In July, Michael Mead was acquitted of killing his pregnant fiancée by a Gaston County jury. Mr. Mead was charged with shooting his wife and subsequently burning her house down. Given the nature of his offenses, he could have faced the death penalty if he was found guilty of the offense.
Since Mr. Mead has been acquitted of the offenses, he is suing the Gaston County Police and the N.C. State Bureau of Investigation for mishandling evidence. According to Mr. Mead, Police officers gave him a gunshot residue test. However, they later denied giving him the test. During the subsequent prosecution of his case, Police admitted to giving the test and losing the results. Mr. Mead's lawsuit alleges such a mishandling of evidence constitutes a violation of standards that should be followed in every criminal investigation.
Mr. Mead further contends the Gaston County officers did not have sufficient, reliable evidence to arrest him, meaning the arrest was made on false grounds. Mr. Mead claims the officers failed to specifically investigate other suspects and leads, failing to conduct a thorough investigation in general. As a result, Mr. Mead claims he was wrongly incarcerated. He is thus suing for damages for the wrongful incarceration, harm to his reputation, the downfall of his business, and other harms that were a result of being wrongly accused as his fiancée's killer.
As noted in previous blogs, the absence of reliable eye witness testimony, the presence of exculpatory evidence, and corruption in the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation's office are all important aspects to be taken into account when asserting a criminal defense. Mr. Mead's acquittal also illustrates the importance of analyzing a Police officer's actions. In particular, Mr. Mead's assertions raise the question of how often these standards of criminal investigations are violated? How often are leads not followed? How often are investigations not thoroughly handled? How often do Police fail to follow standard protocols? How often do Police deny mistakes? These questions create even more implications when coupled with some of the problems previously discussed.
Mr. Mead's lawsuit not only raises issues of mishandling evidence, it also raises questions as to what is required for an arrest. Although there has been no final determination as to whether the Police had sufficient evidence to arrest him, Mr. Mead's lawsuit illustrates the importance of knowing the threshold standard for arrests: probable cause. Probable cause is more than a hunch; it is enough facts / evidence that a reasonable person would believe criminal activity is occurring. If the Court determines that the Police officers lacked probable cause to arrest Mr. Mead, his incarceration was presumably invalid and a violation of his constitutional rights. In the grander scheme, this determination would undermine law enforcement in Gaston County and raise even more questions of wrongdoing.
It is imperative that the accused are aware that there are certain standards of criminal investigations and the minimal thresholds required before a valid arrest can occur. Obtaining competent counsel as soon as an arrest occurs will help ensure that one's rights are not be violated, as well as ensure that appropriate defenses are raised during your case.
CharlotteObserver.com, Man sues police after murder acquittal, 11/9/11
Leave a comment