Name: Myra Leake Griffin
Age: 53
Party affiliation: Democrat
Campaign website: https://myraforjudge.com
Occupation and employer: Vice-Chair, North Carolina Industrial Commission
1. What in your record as a public official or private citizen demonstrates your ability to be effective, fair, and impartial on the bench? What do you believe qualifies you to serve as a superior court judge? Please include your experience relevant to civil and criminal law.
I have spent more than two decades exercising sound judgment in roles that demand fairness, independence, and respect for the rule of law. For 26 years, I have served the people of North Carolina in positions requiring careful fact-finding, legal analysis, and the ability to decide contested matters in an impartial manner. My tenure at the North Carolina Industrial Commission, which is a trial-level, quasi-judicial court with exclusive jurisdiction over the Workers’ Compensation Act and Tort Claims Act, has required the same discipline, temperament, and adherence to law expected of a Superior Court judge. I began my legal career as a law clerk and administrative hearing officer, then moved on to serving as an Assistant Attorney General with the North Carolina Department of Justice representing the Industrial Commission and the State in civil litigation and criminal appeals. For thirteen years, I served as a Deputy Commissioner, presiding over contested hearings, ruling on discovery disputes, managing pretrial proceedings, weighing evidence, assessing witness credibility, issuing written decisions, and applying statutory and case law to complex civil matters. These responsibilities are all consistent with the duties required of a Superior Court judge. In 2018, I was proudly appointed by Governor Roy Cooper to the Full Commission and later confirmed by the General Assembly, ultimately serving as Vice-Chair of the Commission. In this role, I review trial-level decisions to ensure consistency and legal accuracy across cases. These are all experiences that closely mirror the responsibilities of a Superior Court judge. Throughout my career, I have been entrusted with making difficult decisions that affect livelihoods, families, and public institutions, always guided by fairness, neutrality, and respect for due process.
Beyond my role on the Industrial Commission, my community engagements have further informed my readiness for the bench. For example, I served on the Durham Police Civilian Review Board from June 2018 until June 2022. That role required careful, independent evaluation of citizen complaints and law enforcement conduct with discretion and an unwavering commitment to fairness on all sides. I also participated in ride-alongs and reviewed internal investigation reports, which gave me firsthand exposure to the realities officers and community members face, including mental health crises and substance abuse issues. This experience deepened my understanding of how legal decisions reverberate beyond the courtroom and reinforced the importance of listening carefully, weighing evidence without bias, and treating every person with dignity. For a Superior Court judge, who must preside over serious criminal and civil matters affecting various aspects of various lives, that perspective is essential. Together, my judicial experience and community service reflect a career grounded in fairness, sound judgment, and a commitment to equal justice under law.
2. How would you define your judicial philosophy? How do you define yourself politically? How does that impact your judicial approach?
My judicial philosophy is rooted in the fair, careful, and balanced application of the law, guided by the principle that every person who comes before the court deserves to be heard and respected. Throughout my career, I have approached decision-making by closely examining the facts, weighing the credibility of the evidence, and applying the governing law as written and with lawful discretion when appropriate. My experience presiding over contested matters has reinforced the importance of careful listening and issuing decisions that are well-reasoned and transparent so that all parties understand how and why the court reached its conclusion. That discipline has shaped how I view the role of a judge: not as an advocate, but as a neutral arbiter responsible for ensuring that the process is fair, the record is complete, and the outcome is grounded in law while always treating everyone involved in legal proceedings with dignity and respect. Everyone includes the courtroom deputy, the clerk, pro se litigants, represented litigants, attorneys, victims, and witnesses. The courtroom belongs to the people, and my judicial philosophy will always honor the respect that reality requires.
