DURHAM -- Suspended District Attorney Tracey Cline, testifying in a hearing Friday that could lead to her permanent removal from office, did not back away from her fundamental accusation that Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson is a biased, unfair judge who cannot administer justice in Durham based on the law or facts.
Speaking carefully and in a measured tone in more than three hours of testimony, Cline conceded only that the words she has used to challenge Hudson and attempt to remove him from cases should have been different in some instances.
"What I recorded in those motions was absolutely true," Cline said. "How I said it should have been better."
Cline often looked directly at Superior Court Judge Robert H. Hobgood, who under state law will determine whether Cline's allegations against Hudson in motions and courtroom arguments since November require her removal from office under a rare law. The hearing continues Monday.
The law says a DA who engages in conduct, among other things, that is "prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute" shall be removed. Hobgood has found probable cause that Cline's writings and actions meet that standard, and he suspended her from office last month. He is hearing evidence before making a final decision.
Cline testified Friday that she has not crossed that line and that she thinks she has done the "right thing," directly rebutting lawyers who testified earlier this week that she could no longer be trusted as a prosecutor because of her actions.
Two judges who previously considered Cline's efforts to remove Hudson from cases found that her arguments were "woefully inadequate" or not based in fact.
Asked directly whether her conduct was prejudicial and brought disrepute, Cline on Friday was emphatic.
"Absolutely not, and I would not do that," she said. "As a matter of fact, I felt if I didn't do something that it was inconsistent with justice."
Cline also said her writings are "not anything to do with a personal attack on Judge Hudson."
"I didn't call Judge Hudson anything. I said his rulings," Cline said. "And I'm not saying that it was correct to say that. I'm saying it went overboard. But I was in a dilemma as the prosecutor. I felt like if I did not step in ... we would have more cases that I felt were decided on law or facts that were unsupported."
'Moral turpitude'
Among her writings are numerous references that strike a personal tone against Hudson.
In one passage, Cline wrote that Hudson's "misconduct involves more than an error of judgment or a mere lack of diligence."
"(T)his Court's actions encompasses conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption," Cline continued.
In another, Cline wrote that Hudson's dismissals were "an extreme abuse of power."
"Such abuse of power, without legal consciousness of right and wrong, having a total and reckless disregard of the law, and a reprobate mind of a monarch, aims to destroy and will destroy, the heart of our justice system if left unchecked," she wrote.
Cline wrote that Hudson "disregards the law and does not respect the applicable law, if it is inconsistent with his personal purpose or plan or the interests of his associates."
She wrote that he was "directly attempting to intimidate and inappropriately dictate the discretion of the District Attorney" to decide when to press forward on cases.
"The District Attorney's refusal to be intimidated by this Honorable Court's power and prestige," she wrote, "initiated a causal connection of common denominators dedicated and designed to align actual or fictitious legal issues with this Court's jurisdiction."
Those words, and other passages that are similar to those in the hundreds of pages of filings, have caused experts to describe them as unprecedented in North Carolina legal settings.
Hudson, through a courts administrator, declined to comment Friday. He has generally disputed Cline's allegations.
Cline specifically referenced her often-quoted allegation that "victims of decades old crimes are being emotionally and relentlessly repeatedly raped by this Court's rulings."
Cline testified that "the accusations were not Judge Hudson is a rapist of people."
"It's his rulings are re-raping the victims," Cline said.
Cross-examination
Cline did not face any cross-examination Friday. That is scheduled for Monday.
At one point, her attorney, James Van Camp of Pinehurst, asked Cline whether she included any "calculated falsehoods" in the motions she filed.
"Absolutely there's no calculated falsehoods or any falsehoods," Cline responded.
But the writings do include factual errors.
For example, she says a News & Observer reporter was held in contempt of court in 1998. That isn't the case.
She says Hudson decided to continue two murder cases without letting the state be heard. However, court records show that the state objected to the continuances in writing prior to Hudson's rulings.
Much of her testimony paralleled her writings and arguments in courtrooms since November, all part of a sweeping allegation that Hudson had begun to retaliate against her, ruling against her with no basis.
Cline described a mounting feeling over the past year that Hudson had turned on her after she would not dismiss a murder case in late 2010.
Then, after Hudson dismissed a hotly contested murder case in August, Cline said she started to wonder whether she wasn't getting a fair shake.
She said she took action to try and remove Hudson in order to not "risk unjust judgments based on facts that did not exist" in upcoming cases he was set to handle.
Cline also sprinkled her testimony with positive references, saying she long had considered Hudson a role model.
"I looked up to him and cared about him, still do very much," Cline said.
As Cline testified, she recounted a case in which she says Hudson urged her to dismiss charges. Cline said that Hudson told her the case, highlighted in an audit detailing problems in the State Bureau of Investigation's reports on blood evidence, was high-profile and that she shouldn't put herself in a position to defend problems at the SBI.
"He told me this case needs to go away and you need to dismiss it," Cline said. "I honestly felt like he had not read the file."
Hudson eventually dismissed the charges against Derrick Allen, despite Cline's attempts to move forward.
Case goes forward
As Friday's proceedings began, Hobgood denied several motions by Cline's attorneys to suspend the inquiry because, they said, the law was vague and Cline had been denied her due process.
"The court does find that there is sufficient evidence of malice and falsity of the statements that the court has admitted into evidence, the statements of Tracey Cline. There is sufficient evidence for the case to go forward," Hobgood said.
The judge has yet to rule on a motion to throw out the case because Cline's statements were protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.
Stephen Lindsay, a Fairview lawyer helping Durham attorney Kerry Sutton in efforts to present evidence about Cline's actions, said in the hearing that she should have known there are strict rules guiding how lawyers interact with judges.
"They know what they are supposed to do and what they are not supposed to do in a courtroom," Lindsay said. "They are on notice of that from the day they appear before a judge and are sworn in."
Cline was not asked about that directly by her attorneys.
But as she completed her testimony, Cline turned and looked squarely at Hobgood, who peered back at her over his eyeglasses.
"I hope you keep an open mind," she said. "I did what I thought was right based on my oath of office."
