Judge will not seek more limits on lawmakers’ Charlotte crime hearing
A federal judge indicated Tuesday that he will not seek additional limits on state legislators’ Feb. 9 hearing on crime and public safety issues in Charlotte.
US District Judge Kenneth Bell issued a one-paragraph order indicating that lawmakers’ plan for the hearing “is consistent with” a federal magistrate judge’s Jan. 15 protective order in the case of United States v. Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr.
Brown faces a state-level murder charge and a federal charge in connection with last August’s stabbing death of 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska.
Chairs of the House Select Committee on Oversight and Reform filed a document on Jan. 27 in the federal case. They sought clarification about the Jan. 15 order and its impact on their ability to discuss Zarutska and Brown in the public meeting.
They indicated that they believed the order was “invalid and unconstitutional” when applied to them. Yet they intended “to voluntarily abide by the terms of the Preliminary Protective Order” while moving forward with the hearing.
“Having reviewed the Response, and for good cause shown, the Court acknowledges the House Oversight Co-Chairs’ request for an opportunity to be heard on the Protective Order,” Bell wrote Tuesday.
He plans to schedule a hearing next week “at a time convenient for the Court and the parties.”
Legislators pushed back the hearing originally scheduled for late January to seek “legal clarification” about the “scope of allowed public discussion,” according to a Jan. 27 news release.
“Clear court guidance is necessary so committee members can thoroughly question Charlotte officials in light of recent tragedies,” the release continued.
“North Carolinians deserve the truth about what happened to Iryna Zarutska, and the mismanagement in Mecklenburg County,” wrote Rep. Brenden Jones, R-Columbus, on X/Twitter. Jones co-chairs the oversight committee and serves as House majority leader.
“In order to protect the public health, safety, and wellbeing of the citizens of North Carolina, the North Carolina House Select Committee on Oversight and Reform is conducting an inquiry into whether Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s official policy decisions, budgetary allocations, and operational practices are effectively addressing rising crime, or whether public safety has been subordinated to other objectives at the expense of Charlotte residents, transit users, and law-abiding members of the community,” according to the Jan. 27 court filing from Jones and his co-chairs: Rep. Harry Warren, R-Rowan, and Rep. Jake Johnson, R-Polk.
The lawmakers noted that they never had a chance to respond in court before a federal magistrate judge issued an order limiting their actions.
“The House Oversight Co-Chairs respect the authority of this Court and recognize the importance of the Court’s governance of this criminal proceeding,” their lawyers wrote. “However, the House Oversight Co-Chairs hold concerns regarding the chilling effect that this Court’s order may have on the Committee’s discharge of its duties, as well as the legal authority and constitutionality of the Preliminary Protective Order.”
The committee chairs believe the order is “invalid and unconstitutional” when applied to them, the court filing explained. Yet “they intend to voluntarily abide by the terms of the Preliminary Protective Order while continuing their ongoing legislative inquiry into critical matters of public health, safety, and wellbeing that affect the citizens of Charlotte and the State, without prejudice to their rights to challenge the Preliminary Protective Order through proper legal channels.”
The legislators “interpret the Preliminary Protective Order to narrowly prohibit disclosing or releasing the Mecklenburg County criminal investigative file related to the events of August 22, 2025 that are the subject of the Indictment in this case,” their lawyers wrote. “The House Oversight Co-Chairs do not interpret the Court’s Preliminary Protective Order to in any way restrict the House Oversight Committee of the North Carolina General Assembly, the North Carolina General Assembly’s Representatives, or any Legislator, staff, and/or volunteer from disclosing or discussing, at public hearings or otherwise, any facts related to the August 22, 2025 incident that are already in the public domain, or which have been obtained or discovered through sources other than the Mecklenburg County criminal investigative file related to the Defendant.”
The oversight committee will move forward with the Feb. 9 hearing “in accordance with the foregoing interpretation of the Preliminary Protective Order,” the court filing indicated. “The House Oversight Co-Chairs respectfully request notice and an opportunity to be heard if the Court believes the House Oversight Co-Chairs’ interpretation of the Court’s Preliminary Protective Order is incorrect.”
US Magistrate Judge David Keesler issued an emergency protective order on Jan. 15 blocking the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and North Carolina legislators from releasing information from the criminal investigative file connected to Zarutska’s stabbing death last summer on Charlotte’s light rail line.
Brown and US Attorney Russ Ferguson both supported the order.
In addition to the state murder charge, Brown faces a federal charge of “violence against a railroad carrier and mass transportation system resulting in death.” That federal charge makes Brown eligible for the death penalty if convicted.
Keesler had issued an earlier order in the federal case, later upheld by Bell, that blocked CMPD from releasing law enforcement video and audio recordings to the media.
