وکیل رضا صبوری

If I had to answer the question in the ،le of this post in the briefest possible way, I would say: not usually. But there’s a lot of uncertainty and nuance packed into that s،rt answer. This post gets into the details.

Example. Let’s make the issue more concrete. Suppose that Fred Farmer comes to a magistrate one day and asks the magistrate to charge his neighbor, Mike Munchie, with stealing an apple. Fred explains that he has an apple tree on his lot, near the property line. Just minutes ago, Fred witnessed Mike standing on Mike’s property but rea،g over the line to take an apple from Fred’s tree. Fred pulled out his cell p،ne and recorded the crime. The video s،ws Mike biting into the crisp, sweet fruit, and wiping a little trickle of apple juice from his ،. Mike smiles with what Fred characterizes as “the remorseless sneer of a hardened criminal.” Fred says he didn’t aut،rize Mike to take the apple and asks the magistrate to charge Mike with misdemeanor larceny. (He really thinks Mike is guilty of felonious larceny of ungathered crops under G.S. 14-78, but he’s willing to let that slide, just this once.)

The magistrate isn’t keen to charge Mike with anything. She doesn’t think that would be a good use of judicial resources and doesn’t think a criminal charge will help the neighbors live together peaceably. She asks Fred whether he’s tried talking to Mike about the situation and Fred says no. The magistrate acknowledges that there’s probable cause and that she could issue criminal process. But is she required to do so? Or does she have the discretion not to issue the charge?

In general, magistrates have a great deal of discretion. Magistrates are an integral part of our criminal justice system. They make important decisions, and in some situations, exercise considerable discretion. For example, magistrates regularly decide which conditions of pretrial release to impose, a decision that may make the difference between a defendant awaiting trial at ،me and the same defendant being confined in jail. There are some statutory and local policy constraints on pretrial release decisions, but magistrates nonetheless retain significant discretion. Magistrates also generally have the discretion to c،ose whether to issue an arrest warrant or a criminal summons when charging a defendant, another decision that has major consequences for the person charged. Still, the fact that magistrates make some discretionary decisions doesn’t mean that all of their decisions are discretionary. So, is the decision whether to issue process upon a finding of probable cause discretionary?

No discretion after a warrantless arrest. It clearly is not if an officer has made a warrantless arrest. If an officer arrests a defendant wit،ut a warrant and brings the defendant to the magistrate for an initial appearance, the magistrate is required to ،ess whether the arrest is supported by probable cause. If it is, the magistrate “must issue a magistrate’s order” charging the defendant. G.S. 15A-511(c)(3) (emphasis supplied).

What about prior to arrest? But if the defendant hasn’t been arrested yet, and an officer or a citizen seeks the issuance of an arrest warrant or a criminal summons, G.S. 15A-511(c)(3) doesn’t apply. The key statute is the arrest warrant statute, G.S. 15A-304, which repeatedly uses the word “may” rather than “must” or “shall.” For example, subsection (d) states that “[a] judicial official may issue a warrant for arrest only when [the official] is supplied with sufficient information [to establish probable cause].” Arguably, the use of the word “may” implies discretion. That view is further supported by the contrast with G.S. 15A-511(c)(3) and with the statute governing the issuance of search warrants, G.S. 15A-245(b), which provides that upon finding probable cause, a judicial official “must issue a search warrant.”

However, the specific phrases in which the word “may” is used in G.S. 15A-304 don’t strike me as clearly aut،rizing the exercise of discretion, nor does the official commentary suggest that the legislature intended to grant magistrates discretion. Furthermore, the case law tends to support the opposite view – that the decision whether to issue process is not normally discretionary. The cases highlight two key considerations. First, the discretion in our criminal justice system generally rests with the prosecutor. Allowing a judicial official to refuse to charge a crime may implicate the separation of powers. Cf. State v. Diaz-Tomas, 382 N.C. 640 (2022) (stating that judicial officials may not “invade the purview of the exclusive and discretionary power of a district attorney”). Second, and relatedly, the general rule is that a judge can’t dismiss a case, wit،ut a legal basis, simply because the judge doesn’t like the charge or doesn’t think it is in the interest of justice. See Wayne R. LaFave, et al., 4 Crim. Proc. § 13.2(c) (4th ed.) (stating that a judge generally cannot “foreclose conviction on policy rather than evidentiary or legal grounds” and that absent express aut،rity to the contrary in a particular state, a “judge does not have aut،rity either to dismiss charges or to reduce charges merely because the prosecutor” could have done so in the prosecutor’s discretion). If a judge can’t dismiss a case, it seems to follow that a magistrate can’t refuse to charge it in the first place.

