorist who had used marijuana and prescription pills earlier in the evening. The motorist fled and was later pulled over and charged. Among other injuries, the accident severed nerves running between the lifeguard’s nose and brain, casuing him to permanently lose his sense of smell.
A jury found both the lifeguard and the motorsit to both be grossly negligent, which would bar the lifeguard’s recovery for damages in North Carolina. A motion for judgment notwithstanding, that verdict was denied by the trial court. The lifeguard’s attorneys argued that their client riding a bicycle while intoxicated is not enough on its own to find him grossly contributorily negligent, and that because he was hit from behind, any allegedly negligent conduct on his part could not be a proximate cause of the accident.
The lifeguard’s attorney also asked for a new trial on the ground his treating physician had several contacts with appellee’s counsel.
Rulings in both cases are expected later this year.
ELON LAW STUDENT REFLECTIONS
“Watching appellate arguments is always a learning experience for me. The main reason I wanted to attend these arguments was to see how attorneys handle being in front of a panel of judges and the questions that are thrown at them. Oral advocacy is important in our field, and I think two of the most valuable lessons we can learn from watching experienced attorneys do their arguments is to know when to concede to a point and when to say you don’t know the answer.” – McKenzie Canty L’18
“I wanted to attend the hearings to see how the law is practically applied. It was a great experience because we heard background information about the case and the specific issues of law that were being appealed. It was interesting to hear the oral arguments that will shape the written opinion by the judges.” – Bill Bomar L’19
“Having the opportunity to sit in on two oral arguments and the judges panel was a great learning experience. I’m completing an externship with Judge Hunter this trimester so I enjoyed the opportunity to observe his interactions with fellow judges and attorneys. I also have an interest in clerking after graduation. Hearing from the judges on what they are looking for in a clerk was very beneficial.” – Grace Lay L’18