Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline late Thursday accused Orlando Hudson, the senior Superior Court judge in Durham, of "moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption" in an extraordinary court filing related to recent high-profile cases in which Hudson has ruled against her.
In the new 12-page filing, Cline said that she will seek to remove Hudson from overseeing any criminal case in Durham. And she disclosed that she has leveled a complaint of misconduct against Hudson with the state commission that oversees judges, a document that is secret under state law.
In one passage, Cline writes that victims are being "raped" by Hudson's rulings.
Cline said the wrongdoing by Hudson began with one case: a murder charge against Derrick Allen, accused of killing a 2-year-old child. She said Hudson had harbored animosity against her and retaliated because she refused to dismiss the case late last year.
Cline, in the court filing, made a string of misconduct allegations against Hudson but does not support them with any new facts. Cline repeats arguments she has made in courtrooms and filings in three cases that have been in the spotlight this year, saying formally for the first time in a court document that Hudson's actions are "in spite of justice."
Cline could not be reached for comment. Hudson said in a brief interview Thursday evening that he disputes any accusation of wrongdoing or misconduct and welcomed a review. "I have the utmost confidence in the Judicial Standards Commission," Hudson said.
This year, Hudson has dismissed two murder charges and issued written orders that found Cline, as a prosecutor, violated defendants' rights.
In each, Hudson found problems in the cases by other agencies, such as the police, the State Bureau of Investigation or the state medical examiners office.
In the first case, involving Allen, Hudson had said in an interview after issuing the ruling that he did not believe Cline should be sanctioned by the state agency that regulates lawyers for her role in the case. The proper remedy, Hudson said, was a dismissal of the charge against the defendant.
In a second case, officially decided this week, Hudson tossed out a murder charge that Cline brought against a Mebane man. Michael C. Dorman II was arrested last year trying to dispose of bones of a presumed murder victim. Hudson's written order, filed Monday, said Cline misrepresented facts to a judge and violated the man's rights in allowing the bones to be destroyed before the defense could test them for cause of death or identity.
In a third case Cline cites in the new filing, Hudson has granted a Durham man new access to files and documents in a rape case that is 12 years old. The man, David Yearwood, alleges that Cline has made misstatements, hid evidence and violated his rights; he wants his conviction overturned. Hudson has not taken that case up this year.
But in 2004, Hudson had ruled against Yearwood when he tried to undo his conviction, an effort that included allegations of misconduct by Cline. Cline denies wrongdoing in each case.
Misuse of power?
Beginning with the Allen case, Cline alleges, the judge has engaged in a "purposeful pattern of abuse" to establish prosecutorial misconduct and manufacture "media mayhem," and that he has been "resolute in attempts to ruin reputations."
Cline alleges that Hudson's "malicious misconduct still continues and will not cease" and that Hudson "sacrifices the justice owed to the citizens of Durham County in order to punish the prosecutor."
Hudson, Cline wrote, "dismissed two murder cases without any supporting facts or applicable law."
Hudson's order dismissing the Allen case is 46 pages. His order dismissing the Dorman case is 69 pages. Both include findings of fact and conclusions of law. And both are being appealed by Cline and the state Attorney General's Office in the Court of Appeals.
In the filing, Cline repeats arguments that she has been making in the Allen and Dorman cases. In addressing the Yearwood rape case, Cline describes her views of what happened in that prosecution but does not address what she believes Hudson has done wrong.
All of the cases have been in the news this year, due to numerous filings and a three-part series in The News & Observer, "Twisted Truth," that outlined a range of actions questioning Cline's conduct. Cline has complained about the series, saying she is the victim of "injustice."
Cline fires away
The new filing by Cline contains misspellings and punctuation errors that are common to her correspondence, but it also reflects a passion that has helped her work as a prosecutor since 1993. Her specialty has been handling sex crimes and, as the daughter of two preachers, she is known for soaring oral arguments and as a victim's advocate.
"[T]he state's right to be heard has been striped (sic) away under Orders of this Honorable Court," Cline wrote, adding that "the victims' rights are lost by this Court's calculated schemes, the chief medical examiner's opinion is clouded by a 'court created conspiracy' unsupported by any facts or law; families of murder victims' faith is forfeited by fictitious findings of this Court, and victims of decade old crimes are being emotionally and relentlessly repeatedly (sic) raped by this Court's findings ..."
Cline adds, "This is power without responsibility or conscious (sic)."
In seeking to remove Hudson from criminal matters in Durham, Cline cites several canons of judicial code that she believes Hudson has violated.
They include requirements that judges uphold integrity and independence, promote public confidence in the judiciary, keep relationships from influencing their judgment, and that judges should be faithful to the law and unswayed by partisanship, public clamor or fear of criticism.
She does not say how Hudson violated those rules other than citing the cases that have not been decided in her favor.
Cline has indicated that she believes the N.C. State Bar, which oversees lawyers, likely will examine her behavior in some of the cases. The bar's counsel has declined comment.
Cline's new filing Thursday might come under such a review. Ethics rules for lawyers say they cannot "engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal" or engage in discourteous conduct "degrading to a tribunal."
Ethics rules also require lawyers to bring actions based in law and fact, and that a lawyer cannot make a statement "with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge."
