Vote this judge out. Oh, wait. We can't.
Eric Collins did some outstanding reporting in this story about the courtroom conduct of Superior Court Judge L. Todd Burke.
We have editorial comments coming in Tuesday's edition.
Two things bother me about this ...
The first is the nature of Burke's behavior itself.
I recommend that you read the transcripts for yourself.
In the first one, Burke seems to be making the point that the defendant, a black man, would be better off if he confined his interests to black women and did his socializing in places where most people are black.
Maybe the judge was trying to be funny, as in this exchange:
Burke: So you prefer to date white females, or is ...
Defendant: No, sir. I don't discriminate. I love all women.
Burke: You do?
Def: Yes, sir.
Burke: You know, some sisters would probably say that you got your just desserts.
There was nothing funny about the second case, involving a 12-year-old girl who ran away from home (actually, only walking a few blocks away) met a couple of 20something men and ended up having sexual intercourse with them. One of the defendants was pleading guilty to taking indecent liberties with a minor rather than going on trial for statutory rape.
From reading the transcript, I found Judge Burke's attitude very offensive.
He asked prosecutor Randy Carroll to describe the girl's physical development. Carroll said she looked older than 12 -- 14, 15, 16.
"I'm curious as to her promiscuous history, if there is one," Burke said to Carroll.
Quite naturally, Carroll said he didn't investigate that.
"Your Honor, I'm not aware that she had been sexually active," he said.
The judge asked why Carroll didn't try to find out.
"Well, it's my practice to not put a sexual assault victim back through the trauma again."
"Whoa. Whoa," the judge said. "She wasn't a sexual assault victim but for her age."
What was this judge thinking? The defendant here was 22 years old, the girl was 12.
Elsewhere, the transcript shows Burke referring to the sexual intercourse as "consensual."
Since when does the law recognize "consensual" sexual intercourse between a 22-year-old man and a 12-year-old girl?
And where in the law is there an exception for 12-year-old girls who might look 14, 15 or 16?
I was disgusted by the judge's pursuit of a child's "promiscuous history, if there is one," and his suggestion that this 12-year-old girl was responsible for what happened to her. A child that age is ALWAYS a victim in a sexual relationship with an adult.
And here's what else bothers me:
While these cases, and another one related in Eric's story, occurred in Guilford County Superior Court, Guilford County voters can't touch Judge L. Todd Burke. He's elected in a Forsyth County district.
Superior Court follows a rotation system for judges, mandated by the state constitution (Article IV, Section 11). The idea is to keep judges from getting too comfortable by holding court in the same location all the time. As Judge Doug Albright told me today, judges could build "too cozy relationships" with local lawyers -- or at least create that impression.
That's a concern, but I see an overriding principle at stake: accountability to the public. How can judges be accountable if people can't vote for them? And, with the rotation system, voters can't choose most of the judges who hold court in their communities.
Check out the map of the state's Superior Court divisions. We're in Division 5, which covers 14 districts and 12 counties, from Ashe to Moore. Judges from all those other counties hold court from time to time in Guilford County, while the judges we elect here in Guilford County are usually presiding somewhere else.
No one wants judges who have so many local connections that their decisions are often compromised. But maybe we could trust voters to sort that out.
To me, it's a more serious problem when bad judges come into our courts and aren't accountable to us in any way at all.