District Attorney Michael Parker believes he was investigated by the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office for political reasons.
Parker commented Friday on this belief, saying the investigation opened by the RCSO in December was “politically motivated,” while noting he hasn’t had the opportunity to review the investigative file.
The file was subpoenaed for the hearing and turned over to Parker’s attorney before 1 p.m. Tuesday.
“The conflict dates back to issues I have had with the sheriff in the past,” Parker said. “Some of those are well-known, and some of those aren’t, but I have told him ‘No’ on occasion because I am not going to do some of the things I’ve been asked to do.”
Even so, Parker said his disappointment lies in the fact that a local agency conducted the investigation, which he feels should have been handled by the State Bureau of Investigation.
“The SBI is the proper venue to investigate these matters, and that’s where my disappointment lies,” Parker said.
Along with Richmond County Sheriff Dale Furr, County Commission Chairman Kenneth Robinette’s name was mentioned on the stand at the hearing.
Thursday, Robinette responded to claims he is pursuing a vendetta against Parker.
Furr responded to similar allegations during his testimony at the hearing.
Robinette pointed out that he doesn’t take the allegations lightly, and said he was not served with a subpoena to appear at Tuesday’s hearing.
Robinette’s name appeared on a subpoena list submitted to the Richmond County Board of Elections by the attorney of Faye Gathings. Gathings filed the candidacy challenge in Anson County.
“I’m not the sheriff. I’m not a law enforcement officer,” Robinette said. “I’m not the one who filed the complaint, and I’m not the one who conducted the investigation.”
At the hearing, Marston resident Deborah Solomon testified she received a phone call from Robinette asking if Parker lived at the residence, and how long he lived there.
Robinette didn’t deny the phone call, but he denied ever personally going after Parker.
He also prefaced his comments by saying the hearing did not relate to Parker’s work as prosecutor, and said voters have the ultimate voice when it comes to the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his performance.
He answered a question about his satisfaction with Parker’s work, though.
Robinette takes issue with crowding at the Richmond County Jail, which he feels can at least in part be attributed to a failure of Parker’s office to prosecute cases in a timely manner.
“As far as the job he’s done as district attorney, I think the proof’s in the pudding,” Robinette said. “Our jail is overcrowded, and I think we have something like 17 murder trials waiting in the jail.”
He said there are prisoners accused of violent crimes who have been in the Richmond County Jail for as much as four or five years awaiting trial.
“I felt like we needed to build a new jail before we needed a new, $20 million judicial center, but that’s not the point,” Robinette continued. “We need to prosecute people, and if they are guilty, send them to the state prison and get them off the backs of the Richmond County taxpayers.”
For his part, Furr explained his department’s investigation of Parker’s residence was sparked by a conversation he had in April 2009 with Superior Court Judge Chris Collier about the possibility of asking the State Bureau of Investigation to open an investigation into the matter.
When asked if he’d ever had a conversation with any other judge about Parker’s residence, Furr responded he had spoken with Chief Resident Superior Court Judge Tanya Wallace.
Wallace is listed as a campaign contributor to Parker in a state board of elections campaign finance report.
The state board of elections and ethics commission confirmed a judge’s contributions to a court official’s campaign is not a violation of the law.
Wallace’s daughter is also employed by Parker as an assistant district attorney.
Her court assistant was contacted Thursday to confirm any discussion she had with Furr. The Journal had no received a response as of press time.
Superior Court Judge Ronald Burris of Albemarle is also listed as a contributor to the Parker campaign, and served as counsel for Parker at the hearing.
Furr said he takes exception with Parker’s prosecution methods because of a lack of communication with the sheriff’s department, and for plea-bargaining cases without consulting law enforcement.
He said “at least three” murder suspects arrested by his department went unprosecuted by Parker’s office. When Parker’s attorney Gray Styers followed that question by asking if they were the wrong men arrested Furr responded he didn’t agree.
“No, sir,” Furr said. “That is not correct.”
Under cross-examination, Furr explained he believes Collier’s reference to the question over Parker’s residence constituted a criminal complaint.
He also said the implication of Parker deceiving the public to hold office in a district where he doesn’t live could make him guilty of obtaining property by false pretenses and election fraud.
Furr said he has never conducted an investigation into the residence of a public official during his time as sheriff.
“I never had another complaint,” he testified.
Richmond County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Phil Sweatt and Det. Sgt. W.D. Taylor also testified at the hearing about the investigation of Parker.
Both Furr and Sweatt said they openly support district attorney candidate Reece Saunders of Rockingham in the upcoming primary election.
Furr said he contributed a $1,000 check to Saunder’s campaign, while Sweatt said he provided the facility lease and food cost for a Saunders campaign event at the Rockingham VFW Post.
Saunders was absent from the hearing, and has not been contacted to respond to the challenge to Parker’s candidacy.
Parker was also contacted for this story, but he was unable to be reached after returning a phone call from Wednesday on Thursday morning.
Staff Writer Philip D. Brown can be reached at (910) 997-3111 ext. 32, or by e-mail at pbrown@yourdailyjournal.com.
