DA Womble Should Recuse Himself Now! Here’s Why:
Allegations of bias, misconduct, and a neglected investigation spawn talk of gross negligence under the watch of North Carolina 1st Prosecutorial District Attorney, Andrew Womble. Opinion.
On October 13, 2020, The Outer Banks Voice reported that:
“According to the autopsy report from the Virginia Medical Examiner’s office, the cause of death in the case of LeeAnn Fletcher has been determined to be “complications of blunt force trauma to the head with hepatic cirrhosis with clinical hepatic failure contributing.”
The manner of death, according to the autopsy is “undetermined,” one of five choices along with homicide, suicide, accident or natural.” -Mark Jurkowitz
“If y’all knew, and I’m not gonna tell you, but do y’all know any history about the deceased?” -Kitty Hawk Police Chief, Joel Johnson.
“You know, some of (the family) we know. We’ve dealt with them before… a lot of the members of the family are some of the goodest people you’ll ever meet. But they’re killing us! And it’s gonna- if I could ever make the case it would make it certainly impossible for me to prosecute in Dare County… unfortunately, KHPD have dealt with multiple members of the family, in, not good situations. Several have gone to prison after those interactions…” Chief Assistant District Attorney, Jeff Cruden — speaking to private investigators during a July 31st meeting which included Kitty Hawk Police Chief, Joel Johnson and Sgt. Brian Strickland.
I will be referring to quotes from this meeting. The whole recording is available here. The American Bar Association states the following in their Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function.
From this point, (PGR) will preface my commentary or opinion on how knowns of this case as hypotheticals should impact the actions of any prosecutor presented with or overseeing any such case as a hypothetical based upon these Standards as suggested.
Part One — The case for bias.
Opinion — Part One: According to ABA Standards
First District Attorney Andrew Womble has violated multiple standards of prosecutorial, and ethical conduct, according to recommendations set forth in the Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function, by the American Bar Association.
Standard 3–1.6 Improper Bias Prohibited
(a) The prosecutor should not manifest or exercise, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status. A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor should strive to eliminate implicit biases, and act to mitigate any improper bias or prejudice when credibly informed that it exists within the scope of the prosecutor’s authority.
(b) A prosecutor’s office should be proactive in efforts to detect, investigate, and eliminate improper biases, with particular attention to historically persistent biases like race, in all of its work. A prosecutor’s office should regularly assess the potential for biased or unfairly disparate impacts of its policies on communities within the prosecutor’s jurisdiction, and eliminate those impacts that cannot be properly justified.
(PGR) Based upon the reading of the ABA’s Standard 3–1.6, has the prosecutor’s office done anything to mitigate or even assess potential bias against the victim and her family?
Let’s examine another statement from Kitty Hawk Police Chief, Joel Johnson. Lamenting the family’s protest of the lack of investigation, Johnson said:
“…we’ll have to listen to this for four months (referring to the reluctance to issue a murder warrant until a full autopsy report is complete), with the family berating us for no reason. If y’all knew, and I’m not gonna tell you, but do y’all know any history about the deceased?”
(PGR) I ask again: What does this statement from the Chief of Police say about his disposition towards the family and the victim just six days after her death? What history of the deceased, other than the fact that she’s dead and nobody’s in a hurry to find out why, has anything whatsoever to do with this case? It definitely delays the investigative journey from points A to B, so to speak.
The same standards for justice apply for an alleged alcoholic woman, theoretically beaten to death in a domestic squabble as they do for a Sunday School teacher killed by a fleeing, drunken killer. The rules and ethics which govern a prosecutor’s role and conduct in one case must be applied to all cases, regardless of bias. Once it became public that the prosecution was actively engaged in the maligning of the victim and her family, the prosecutor was derelict in his duty to expose and remedy this bias.
Conflicts of Interest
Standard 3–1.7 Conflicts of Interest:
(a) The prosecutor should know and abide by the ethical rules regarding conflicts of interest that apply in the jurisdiction, and be sensitive to facts that may raise conflict issues. When a conflict requiring recusal exists and is non-waivable, or informed consent has not been obtained, the prosecutor should recuse from further participation in the matter. The office should not go forward until a non-conflicted prosecutor, or an adequate waiver, is in place.
