bvelliquette@heraldsun.com; 419-6632
DURHAM – A Durham attorney, in an answer to a motion filed by District Attorney Tracey Cline for Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson to recuse himself from a case set for Friday, said Cline is trying to set a dangerous precedent.
Kerry Sutton, who represents Clint Edward Pollard Sr., filed the response Tuesday afternoon at the Durham Court Clerk’s Office in response to an amended motion filed by Cline filed on Monday in which Cline requests Hudson to recuse himself from the case.
“This is dangerous precedent,” Sutton wrote in her response. “If a prosecutor can successfully seek to bar a judge from sitting on her cases because he has ruled against her ‘one too many times,’ or on particular grounds that she objects to, the separation between the executive and judicial branches is breached, and the independence of the judiciary is undermined.”
Sutton also wrote if Cline believes that Hudson is biased against her, the appropriate forum for such allegations is the Judicial Standards Commission. Cline has said in other motions that she has filed a complaint against Hudson with the Judicial Standards Commission, but she also filed long motions that are in the public record in other cases in which she has asked that Hudson be removed from those cases.
Cline has claimed that Hudson, in conjunction with two defense attorneys, conspired against her and provided material to The News & Observer for a series of articles about her called “Twisted Truth,” that she said discredited her and ruined her reputation.
Her amended motion for Hudson to recuse himself states, “In the Interest of Justice in light of the facts and circumstances presented by the State and concede that it is readily apparent that there is a clear pattern of the appearance of impartiality specifically with the substantial connective relationships this Court has with the parties in the Allen case and recuse himself from this matter.”
Cline wrote that Hudson “uses his power to retaliate against her in total disregard of the facts and law, the legal rights of victims and /or victims’ families and even the horrific impact these actions have on the integrity of the justice system.”
Sutton, however, said the public filings that Cline has made have brought negative attention to the court system.
“The public filing of such unsupported allegations does exactly what the District Attorney claims to be concerned about: it brings disrepute to the criminal justice system,” Sutton’s motion states.
When City Councilman Eugene Brown read that Cline had once again filed a motion asking Hudson to be removed from a case, he sent the story in an email to other council members, with the notation, “The embarrassment continues, when is enough, enough?”
Reached by telephone, Brown said he thought the lesson was learned in December when Superior Court Judge Carl Fox ruled against Cline when she tried to have Hudson removed from three cases, including the Michael Peterson case.
“I thought things would settle down a little bit after her hearing before Judge Fox,” Brown said.
“It’s cast a pall over the judicial system particularly, as far as it affects the district attorney’s office,” Brown said. “I just don’t understand it. I’m very frustrated by it. From a City Council perspective I would conclude by saying we are impacted.”
Sutton, in her motion, also noted that the Pollard case was not part of the “Twisted Truth” series, and that the attorneys that Cline mentioned in her pleadings, also had nothing to do with the Pollard case.
“In short, none of the allegations in the State’s pleading have any relevance to whether the Court should disqualify itself from hearing the motion to dismiss in State v. Pollard that is currently pending,” Sutton wrote in the response. “Judge Hudson has at no time displayed any bias or prejudice toward the State in this matter, and there is no factual or legal basis for Judge Hudson to be disqualified in this matter.”
If Cline has been dissatisfied with decisions Hudson has made, then it would be appropriate to appeal those cases, “and to make her legal arguments, without personal invective or character assassination, in that forum.”
Sutton also wrote in her motion that Cline filed her motion to disqualify Hudson at 2:32 p.m. on Jan. 9, 2012. The hearing is set for Jan. 13 at 9:30 a.m., which is not within the five-day deadline for filing recusal motions, Sutton wrote.
Cline could not be reached for comment Tuesday. In the past, she has declined to comment on the controversy.