The criticism of District Attorney Michael Parker for not prosecuting 3 murder cases Sheriff Furr brought to the DA's Office and Ms. Gathing's former daughter in law for shooting her son bears bears some thought.
I have yet to hear how Michael Parker gained in any manner by not prosecuting those cases. It sounds to me like he made decision based upon the facts and evidence and received criticism in return.
I understand why Ms. Gathing feels the way she does. She suffered the tragic loss of her son. And the affimation that it was by self defense just makes it harder for her to bear.
I don't understand why Sheriff Furr feels the way he does. Unless he had an agenda known only to him.
I doubt Michael Parker reached those decisions in a vaccum. If the evidence was clear and did not meet the threshold required by law he would bound by ethics and the law to decline prosecution.
It's worth mentioning that there is no statute of limitation for murder, and I think, for any felony.
If Michael Parker prosecuted a case with weak evidence and the defendant was acquitted, the defendant could not be prosecuted again for the same crime.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high bar that must be met with evidence provided by the law enforcement agency that has juristiction. Not the District Attorney.
I support Michael Parker's decision to decline prosecution if he does not believe the State will prevail. By doing so the door is left open should more convincing evidence surface in the future.
I support Michael Parker's decison to decline prosecution if he does not believe the State will prevail. By doing so an innocent person's life will not be destroyed by just the accusation of murder.
Doesn't that sound like what we should expect from our District Attorney?
I think your comments about louisblong's statements are correct. Let us have some proof of any accusations against any of our local officials he is aware of and let the county have an unbiased SBI investigation of any legitimate wrongdoing as quickly as possible.
I don't know who you are, but I wanted to tell you how much I enjoy reading your comments. I find them to be extremely sensible,without degrading slurs, that some posters write. I can tell you're a very thoughful,non-judgemental, person.
Quite refreshing to read !
I have not had any interaction with either Sheriff Furr or Mr. Robinette. I have no like or dislike for either of them.
Whether or not Mr. Sauders is "more qualified, more honest, more trusted, or has less ego than Michael Parker" are all questions for the voters. Let them both campaign on their own merits. That's the right forum and the voters decision will be final.
My personal feeling is that I do not want a career criminal defense attorney as our District Attorney. I prefer someone with about 20 years experience as a prosecutor and a contentious relationship with the defense attorneys. It's supposed to be a system with each side advocating for their respective sides, not a process involving the "good old boy" network and influenced by the Defense Attorney's Bar. In fact, the louder the defense attorneys object to Michael Parker, the more certain I am we have a very good District Attorney. One who will prosecute a case on its merits and not yield to the threat of risking re-election without the support of the defense attorneys.
Whether or not Michael Parker is a resident of Richmond County is a question for the Board of Elections. A complaint was filed, the evidence presented and their decison will be forthcoming. Our opinions are different but we are not the ones to decide that issue. The Board of Election's decision will either agree with you or with me and settle the issue.
If you "know for a fact" that Michael Parker participated in some sort of malfeasance by dismissing DUI offenses at the request of "Mother". If you "know for a fact" Michael Parker has an improper relationship with the Police Chief in Rockingham you are remiss if you don't insist that the State Bureau of Investigations investigate those allegations. This is your opportunity to disclose your evidence and right a wrong.
I have repeatedly asked questions and not drawn conclusions or stated I knew much of anything "for a fact". I would like those questions answered and not diverted by someone claiming to "know the facts" who will not notify the proper authorities.
Please, louisblong, do the right thing and report your "facts" to the SBI quickly so the voters can know the outcome of their investigation before voting day. We, the voters, deserve to know the facts.
Dale Furr is a not a professional and has little to be thanked for. You are paying him $100,000 a year to be sheriff. I don't need to thank him for anything. I sure wasn't paying him to ride his girlfriend on his motorcycle and then tell everyone he was at a law enforcement convention.
Now some of you just don`t like the Sheriff, probably because of some unhappy contact with the Sheriffs department, and the rest of you are just jealous of Mr. Robinette and I am ashamed to read your insulting comments about Mr. Robinette who had a responsibility to look into this situation because of his position as county commission chairman, which I am sure is a burden to him, he don`t need it people, he is just helping our
county and I want to thank him for his service.
It seems to me that none of you Parker servers have any real facts to expose, just insults to hurl, but I know for a fact, not gossip, that Mr. Parker had a defendent who had 5 charges for DUI over a period of time and they were all dismissed or destroyed or swept under, whatever, but no court appearance for either charge was ever made, after a call from "MOTHER" who is at the top of the food chain. Mr. Parker has some kind of close association with the Rockingham chief of police that goes far beyond just duties as DA.
Do not incur their rath, you will either be sorry or broke at the end.