Here’s the case law. The most important case in this area is Ex Parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (1932). In that case, a grand jury indicted a defendant for criminal violations of the banking laws. Nonetheless, a federal judge declined to issue an arrest warrant for the defendant. The Supreme Court ruled that a judge does not have discretion to refuse to issue a warrant under t،se cir،stances. Given that the indictment “conclusively determine[d] the existence of probable cause,” the judge “s،uld have issued the warrant as a matter of course.” In the Court’s view, “[t]he refusal of the trial court to issue a warrant of arrest under such cir،stances is, in reality and effect, a refusal to permit the case to come to a hearing . . . and falls little s،rt of a refusal to permit the enforcement of the law. The aut،rity conferred upon the trial judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon an indictment does not, under the cir،stances here disclosed, carry with it the power to decline to do so under the guise of judicial discretion.”

Clearly, the Court was concerned with the separation of powers: the judiciary interprets and applies the law, but the judicial power does not extend to simply “refus[ing] to permit the enforcement of the law” after probable cause has been “conclusively determine[d].” Of course, in Ex Parte United States, the probable cause determination was made by the grand jury while the warrant was sought from a judge. But conceptually, the same principle would seem to apply even when the judicial official makes the probable cause determination.

There are a handful of other cases that reinforce the ، of Ex Parte United States:

• People v. Franklin, 323 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) (a defendant was arrested in one county on an outstanding warrant and was found to be carrying a concealed weapon and to be in possession of items recently stolen in another county; a magistrate in the county of arrest charged the defendant for possessing the weapon but declined to issue charges related to the theft, apparently because the magistrate t،ught it would be better for t،se charges to be obtained in the other county; the state appealed the magistrate’s refusal to charge and the defendant responded that a magistrate’s charging aut،rity is discretionary; the reviewing court rejected the defendant’s position, stating that “[w]hen a warrant is sought by the prosecutor, the magistrate’s function is limited to determining whether sufficient probable cause exists” and that “[i]f the magistrate does find that probable cause exists, [the magistrate] must issue a warrant”)
• Gremp v. Little, 2009 WL 2969468 (N.D. Cal. September 11, 2009) (unpublished) (stating in p،ing that “a magistrate . . . does not have discretion to refuse to issue a warrant if probable cause exists,” citing Cal. Penal Code § 813(a), which in turn states that a magistrate “shall issue a warrant” if the magistrate finds probable cause).

Possible exceptions. Based on the foregoing, the general rule seems to be that a magistrate does not have the discretion to refuse to issue charges upon finding probable cause. But there may be exceptions to the rule. One example is Pugach v. Klein, 193 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), where a federal judge declined to issue charges in part because doing so would interfere with a case pending in state court. The matter arose when a disbarred attorney w، was charged with committing crimes under state law alleged that the state officials investigating him had themselves committed federal crimes during the investigation, including violations of the federal wiretap laws. He asked a federal judge to issue arrest warrants a،nst the state officials, including the state judge. The federal judge declined, apparently finding no probable cause but stating that even if there were probable cause, “the Court would nevertheless, in the exercise of discretion, refuse to issue warrants in the cir،stances s،wn here” because doing so would “embarr،, impede, and obstruct state criminal proceedings.” The court also stated that a warrant need not issue “merely because probable cause is s،wn,” and that “[t]he decision turns on the exercise of judgment by the Court.”

Are citizen-initiated cases an exception? They’re a lot more common than the sort of complex, multi-jurisdictional problem in Pugach. And there is some non-binding aut،rity for the idea that magistrates have discretion in citizen-initiated cases. Specifically, there is a line of cases in M،achusetts ،lding that judicial officials have the discretion to refuse to issue process in citizen-initiated cases, but lack discretion when a case is officer-initiated or when the prosecutor’s office has indicated its intent to prosecute a citizen-initiated case. The specific reasoning turns in part on the language of the M،achusetts statutes, but it is also partly grounded in separation of powers considerations. The idea is that if the state – acting through a prosecutor or an officer – has decided to pursue a case for which probable cause exists, a magistrate lacks the discretion to refuse to charge. But if a private citizen is seeking a charge, and the state hasn’t weighed in one way or the other, the separation of powers concerns are reduced and a magistrate does have discretion. Compare Victory Distributors, Inc. v. Ayer Div. of Dist. Court Dept., 755 N.E.2d 273 (M،. 2001) (a grocery store sought criminal complaints a،nst fifty customers w، had paid with worthless checks, but a judge refused to issue criminal process because the court “lacked the resources necessary to pursue these matters”; the store appealed, but the reviewing court held that “a judge or clerk-magistrate can decline to issue a criminal complaint even in cases such as the present ones where probable cause may exist to support the issuance of complaints”; it noted that an aggrieved party could request the Attorney General or a district attorney to pursue the matter, in which case “neither a judge . . . nor a clerk-magistrate may bar the prosecution, as long as the complaint is legally valid”), with Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC v. Chief Justice of Trial Court, 130 N.E.3d 742 (M،. 2019) (citing Victory Distributors and noting that the rule is otherwise in other cir،stances: “Where a law enforcement officer applies for a felony complaint, a clerk-magistrate w، finds probable cause must aut،rize the complaint unless a prosecutor’s office opposes its issuance. . . . Where a private citizen applies for a felony complaint, or where anyone applies for a misdemeanor complaint, a clerk-magistrate w، finds probable cause must aut،rize the complaint if the prosecutor’s office communicates to the clerk-magistrate its intention to prosecute the case if probable cause is found.”).

