THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 25, 1994 TAG: 9408250591
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A7 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: Long : 113 lines
Did Judge Charles R. Cloud have a political motive for accusing the city's top prosecutors of not participating in violent misdemeanor cases?
Cloud, a Democrat, says no.
``We're not talking about politics,'' Cloud said last week. ``I would be very sorry if anyone thought this was politics.''
Commonwealth's Attorney Charles D. Griffith Jr., a Republican, hints - but does not say so explicitly - that Cloud has a political agenda.
A second target of Cloud's criticism, City Attorney Philip Trapani, is neither Democrat nor Republican and declined to comment.
In an interview Friday, Griffith said he met with Cloud last year and the judge delivered an implied political threat. At the time of the meeting - late spring or early summer 1993, Griffith recalled - the prosecutor was running for re-election.
Griffith said he ran into Cloud in a hallway at the courthouse, and Cloud invited him into his office. Once inside, Griffith said, the judge expressed concern about Griffith's office not prosecuting misdemeanor cases. Griffith said he defended his office's policy.
Then, Griffith recalled, the judge said several times, ``I'd really hate to see this become a political issue for you.'' Later, it did become a minor issue in Griffith's campaign.
Griffith said he walked away from the meeting with Cloud thinking, ``That was really weird and inappropriate.''
Cloud said Friday that the meeting and the conversation with Griffith never took place. He became angry when told of Griffith's story.
``That's a lie. It did not happen,'' Cloud said. ``If I did that, that is a violation of the canon of ethics (for a judge). I would never do such a thing.
Cloud said the meeting could not have happened because his complaints in 1993 were only against City Attorney Trapani, not Griffith. Cloud said he had no gripe against Griffith until this year and therefore had no reason to meet with Griffith.
The judge said he does not play political favorites. To support his claim, he said he recently challenged the authority of the U.S. attorney's office, which is run by Democrats, to help a defendant in his court.
He also said that his criticism last year of overcrowding and violence in the Norfolk City Jail probably contributed to the defeat of Sheriff David Mapp, a Democrat.
``Democrats would probably say, `My God, Cloud is the one who probably defeated Mapp,' '' Cloud said.
Later, when a reporter told Griffith that the judge had denied meeting with him last year, Griffith was equally adamant.
``He's not telling you the truth,'' Griffith said. ``If he said the meeting never occurred, then he's not telling you the truth.'' [The following statement by Judge Charles R. Cloud appeared as a side bar to this article.] STATEMENT Excerpts from a statement Judge Cloud released Saturday to candidates for U.S. Senate.
For the People of Norfolk and Virginia, my brothers and sisters:
I am a judge. A judge is permitted to engage in political activity to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice. Today, I engage in that political activity. Few judges will do what I do, because the risks are great. The other politicians make the rules, and by their rules, a judge may be threatened by a few with the loss of his or her judicial life. The other politicians may lie, but they risk only the scorn of the people. A judge must only tell the truth. Even if it only looks like a judge is not telling the truth, then he or she may be (politically) killed as a judge. Most judges say it is silly to take such a risk. I say there can be no higher honor than to be (politically) killed in the service of your people.
There is only one member of a recognized Indian Tribe who serves as a judge in Virginia. It is I. And, I serve not at the top, but at the very bottom, which most of you call a district criminal court. As a Cherokee judge, I say to the world that I am a savage. I am proud to be known as a Redskin, an Indian, a quarter-breed and even a Scotch-Irish, who many called savage. Call me those names, and I will answer proudly. Because I am a Savage, I love your children, as I love mine. Because I am a Savage, I am concerned about your peace and happiness. I want to do what's best for all of our people, including you. Because I am a Savage, I put the welfare of your family equal to that of mine. For you, I stand up against the disease many call civilization, but which is in reality greed and hunger for power so that a few families can be safe and comfortable, while those of the people must suffer and know no peace.
For those of you who live in fear of being shot, and for the women who live in fear of being beaten, I want to tell you that for many months I have been trying to get prosecutors to help some of you when you come to my court. You understand that I must in fairness give an appointed lawyer to the defendants because they risk going to jail. But what about fairness for the victim? How can anyone say it's fair for only one side to have a lawyer.
Prosecutors are lawyers, and they are paid by you!. . .
Now, about justice politics and activity.
I respect Doug Wilder, Marshall Coleman, Ollie North and Chuck Robb. Each is human, and surely has made mistakes. All their mistakes together probably don't add up to the mistakes I've made in life. So today, I have two questions from the front lines of the battlefield for each of those four who would be servants of the people. All of you say much about punishment of crime. All of you say you want the people to be safe from handgun violence. My questions are:
Do victims of misdemeanor and handgun violence have equal rights of those said to be criminals? If so, why in Norfolk has not even one of those victims I have pointed out been given the protection of a prosecutor when government gives a lawyer to the defendants? ILLUSTRATION: Photos
Cloud
Griffith
by CNB