News-Record.com

Makes me wish I hadn't paid off that speeding ticket (my first one in over 30 years) a month ago and had instead scheduled an appearance before Judge Hunter.

John:

I read the article in the N&O about Judge Pete Hunter and the number of PJCs allowed for high speed cases by our judges in Guilford County. Unfortunately, the reporter didn't do enough homework before the story was written.

There is a serious omission of critical facts involving this topic in the story that needs to be addressed. First of all, in many counties in North Carolina (NOT Guilford), the district attorneys in traffic court will permit defendants charged with excessive speeding (90-plus mph) to plead down to a lesser offense.

For example, someone charged with speeding 105 mph in a 65 mph zone in another county might have the charge amended to Reckless Driving. To those folks who are unfamiliar with motor vehicle law, that may not seem to be much of a break. Believe me, it's a BIG break because speeding 90-plus mph in ANY speed zone will kick in a one-year period of revocation by the DMV. However, Reckless driving, by itself, will not result in ANY revocation of the defendant's driver's license.

In many counties, other than Guilford, the district attorneys may reduce a 90 mph in a 65 mph zone to 75/65, or 80/65, or Reckless Driving, depending on the county. Any of these reductions in speed or the Reckless Driving will save the defendant's driver's license from the one-year period of revocation that would result from a 90/65 conviction.

Now, you may have noticed that I said that these speed reductions and amended Reckless Driving pleas by district attorneys were done in many counties OTHER THAN GUILFORD. In Guilford County, the District Attorney's office has a policy (and has so for years) that will not permit the district attorneys in traffic court to reduce ANY speeding offense that is 90 mph or more regardless of the speed zone. So, the burden of helping anyone who is desperate to save their driver's license from a one-year period of revocation falls onto the judges in Guilford County. That's the reason that there appears to be an inordinate number of PJC dispositions in traffic cases in Guilford County where the speeding charges are 90-plus mph.

So, should we heap blame on our judges (in general and Judge Hunter in particular) and imply that they are doing something wrong? I don't think so when you consider the following: First, most of the judges who allow a PJC in such a speeding case require participation in a driving school program AND 20 to 50 hours of community service before they will even consider a PJC. Second, the judges (especially Judge Hunter) usually will not allow the PJC if the district attorney objects to such a disposition in court.

To give this matter a little perspective, Defendants charged with FELONY offenses like Breaking & Entering, Credit Card Fraud and Forgery may have their cases dismissed under deferred prosecution if they perform some community service hours. So, under these circumstances, why should anyone be "blamed" for allowing a PJC (not a dismissal) in a MISDEMEANOR speeding case?

So, the N&O article is only half of the story. When you know the whole story, it might modify those negative conclusions about our judges that the N&O led us to do. I regret that the N&O failed to present the whole story to its readers in an effort to stain the name of Judge Pete Hunter who is such a decent and good man. I consider it an honor to have such a qualified and honest judge in our county.

As you probably know, I am an attorney that has practiced law in Guilford County for over 26 years. What you may not know is that I limit my law practice to representing people charged with motor vehicle offenses. And, I have represented a large number of defendants over the years in traffic court who have been charged with a variety traffic violations. So, I have first-hand knowledge about how traffic violations are handled in District Court.

John:

The above post is mine.

Wendell Sawyer

"Every editor sees stories every day that he/she wishes his/her own staff had done. Then there are those that we should have done, which we notice when another newspaper comes to town and gets it."

Still think you would have wanted to do the story in light of the information Wendell has provided?

What would the lede have been on the N&R's version of the story?

Would your folks have ignored/been ignorant of the items the N&O people failed to include in their story?

There was a story in the Raleigh NO, where a guy had 8 speeding tickets, before is was in a wreck, where 2 people were killed. Giving someone a break is one thing, this is something else. If one is going over 15 mph over limit, they deserve nothing. I travel many miles over interstate each year. I have seen many wrecks, my guess is most are caused by speeding.

And what greets us this morning as the lead story in our local daily?

It's the very story in question, with the same faults as printed in the N&O, and a type size and placement reminiscent of a story about a physical disagreement between students at Guilford College.

