THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 29, 1996 TAG: 9609290039
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARC DAVIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: NORFOLK LENGTH: 218 lines
Luther C. Edmonds, the judge who resigned from Circuit Court earlier this month while under investigation for misconduct, says other judges drove him from office for not being a ``go-along, get-along'' jurist.
In an interview last week, his first since resigning Sept. 10, Edmonds said he was driven from office for trying to correct racial discrimination against black bail bondsmen.
Edmonds also denied that he committed any misdeeds while in office. He denied having a relationship with former bondswoman Sherry Battle, showing favoritism in handling her cases or leaking information from the court to Battle for her lawsuit against other judges.
These were the most serious charges against Edmonds at the judicial commission.
Edmonds admitted calling a fellow judge a liar in a tense meeting of judges in April - another charge against him - but said it happened during a confrontation over what to do about rule-breaking bondsmen.
This is the first time Edmonds has talked publicly about the controversy. He resigned midway through a misconduct hearing by the state's judicial commission and has declined to discuss the case since.
In the end, the full truth may never be known: Testimony against Edmonds at the misconduct hearing remains sealed and the judicial commission cannot discuss the case under state law. Witnesses at the hearing will not discuss their testimony. And the eight other judges of Norfolk Circuit Court - seven whites and one black - declined to respond last week to Edmonds' interview and written statement.
In the interview Wednesday, Edmonds said he resigned not because of testimony against him at the misconduct hearing, but because he could not be an effective judge while his colleagues were aligned against him.
During the interview, Edmonds broke into tears and said, ``I want people to know I'm not a Spiro Agnew. I'm a man who stood for something . . . I'd rather be right and fair than to be popular and do wrong.''
Agnew, the former vice president who died this month, resigned his office in disgrace after pleading no contest to tax evasion.
Edmonds, 54, was a judge for eight years - seven in General District Court, the past year in Circuit Court. He took a two-month leave of absence in July to concentrate on defending himself.
The investigation and hearing were conducted in secret. Commission members, Edmonds and lawyers involved refused to discuss the case, even after the hearing was halted a few hours after it began. Edmonds resigned a few hours later.
Edmonds denied that he resigned because of testimony against him at the hearing. The hearing was abruptly halted after testimony from Thomas Baldwin, the chief clerk of Norfolk General District Court, and Portsmouth Judge Johnny Morrison of Circuit Court.
Edmonds said he quit after calling his wife and conferring with his attorneys during a lunch break. He would not describe Baldwin's or Morrison's testimony. Baldwin and Morrison also have declined to comment.
On Wednesday, Edmonds released a 19-page written statement. He said he felt he owed the public an explanation.
``The real story was not being told,'' Edmonds said. ``Everyone has a right to know the truth, to know what happened . . . I just couldn't go without answering.''
The turmoil started in March, Edmonds said, when bail bondsman Alexander Woodis complained about being suspended.
Edmonds had joined the court less than a year earlier. He had participated in the decision to suspend Woodis. Edmonds decided to review all the bail bondsmen files.
On April 3, after reviewing the files, Edmonds wrote a memo to his colleagues reporting widespread violations by bondsmen. These mainly involved inadequate collateral and poor record keeping.
Edmonds also reported apparent race discrimination. He reported that four black bondsmen had been suspended while many other bondsmen, some white, some black, who were in violation were not suspended. He concluded that there was ``a clear lack of uniformity'' in enforcing the rules.
These problems ``desperately need corrective actions,'' Edmonds wrote.
Soon after, the judges met. Edmonds said he and Judge William Rutherford agreed to review all the files and issue show-cause orders against any bondsman not in compliance.
That never happened. Instead, Edmonds said, Rutherford decided on his own not to issue orders. Edmonds called for an emergency meeting of the judges.
That meeting proved to be explosive.
On April 12, the judges met in the courthouse. Edmonds said there were two confrontations.
First, Edmonds said, Rutherford told the judges he had not agreed to issue show-cause orders. Edmonds called him a liar. The room exploded.
``The judges were very disturbed with me calling Judge Rutherford a liar,'' Edmonds wrote. ``Later, I apologized to the judges.
``Instead of the judges focusing on my report of the widespread violations of the bondsmen, they attacked me for calling the judge a liar.''
Judge Jerome James - the only other black judge on the court - said he had never heard one judge call another judge a liar in his 12 years on the court, according to Edmonds' account.
Edmonds said he told the judges that all bondsmen except one were in violation of the law and court rules, and he urged the judges to take immediate action. He was rebuffed.
``I told the judges that I would not be involved in any cover-up of violations of the law and again urged them to act now . . . It was obvious to me that the judges were very reluctant to uniformly enforce the law,'' he wrote.
At that point, Edmonds said, Judge Johnny Morrison attacked him. Morrison said he had heard rumors that Edmonds was having an affair with Battle, a bondswoman whom the court had suspended in 1994 and who had sued the court twice before. Morrison said the judges were ``nervous as hell'' about Battle and thought Edmonds was making ``a bad mistake'' pursuing the bondsmen investigation.
