M ^^^^WBWWBPPPBBBWMBWWHBBBBWBWWWHWWPWWPPP^PWBBI^PIB^IP^^P^B^^^^^^WMWMBWIWMHWHBWBBWWHPWWWBBWWI^
5 5 ro Established January 18. 1973, Published Each Thursday
fm 3:
\pm 0itf0QEta DOR-OSO)
!l te, N.C. "Building Communicative Bridges In A Tri-Racial Setting" Robeson County I
1 ??rtt 17 NUMBER 51 , THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1989 254 PER COPY
LOCAL ATTORNEY GRANTED
"ATTORNEYS OF=" HIS CHOICE"
?
by CONNEE BRAYBOY
Lumberton attorney Horace Locklear spent Thursday,
December 14, in court This time attorney LockJear was
there as a defendant Judge Craig Ellis presided in
Scotland County Superior Court his home county. _
The original intent of the hearing was for Judge Ellis to
render a decision on whether the law firm of
Bodenheimer, Bo wen and Byerly could represent attorney
Loddear. Scheduled to begin at 10 a.m., the session
seemed to be delayed, pending the arrival of Martin
McCall, administrative assistant to District Attorney
Richard Town send. After McCall's arrival, it was
necessary to awaitjhe arrival of attorney Carl Barrington
of Fayetteville who arrived to defend Locklear on the
erisimal charges.
Hie state bar had already agreed that Bodenheimer,
Bowen and Byeriy could represent Loddear. The law firm
had scheduled depositions with the consent of the
bar association, and the attorney general's office had
objected.
Only three witnesses were called during the day long
m~ > session. Wflkins, who was questioned for the defense by
Bowen; Byerly who was also questioned by Bowen; and
Bowen himself who was questioned for the defense by
Bodenheimer.
Prosecutor Linda Moms of the North Carolina State
Attorney General's Office attempted to have Locklear's
attorneys, Wood berry Bo wen, Charlie Bodenheimer and
Christopher Byerly of Lumberton, disqualified. She
introduced a "surprise" witness, Burnis Wilkins,
narcotics officer with the Robeson County Sheriff s
Department. Wilkins testified that Bowen had discussed
Locklear's case with him while Wilkins was the
investigating officer and Bowen was assistant district
attorney. Ms. Morris contended that the alleged
conversation breached confidentiality and that Bowen had
information pertinent to the case which could only be
obtained by member of the district attorney's office.
Wilkins testified that he received a call "last week from
Martin McCall asking me did I remember telling him and
Richard Town send about a ^conversation with M r.
Bowen." He further stated that during the conversation
he and Bowen discussed the wiring of Leroy Locklear,
convicted of grow in $1 million worth of marijuana, for the
purpose of recording conversations between Leroy
Locklear and attorney Horace Locklear.
*
In rebuttal, Bowen asked Wilkins was the alleged
conversation held in a public place where anyone,
including the defendant, could hear it. Wilkins stated that
it was. He also stated that Mike Stogner, former Robeson
County deputy, was present during the conversation.
Attorney Locklear, the first Indian to be admitted to the
North Carolina Bar, is charged with obstructing justice,
obtaining property by false pretense and attempting to
obtain property by false pretense. He was indicted after
several conversations with Leroy Locklear who was
charged at that time with major drug trafficking offenses.
It is alleged that Attorney Locklear received $1500 to
represent Leroy Locklear, although Locklear had already
paid Lumberton attorney John Wishart Campbell in
excess of $20,000 to represent him on his drug dealing
charges. It is alleged that attorney Locklear obstructed
justice by saying he had the "judge under control" in
reference to Judge Robert Hobgood who was to hear
Leroy Locklear's case. Locklear pled guilty to growing $1
million worth of marijuana more% than a year ago.
Sentencing was delayed until Loddear "gathered his
crop." To date, he has still not been sentenced.
Wilkins testified that as soon as he heard that Bowen
was involved in the case, he recalled their "back hall"
conversation and immediately reported it to Martin
McCall and Richard Town send.
- ? * . _
Wilkins admitted that Leroy Locklear was " wired'' with
a recorder in an attempt to catch attorney Locklear in
some wrong doing. He admitted that the only evidence
the state had against attorney Lock)ear was the transcript
of the alleged "tape" and leroy Locklear's testimony.
Bowen took the stand and could not recall a
conversation with Wilkins relative to Horace Locklear's
case. He did recall talking with Wilkins about Horace
Oxen dine who was arrested for drug dealing. He recalled
discussing various items that were found in Oxendine's
possession, including radios and guns from the Robeson
County Sheriff s Department. Supposedly items that were
received from Randv^-ficobs, former Robeson'
County deputy. Bowen also recalled Wilkins joking and
telling him how "unreliable" Mike Stogner was in his
accounts of details involved in arrests. Bowen's
contention was that Wilkins had confused the two men.
