Name as it appears on the ballot: Dave Hall
Dave Hall
Campaign website: www.davehall4judge.com
Phone number: 919-717-3029
Email: dave@davehall4judge.com
Years lived in the district: 14
1. What do you believe are the three most important qualities a judge must have to be effective? Are there any particular judges, either on the state or federal level, who you believe exemplify these qualities?
- Knowledge of the law
- Empathy
- Judicial Temperament
The judges I look to as mentors and leaders each evince judicial strengths and qualities that are unique. Hon. Marcia Morey, Hon. Michael O’Foghludha, Hon. Orlando Hudson, Justice Michael R. Morgan, and Justice James A. Wynn Jr.
2. What do you believe qualifies you to serve as a judge?
I believe that I have the proper temperament, requisite knowledge, and a distinct set of work and life experiences that not only set me apart but provide a unique lens from which to serve.
3. In a sentence, how would you define your judicial philosophy?
My judicial philosophy is to apply the law in a fair, just, and equitable manner and to adhere to the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.
4. How do you define yourself politically? How do your political beliefs affect your judicial approach?
I define myself politically as a Democrat. However I believe that our courts should remain non-partisan and my political beliefs should not and will not have influence over my legal decisions.
5. If you are challenging an incumbent, what decisions has the incumbent made that you most disagree with? If you are an incumbent, what in your record and experience do you believe merits another term?
I am challenging an incumbent. While my opponent has a searchable history of local news stories and has had at least one decision reversed by the NC Court of Appeals, I prefer to reserve my personal comments.
6. On any given day, there are North Carolina resident in jail are not because they’ve been convicted of a crime but because they cannot afford their bail. How would you determine whether pretrial incarceration is appropriate? Do you support having a bail schedule with guidelines for how judges should make bail determinations? Why or why not?
Unless a defendant is in jail with no bond, all people incarcerated in our local jail are there because they cannot afford bail. Furthermore, all people held in pretrial incarceration are presumed to be innocent. I believe that pretrial release should always look to the least restrictive measures that will ensure appearance in court. This is what the law requires. Bond should be used as a last resort to assure safety for the community and appearance in court.
I support presumed pretrial release for all misdemeanors that do not involve violence as an element of the charge. This is the least restrictive method to ensure appearance in court. It would be possible in a specific case to overcome this presumption, as I believe each individual and set of facts is unique and should be assessed on a case by case basis.
Bond schedules are one of the main tools provided to judges to help them make decisions as they administer our current system of incarceration and bail. I recognize issues of poverty, disparate outcomes, and collateral consequences associated with our current system of pretrial release must be addressed.
Bond schedules provide judges with guidelines. Judges choose to follow or deviate from them, using the discretion allowed to them by law. Judges make decisions about bond based on facts presented to them. I’ve seen bonds raised as well as lowered based on facts presented at hearings. I believe that discretion should remain with the judge as trier of fact to determine whether or not the suggested or set bond is proper.
7. What changes to the cash bail system, if any, do you support? Why? If you don't support any changes, please explain why you think the current system is successful.
As a civil rights attorney, I have been closely involved with an effort to reform cash bail and other ways to decriminalize poverty. The cash bail reform movement is in its infancy, and as such, testing possible solutions including bail funds, and even laws eliminating cash bail, serve as starting points to further the discussion of the role cash bail plays at the intersection of poverty, criminalization, and public safety. New Jersey and California have led the way by eliminating cash bail and are exposing unintended consequences and the pros and cons associated with such bold moves.
There are many suggestions and models on the table from paying bail directly to the court system to eliminating cash bail altogether. Many people agree that money should not be the determinative factor for justice, but we know plea outcomes are certainly influenced by a person’s ability to pay to be released from pretrial incarceration. Important questions that I consider include: how do we eliminate disparate outcomes based on poverty? How do we assure that justice is served NOT based on a person’s ability to pay?
These questions highlight the fact that decriminalizing poverty will require open debate and testing a number of possible solutions. I have been part of the bail reform network for over a year, I’ve been involved in a local bail fund non-profit, and I seek solutions to these burning questions. Do I have the answers? The short answer is no. I’m one person doing my part in a nationwide discussion and search for solutions.
8. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, black people in North Carolina are incarcerated at six times the rate of white people, despite the state being majority white. What responsibility do you think judges hold in addressing racial disparities in our criminal justice system, and what would you do to address these inequities?
By default, our criminal legal system disproportionately affects poor people and people of color. When a disproportionate number of poor people of color enter our justice system, we have no possibility of anything other than disparate outcomes across all metrics. A judge, does not control who enters the system, therefore we look to see if our judges are following the statutes and guidelines when applying the law, and using their discretion properly.
In the larger issue of systemic and institutional racism in our legal system, I do believe that judges should be well educated on the topic and be trained to recognize and understand the impact and effects their decisions have in the pursuit of justice.
I recommend the use of benchcards and continuing education to remind judges of the guiding principles set forth in our statutes and of the societal impacts and consequences their decisions have on perpetuating systemic and institutional racism. Such reminders can aid judges as they consider using their discretion in imposing such things as bail and fines and fees. Discretion is arguably the most powerful tool a judge has.
Judges cannot solve racial disparities in our legal system on their own. The legal system is a reflection of society and it will require a collective effort to address the injustices inherent in our systems and institutions. Police, sheriffs, district attorneys, public defenders, legislators, educators, city council members, county commissioners, must all work together to end disparate outcomes.
9. In some cases, individuals who fail to appear in court for traffic violations are arrested and placed in jail, even if there is an arguable valid reason for the failure to appear. These arrests remain on the person’s record. Do you believe judges should ever overlook failures to appear for things like traffic violations? If so, in what circumstances? If not, why not?
I would not have a bright line rule that I would apply in all failure to appear (FTA) cases. I will consider each situation on a case by case basis. I would assess each FTA strike request on a case by case basis as judges have discretion on striking and remitting certain fines and fees. I understand that an additional $200 fee can be an insurmountable hurdle for some causing years of disenfranchisement. I will be as compassionate and understanding as the facts and law allow.
10. Do you support restorative justice practices prior to sentencing? If so, please explain what sort of practices you support and in what types of cases? Who should be eligible?
Similar to bail reform, restorative justice practices are in their infancy. Just this year I attended Durham’s first restorative justice plea, facilitated by Restore Justice Durham. As quoted in Indyweek, restorative justice practices are “a rehabilitative approach that focuses on reconciliation between a defendant and a victim and the community.” I am in full support of programs and practices that move us towards accountability and not punishment alone. I hope that we will see restorative justice practices increase, with more groups and additional restorative ideas.
Restorative justice opportunities will depend on an individual set of facts. Victims and defendants must both be open to the process, and as long as that is the case, restorative justice should be open to all types of charges. Our first restorative justice plea was in a Superior Court case with a felony charge involving gun violence. I see no reason why these practices cannot be made available in district court as well.
11. How do you believe low-level drug cases should be handled?
First, all charges must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Class III marijuana possession is generally not subject to incarceration. For these types of low level drug cases I believe pre-adjudication diversion should always be the first solution. I also believe our misdemeanor diversion program should be expanded to include 25 yr olds.
12. In North Carolina, court fees have increased 400 percent over the past twenty years, and nonpayment may be punished with more fees, license revocation, or jail time. Do you believe the justice system in North Carolina criminalizes poverty? If not, please explain. If yes, what would you do as a judge to mitigate that?
Simply focusing on the judicial branch as the mechanism that has the power to decriminalize poverty is a view too narrow. Similar to question number eight, we find that disparities around people of color are not distinct from disparities for poor people. Again, our criminal legal system disproportionately affects poor people and Judges do not decide or control who comes before them in court. We must look at all of the stakeholders in this question including law enforcement, prosecutors, legislators, and more. We must have an analysis both historical and societal about wealth, education, housing, health, and more before we tackle the criminalization of poverty by our justice system.
What we find when poor people enter the criminal legal system is a series of fines, fees, and laws that are not only punitive but seek to fund the system on the backs of those who traverse through it. The 400 percent increase in court costs over the past twenty years only exacerbates the impact and collateral consequences of contact with the justice system for poor people.
It is not the role of judges to legislate from the bench, however I recommend the use of benchcards and continued education to remind judges of the guiding principles set forth in the statutes, societal impacts of their decisions, and collateral consequences when imposing bail, fines and fees.