I didn't see that until too late for this morning's paper, Wendell. By my reading, you're saying that Judge Hunter isn't any better or worse than other District Court judges in terms of the number of people he's given PJCs to for speeding; it's just that the DA's policy causes it to look worse. I'll take your word for that, but I have to admit that I'm with Doug on the amount of leniency that ought to be allowed people who go 100 mph.

John, the N&O did not just present a inadequate story to its readers it made it avaible to the AP, so it has stained the reputation of Judge Hunter on a massive scale. Judge Hunter's mother was just release from the hospital in Charlotte, and upon reading the Charlotte Observer, called Judge Hunter regarding the story. How could any respectable news media print and reprint, distribute and re-distribute a story replete with inaccuracies and inadequacies on such an unbalanced scale. The News-Record and the Bar should do all it can to restore his reputation. The N&O printed a report to destroy the reputation of Judge Hunter after being directed by Ralph Walker (a Republican whose employment was retained by Chief Justice Sarah Parker)to head to Guilford County, without any quotes from Guilford officials, observers, law enforcement, assistant district attorneys, the District Attorney, assistant public defenders, the civil and criminal defense bar, clerks, etc. The only lawyer interviewed was Jim Swisher. Where were the facts, data, and statistics all the other judges across North Carolina that the N&O's Pat Stith used to declare Judge Hunter the most lenient? This report was nothing more than a sham and a smear campaign. How could you all allow this to stand? Rest assured this article will be used against the 18th Judicial District's attempts to get more District Court judges, ADAs, clerks, etc., however, it will bolster the 10th Judicial District's (Wake County) efforts.

John, the N&O did not just present a inadequate story to its readers it made it avaible to the AP, so it has stained the reputation of Judge Hunter on a massive scale. Judge Hunter's mother was just released from the hospital in Charlotte, and upon reading the Charlotte Observer, called Judge Hunter regarding the story. How could any respectable news media print and reprint, distribute and re-distribute a story replete with inaccuracies and inadequacies on such an unbalanced scale. The News-Record and the Bar should do all it can to restore his reputation. The N&O printed a report to destroy the reputation of Judge Hunter after being directed by Ralph Walker (a Republican whose employment was retained by Chief Justice Sarah Parker)to head to Guilford County, without any quotes from Guilford officials, observers, law enforcement, assistant district attorneys, the District Attorney, assistant public defenders, the civil and criminal defense bar, clerks, etc. The only lawyer interviewed was Jim Swisher. Where were the facts, data, and statistics of all the other judges across North Carolina that the N&O's Pat Stith used to declare Judge Hunter the most lenient? This report was nothing more than a sham and a smear campaign. How could you all allow this to stand? Rest assured this article will be used against the 18th Judicial District's attempts to get more District Court judges, ADAs, clerks, etc., however, it will bolster the 10th Judicial District's (Wake County) efforts.

Yeah I think this deserves some kind of clarification in tommorow's paper...that is a pretty vital fact that was missed

"In Guilford County, the District Attorney's office has a policy (and has so for years) that will not permit the district attorneys in traffic court to reduce ANY speeding offense that is 90 mph or more regardless of the speed zone."

We needed to know that within this story. I don't know how this kind of thing works in the paper biz...but is there a way to later run some kind of update or clarification on an article like that...or is that not generally done?

"I'll take your word for that, but I have to admit that I'm with Doug on the amount of leniency that ought to be allowed people who go 100 mph."

That's not the point of these other comments, John.

There was an error in the story. Whether the error was one of commission, or one of omission is not known.

You and the N&O owe an explanation and clarification to both Judge Hunter and to the readers.

Where's the N&R Public Editor on this?

Oh, wait.......I forgot.

Not surprisingly, we don't agree, Bubba. The facts are not in question. Wendell, who represents people before Judge Hunter, suggests that there are extenuating circumstances that explain why Hunter leads the state. (He also leads his fellow judges in Guilford County, who, presumably, operate with the same DA policies.) But he doesn't say that any of the cases mentioned in the N&O's article are inaccurate.

"Not surprisingly, we don't agree, Bubba. The facts are not in question."

The lack of certain facts in the story is the point several of us are making.

You obviously feel the exclusion of the facts mentioned by Wendell are not a matter of concern, and are of no consequence to the story.

Yes, John. We DO disagree.

