Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline has issued statements that indicate she will continue to seek the removal of Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson from criminal cases in Durham despite rulings by two judges in two cases that she had not shown a factual basis in voluminous court filings for disqualifying Hudson.
Cline told the Herald-Sun newspaper of Durham and WRAL-TV of Raleigh in statements that her ongoing efforts are intended to seek the truth.
"The truth must be protected from political pressures and the promises of the powerful," Cline wrote to WRAL. "To go against the status quo and seek justice, at times, is not popular. To demand that all people are treated fairly is not favored. Not even from the prosecutor. It is truth telling time. And Durham County needs to know the truth and I will continue to fight for that truth."
Cline alleges that Hudson encouraged her privately to dismiss a murder case last year. When she didn't, she alleges, the judge launched a campaign to retaliate against her, dismissing two murder charges and then collaborating with the News & Observer to cause reports on other cases in which her conduct has been under scrutiny in the courts. Hudson and the N&O have disputed Cline's claims.
The language Cline has used in her filings has been criticized by a wide range of legal scholars and lawyers.
Cline has written that Hudson's decisions "raped" victims and that he ruled in Durham with the "reprobate mind of a monarch." In one filing, Cline wrote that an "unjustified contempt" for the court system was "conceived in the womb of justice, a judge." She accuses Hudson of "moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption."
On Wednesday, a Durham lawyer filed an affidavit that, under a rarely used provision in state law, asks a judge to determine if Cline should be suspended or removed from her elected office. The lawyer, Kerry Sutton, wrote that Cline has brought the Durham court system into "widespread disrepute" and has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. If a judge finds that those standards are met under the law, the judge is required to remove the district attorney.
The N&O has sought comment from Cline, but she has not responded. Cline has previously said she will not speak to the N&O.
Cline told the Herald-Sun in a statement that she would not yield her office.
“The district attorney must not bend or bargain for the power to possess the elected office,” Cline wrote to the newspaper. “In doing so the truth is lost and justice can only die. As for me it is simple, seeking truth and justice is what must be done, and yes at all costs.”
Cline said the ongoing controversy is not a game with two sides.
"There is only one side and that is the Truth," she wrote, according to the Herald-Sun. "In the last 20 years, I have told victims many times that the road to truth is a lonely road. In the last year, I have really learned that, but this thing I know is worth the journey."
Cline's filings have been challenged as inaccurate.
Most recently, a report in the N&O on Sunday showed that an allegation made by Cline against Hudson was not based in fact. Cline claimed Hudson decided to dismiss a murder case before it was over, and she repeatedly cited a time-stamped court document as proof because the document was logged in while a hearing on the case was still being conducted.
However, court clerks confirmed that the time stamp that day was inaccurate because the clock was off that day. The document in question was filed after the hearing, according to the clerks. Legal scholars say judges often prepare orders reflecting an outcome in a case before it is over and that was not a sign of misconduct by Hudson.
Sutton's filing seeking a judge's decision on Cline's actions includes affidavits from two court clerks about the time stamp issue. Sutton has been present in the courtrooms while Cline's claims were heard by judges over the past two months. She alleges Cline's filings have tied up court resources and meet the standard for removal. In filing an affidavit, Sutton would be a likely witness any in removal hearing, which is overseen by a judge.
Sutton also noted that Superior Court Judge James E. Hardin Jr. issued a "public admonition" to Cline last month after determining that she filed false motions to him that caused him to issue orders producing confidential prison records of inmates who were featured in the N&O's reporting. Hardin warned Cline to be accurate in her court documents.
The removal effort begun by Sutton is a rare one.
Only one district attorney in North Carolina is known to have been removed by a judge under the procedure. A judge found that the prosecutors use of a racial slur in a bar was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Appeals courts agreed.
At least one other prosecutor resigned after a removal effort began.
A removal effort was started against former Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong in the midst of the Duke lacrosse case, but it was not heard by a judge. The State Bar, an agency that regulates lawyers, took Nifong's law license from him in a separate action.