(f) The prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor’s professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutor’s personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests or relationships. A prosecutor should not allow interests in personal advancement or aggrandizement to affect judgments regarding what is in the best interests of justice in any case.
(PGR) DA Womble is an elected official. I have nothing but opinions supported by the American Bar Association. One theory suggests an interpretation by the District Attorney of this case as being a “weak case,” based upon law enforcement mistakes in evidence security and handling, and scene contamination.
Anticipation of failure against any potential defense team could theoretically be a motivating factor against prosecution. The case could be made that the bias evident in the comments from his subordinate, ADA Cruden, and misconduct from the Kitty Hawk PD with the early goings of scene maintenance could also weigh in favor of DA Womble’s reluctance to prosecute.
Standard 3–1.7 Conflicts of Interest
(g) The prosecutor should disclose to appropriate supervisory personnel any facts or interests that could reasonably be viewed as raising a potential conflict of interest...
(PGR) Here’s Joel Johnson, again, discussing family history:
“Their service station works on our cars and we spend fifty thousand dollars a year with them and we’ve had a great relationship with them. There’s no bad history with them other than us putting their-her (family member) in prison, how long ago? he asks Sgt. Brian Strickland, the Lead Detective for KHPD.
Sgt. Strickland added:
“This was right when I got started…and then, uh, public record as well, I dealt with (family member), um, he went on a, uh, drug-induced melee, say, uh, one night and did about a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of damage in town and (unintelligible)… he went to prison for five years. So there’s a history there and we’ve arrested the deceased as well for fighting and domestics and…” -Sgt Brian Strickland
Multiple family members close to the business owner, speaking under the condition of anonymity, alleged that the “fifty-thousand dollars” mentioned by Chief Johnson was mentioned to a family member as leverage to quiet other family members’ presence on social media.
Standard 3–1.7 Conflicts of Interest
(j) The prosecutor should promptly report to a supervisor all but the most obviously frivolous misconduct allegations made, publicly or privately, against the prosecutor. If a supervisor or judge initially determines that an allegation is serious enough to warrant official investigation, reasonable measures, including possible recusal, should be instituted to ensure that the prosecution function is fairly and effectively carried out. A mere allegation of misconduct is not a sufficient basis for prosecutorial recusal, and should not deter a prosecutor from attending to the prosecutor’s duties.
(PGR) Fact: Misconduct on the part of KHPD was immediately reported/alleged by family members in the immediate wake of the notification of the scope and severity of the victim’s injuries. Despite this fact, no investigation of the premises had been conducted. None would have been unless insisted upon by family. The District Attorney took no action to oversee the conduct of Lead Investigator, Sgt. Brian Strickland, nor Chief Joel Johnson in this matter.
Standard 3–1.9 Diligence, Promptness and Punctuality
(a) The prosecutor should act with diligence and promptness to investigate, litigate, and dispose of criminal charges, consistent with the interests of justice and with due regard for fairness, accuracy, and rights of the defendant, victims, and witnesses. The prosecutor’s office should be organized and supported with adequate staff and facilities to enable it to process and resolve criminal charges with fairness and efficiency.
(b) When providing reasons for seeking delay, the prosecutor should not knowingly misrepresent facts or otherwise mislead. The prosecutor should use procedures that will cause delay only when there is a legitimate basis for such use, and not to secure an unfair tactical advantage.
(PGR) I refer once again to comments made by ADA Cruden in the July 31st meeting:
“…of course, we all know from the autopsy, there’s no blunt force trauma on her body. The only bleeding source was from her anus, from the health issue she had.”- ADA Jeff Cruden
(PGR) According to an investigator I spoke with in preparing this story, I was assured that at the time of Cruden’s false statement regarding the victim’s injuries, the Office of the District Attorney was not in possession of preliminary medical reports and knowingly falsified this statement.
Standard 3–1.9 Diligence, Promptness and Punctuality
(d) The prosecutor should know and comply with timing requirements applicable to a criminal investigation and prosecution, so as to not prejudice a criminal matter.
(PGR) The fact is that the alleged crime scene went unsealed and unprocessed for months.