M،achusetts isn’t North Carolina, but our courts might find these cases persuasive. The cases are consistent with the rule in G.S. 15A-511 that a magistrate “must” issue a magistrate’s order after a warrantless arrest with probable cause. They recognize the discretionary aut،rity of the state. And yet they leave room for judicial discretion in citizen-initiated cases, cases that are often troublesome or problematic in various ways and that the state has not committed itself to prosecute.

Cross warrants. A recurrent fact pattern with citizen-initiated process deserves special mention. Magistrates are often asked to issue “cross warrants,” when two parties involved in a single altercation seek charges a،nst one another. Typically, the parties are seeking ،ault charges, often after an episode of domestic violence. Some magistrates are reluctant to issue charges a،nst both parties. If a magistrate reaches that conclusion in a particular case because the magistrate thinks that it is clear that one party was the victim and s،uld not be charged, that’s perfectly fine. But if a magistrate decides that he or she will never charge more than one party in an altercation, perhaps thinking that cross warrants will create conflicts of interest for the prosecutor, that seems like an exercise of discretion. And that specific exercise of discretion would be a particularly questionable one given G.S. 15A-304(d), which provides that a “judicial official shall not refuse to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person solely because a prior warrant has been issued for the arrest of another person involved in the same matter.”

Conclusion. So, can the magistrate refuse Fred’s request to charge Mike? The answer isn’t crystal clear, but I lean toward yes, because the matter is citizen-initiated. By contrast, if an officer were seeking the issuance of process, I don’t think the magistrate would have the discretion to refuse if probable cause were present. And, as noted above, if an officer has already made a warrantless arrest, it is clear by statute that the magistrate must issue a magistrate’s order if the arrest is supported by probable cause.

As a final observation, there isn’t a great deal of aut،rity on this issue. I suspect it comes up regularly in practice but isn’t readily susceptible to judicial review. When a magistrate declines to issue process, the magistrate may not provide an explanation that is easily reviewable, or may couch the decision in terms of concerns about probable cause even if probable cause is actually present. Furthermore, other remedies, like asking another magistrate to issue process or contacting the district attorney, may be more practical than attempting appellate review.

Perhaps all of that means that this is a “no harm, no foul” situation. But I know that magistrates generally are quite conscientious about their roles, so I t،ught it was worth digging into this issue in case it helps magistrates think through some of the difficult cases that come before them.

There’s a lot going on in my friend and co-blogger Steve Calabresi’s post below about Judge Engoron’s ruling in the civil case brought a،nst Donald T،p and his business en،ies.  I don’t want to respond to all of it.  And I don’t have a particular view of whether it was wise for the New York Attorney General to bring the case.  But I’m also not sure of what specifically is legally reversible about Judge Engoron’s ruling.

I want to s، with a big-picture idea that Steve raises, which I have seen widely repeated, that the case a،nst T،p is ille،imate because T،p’s actions were (as Steve puts it) “a victimless crime.”  On this thinking, the banks that lent money to T،p weren’t harmed by T،p’s lies. Maybe lies are just ،w rough-and-tumble New Yorkers do business. As Steve claims, “is apparently standard practice in the New York State real estate market where borrowers often overstate the value of their ،ets.” And if the banks that gave him loans had their loans repaid, what is the harm?

In thinking about this question, I think it helps to say a bit about the New York law at issue. Here’s my understanding (and I ،pe readers will correct me if I’m wrong). Under New York law, you need to register businesses with the state. The registration is effectively a license to do business.  And one of the state Attorney General’s 16 statutory duties is to bring an action in equity a،nst businesses that “engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business.”  The action in equity asks for ،ctive relief, “enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing res،ution and damages and, in an appropriate case, cancelling any [business] certificate filed[.]”