John:

You said: "The facts are not in question." I disagree. Why? Because when a "news article" presents only some of the relevant facts about any given topic and excludes other important facts (not opinions), the article is more like an opinion commentary than a news article. For example, the N&O story was published in the N&R as a news article but it had glaring omissions of critical facts that resulted in negative implications about the judges in Guilford County (Judge Pete Hunter in particular) and damaged their reputations as a judges.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. I'm simply stating that a news article should present the whole story to be fair and balanced. Publishing one-half of the story about any topic is akin to telling a half-truth. Let me give you a couple of examples:

The N&O story states: "Records show that from January 2002 through June 2006, 40.5 percent of all 100 mph cases in Guilford ended in a PJC, far more than in any other district in the state." That statement is a classic case of comparing apples and oranges. The “apple” is Guilford County where the District Attorney’s office implemented a policy years ago that prohibits the district attorneys in traffic court from reducing or amending speeding cases of 90-plus mph regardless of the speed zone.

Because of the DA's policy in Guilford County, defendants are forced to ask the judge to help them out of a desperate situation. These people aren’t faceless monsters; they are ordinary people who made a bad mistake. The judges see them as they are: school teachers, medical students, soldiers who served combat duty in Iraq, fathers and mothers who need to feed their families, sons and daughters who care for their elderly parents. So, with no other alternative available to save the defendants’ licenses, most of the judges in Guilford implemented a requirement that the defendants must attend driving school and perform 20 to 50 hours of community service before they will consider the PJC disposition. Even then, these judges usually won’t allow a PJC if the district attorney objects to it in court.

The “oranges” are the many counties across the state where the district attorneys do reduce such high speeds down to lower speeds or amend the charges to Reckless Driving so that the defendants can avoid a one-year revocation of their driver’s licenses. In those counties, the judges don't feel compelled to allow a PJC in such a case since the plea reduction by the district attorney saved the defendant's driver's license anyway. Obviously, there will be substantially fewer PJCs for high-speed cases in these other counties than in Guilford.

Obviously, a more balanced news article, one that tells the whole story, would have compared the percentage of PJCs allowed for high-speed cases by the judges in Guilford County to the percentage of speed reductions for similar charges by the district attorneys in these other counties. If the purpose of the article is to expose the number of defendants in high-speed cases who were able to save their driver’s licenses in court, why are the district attorneys in these other counties exempt from criticism for doing the same thing for these defendants?

The N&O article states, "PJCs let speeders keep their licenses and avoid a rise in their insurance bills." This sentence is a half-truth because it fails to include the remaining facts that are critical to an understanding about PJCs. For DMV purposes, state law limits each driver to only two PJCs every five years. A third or subsequent PJC within five years is treated as a conviction by DMV.

For auto insurance purposes, only one PJC per household is permitted to avoid insurance points. If anyone in the household has one PJC within three years and another family member receives a PJC, both drivers get zapped with insurance points. Needless to say, the same driver that receives two PJCs within three years gets insurance points on both offenses.

I do not have a history of taking up for the NR, have ever this story has been in a least 3 other papers. If there is blame, it must be shared. Wonder if Mr. Sawyer would share with us, how many of his big time speeders have been involved in major wrecks later?

Second thought, I agree with the DA no plea on over 90 mph. I am more interest in the victims of these nuts, than I am in the nuts!

I appreciate y'all's defense of Judge Hunter. I acknowledge that stories like this don't -- I'd submit they can't -- include all the extenuating factors. Not only did the story not take into account individual DA policies, it didn't compare the total number of actual speeding cases every judge in the state deals with. It didn't evaluate whether Guilford, with a couple major highways running through it, has more 100+ speeders than, say, Alexander. It didn't compare judges within the county.

But is it a half-truth that Judge Hunter gave PJCs in 74 percent of the high-speed cases he heard? No one has argued that. Is there a reason for it? Interestingly, the judge didn't make the case that Wendell is making. Perhaps he told the N&O reporters and they chose not to write it, but I doubt it.

Here is a county-by-county database on which they based their reporting.

"Not only did the story not take into account individual DA policies, it didn't compare the total number of actual speeding cases every judge in the state deals with. It didn't evaluate whether Guilford, with a couple major highways running through it, has more 100+ speeders than, say, Alexander. It didn't compare judges within the county."