Duty to Report and Respond to Prosecutorial Misconduct
Standard 3–1.12 Duty to Report and Respond to Prosecutorial Misconduct
a) The prosecutor’s office should adopt policies to address allegations of professional misconduct, including violations of law, by prosecutors. At a minimum such policies should require internal reporting of reasonably suspected misconduct to supervisory staff within the office, and authorize supervisory staff to quickly address the allegations. Investigations of allegations of professional misconduct within the prosecutor’s office should be handled in an independent and conflict-free manner.
(b) When a prosecutor reasonably believes that another person associated with the prosecutor’s office intends or is about to engage in misconduct, the prosecutor should attempt to dissuade the person. If such attempt fails or is not possible, and the prosecutor reasonably believes that misconduct is ongoing, will occur, or has occurred, the prosecutor should promptly refer the matter to higher authority in the prosecutor’s office including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, to the chief prosecutor.
(PGR) It is the opinion of private investigators and this journalist that statements from ADA Cruden maligning the victim and family, and misrepresenting medical evidence constitute misconduct from ADA Cruden, and by proxy, his boss, District Attorney Womble.
Standard 3–2.5 Removal or Suspension and Substitution of Chief Prosecutor (recusal)
a) Fair and objective procedures should be established by appropriate legislation that empowers the governor or other public official or body to suspend or remove, and supersede, a chief prosecutor for a jurisdiction and designate a replacement, upon making a public finding after reasonable notice and hearing that the prosecutor is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office due to physical or mental incapacity or for gross deviation from professional norms.
(b) The governor or other public official or body should be similarly empowered by law to substitute, in a particular matter or category of cases, special counsel in the place of the chief prosecutor, by consent or upon making a finding after fair process that substitution is required due to a serious conflict of interest or a gross deviation from professional norms.
(PGR) In the opinion of this author and members of the private investigative firm present for the meeting of July 31st, every citation made above thus far supports a tribunal for determining whether District Attorney Womble and/or his subordinates are, at the very least guilty of gross deviation from professional norms.
Standard 3–3.2 Relationships With Law Enforcement
Standard 3–3.2 Relationships With Law Enforcement
(a) The prosecutor should maintain respectful yet independent judgment when interacting with law enforcement personnel.
(PGR) He did not — see again the meeting of July 31st including a conversation between DA Womble, ADA Cruden, and Chief Johnson.
(c ) The prosecutor should become familiar with and respect the experience and specialized expertise of law enforcement personnel. The prosecutor should promote compliance by law enforcement personnel with applicable legal rules, including rules against improper bias. The prosecutor’s office should keep law enforcement personnel informed of relevant legal and legal ethics issues and developments as they relate to prosecution matters, and advise law enforcement personnel of relevant prosecution policies and procedures. Prosecutors may exercise supervision over law enforcement personnel involved in particular prosecutions when in the best interests of justice and the public.
(PGR) These things should have but DID NOT happen; see police misconduct on 7/22 and then again on 7/24.
(d) Representatives of the prosecutor’s office should meet and confer regularly with law enforcement agencies regarding prosecution as well as law enforcement policies. The prosecutor’s office should assist in developing and administering training programs for law enforcement personnel regarding matters and cases being investigated, matters submitted for charging, and the law related to law enforcement activities.
(PGR) If the DA’s office had implemented any type of training in dealing with matters like that of LeeAnn Fletcher’s, would the police misconduct on July 22nd and July 24th…and for nearly two months thereafter been so egregious?
Standard 3–3.4 Relationship With Victims and Witnesses
(d) The prosecutor should not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden, and not use methods of obtaining evidence that violate legal rights. The prosecutor and prosecution agents should not misrepresent their status, identity or interests when communicating with a witness.
(PGR) I call this the smoking gun: Character assassination and well-established bias. This investigation was “on hold” based upon allegations by ADA Cruden and DA Womble’s office misrepresented facts regarding injuries — knowing the contrary to be true.
Statements were made by representatives of the DA’s office as well as KHPD regarding the victim’s health, family, habits, and arrest record (all irrelevant) in hopes to strengthen their case AGAINST prosecution — hedging their bets, and hoping against a homicide ruling from the VA Medical Examiner’s office:
“The victim had no blunt force trauma and was only bleeding from her anus.” ADA Cruden, July 31, 2020
Standard 3–4.1 Investigative Function of the Prosecutor
(a) When performing an investigative function, prosecutors should be familiar with and follow the ABA Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations.