Politically, I consider myself guided by the rule of law rather than ideology. My public service has required me to set aside personal views and apply statutes and precedent faithfully, and that discipline would continue on the Superior Court bench. I do not believe a judge’s role is to advance a political agenda, nor is it appropriate. It is to ensure that the law is applied consistently and that every person receives equal treatment in court. That perspective directly informs my judicial approach. In criminal cases, it means balancing accountability with an understanding of the underlying circumstances that bring people into the justice system, and recognizing when alternatives to incarceration may better serve public safety and rehabilitation. In civil matters, it means ensuring that disputes are resolved fairly and with precision. I am hyperaware of the intersectionality of societal, mental health, and economic challenges that often play a significant role in matters that come before the court. Above all, I believe a Superior Court judge must combine legal rigor with sound judgment and humanity, recognizing that the court’s decisions have lasting consequences. If elected, I will bring that balanced, thoughtful approach to every case, with the goal of strengthening public trust in our courts and ensuring justice is administered fairly and impartially.
3. What do you believe are the three most important qualities a judge must have to be an effective jurist? Which judges, past or present, do you most admire? Why?
The three most important qualities a judge must have to be an effective jurist are: experience; a judicial temperament exemplifying open-mindedness, patience, and respect; and compassion.
First, experience matters because it equips a judge with the ability to manage complex cases, evaluate evidence efficiently, and apply the law with consistency. An experienced judge understands how the courtroom functions in real time in terms of how to manage litigants, attorneys, juries, and critical decisions while ensuring that the proceedings are executed in a fair and orderly manner.
Second, judicial temperament is equally essential. A good judge should be patient, open-minded, and respectful, especially in emotionally charged cases where the stakes are high and the parties may feel unheard or overwhelmed. The ability to listen carefully, maintain composure, and approach each matter without preconceived judgment is essential to maintaining public trust in the courts.
Finally, compassion completes the trifecta of the three most important qualities I believe a judge must have. Compassion doesn’t mean leniency or advocacy; it means recognizing the human impact of judicial decisions and treating everyone accordingly. This is the foundation of my belief in fair courts and strong communities.
Throughout my career, I have been influenced by judges who exemplify the aforementioned qualities in practice. Former Associate Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law and public service, while also opening doors for women, particularly women of color, to see themselves on the bench. This commitment was also apparent during her tenure as the Dean of my alma mater, North Carolina Central University School of Law.
Former Chief Justice Cheri Beasley also exemplifies integrity and humility, and her dedication to ensuring access to justice for all North Carolinians set a powerful standard for judicial leadership, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Former Associate Justice Robin Hudson’s careful legal analysis and well-reasoned opinions reflected the kind of intellectual rigor that strengthens the judiciary.
Former Durham Superior and Chief District Court Judge Elaine O’Neal modeled how compassion and authenticity can coexist with firmness and authority in the courtroom.
Finally, I also greatly admire Associate Justice Anita Earls for her principled commitment to justice and her willingness to uphold the law with courage, even in the face of profound opposition. Each of these jurists exemplifies the qualities I strive to bring to the bench: sound judgment, respect for the law, and a deep understanding of the responsibility that comes with deciding matters that profoundly affect people’s lives.
4. Do you support restorative justice practices and diversion programs? What kinds of cases do you believe should be exempted from diversion programs?
I support restorative justice and diversion programs. The application of restorative justice and diversion programs must be authorized by law and appropriate to the facts of a case. When used thoughtfully, these programs can promote accountability, reduce recidivism, and address underlying issues such as substance use or mental health needs, while still prioritizing public safety. Diversion can be an effective tool when it is structured, closely monitored, and tailored to individuals who are willing and able to comply with its requirements. It is important that candidates for diversion programs are not set up to fail. Charging decisions and eligibility determinations rest with the District Attorney, and when diversion is presented to the court, I would carefully evaluate whether it is legally appropriate and supported by the facts of the case. Judicial ethics also require that I not prejudge categories of cases or communicate general exclusions. Each matter must be evaluated individually, based on the statutory framework, the circumstances of the offense, and the suitability of the participant. When those factors align, restorative justice and diversion programs can be a meaningful and effective part of a fair and balanced justice system.