Ms. Morris asked Bowen if he would be able to recall
the conversation if Stogner were called to testify. Bowen
replied in the negative. *
Christopher Byeriy testified that he had talked with
the Bar Association relative to a "conflict of interest"
with their law firm representing Horace Locklear. The
question had previously been sent to the Bar Association
for a decision by Judge Craig Ellis. At an earlier hearing
Ellis had question whether it was ethical for Byeriy and
Bowen to represent locklear because both were formei
assistant district attorneys. Byeriy, in fact, signed the
indictment against Locklear.
Prior to Judge Ellis' decision, several points were
entered into the record. Among them were the following:
Martin McCall, among others, I had been subpoenaed
for depositions in the Horace Locklear case. McCalL
carried his subpoena to Judge Ellis' chambers.
Martin McCall, apparently, makes the major decisions
in the district attorney's office.
McCall supported Richard Townsena for the appoint
ment as district attorney while Bowen supported Byeriy.
Bryeriy testified that McCall didn't like him and that
the indictment against Horace Locklear was prepared on
Sunday afternoon without the knowledge of the former
assistant district attorneys. The indictment was not the
standard form for the district attorney s office When
Byeriy came to work on Monday morning, he was
'instructed to appeir in McCall's office. At that time,
McCall told him to si^n the indictment. When asked who
drew up the indictment, McCall told 'hat the
Tnxomey geote.-ul 3 <.fr.ee Jtu it .
While Judge Eliis stated on two separate occask ns that
every defendant has a constitutional right to the attorney
of his choice, Eddie Hatcher was denied that right by
Judge Robert Farmer.
The Bar Association encourages pro bono assistance
from attorneys, out an attorney was sentenced to ten days
in the Robeson County jail for offering to assist a
defendant
Martin McCall. while not ?i'-ensed by the state of North
Carolina to practice law appears to dictate, manipulate
and control the courts in Robeson County.
Leroy Locklear awaits sentencing until "his crop is
gathered," although !i ? has said he is guilty of growing SI
million worth of marijuana He pleaded guilty in June,
19.88
When Richard Townsend was asked why Leroy
Locklear had not been sentenced, he stated, "We can't
deal with that until we finish with Mr. Locklear's case."
Bowen contends, however, that the judicial system in
Robeson County, spearheaded by Martin McCall, intends
to "destroy this man's (Horace Locklear) reputation, and
livelihood" and then pat Leroy Locklear on the back and
thank him for "substantial cooperation." Bowen entered
into the record on three occasions that a convicted drug
dealer remains free on the streets of Robeson County
while the judicial system Vplays games" with Horace
Locklear's life.
While the district attorney's office states that they are
opposed to plea bargaining, the indictments against Leroy
Locklear's son and son in-law were dismissed (the
indictment I reads "as part of a plea arrangement."
Bowen stated that the Robeson County judicial system
was indeed on trial in the Locklear case. No date has yet
been set for this case.
Judge Ellis ruled that there was no evidence shown that
indicated a breach in confidentiality and Bodenheimer.
Bowen and Byerly are the attorneys of record for Horace
locklear.
Also subpoenaed for depositions in the Horace Locklear
case are Richard townsend. Sheriff Hubert Stone, and Joe
freeman Britl. superior court judge.
_l udge Dexter BrooKs k ecuses 1-1 imseir
Rr-om Criminal Proceedings
In Hatcher Trial
Resident Superior Court Judge Dexter Brooks entered
the following order in Superior Court on Friday.
December IS, 1989:
Slate of North Carolina
County of Robeson
EDDIE HATCHER..Petitioner
-vs
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS'
THE HONORABLE AARON J. JOHNSON. Secretary.
Respondent
'Hits cause, coming on to be heard and being heard
before the undersigned upon the Petition of Eddit
Hatcher. Upon the hearing hereof, the undersigned
makes the following findings and conclusions
1. That Petitioner was indicted on December 6, 19118 on
multiple felony criminal charges arising out of an incident
on or about February 1, 1988 at the offices of The
Robesonian newspaper in Lumberton, Robeson County.
North Carolina.
t That these criminal charges are denominated as
"State of North Carolina v. Eddie Hatcher a/k/a John
Edward CUirk, "file numbers 88 CrS 17858 et. seq. in the
Office of the Clerk of the Robeson County Siperior Court.