(PGR) Was he? Did he? Alleged, blatant police misconduct, false statements from ADA Crudem? Based upon everything cited/established above, does this make the case for a hearing on the prosecutor’s role going forward, of whether he should recuse himself? I think this makes the case for an investigation from either the governor’s office or other higher legislative body.
Standard 3–4.2 Decisions to Charge Are the Prosecutor’s
( c)In determining whether formal criminal charges should be filed, prosecutors should consider whether further investigation should be undertaken. After charges are filed the prosecutor should oversee law enforcement investigative activity related to the case.
(PGR) Inaction between 7/24 (discovery of blood) and September 9th? What was his consideration process? was there even one, and, if so, upon what was it predicated? Because next to zero investigation was done at the scene.
Standard 3–4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges
(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.
(PGR) Clear evidence and chain of custody of evidence, BLUESTAR reagent testing video, witness statements and my story on “the case for probable cause” all support probable cause for filing criminal charges.
Standard 3–4.4 Discretion in Filing, Declining, Maintaining, and Dismissing Criminal Charges
(a) In order to fully implement the prosecutor’s functions and duties, including the obligation to enforce the law while exercising sound discretion, the prosecutor is not obliged to file or maintain all criminal charges which the evidence might support. Among the factors which the prosecutor may properly consider in exercising discretion to initiate, decline, or dismiss a criminal charge, even though it meets the requirements of Standard 3–4.3, are:
(i) the strength of the case; (21) reason to believe based upon misconduct at the scene and following
(PGR) It is well-established and public record that the scene was not treated with regards to the standards established by The Crime Scene Investigation & Reconstruction Subcommittee’s Standard for Initial Response at Scenes by Law
Enforcement: It is the opinion of an investigator for the family, myself, and many in our community that the failure of police to enter the scene at the time of the 911 call, coupled with inaction two days later when a subsequent return to the residence by law enforcement turned up a substantial amount of blood evidence, satisfies the definition of misconduct.
Standard 3–4.4, cont.
(ii) the prosecutor’s doubt that the accused is in fact guilty;
(iii) the extent or absence of harm caused by the offense;
(iv) the impact of prosecution or non-prosecution on the public welfare;
(v) the background and characteristics of the offender, including any voluntary restitution or efforts at rehabilitation;
(vi) whether the authorized or likely punishment or collateral consequences are disproportionate in relation to the particular offense or the offender;
(vii) the views and motives of the victim or complainant;
(viii) any improper conduct by law enforcement;
(PGR) Activity at the scene by law enforcement on 7/22 and 7/24.
(ix) unwarranted disparate treatment of similarly situated persons;
(x) potential collateral impact on third parties, including witnesses or victims;
(xi) cooperation of the offender in the apprehension or conviction of others;
(PGR) I have questioned DA Womble in regarding the suspect’s role as a possible informant, to no answer. I believe it bears investigation by the appropriate office.
(xii) the possible influence of any cultural, ethnic, socioeconomic or other improper biases;
(PGR) The discussion of the victim’s lifestyle and prior criminal history and family history on July 31st- *a link to the recording of the aforementioned conversation is posted above.
(xiii) changes in law or policy;
(xiv) the fair and efficient distribution of limited prosecutorial resources;
(xv) the likelihood of prosecution by another jurisdiction; and
(xvi) whether the public’s interests in the matter might be appropriately vindicated by available civil, regulatory, administrative, or private remedies.
(b) In exercising discretion to file and maintain charges, the prosecutor should not consider:
(i) partisan or other improper political or personal considerations;
(ii) hostility or personal animus towards a potential subject, or any other improper motive of the prosecutor;
(PGR) “They’re killing us!” — ADA Jeff Cruden, speaking of the victim’s family clearly establishes personal animus.
or
(iii) the impermissible criteria described in Standard 1.6 above.