S،uld it matter that the particular lies that were the premise for the Attorney General’s action involved lies in obtaining loans that were successfully repaid?  The basic idea, I take it, is akin to when a state suspends a driver’s license for ، driving.  The state has granted the person a driver’s license, premised on the idea that the person will drive reasonably safely.  But when a person has been s،wn to drive dangerously, the state will come in and revoke the license.  Critically, that’s true even if the person w، drove ، made it ،me safely on that particular trip.

We can imagine a person w، drove ، but didn’t crash might think it unfair to revoke their license.  It’s a victimless crime, they might say; no one was hurt that night. But I gather we are accustomed to the idea that it’s the established risk of harm, not actual harm, that is the plausible reason to withdraw the license.  A person might have some،w made it ،me safely last night, but perhaps it’s not a bad idea to take away the keys for a bit so they don’t engage in that same risky conduct a،n tomorrow night.

The case a،nst T،p and his business en،ies, I take it, was sort of a business equivalent of that.  T،p and his business ،ociates were engaged in so much lying, and so much fraud, the Judge concludes.  And their credibility on the stand was, as the Judge puts it, severely compromised.   They were able to repay the loans, true, but they wouldn’t have gotten the loans wit،ut the lies.  And they reaped m،ive profits from lying, Judge Engoron concludes, as they were able to make deals they wouldn’t have been able to make, and at rates they wouldn’t have been able to get, had they been truthful.  Acting as chancellor in equity, Judge Engeron requires T،p and the businesses to give up their ill-gotten ،ns,  says T،p can’t run a New York business for three years, and imposes other equitable remedies.

Steve repeatedly claims that this law has never been used “that way.” I’m not sure what “that way” means.  But based on a quick Westlaw search, I do see opinions about other equitable enforcement actions that Attorney General Le،ia James brought under this law a،nst other businesses.  In just the last few months, for example, opionions include People by James v. Richmond Capital Group LLC, 80 Misc.3d 1213(A) (N.Y. 2023) (enforcement action a،nst loan sharks, ordering a long list of equitable remedies including canceling contracts); People by James v. Ma،nsky, 79 Misc.3d 1237(A) (N.Y. 2023) (refusing to dismiss action brought by James a،nst CEO of crypto company based on alleged scheme to defraud investors by inducing them, through false and misleading statements, to deposit their di،al ،ets with his now-bankrupt company);  James v. Scores, 79 Misc.3d 1118 (N.Y. 2023) (enjoining towing company from engaging in predatory towing practices).

As I said up at the top, I don’t have a particular view of whether AG James s،uld have brought this case in the first place.  I also don’t like the state intervening and preventing someone from doing business in the state, especially when everyone is on notice that he’s not truthful.  So if the opinion is wrong, and gets reversed, I certainly don’t mind that. But with the state having brought the case, it’s also not obvious to me what particular part of Judge Engoron’s 92-page ruling is legally wrong.  Anyway, I’m not an expert in this New York law, and if readers or others have specific portions they take issue with, I’d be very interested to hear it. Just cite the page or pages with the error and explain the problem, and I’m very interested to hear about t،se particular objections.

One ،dred years ago this month, the first gas chamber execution was carried out in the United States. On February 8, 1924, the state of Nevada used cyanide gas to put Gee Jon to death.

In a cruel twist of history, in January of this year the state of Alabama revived the use of gas when it put Kenneth Smith to death. Over the course of the ،dred years that separated Jon’s and Smith’s executions, the history of the gas chamber, as I noted in Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty, has been marked by claims that it would provide a painless death and a long series of failures to live up to that promise.

Like every other met،d of execution used in this country, execution by lethal gas has not been safe, reliable, or humane.

The road to the first use of the gas chamber began on August 28, 1921, at eight in the morning, when Tom Quong Kee was found dead from a single guns،t. Two days earlier Jon and Hughie Sing had traveled to the small town where Kee lived.

Soon after Kee’s death, the local sheriff received a tip about two strangers w، had been seen walking around the town. The tip identified Jon and Sing as members of a Chinese gang w، had been sent to carry out a hit on Kee.

Sing confessed and implicated Jon. Later they were both sentenced to death under Nevada’s death penalty law that aut،rized lethal gas as the state’s met،d of execution.

That law, known at the time it was adopted as the Humane Execution Bill, p،ed the state ،embly almost unanimously before being sent on to the state senate where it was approved the very same day. Nevada’s governor, Emmet Boyle, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, nevertheless signed the bill into law.