3. That on January 1, 1989 the undersigned took the
oath of office as Resident Superior Court Judge of Judicial
District 16R. comprised solely of Robeson County, after
being appointed by the Honorable James G. Martin,
Governor of the State of North Carolina That prior to this
appointment the undersigned uas an attorney whose
practice was limited,to civil matters.
4. That on ,/anuary 26, 1989 the Honorable Anthony M.f
Brannon, then duly assigned to preside over the superior
courts of this district, appointed Angus B. Thompson, D,
Public Defender, to repre sent Petitioner in these criminal
charges.
5 That the week of March 27, 1989 the undersigned
was duly assigned by the Administrative Office of tht
Courts to preside oyer the criminal superior court of this
district That during said week the undersigned talked in
chambers with J. Rich aril Townsend, District Attorney
concerning the extradition of Petitioner who left the state
without permission after being released on bail pending
tnal on these criminal charges.
' I
THE OPTIMISTIC CYNICS
BY KAREN CORONADO 8 WM. RICHARD MATHIS
- i
Hopefully, all of us could see ourselves to a certain
degree in our essay last week. The Warning Sign* of
Missionary Mentality. Certainly, we are all capable of
false pride and vanity to the extent that we are not able to
see our shortcomings as others are able to see them.
Perhaps it is because we are too busy removing the
splinter from our neighbor s eye while ignoring the log in
our own eye.
Unfortunately, we all have tendencies to ignore others'
criticism until the criticism escalates to the point of open
anger born from frustration. All of us also seemingly have
inclinations to discount and discredit other people's
criticism of our actions. Some of us will even go to great
pains to invent conspiracies to explain why others are
criticizing us. How much simpler it would be it we learned
to confess our faults to one another openly, honestly and
compassionately.
To that end we offer the following prayer for Christmas:
Oh Great Spirit, masterof all, let us learn to see
ourselves as you and others see us. Let us be willing to
learn from all of our sisters and brothers, irregardless of
their age, color or social position. Give us the patience
and courage to hear things about ourselves that we might
not like to hear, and give us the wisdom and strength to
change those things about ourselves that need changing.
Oh Great Mind of the Universe, allow us to always work
on perfecting ourselves before we take on the task of
addressing others' shortcomings. And grant us the
humility and wisdom to realize that we all fall far short of
perfection and share with us your compassion for our
imperfections so that we might reflect the same when we
have to criticize the actions of others.
And grant us love. Lord of all life, to have for the sinner
while we might have total disgust for his sins. Let us learn
to have sympathy for the insecurities and weaknesses of
ourselves and others which might lead to erroneous
actions while not allowing us to fall into the trap of pity
whereby we hold neither ourselves nor others account
able.
Let us realize that when others criticize us that they?$
are not always persecuting and prosecuting us but,
instead, let us respect their desire for truth and justice,
their courage, integrity and compassion to share with us
their criticism. In the same light. Lord, let us not be so
vain as to think every generality is solely intended to
single us out No, do not let us have such an inflated
opinion of our importance.
Instead, let us realize that our only importance comes
from doing what you ask of us: to show our gratitude to
you and all you have given us in this magnificent creation
by respecting and loving others as we would ourselves.
Because when we are truly able to respect and love
others as we would ourselves then we wfll be able to fully
profit from their experiences, insights and criticisms. And
when we are all able to fully benefit from each other we
shall be living joyfully, harmoniously and peacefully as
you ask of us.
For these things, we pray. Amen.
Merry Christmas and God's peace to you all.
Christmas Blessings
THE CAROLINA INDIAN VOICEi INC.
P.O. Box 1075
Pembroke, N.C. 28372
Phone (919)521-2826
*
- |
May this Holy time bring to all hearts His dear
message of Christmas love.
6?. That the undersigned recused htmself in tk*
extradition proceeding which was surely to be contested
for the reasons that follow. That the undersigned had |
personal and a religious relations with the family pf
Timothy Jacobs, a co-defendant of Petitioner in thettI
criminal charges, who was then fighting ertraditiok
proceedings m the Stdte of New York. That the parents of
said co-defendant and the undersigned are members of
the same church. That the father of said co-defendant and
the undersigned are members of the same Sunday school
class. That on several occasions at church prior to said
judicial appointment said father talked to the undersigned
1 concerning said incident and its aftermath. That these
conversations were not for the purpose of giving or
receiving legal advice, as the practice of the undersigns^
was limited to civil matters, but rather as one Christian
a fellow Christian. That said father on several occasions
asked for and received prayer from the class on behalf of
said son. That the mother of said co-defendant in the
church assembly spoke at length about said incident and
its aftermath on several occasions asking for and
receiving church prayer on behalf of said son.