Bottom line, Parker needs to go, Reese Saunders is far more qualified and honest and trusted and he dosen`t have the ego problem that Parker has, so you guys just accept these facts and apologize to Sheriff Furr and Mr. Robinette , you will feel better and the county citizens will think more of you.
thank you Sheriff Furr and thank you Kenneth Robinette thank both of you for you services to the citizens of Richmond County and I am sorry that these few malcontents have insulted you both
Louisblong
You do know what happens to blind followers when they are told to drink the kool-aid don't you. Jim Jones, uhh I mean Dale Furr is pulling the strings behind this one, and yes anyone that is caught up in it when it is over is going to end up just like the followers, opps I forgot again he killed them because he thought he was smarter and more arrogant than anyone else. Wow that sounds just like Dale Furr! Run folks Run!!
The Board of Elections will decide the issue of Michael Parker's residency, not us. If it has been 9 years of "somke and mirrors" he is arguably the best fraudster I've seen.
He has been a very public figure and has a job that requires him to make some people very angry.
The criminals who are sent to prison, defense attorneys who don't get the "deal" for their clients they think they should get, special "favors" from influential people on behalf of themselves, their friends or relatives, and Sheriff Furr who thinks he should decide which cases should be prosecuted.
Do you reasonably think that all those intelligent, motivated people missed the 9 years of fraud you accuse Michael Parker of?
Is it possible that there is no fraud or smoke and mirrors and someone has an agenda? If so, what are the possibilities?
If Michael Parker were to be disqualified, Mr. Saunders would be unopposed in the election and therefore a shoe-in.
Is it possible for Mr. Saunders, who I think served less than 5 years as a judge, to serve 2 to 4 years as our District Attorney and be eligible for State retirement benefits? If so, I think it amounts to around $80,000 to $90,000 per year and medical insurance for the rest of his life in return for less than 10 years of service. Who knows?
I understand Judge Brewer has, in the past, expressed an interest in being our District Attorney. If elected would Mr. Saunders resign at some point after becoming eligible for retirement benefits and try to help Judge Brewer become our District Attorney? Would he serve a full term in office and then try to help Judge Brewer become our District Attorney? Who knows?
Is Sheriff Furr angry enough to seek pay back for what he thinks are the wrongs done to him by Michael Parker? Who knows?
I have no idea whether the possibilities I listed are part and parcel of this but I think you must agree they are as possible as your accusation that Michael Parker is guilty of fraud.
There are legitimate questions about whether or not Sheriff Furr had sufficient basis to conduct the investigtion. There are legitimate questions about whether or not he should have asked the State Bureau of Investigations to conduct it due to obvious conflicts of interest.
There are legitimate questions around the information given to the Board of Elections by the Complaintant that appear to come from Sheriff Furr's investigative file.
There are legitimate questions concerning the content of the investigative file. I understand it consists of surveillance logs, website print outs, and several statements from Michael Parker's neighbors in Marston. One or two mention being asked by Mr. Robinette to write a statement and give it to him before Sheriff Furr's detective interviewed them.
What is more disconcerting is what is not in the investigative file. Michael Parker's drivers license information, voter registration and voting record. Property tax and deed documents, vehcle registration documents and North Carolina State Bar Registration. Interviews of neighbors in Moore County, an interview of Michael Parker to ask when and why he is in either Richmond or Moore County. Or Anson and Stanly Counties where he also maintains offices.
I think these questions should be answered by Sheriff Furr. At best Sheriff Furr's investigation leaves much to be desired and if it's representative of other cases I don't wonder why Michael Parker would dismiss or plead his cases. At worst it's just to awful to think about.
Michael Parker is accountable to the citizens of North Carolina as is every elected or appointed official. That, of course, includes Sheriff Furr and Mr. Robinette. Michael Parker demonstrated his transparency by testifying under oath and introducing the documentary evidence Sheriff Furr neglected.
If Sheriff Furr and Mr. Robinette will not answer these questions or if they do and their explanations don't make sense, I think the State of North Carolina should seek the truth.
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communists.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
From Wikipedia
I think Michael Parker's assertion that the SBI was the proper venue for an investigation is correct. If for no other reason that Sheriff Furr's acknowledged support of Mr. Saunders and acknowledged history of angst with Michael Parker. The now infamous "kiss my xxxx" letter written by Sheriff Furr on County letterhead to Michael Parker speaks for itself. Sheriff Furr has an ethical responsibility to avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest.
As to Mr. Robinette's issue with overcrowded jails; I agree. I do not agree with him that Michael Parker is the sole reason. Those individuals were put there by the police, including Sheriff Furr, not Michael Parker.
The severity of the crime and quality of the evidence and investigation that caused the arrest are what plea agreements should be based upon. Sheriff Furr's anger with Michael Parker for pleading or dismissed a case because it was weak is the heart of the issue. The defense attorneys review the evidence and demand a plea based upon their review. If the District Attorney sees it the same way one less person is in the County jail and Sheriff Furr is angry. I hope Mr. Robimette will think about that.
Why it takes a long time to bring a case to trial is not solely up to Michael Parker. Often the defense demands the continuance. Sometimes because their client has not paid them yet. Often the arresting agency has more work to do before the case is ready for trial. Often scheduling is determined by the availibility of a judge and courtroom.