Articles Tagged with pretrial detention

North Carolina court funding and Charlotte sports stadium subsidies reveal a familiar pattern in local and state government spending. When a wealthy team owner has enough leverage, public officials find a funding mechanism, whether the decision is made at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center or on Jones Street in Raleigh. Charlotte has been my permanent home for more than forty-three years. For more than thirty-four of those years, since graduating from law school, I have practiced law in Mecklenburg County courts. Throughout that time, I have heard a different message whenever the subject is the court system, mental-health treatment, transit safety, working highway lights, road maintenance, or meaningful traffic relief. Then we hear about shortages, divided authority, restricted accounts, delayed projects, and limited revenue.

I am not against sports. I am against using public money to enrich billionaire team owners while public institutions struggle to perform basic duties. When I go out to eat in Mecklenburg County, I pay the county’s additional 1 percent tax on prepared food and beverages, just like everyone else in town. While not a property tax, it still involves the government taking money and giving it to someone else. Calling it hospitality revenue, tourism money, or a restricted fund does not change its source. The restriction may control where government spends the money, but it does not make the money private.

Charlotte & North Carolina’s Spending Priorities

House Bill 307, known as Iryna’s Law, took effect December 1, 2025, and represents perhaps the most significant statutory reform to North Carolina’s pretrial release framework in decades. 

The legislation emerged in response to a high-profile homicide in Charlotte and puts into effect sweeping changes to bail procedures, pretrial detention authority, and judicial oversight of release decisions.

The law’s core mechanism is the creation of rebuttable presumptions against the release of defendants charged with specified violent offenses or who have prior violent-offense records. Presumptions shift the baseline inquiry from “why should this defendant be detained,” to “why should this defendant be released despite the statutory presumption.”

Contact Information