Judge Race Boils Over at Televised Debate

Featured Stories, Politics

Appalachian Superior Court Judge Challenger Robert Sneed ramped up his offensive during a televised debate this week. On Monday night, July 23rd, Sneed continued his assault against Incumbent Superior Court Judge Roger Bradley during a debate on ETC 3TV, hosted by FYN’s Brian Pritchard.

Since May qualifying, Sneed has aggressively attacked Bradley, focusing mainly on Bradley’s alleged backlog of cases. And for the last month, Bradley has counter-attacked, accusing Sneed of belonging to a special interest group. Both claims came to a vortex this week.

All three Superior Court Judicial Offices are up for election this year. However, Sneed chose to run against Judge Bradley. When asked why he was running against Bradley specifically, Sneed said Bradley was the only judge he had heard complaints about. Bradley’s response, though, supported his argument that Sneed entered the race because of a special interest group.

“The day before he qualified to run against me,”

Bradley said,

“he was being introduced in Pickens County by another candidate of another office, as going to run against Judge Weaver. About five or six days before that, he was being introduced around Fannin County as going to be running against Judge Mercier.”

Here, Sneed turned to Bradley, staring him down, and said the accusation was “wholly untrue” and scolded him not to

“bring them (the other judges) into this.”

For his part, though, Bradley soundly defended his docket, defusing Sneed’s claim of backlog cases. Where Sneed claimed Pickens County has 371 active cases, Bradley said as of April 30th Pickens only had 203 cases; as of April 9th, Gilmer had 328 and Fannin, 179. He went on to give a breakdown of the cases in Pickens County. He said that of the 203 active cases, three attorneys announced they were ready for trial-ready to go; 18 requested mediation; eight said their cases were not ready due to peculiar issues with those particular cases; four said they were set for a protracted length of time, and 57 were ready for non-jury trials. In addition, Bradley explained that a few were recused, while 51 were disposed, dismissed or settled in some manner.

Bradley defended himself against the backlog claim with precise articulation and a serene demeanor, which seemed to show Bradley in a more positive light than his challenger, further validating his strength of character and judicial credentials. Also, Bradley’s special interest group claim against Sneed seemed to pick up speed when he pointed out that Sneed’s first quarter disclosure listed all zeros, indicating no money was reported. Although Sneed reported no money spent on his campaign, campaign advertisements have appeared over the last two months, including highway billboards. Responding, Sneed said he had no invoices to submit for the July 9th deadline, although he’d been campaigning since May. However, he did say he would have invoices for the next disclosure in August, after the election and that he missed the July deadline because he had only recently started fundraising.

Through out the night, Sneed’s demeanor grew petulant, his voice growing sharp and, rather than looking into the camera, he tended to look piercingly at Bradley.

Later, during a discussion on child custody cases, the debate intensified. Following a series of accusations of mishandling child custody cases, Sneed began to cite a specific case where he was dissatisfied with Bradley’s handling of it, calling it deplorable. As Sneed was about to read the case from a paper he had in his hand, Bradley interjected, saying by doing so he was treading dangerous ground. Bradley went on to explain that judges are barred by the canon of ethics from discussing specific cases and, as such, judge candidates are bound by the same ethics.

“If you let him delve into specific cases,”

Bradley told Mr. Pritchard, who was moderating the event,

“then he is violating the canon of ethics and I cannot participate.”

Sneed said the cases are public record and the people need to hear these examples. Bradley encouraged Sneed to read the transcripts of the cases, which conveys more fully the events of the courtroom. When asked, Sneed admitted he had not read the transcripts. As Sneed started to read the case, citing the exact case number, Bradley said he wasn’t sure if he continue in the dialogue, saying that Sneed should be familiar with the canon of ethics if he is running for judge. Sneed aggressively said the reason for Bradley’s halting the discussion was because Bradley didn’t want viewers to hear about the cases, despite Bradley encouraging him to read the transcripts of the case.

“He doesn’t want them (the cases) brought up and I think the viewers need to see those (cases),”

Sneed shot back.

After a tense discussion, Sneed eventually read the case, a family violence case which ended in a mistrial, and accused Bradley of dismissing the case for personal reasons. Although not discussing the case specifically, Bradley said that both attorneys agreed it should be a mistrial and that he did not dismiss the case for personal reasons.

In the end, Sneed relied of his previous talking points, while Bradley offered explicit explanations to his opponent’s charges.

Voters will have the opportunity to cast their vote for the office of Superior Court Judge for the Appalachian Circuit on July 31st.

Back to Top