Edmonds said he immediately left the room.
Events snowballed after that.
On April 26, about two weeks after the judges' meeting, Edmonds wrote to the state Supreme Court and asked for an independent review of Norfolk's bondsmen. The court declined.
Edmonds said he could not wait for a review being conducted by fellow Judge Charles Poston because he feared for his life.
``I was afraid that I would be killed,'' Edmonds said.
Edmonds said one anonymous male caller told him, ``If you continue to f--- with the bondsmen files, we are going to f--- you up.''
He said another caller told him, ``I am a friend of the bondsmen. I am going to tell your wife that you are having an affair with Sherry Battle.''
He said that when he was in General District Court, a caller told him, ``Judge, if you continue to hear Sherry Battle's cases, I am going to hire someone to take you out.'' Edmonds said the caller identified himself as a bondsman's friend.
Edmonds said he did not report the threats to police. He said nothing came of the threats, although he is still concerned.
On May 3, a few days after Edmonds wrote to the Supreme Court, Poston reported his own findings on the bondsmen. He found poor record-keeping, but not widespread violations. He concluded that Edmonds had overstated the problem because he misunderstood the law.
Since then, the court has established new rules for bondsmen to ensure adequate collateral and reporting. Edmonds said these ``pretty much address many of my concerns.''
The next explosion came May 6. Battle filed suit in federal court against six current judges, four former judges and three officials of Norfolk Circuit Court, charging race discrimination. Edmonds was not sued.
The lawsuit came one month after Edmonds' review of the bondsmen files and contained many details that were similar to details that appeared in his review.
Edmonds' review and letter to the Supreme Court were not public at that time.
Around the same time - it is not known exactly when - the state's Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission began investigating Edmonds.
Edmonds said he does not know for sure who complained about him. Under commission rules, a judge under investigation is not told who initiated the probe. Edmonds said he assumes the complaint came from some or all of his fellow judges.
Edmonds would not provide a copy of the complaint for this story, but said it contained three general complaints:
That he had leaked information from the court to Battle for her lawsuit against the other judges. This charge was dismissed before the hearing, Edmonds said. He denied giving Battle any information. ``No way. That's like destroying yourself,'' he said.
That he had called a Rutherford a liar.
That he had mishandled cases involving Battle dating to 1992.
Edmonds said he has no relationship with Battle. He said the issue was thrown up by the other judges to obscure the real issue of the bondsmen.
``I know her. Everybody knows Sherry Battle,'' Edmonds said. ``But I don't have any relationship with her, no. That's nothing but a red herring.''
Edmonds said he showed no favoritism toward Battle in Circuit Court or General District Court. He said he ruled against Battle in about one-third of the cases in which she appeared. He said other judges also ruled against her about one-third of the time.
It is unclear from court records how many of Battle's cases Edmonds heard and how often he ruled against her. General District Court records are often sketchy. Sometimes the judge's signature or initials are illegible.
Edmonds did rule against Battle in some cases. In 1989, for example, Edmonds awarded $3,734 to a health-care company suing Battle and her husband, according to court records. In 1993, he ruled against her for three parking tickets totaling $75. The same year he ruled against her for $30.
But court records also show that Edmonds ruled in Battle's favor several times.
In 1992, he reduced a prior judgment against Battle by another judge from $1,758 to $850. Later, he stopped a sheriff's sale to satisfy that judgment. The same year, he ruled for Battle when a client sued her to get back an $8,000 car that he had posted for bond. A Circuit Court jury later overruled Edmonds.
And this year on May 10, Edmonds overturned three judgments against Battle totaling $11,909, stemming from forfeited bail bonds in 1993 and 1994. He did this despite a recommendation from the attorney general's office that all Norfolk judges remove themselves from Battle's cases because she had sued the court twice in the past.
The eight other judges recused themselves in March and April. Edmonds said he eventually did, too - on May 22, after learning that Battle had actually sued the other judges.
Until Battle filed her third and latest lawsuit against the court, Edmonds said, the current judges had no reason to remove themselves from hearing her cases. Battle's two previous lawsuits did not involve them personally.
``Just because she has sued judges in the past, she's still entitled to access to the court,'' Edmonds said. ``She's still entitled to be treated fairly by the judges.''
Edmonds said he will soon return to private law practice, although he is not sure where. He said he resigned to uphold a principle.
``It is clear to me that the JIRC (judicial commission) was used by the judges of the Norfolk Circuit Court and others as a vehicle to force me off the bench,'' Edmonds wrote. ``I have been tried in the press and found guilty. Guilty of what? I was simply trying to fulfill my oath of office and to do justice. . . .
``I have graciously resigned from office because I hold the position of judge as a very high, honored and respected calling. The legislators obviously picked the wrong man for the job - if they wanted `a go-along, get-along man.' '' ILLUSTRATION: Color photo
Luther C. Edmonds resigned earlier this month during a judicial
panel hearing.
KEYWORDS: JUDGES JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION
MISCONDUCT by CNB