5. The recently passed Iryna’s Law eliminates the option for judges to release people pretrial with only a written promise to appear in court and requires that they set secured bonds for defendants charged with violent offenses or with more than two prior convictions. Do you support these changes? Why or why not?
Iryna’s Law represents a significant change to North Carolina’s pretrial release framework, and as a judge, my responsibility is to apply the law as enacted by the General Assembly while safeguarding constitutional principles. Pretrial release decisions must always be guided by due process, the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that conditions of release are no more restrictive than necessary to ensure both a defendant’s appearance and protect public safety. The statute establishes new parameters for how those determinations are made, including limitations on unsecured bonds in certain cases, and those provisions have to be applied carefully and consistently.
In considering pretrial release for a defendant, I would evaluate each case based on its individual facts, the nature of the alleged offense, the defendant’s history, and the statutory factors set forth by law. I am mindful that these decisions affect not only defendants, but also victims and the larger community. A judge has to balance public safety, victim concerns, and constitutional protections without prejudice or predetermined outcomes. Thoughtful and lawful judicial discretion are essential to the justice system.
Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, it would be inappropriate for me to express personal support or opposition to legislation enacted by the General Assembly. What I can say is that, if elected, I will apply Iryna’s Law as written, evaluate each case on its merits, and ensure that pretrial decisions are fair, lawful, and consistent with both public safety and the constitutional rights of the accused.
6. No one on North Carolina’s death row has been executed since 2006. Provisions of Iryna’s Law open the door for executions to resume. In what circumstances, if any, do you support using the death penalty? In what circumstances do you support life sentences and de facto life sentences?
Currently, under North Carolina law, the death penalty is a lawful sentencing option in certain capital cases, and the responsibility of a trial judge is to apply that law while simultaneously safeguarding the constitutional rights of defendants. In capital cases, the jury, not the judge, determines whether the death penalty or life imprisonment is the appropriate sentence. The jury must make this decision based on the evidence presented and consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. If the jury recommends life imprisonment or is unable to reach a unanimous decision, the judge is required to impose a sentence of life without parole. My role in such cases would be to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly, that the law is properly applied, and that the defendant’s constitutional rights are protected throughout the process.
Pursuant to the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, it would be inappropriate for me to express personal views about the death penalty or to indicate in advance how I would rule in cases that may come before me. I take very seriously the gravity of any case involving the possibility of a life or death sentence. These are the most consequential decisions a court can be asked to make, and they demand strict adherence to the law and an unwavering commitment to fairness and due process. Whether the sentence is death, life imprisonment, or a term of years, my obligation as a judge is to ensure that the outcome reflects the law, the evidence, and the constitutional protections guaranteed to every individual.
7. Black North Carolinians are incarcerated at much higher rates than their white peers. What responsibility do judges have to address racial inequity in the court system?
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system are real, and judges have an important responsibility to ensure that the courtroom is a place where the law is applied fairly and without bias. It is also important not to disregard the reality of the overrepresentation of Black North Carolinians in jails and prisons. While judges cannot control decisions that occur before a case reaches the courtroom, they are responsible for safeguarding due process and enforcing constitutional protections.
Judges have a responsibility to guard against discriminatory practices and ensure that proceedings are conducted impartially. This includes carefully monitoring the voir dire process, enforcing rules governing challenges, and maintaining a courtroom environment in which every person has a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Judges must remain attentive to the influence of implicit bias and apply the law consistently, regardless of race, background, or resources; this responsibility must be fulfilled without exception.
In civil court, disparities in access to legal representation can further widen inequities. While judges must remain neutral, they can promote fairness by managing cases efficiently, clearly explaining procedures, and ensuring that all litigants are treated fairly. When permitted by law, diversion and restorative justice programs, as addressed above, can also help reduce unnecessary incarceration and address underlying issues in a way that supports both accountability and public safety. Ultimately, a judge’s responsibility is to uphold equal justice under the law and to ensure that every person who enters the courtroom is treated fairly and with respect.