Why didn't the story include some of those things?

Was there no interest in providing a more complete understanding of the elements?

Or was it just easier to go with what they had?

That I can't answer, Bubba. My guess is that some of the information was ungettable and some of it ended up being irrelevant.

You know, even when comparing apples to apples, you find significant differences in terms of size, color, quality and taste. Everything can't be exactly equal.

I have e-mailed the public editor at the N&O and asked him to take a look at this discussion and respond as appropriate. We'll see.

"Wonder if Mr. Sawyer would share with us, how many of his big time speeders have been involved in major wrecks later?"

By the way, Doug.

Speed is never the primary cause for an accident.

I'll repeat something i said over at Ed Cone's recently:

"Speed" by itself is NEVER a primary reason for the cause of vehicle accidents.

"Speed kills" is nothing but pure propaganda put forth by the civil authorities, the "safety" lobbies, and insurance companies, all of whom benefit financially from selling the erroneous concept.

According to Vic Elford, widely considered one of the best and most versatile race drivers of all time, "Accidents are usually caused by a mistake of some sort: inattention, lack of anticipation, poor judgment, lack of awareness of what is going on around you-- all are human faults for which you are responsible."

"I have e-mailed the public editor at the N&O and asked him to take a look at this discussion and respond as appropriate. We'll see."

I will be very interested in his/her reply.

Thanks for the link to the database, John. I wonder if Wendell can explain how someone charged with going 167 in a 45 zone can get off with improper equipment.

Gee, it sounds like the reporter writing that article just cherry-picked the "facts" that supported his position and conveniently failed to disclose the rest.
Imagine that...a news reporter that only uses facts that lead the reader to the conclusion the reporter desires!

*In the interest of saving time and bandwidth, the above comments may be used more than one thread currently under discussion here. Mr. Robinson will know which ones*

Steve Riley, who edited the N&O's speeding series, wrote me this:

We have not received the sort of feedback you're getting from the bloggers. We know our story was solid, and we believe it was fair.

First, Mr. Sawyer's comments notwithstanding, our reporting showed that 10 percent of folks ticketed in Guilford at 90 mph and above do get to plead down to a lesser speed or to "improper equipment," which we reported in day two of our series.

Some districts do indeed allow more pleas at high speeds. Some of those districts were highlighted in day two of the series, which focused on the high-dealing districts: Cumberland, where 74 percent of all cases were dismissed (and 64 percent of those at 90 mph and above); New
Hanover and Pender, where half of cases at 90 and above were reduced to "improper equipment"; and Davie/Alexander/Davidson/Iredell, where 45
percent of those caught above 90 pleaded to 10 mph or less over the limit.

I would add that the day two story reported that in Guilford, 60 percent of drivers charged at 90 and over got PJCs. That was simply a different cut of the data; for Sunday's story on Judge Hunter, we decided to stop at 100 mph for reasons of simplicity and scope.

Beyond that, though, the point of Sunday's story was to show what can happen to drivers who zip through Guilford at very high speeds. And on PJCs, the ultimate free pass, the judges there are far more lenient than in any other district, our research showed.

The entire series is here.

jaycee, no one has ever said that reporters pick and choose information to include in a story. If they didn't stories would be too long and too much like homework to read. But to play this out just for fun, what position do you think these reporters were taking, and why, so they could "cherry pick" facts?

You might want to make sure you read the N&O's series and note that the data it discovered through court records doesn't exactly jibe with Wendell's observations, for whatever reason.

