Collateral Estoppel Establishes Violations By Former Durham DA

The North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission has granted partial summary judgment to the State Bar in its disciplinary charges against former Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline.

The commission concluded that collateral estoppel applied as a result of a judgment of the Durham County Superior Court established violations of Rules 3,1, 3.3(a)(1), 8.2(a) and 8.4(c) and (d),

The only remaining issue is sanction.

IndyWeek reported on her removal from office in March 2012

Cline, who had been Durham’s top prosecutor for three years, wouldn’t comment on the decision of Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood to permanently remove Cline from office. But the Pinehurst legal team that Cline assembled just three weeks ago filed a notice Friday morning that they’ll appeal the decision. (Read the ruling, PDF)

As the judge ruled against her, Cline thanked him for taking the time to consider the matter.

“And I thank you for, in the past, being an extremely effective litigator for the state of North Carolina and the citizens of Durham County,” replied Hobgood, a visiting judge from Franklin County.

“I appreciate it judge, that means a lot to me,” Cline replied.

Hobgood concluded that public statements Cline made about Durham’s Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson last fall have interfered with the regular operation of the courthouse and brought Durham’s judicial system into “disrepute.”

Cline’s attorneys tried to prove that, among other reasons, Cline should not be removed from office because her speech was protected by the First Amendment. Hudson did find that some of her comments may fall under the “umbrella” of free speech.

But other statements, including accusations in public documents that Hudson was guilty of misconduct, “moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption,” that he had “kidnapped” the rights of victims and their families, and that he and others had the “blood of justice” on their hands, were not protected.

“This false, malicious, direct attack on Judge Orlando F. Hudson Jr., to which Judge Hudson, under the Code of Judicial Conduct, cannot respond publicly, goes far beyond any protected speech under the First Amendment and cannot be and is not supported by any facts in the record,” Hobgood wrote in his final ruling. “These specific statements were made with actual malice and with reckless disregard for the truth.”

The charges are linked here. (Mike Frisch)