Raleigh Paper Exposes Judge
DWI Doug McCullough as Fraud
Raleigh News & Observer | newsobserver.com | Judge's remarks get no rebuke
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Published: Nov 20, 2007
Judge's remarks get no rebuke
Incumbent made partisan comments
Titan Barksdale, Staff Writer
The N.C. Judicial Standards Commission will not punish N.C. Appeals
Court Judge Doug McCullough for partisan comments he made during a speech
in Haywood County.
Paul Ross, chairman of the commission, said in a letter that the
commission has made "an effort to ensure such conduct is not repeated" by
McCullough, a Republican who is seeking re-election.
In a five-minute speech last month, McCullough implied that party
politics and a party's agenda can influence how an appellate judge decides a
case.
Judicial elections in North Carolina are nonpartisan, and ethical rules
require that judges remain unswayed by partisan interests.
McCullough has not returned phone calls to his office seeking comment.
A complaint was filed with the commission by Connie Berry Jr., whose
wife, Rachel Hunter, has been a state judicial candidate in the past.
Berry said McCullough ran afoul of ethical rules that require judicial
integrity and that a judge remain unswayed by partisan interests.
In the speech, McCullough told Haywood County Republicans that the
re-election of N.C. Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds, who is also
Republican, is the most "critical political decision" they would have to make.
He said a lawsuit over the way legislative districts are drawn is
likely, and he added that because of gerrymandering, Democratic seats are in
"safe areas." If Edmunds is re-elected, McCullough said, he would be
on the bench to cast a vote on whether the districts are lawful.
Though a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2002 loosened the rules on what
judges can talk about during their campaigns, some jurists say it is
inappropriate to comment on a case that might come before the court. The
state code of judicial conduct was changed after the Supreme Court
decision and allowed judges to speak more freely.
Berry said McCullough's comments erode the public's trust in the
judiciary's ability to be fair and impartial, and he added that he was
disappointed by the commission's decision.
"The issue opens up a whole new game in judicial politics," Berry said.
"In short, he is trying to bribe the voters by saying, 'I will make it
a Republican paradise if you vote for me or my Republican dream
judicial team.'"
Edmunds has distanced himself from McCullough's comments.
Edmunds, in a telephone interview Friday, said that he is an "impartial
judge who doesn't prejudge cases" and that McCullough was not part of
his campaign.
There was a conversation between the two judges about the comments, but
Edmunds declined to provide details.
McCullough "told me that the comments were picked up, and he wanted to
give me heads up," Edmunds said. "They were not comments I made
myself."
The commission does not make complaints public unless a judge faces a
disciplinary action.
Jim Drennan, a UNC professor who is an expert in judicial ethics, said
the limits on what judges can talk about are uncertain.
"You want free speech, and an impartial and independent judiciary, and
those two are sometimes tugging at each other," Drennan said.
titan.barksdale@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-4802