Standard 3–5.5 Preservation of Information and Evidence
(a) The prosecutor should make reasonable efforts to preserve, and direct the prosecutor’s agents to preserve, relevant materials during and after a criminal case, including
(i) evidence relevant to investigations as well as prosecutions, whether or not admitted at trial;
(ii) information identified pursuant to Standard 3–5.4(a); and
(iii) other materials necessary to support significant decisions made and conclusions reached by the prosecution in the course of an investigation and prosecution.
(b) The prosecutor’s office should develop policies regarding the method and duration of preservation of such materials. Such policies should be consistent with applicable rules and laws (such as public records laws) in the jurisdiction. These policies, and individual preservation decisions, should consider the character and seriousness of each case, the character of the particular evidence or information, the likelihood of further challenges to judgments following conviction, and the resources available for preservation. Physical evidence should be preserved so as to reasonably preserve its forensic characteristics and utility.
(d) The prosecutor should comply with additional statutes, rules or caselaw that may govern the preservation of evidence.
(PGR) If nothing was done to secure and preserve the scene on July 22nd or July 24th, how can any of the above highlighted standards be satisfied, met, or maintained? Opinion: The onus is on District Attorney Womble, as Chief Joel Johnson is an agent of the prosecutor in this reading.
- Author’s note*SOURCE FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION REGARDING PROSECUTORIAL STANDARDS OPINION — PART ONE ARE FROM THE FOLLOWING: Fourth Edition (2017) of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS for the PROSECUTION FUNCTION. Copyright by the American Bar Association. This work (Criminal Justice Standards) may be used for non-profit educational and training purposes and legal reform (legislative, judicial, and executive) without written permission but with a citation to this source. Some specific Standards can be purchased in book format. Click this logo for a link to the full list of recommendations.
Part Two: Conclusions and what’s to come.
Opinion: Part TWO:
First District Attorney Andrew Womble has violated multiple standards of prosecutorial, and indeed, ethical conduct, according to regulations set forth in RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT by the North Carolina State Bar.
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:
(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved…
(pgr) Did he though? What claim has been made? What charge or offense is being investigated?
RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c ) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer;
(PGR) ADA Cruden made the false statement re: condition of victim and nature of injuries:
“The victim had no blunt force trauma and was only bleeding from her anus.” ADA Cruden, July 31, 2020
RULE 4.4 RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
(PGR) Discussions of meeting of 7/31 between DA, Chief Johnson, Sgt. Strickland, ADA Cruden and private investigators display and record efforts by law KHPD and DA Womble’s office Efforts to embarrass the victim, and delay forensic crime scene processing!
(b) A lawyer who receives a writing relating to the representation of the lawyer’s client and knows or reasonably should know that the writing was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.
District Attorney Womble may be, and should be petitioned to recuse himself from further involvement with the case concerning the death of LeeAnn Fletcher.
Upon recommendation from NC Attorney General Josh Stein’s office, I have provided this same opinion to North Carolina State Ethics Commission and the NC State Bar.
A goal is to retain council to launch a tribunal, with the authority to afford the matters listed above a proper hearing before a designated body, as specified in North Carolina Judicial Law. The desired result of said hearings, to repeat, is to achieve the recusal of District Attorney Andrew Womble from the case of the death of LeeAnn Fletcher.
This decision to demand an immediate recusal is based on what family, private investigators and an empathetic community find as bias against the victim and her family, negligence on the part of KHPD investigators under the authoritative supervision of District Attorney Womble, and through his lack of oversight.
Critics of the handling of this matter by KHPD and the DA’s office charge gross negligence, and say it’s enough justification to begin the process to ensure a recusal from what some call a biased DA.
Citing that the State Bureau of Investigation took over on September 9th and immediately did a full assist, meaning that they properly began to processed the alleged crime scene using the best forensic technology and scene recreation experts in the State of North Carolina, those in the family and close to the case remain cautiously optimistic.
We demand a fresh, special prosecutor be assigned to the scene with no prior knowledge, history, nor animus with this victim or her family. We want the evidence from the SBI to go to this special prosecutor, and finally, we all want Justice for LeeAnn.
-PGR
- Author’s note: *SOURCE FOR ALL INFORMATION IN OPINION — PART TWO ARE FROM THE FOLLOWING: RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT by the North Carolina State Bar. By clicking the embedded link for the NC State Bar, you will be routed to a full index of all rules covered therein.
