- The murders of a Ukrainian refugee and an aspiring teacher brought to light holes in the judicial system, including a lack of bail bond guides for magistrates
- Some judicial officials may be overwhelmed by the number of arrestees that are brought before them, but some may be lax in conducting a criminal background check on arrestees
- North Carolina needs to implement a statewide, systematic guide for magistrates to use when assigning bail to an arrestee and mandate that all magistrates conduct criminal background checks (including prior charges, arrests, and convictions) on all arrestees brought before them
On August 22, 2025, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee was murdered on the Charlotte light rail. The victim, Iryna Zarutska, was repeatedly stabbed and left to bleed out. The exceptional brutality of it captured national attention.
Just weeks before, on May 3, a 22-year-old aspiring teacher from Waxhaw was shot and killed during a home robbery in Columbia, South Carolina. Logan Federico was visiting friends at the University of South Carolina when she was murdered.
The suspect in Zarutska’s murder, Decarlos Brown Jr., had 14 previous arrests and several convictions and allegedly suffered from mental illness (schizophrenia). Brown had a violent criminal history that included assaulting his sister and using a firearm in the commission of a felony. He also had a history of failing to appear in court. Nevertheless, despite a recent arrest for misusing 911, he was free that night on a written promise to appear in court, having been released by Teresa Stokes, a magistrate in Mecklenburg County.
The suspect in Federico’s murder, Alexander Dickey, was also no stranger to the criminal justice system. Since 2013, he has faced nearly 40 charges involving robbery, drug possession, and larceny. He was sentenced in only eight of them, however. He had been handed a five-year sentence in 2023 for burglary, but he had been credited 410 daysand given a shortened probation as well.
On September 23, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill (HB) 307, “Iryna’s Law,” which Gov. Josh Stein signed into law. As reported by The Carolina Journal, the law makes several significant changes to the criminal justice system. It “tightens pretrial conditions for the release of violent offenders, eliminates cashless bail, establishes a new protocol for ordering mental health evaluations in the criminal justice system, and sets a firmer timeline for appeal in death penalty cases.” It also “creates a new category of ‘violent offenses’ requiring GPS monitoring, house arrest, or secured bond for those accused, and adds committing a capital felony on public transportation to the list of aggravating factors that can make a defendant eligible for the death penalty.”
While Iryna’s Law is a great first step in protecting the citizens of North Carolina, more needs to be done. Two critical needs would be to implement a statewide, systematic bail/bond guide (a standardized, evidence-based reference with offense categories, recommended bail ranges, and risk factors) and mandate that all magistrates in North Carolina conduct a criminal background check of each arrestee brought before them.
How bail decisions are made under current state law
The current process that magistrates in North Carolina use to set bail is often based on their own discretion, sometimes with little data. This process can lead to inconsistent bail amounts, release of repeat violent offenders, and public safety concerns. Some counties in North Carolina have policies in place regarding bail ranges for certain felonies and misdemeanors, although they still allow magistrates to use their discretion.
The sitting superior court judge and chief district judge are responsible for setting pretrial release policies for magistrates, so long as they do not extend beyond the provisions of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive bail and fines as well as cruel and unusual punishments. This process, however, is problematic because: 1) these policies can vary widely across jurisdictions, and 2) these policies are often vague enough to allow for broad discretion on behalf of the magistrate.
The policy goals behind North Carolina’s bail and pretrial release polices are: Impose the least restrictive nonmonetary form of pretrial release that ensures the defendant’s court appearance; avoid abuses of prejudicial or predetermined bail-fixing practices; and empower the judicial official to make informed decisions about the form of release and bond amount based on the defendant’s circumstances.
Even though current law does not provide a simple checklist for determining bail, it does mandate judicial officials to consider a specific list of factors when setting pretrial release conditions. Those include the nature of the offense, evidence against the defendant, family ties, financial resources, employment, character, mental condition, intoxication, length of residence, criminal record, history of avoiding prosecution, and any other relevant evidence.
While the decision for bail is always individualized, a few judicial districts use their own worksheets as a tool for structured decision-making, especially for serious offenses like drug trafficking or habitual felonies. These tools, such as the Bond Worksheet used in the 8th Judicial District, help ensure judges and magistrates consider all required factors and provide written justification for secured bonds.
During a bail hearing, the judge or magistrate evaluates public safety risks, the defendant’s likelihood of appearing in court (flight risk), and arguments from the defense regarding community ties, employment, or case details. To impose a secured bond, a judge or magistrate must first consider less restrictive options and then document the reasons for requiring a secured bond, especially if it is mandated by local policy. The judge or magistrate and the defendant then fill out a “Conditions of Release and Release Order” form (known as the AOC-CR-200 form) giving the details of the decision.
Sometimes, however, magistrates don’t have time to conduct a criminal background check, but sometimes they simply choose not to do so. In many counties, a magistrate can set bail within minutes without even knowing whether the accused has a violent past. This knowledge gap can put victims and communities at risk.
North Carolina’s process is not much different from those of neighboring states. South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia all lack statewide schedules for bail amounts. Of our neighboring states, Georgia has the most robust bail scheduling policy. Georgia law explicitly permits (but does not require) the establishment and use of fixed bail schedules except for offences involving family violence. Consequently, several Georgia counties and municipalities utilize such bail schedules.
Two crucial reforms for setting bail to improve public safety in North Carolina
North Carolina needs a statewide, systematic bail/bond guide for magistrates and for magistrates to consider each arrestee’s previous charges, arrests, and convictions in making decisions. These proposals would positively impact justice and public safety.
This bail/bond guide would:
- Improve consistency and fairness in bail decisions
- Enhance public safety by considering prior violent offenses
- Reduce judicial liability and errors
- Support data-driven justice and avoid arbitrary bail amounts
- Eliminate any possibility of racial or other biases
Concerns over such reforms could include issues of time and costs, judicial discretion, and technology gaps. With respect to time and costs, background checks might make first appearances take longer, but they must be balanced against the social costs of not conducting background checks and therefore not getting the decisions right.
These reforms would not take power and discretion away from judicial officials. Instead, they would allow for more transparency and accountability for magistrates across the state. The AOC-CR-200 forms could be amended to include a box for magistrates to check to attest that they conducted the background checks, on penalty of reprimand, removal, or even a Class 1 misdemeanor for failing to complete those duties.
With respect to technology gaps, all county magistrates’ offices should be provided with up-to-date computer technology so that they may conduct detailed criminal background checks on arrestees. Magistrates should be offered training in the use of the bail/bond guide. Phased rollouts or pilot programs could help locate and address technological issues as they arise.
Conclusion
North Carolina’s current system of unguided bail-setting failed Iryna Zarutska, Logan Federico, and many other victims. The answer is simple: North Carolina needs to implement a statewide, systematic guide for magistrates to use when assigning bail to an arrestee and mandate that all magistrates conduct criminal background checks (including prior charges, arrests, and convictions) on all arrestees brought before them.
These reforms can protect the public, reduce disparities and eliminate any racial or other biases in bail decisions, and strengthen trust in the justice system. They will not only allow more transparency and accountability within our justice system, but they will also help make North Carolina a safer place to be.