John, the N&O is just far from trustworthy. The slanderous smear tactics of Pat Stith and its editors and publisher were designed to give readers the impresssion of a Black male judge giving away the courthouse. The large color photograph of Judge Hunter underneath the big bold typeface on the front page of the N&O was comical. The N&O has never had such a photo on the front page. The N&O sought to inflame and embarass. The N&O has smeared the reputation of an outstanding member of the bar and judiciary. And, the continuous sunning of the name and storyline in every "speed" related article is evidence of this. Any explanation by the N&O, Pat Stith, and Steve Riley are not credible and worthless, just like the N&O, which is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Mr. Robinson, I'm sure reporters must pick and choose facts so their articles will be concise and to the point. But what personal feelings, political leanings and agendas determine which facts a reporter chooses? What sways a reporter to report a story from a certain viewpoint and attempt to lead the reader to a conclusion desired by the reporter? How can you as an editor or me as a reader know for certain that a news article is fair and impartial? Readers rely on the media to inform them of events of which they would not otherwise be aware. Who keeps the reporter honest and impartial and insures that readers can trust what they read?
My point here, and in the other thread, is that often reporters have a political agenda which bleeds over into their *news* reporting and thereby places the newspaper aquarely in one camp or the other on an issue. By virtue of the power of the written news article it also sways the reader to the reporter's point of view.
I prefer to make up my own mind, not be told what or how to believe. Report the news, please, don't make it.

Noted, jaycee. As I said in the other thread, as you see those stories you think place the paper in one camp or the other, please let me know. Specific stories are more helpful to me than generalities.

Understood, Mr. Robinson.
My comments were more directed towards news coverage in general than one specific story, but I used the instant case of the Judge Hunter story as a springboard.

John:

You said: "...the data it discovered through court records doesn't exactly jibe with Wendell's observations, for whatever reason."

No, the response from the N&O CONFIRMS my previous statements:

Cumberland County: 64% of 90-plus mph speed cases were DISMISSED

New Hanover and Pender Counties: 50% of 90-plus mph speed cases were reduced to IMPROPER EQUIPMENT

Davie/Alexander/Iredell/Davidson Counties: 45% of 90-plus mph speed cases reduced to 10 miles or less under the speed limit

Guilford County: A measly 10% of 90-plus mph cases were reduced to improper equipment (even this small number is a surprise to me since the DA's office in Guilford is usually very strict in the application of this rule over the last several years).

Steve Riley of the N&O indicated in his email to you that PJCs were the "ultimate free pass." Well, I think Mr. Riley needs to do a little homework regarding motor vehicle law. PJCs do post on a driver's DMV record and there are limitations on the use of PJCs for drivers license purposes and insurance points. (I posted a comment previously on this thread regarding those limitations.)

On the other hand, the dismissals that were handed out like candy in Cumberland County don't appear on a driver's DMV record like PJCs AND you don't have to pay court costs.

The large number of Improper Equipment reductions that are handed out in New Hanover and Pender Counties do NOT post to the drivers' DMV records while PJCs do post on the DMV record.

The large number of speed reductions in Davie/Alexander/Iredell/Davidson Counties to 10 mph or less accomplishes the same goal as a PJC. No one-year revocation and no insurance points (as long as the driver has no moving violations on his DMV record for the last three years).

So, after considering what these other counties are doing with high-speed cases, I think that you can see for yourself who is really getting the "ultimate free pass."

One critical assortment of facts is missing from Mr. Riley's response. In Guilford County, the high-speed defendants have to attend driving school and perform 20 to 50 hours of community service. In these other counties that he mentioned where the DAs were dismissing high-speed cases or reducing them to improper equipment or 10 mph or less, what were the requirements that the drivers had to meet to obtain such an excellent disposition?

I think that Mr. Riley should go visit the DAs in those other counties and ask about the requirements that Defendants in high-speed cases have to prove to get off so easy with dismissals, improper equipment and substantial speed reductions. Or, is it more “newsworthy” to besmirch a good judge’s reputation by implying that he is irresponsible in the disposition of high-speed cases while the DAs in these other counties get a free pass for providing the same result (no one-year revocation) with other dispositions…EVEN DISMISSALS. That doesn’t sound like a balanced news story to me

John, the N&O is just far from trustworthy. The slanderous smear tactics of Pat Stith and its editors and publisher were designed to give readers the impresssion of a Black male judge giving away the courthouse.* Tad

Right Tad! Classic racism by the N&O and the N*R is a accessary to the crime and got caught. All of sudden we are treated that Judge Hunter had no oppositon in 04, so the establishment racists have decided that he needs a good old boy republican in 08 against Judge Hunter as the "final solution."

It has been said before! Peel a limo establishment liberal back and you will find Klan robes in their closet.

Tab Hunter -- are you related to Judge Hunter?

Somebody told me you are his son. Just checking.