Local News

Orange DA won't object to unsealing Carson search warrants

Posted June 26, 2008

— Orange County's district attorney said Thursday he wouldn't ask a judge to keep search warrants sealed in theinvestigation of UNC-Chapel Hill senior Eve Carson's March 5 murder.

In April, Jim Woodall asked Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour to keep six warrants under seal for 60 days while detectives wrapped up parts of their investigation.

Baddour agreed and ordered another hearing for 10 a.m. Friday. If the judge decides they should be released, Woodall said he won't object.

The Durham Herald-Sun filed a motion earlier this year for the search warrants to be released, but Woodall said doing so at that point could jeopardize the investigation and identify confidential informants.

The district attorney also said Thursday he would not object if defense attorneys for the two suspects charged in Carson's death ask that the warrants stay sealed.

Earlier this month, Woodall said he would not object to Carson's autopsy report being released after June 30. It is expected to be released Monday.

Police found Carson, UNC's student body president, dead on a residential street about a half-mile from campus while responding to reports of gunshots. Authorities have never disclosed how the 22-year-old died.

Laurence Alvin Lovette Jr., 17, and Demario James Atwater, 21, are each charged with first-degree murder in her death.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • mondosinistro Jun 26, 2008

    Rev RB, I think when they refer to witnesses, they are not necessarily just talking about witnesses to the actual murder, but also to anyone who may have knowledge of any criminal activity involved with this, by any means, including such things as conversations.

  • pleshy Jun 26, 2008

    US Constitution, Amendment 6 - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    The unsealing and release of the documents at issue have nothing to do with the press or the public. It boils down to the defendant having the right to confront the witnesses against him. This is one way a person who isn't guilty of the allegations made by the government can maintain the reasonable doubt that exists as a presumption under the law "innocent until proven guilty."

  • ObamaMustGo aka NCcarguy Jun 26, 2008

    I really wish someone would explain to ME what does this matter to people that are not involved in the case? I don't need to hear a single detail about it other than the verdict of the accused!

  • give me no quarter Jun 26, 2008

    For all you rubber-necking, ambulance chasing and just plain old N&O readers out there, the autopsy has not been made public yet. More at eleven. Update. You will get all your gory details in a day or two.

  • Adelinthe Jun 26, 2008

    NancyDrew - How's Ted??? LOL

    Anyway, I know what you mean, but I hadn't heard there were witnesses in this case, just material evidence.

    God bless.

    Rev. RB

  • NancyDrew Jun 26, 2008

    I am all for openness of records, etc, but not when it endangers the lives of witnesses. These are obviously not nice people, and if releasing information leads to the senseless loss of life of more people, then the records should stay sealed.