8. How should judges take immigration status into consideration, both in case resolutions and in courtroom proceedings?
Judges have a responsibility to ensure that immigration status does not become a barrier to fairness, due process, or access to justice. In any proceeding where a party has limited ability to read, speak, or understand English, the court must ensure meaningful participation by appointing a qualified foreign language interpreter so that the individual can fully understand the proceedings and communicate effectively. A courtroom cannot function fairly if a person does not understand what is happening or what rights are at stake.
Judges also have an important role in ensuring that defendants are fully informed of the potential consequences of their decisions. Before accepting a guilty or no contest plea, the court is required to inform defendants that such a plea may carry immigration consequences, including deportation, exclusion from admission, or denial of naturalization under federal law. These are lawful inquiries, not legal advice. This safeguard is essential to protecting due process and ensuring that pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily.
9. In many cases, voters know very little about the judges they are electing. Tell us something about yourself that our readers may be surprised to learn.
I am African American but readers may be surprised to learn that I am of Puerto Rican descent through paternal lineage. My grandmother immigrated to the United States, namely, New York, in the early 1940s. Hearing her story and learning about her journey instilled in me a deep appreciation for hard work and perseverance in the face of challenges. My cultural background and identity have shaped my respect for diversity and strengthened my dedication to treating every person with dignity and fairness, both inside and outside the courtroom. It also gives me a personal understanding of the challenges faced by individuals and communities navigating systems that can be intimidating, which informs my approach to justice and public service.
10. Identify and explain one principled stand you would be willing to take if elected that you suspect might cost you some points with voters.
If elected, I would take a principled stand to ensure that every decision I make on the bench is guided solely by the law, the evidence, and the rights of the parties before me, even when doing so may be unpopular with some members of the community. Judges often hear cases in which emotions run high, where the public may have a strong opinion about what outcome “should” occur. My commitment is to the impartial administration of justice, not to public sentiment. I recognize that this may sometimes be difficult for voters to understand or accept, but it is essential to maintaining the integrity, independence, and fairness of the legal system. Upholding the law consistently and fairly, even when it is unpopular, is a principled stand I would be willing to take if elected.
11. Are there any issues this questionnaire has not addressed that you would like to address?
Approximately half of the cases heard in Superior Court are civil matters, including disputes over property, contracts, and workplace rights. These decisions directly affect the financial stability and economic well-being of families and businesses in our community. With the departure of Senior Resident Judge Michael O’Foghludha, who practiced civil law before his election to the bench, Durham has an opportunity to elect a judge whose professional focus has been grounded in civil law. For more than 21 years, I have served in quasi-judicial roles at the North Carolina Industrial Commission, where I handled discovery disputes, conducted evidentiary hearings, reviewed extensive records, researched and applied complex legal authority, and rendered decisions consistent with the law and Code of Judicial Conduct. I have also analyzed criminal trial proceedings and briefed appellate arguments to the North Carolina Court of Appeals in the area of criminal law, ensuring that trial errors were addressed and that the law was applied correctly. My work has required careful, impartial analysis of contested facts and the preparation of thorough, well-reasoned opinions and decisions, some of which have been reviewed on appeal by the North Carolina Court of Appeals and, in some instances, the Supreme Court.
Superior Courts handle some of the most complex and consequential cases in the State, and I bring experience and judgment developed over two decades to serve this role effectively. At the same time, I approach this responsibility with an unwavering willingness to learn. Regardless of experience, no one knows everything, and ensuring fair courts and strong communities demands a commitment to lifelong learning. I embrace that responsibility fully, and I am committed to continuing to grow, adapt, and deepen my understanding of the law to serve Durham County (and the State of North Carolina) with fairness, integrity, and diligence. My goal is to bring that combination of experience, rigor, and ongoing learning to the Superior Court bench.