“[T]he Court notes the earlier Order prohibits the release of any and all recordings relating to the August 22, 2025, events that are the subject of the indictment in this case,” Keesler wrote in the Jan. 15 order. “To the extent the materials Defendant now seeks to protect are not covered in that, the Court finds good cause to enter another preliminary protective order.”
“The Court determines Defendant has sufficiently shown release of the materials may prejudice his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, and may cause other harms including risking the safety of witnesses,” Keesler added. “This preliminary protective order may be subject to reconsideration after any further responses are filed or at a later date if circumstances in this case change.”
Brown filed an emergency motion for a protective order on Jan. 14.
He sought an order “preventing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and/or the House Oversight Committee of the North Carolina General Assembly (and its members, staffers, and any other person), from releasing or otherwise disclosing the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department’s (and the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s) criminal investigative file related to the death of I.Z. and related to the investigation of DeCarlos Brown, Jr.”
Brown’s lawyers learned on Jan. 14 about a Dec. 19 demand letter state legislators sent to Mecklenburg County District Attorney Spencer Merriweather. The letter sought “emails, messaging, or any other form of correspondence, and all documents, reports, memos, other written materials, or links to such” dealing with the Zarutska case and another Charlotte train stabbing on Dec. 8.
“Mr. Merriweather has determined that the request included ‘the criminal case file related to the defendant’s prosecution,’” Brown’s lawyers wrote. The court filing cited a document filed in state court indicating the DA office’s intent to comply with the legislative request.
“At approximately 4:30 this afternoon, the defense learned that the file may have already been sent by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department to the legislative committee and legislators,” Brown’s Jan. 14 court filing continued.
“This Court has already addressed the dangers of premature release of limited records related to this case in a recent protective order,” Brown’s lawyers wrote. “Given the similar nature and urgency of this situation — that these materials may have already been produced, and given the risk that sensitive, confidential, privileged, inadmissible, and other materials may be soon released to the public — counsel ask for an emergency protective preventing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, the North Carolina Legislature (including the House Oversight Committee), Representative Jake Johnson, Representative Brenden Jones, Representative Harry Warren, and any other Legislator, staff, volunteer, or any other person from releasing or otherwise disclosing the criminal investigation file related to the death of I.Z. or the investigation of DeCarlos Brown, Jr. to any person or agency absent an order from this Court.”
Ferguson oversees prosecution of the federal case. His office filed a separate document in federal court on Jan. 14 “joining Defendant’s emergency motion for a protective order regarding the disclosure of the criminal investigative file of the Defendant.”
“Regardless of who has the file, the government joins Defendant’s request for a protective order over the CMPD’s criminal investigative file related to DeCarlos Dejuan Brown, Jr.,” assistant US attorneys in Ferguson’s office wrote.
Bell issued a Jan. 9 order blocking the release to television station WSOC of video and audio law enforcement recordings linked to the Zarutska case. The order covered 911 recordings and body-worn camera footage from CMPD. Bell’s order upheld Keesler’s temporary order issued four days earlier.
Brown’s lawyers turned to federal court after a state judge had granted WSOC access to the recordings in Brown’s state-level murder case.
“Brown asserts that public release of the materials will prejudice his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, particularly in light of the case’s death penalty-eligible posture and the extensive media coverage it has already generated,” Bell wrote. “Brown further asserts that disclosure of the materials could endanger key witnesses and others depicted in the recordings — either physically or reputationally — and notes that members of his family, the mayor, and others have already received death and other threats related to this matter. The Government likewise expresses concern for witness safety and for preserving the integrity of the federal prosecution.”
“The Court has carefully considered these motions, briefs, and supporting exhibits,” Bell explained. “For the reasons articulated by both Brown and the Government, the Court finds that good cause exists to enter a Rule 16(d) protective order prohibiting the release of the Materials from the August 22, 2025, incident. Therefore, the Court will grant Brown’s Motion for Protective Order as to WSOC-TV, and any other individual or entity other than counsel for the government and Brown (and those individuals working with counsel).”
The lawyer working for Zarutska’s family will have access to the recordings, according to Bell’s order. Brown had consented in a court filing that the Zarutska family should have access to the material.
Ferguson’s office had agreed with Brown’s request to block media access to the recordings.
“The government shares some of Brown’s stated concerns, in particular with regard to witness safety,” wrote federal prosecutors. “The investigation has revealed that individuals in social media have already tried to identify some of the witnesses in the video footage that depicts the murder. That footage was released by the media, and any additional materials that identify witnesses risks their safety and the integrity of this federal prosecution.”
Zarutska’s stabbing death attracted international media attention. It prompted North Carolina legislators to approve Iryna’s Law, a measure Gov. Josh Stein signed on Oct. 3.
“Judge will not seek more limits on lawmakers’ Charlotte crime hearing” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.
![[WBT107.9FM] app promo graphics 2025](https://wbt.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2025/12/17653898024341.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=150&crop=0,0,100,150px)