7. That under the circumstances the undersigned verily
felt that such recusal was in the best interests of the
administration of justice. That the undersigned did not
"refuse" to sign any extradition papers; m fact no such
papers were even presented for the consideration of the
undersigned. That such recusal prevented the undersign
ed from even considering the merits or sufficiency of any
such request for extradition.
attorn* JT^o^epresenT'pptitione^^^^XesT^^rrninaf
charge*. That on October 16, 1989 said Judge entered an
order not permitting said attorney* to represent Petitioner
with the Public Defender a* the required local counsel.
That these order* are novo the subject of an appeal by said
attorney*.
11. mat since the entry of the above orders the
repesentation of Petitioner has been the subject of
considerable pre** coverage and much public discussion.
That at least one person has questioned the objectivity of
the undersigned while several others have stated that the
undersigned should defend his earlier order. That the
undersigned has declined comment on the matter as
required by the Code of Judicial Conduct
It. That a judicial official cannot act as an advocate for
either party in any proceeding. Thai the undersigned has
not counselled or "encouraged" the Public Defender nor
the District Attorney to take, or not to take, any action
with regard to Petition. That the undersigned has no
supervisory authority over the Public Defender nor the
District Attorney.
13. That the undersigned is required bjf applicable
statute to appoint the Public Defender from the nominees
approved and submitted by the Kobe son County Bar. That
the undersigned has no authority to suggest or compel the
bar to so approve or submit any individual for such
consideration.
U. That it would be unethical and illegal for the
undersigned to instruct or "warn" the Public Defender
about the manner in which that agency chooses to
represent its clients. That any attorney must exercise
independent professional judgment on behalf of his client
as required by the Rules of Professional Conduct
15. That with regard to the earlier order of the
undersigned it is noted that private attorneys have
assisted the public defender i* the representation of
indigent criminal defendants rn another district and have
so assisted the appellate public defender. That such a
practice is salutatory in that the burden on the taxpayers
is lessened while improving the quality of legal services
available to the poor. That private attorneys have long
assisted district attorneys in the prosecution of rrrniMi
charges throughout the state. ?
16. That the issue of u>Ao may repesent Petitioner ts
now before the proper forum which is the appellate court
17. That under the circumstances the undersigned
verily believes that the administration of justice would
best be served by recusal from any further proceedings ?
contested or uric ante sted, adversarial or admtnistmtive ?
involving these criminal charges.
IT IS MOW, THEREFORE. ORDERED:
A. That the undersigned does hereby
recuse himself from any matters involving these criminal
charges.
B. That the instant Petition is hereby transferred for
consideration by any judge duly assigned to preside over
the criminal superior courts of this district
C. That a copy hereof be piac d in each of the afore
cited file* of Petitioner.
D. That a copy hereof be foruarded to Petitioner, the
Public ERfender, and the District Attorney.
bJJTEREfLdK chambers on this the 15th day of
December, 1989.
THE HONORABLE DEXTSR BROOKS
RESIDfJiT SI iPERlOp COURT JUDGE
8. That on July 7, 1989 the undersigned talked mi
chambers unth the Public Defender concerning a written
request to allow William M. Kunstler and Ronald L Kuby
of the New York bar to appear pro bono as lead counsel in
these criminal actions us'th the Public Defender as the
required local counsel. That a copy of the motion and
order were filed and duly served upon the District
Attorney that same date.
9. That the undersigned signed said order for the
reasons that follow. That on May 4, 1989 Timothy Jacobs
pled guilty to similar charges thereby remoiing the
reason for the undersigned's earlier recusal as the
undersigned has never had any association whatsoever
with Petitioner or his family. That on December 7, 1988
the Honorable Robert Hobgood upon a written motion
?allowed a member this same New York firm to make an
appearance on behalf of Petitioner with an attorney
licensed in this state at a hearing wherein the bond of
Petitioner was reduced from SI00.000.00 to S15.000.00.
That this same New York firm represented Petitioner in
the federal criminal charges arising out of said incident.
That it was the understanding of the undersigned that the
motion for such representation was not opposed by the
District Attorney. That in this regard it noted that the
District Attorney has never opposed said July 7, 1989
order nor sought to have the same set aside. That the
motion did not relate to the guilt or innocence of 1
Petitioner and, therefore, was not adversarial in nature.
That the motion dealt only with the administrative or <
procedural matter of allowing an out-of-state attorney to
appear in on action in this state. >
10. That on September 4, 1989, the Honorable Robert
L Parmer entered an order not permitting said New York