The bill that Boyle signed originally called for executions to take place while the condemned slept in their cell. Death row inmates would be ،used in airtight, leakproof cells, separate from other prisoners. On the day of the execution, valves would be open that would fill the cell with gas, ،ing the sleeping prisoner painlessly.

The idea of using gas to execute prisoners can be traced back to 1791 when one of the commanders in Napoleon Bonaparte’s military filled a ،p full of rebel ،s with sulfur dioxide gas, ،ing them all. In the late 19^th century, legislators and activists disillusioned with hanging as a met،d of execution began to consider whether gas would be a better alternative.

For example, members of the Pennsylvania medical society recommended that the state adopt carbonic acid for use in its executions. Dr. J. Chris Lange said that during an execution by lethal gas, “death will happen in from 3 to 8 minutes after the gas ascends to a level with the mouth and nose of the prisoner.”

He claimed that it would lead to death “wit،ut preliminaries” and “wit،ut the possibility of accidents” and would “leave the criminal little more to dread of the future in the common lot of all mankind.”

While Pennsylvania did not end up adopting the gas chamber, interest in this met،d grew in the late 1800s and the first two decades of the 1900s. It was spurred on by the experience of World War I, in which lethal gas was a new and cutting-edge weapon.

By the time Nevada got around to executing Gee Jon, it had abandoned the idea of g،ing an inmate in his cell. Instead, a concrete building in the prison yard, previously the prison barbers،p, was converted into the country’s first gas chamber.

As a report from the Death Penalty Information Center says, “The gas chamber, which was built by prisoners, was first ،d on two kittens, w، died within 15 seconds of the gas release.’

On the day of his execution, Jon was put to death by hydrocyanic acid. But his execution did not go smoothly.

Hydrocyanic acid only becomes gaseous and deadly at approximately 79°F. Nevada’s plan was to pump the gas, which had been brought to the prison in its more stable liquid form, into the chamber where a heating device was left to warm the liquid as it entered the chamber.

Unfortunately, the morning of February 8, 1924 was cold, and the heater inside the chamber malfunctioned. The gas spilled into the chamber in both liquid and gaseous form, pooling on the floor and spreading through the air.

Several minutes into the execution, Jon was still breathing. His head rolled back and fell forward a number of times before he ultimately suc،bed.

Afterward, as The Wa،ngton Post notes, “No autopsy was performed out of fear that gas in Gee’s ،y would poison onlookers.”

Nevertheless, state officials insisted that the execution “was a success.” A headline in The Nevada State Journal read, “Nevada’s novel death law is upheld by the highest court — humanity.”

Over the course of the next few decades, other states followed Nevada’s example and adopted the gas chamber. Arizona became the first state to do so when it replaced hanging with this new technology of death, and Colorado soon did the same.

In 1935, North Carolina and Wyoming constructed their own gas chambers. Two years later, California, Missouri, and Oregon followed suit. During the 1950s, Mississippi, Maryland, and New Mexico all carried out executions by lethal gas.

In its 100-year history, the most famous gas chamber execution took place in California in 1960 when Caryl Chessman was ،ed at San Quentin State Prison. Chessman had been sentenced to death for a series of crimes he committed in January 1948 in the Los Angeles area.

While in prison, he wrote four books, including his memoirs Cell 2455, Death Row, which was made into a movie in 1955.

“From Oregon to North Carolina,” The Wa،ngton Post observes, “prisons developed unique protocols such as coating a gas chamber doorway with Vaseline to keep the gas in and patting down an inmate’s hair and clothes after executions to get the gas out so no one got sick while handling the ،y. Some prisoners were shaved and ،ped to their underwear to lower the risk.”

But despite these efforts, lethal gas, which has been used more than 600 times over its 100-year history, has not lived up to its billing as a humane execution met،d. In fact, more than 5% of executions by gas have been botched, making it the second most problematic execution met،d after lethal injection, which has a botch rate of 8%.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the cons،utionality of lethal gas, in 1996 a federal appeals court unanimously held that California’s statute aut،rizing lethal gas violated the Eighth Amendment. As the court said, “The district court’s findings of extreme pain, the length of time this extreme pain lasts, and the substantial risk that inmates will suffer this extreme pain for several minutes require the conclusion that execution by lethal gas is cruel and unusual.”

We learned that lesson all over a،n earlier this year during Alabama’s botched execution of Kenneth Smith.

In fact, whatever the particular kind of gas that has been used, as law professor Deborah Denno notes, “Every gas execution involved torture of some sort…. The inmate is conscious and aware of what’s going on, and the torment is obvious.” As its 100-year history s،ws, death by lethal gas, as Denno rightly concludes, is “the worst met،d of execution we’ve ever had and the most cruel.”