Republican G. Frank Jones, NC Superior Court 6B, Seat 1
Career: Jones spent 33 years as a trial attorney before being elected Superior Court Judge in 2018. He has presided over 95 trials, serving 20 counties throughout the state.
Education: Jones earned his law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Interview responses have been edited for brevity.
For those who have never met you and don't know what you do, please introduce yourself, tell us what you’re running for, and why you think you deserve the people’s vote.
Thank you for having me. I am Frank Jones. I am first and foremost a husband, father, and proud grandfather. I was elected by this community in November eight years ago, and for the past eight years, it has been my privilege to serve as your elected Superior Court Judge.
During the past eight years, I have held court in more than 20 counties. I have conducted more than 100 jury trials and have rendered decisions in hundreds of civil and criminal cases alike.
I am proud of my record, and I have built what I consider to be both a substantial personal and professional record from which this community may objectively decide.
In a sense, this election, I am asked that this community judge me and vote based upon my proven personal and professional record.
What do you think qualifies you to take this role beyond your law degree?
A lifetime of personal experiences, particularly here in the community, has fostered an understanding and appreciation of human nature, having represented literally 10s of 1000s of people over a 33 year law career, and then the last eight years as Superior Court Judge.
During the past eight years, I have held court in more than 20 counties. I have conducted more than 100 jury trials. I have rendered hundreds of decisions in criminal and civil cases alike.
I am proud of my appellate record, and enjoy the job first and foremost.
When was the last time you had to make a difficult decision on a certain legal or moral issue? How did you handle it?
I would say yesterday. The role of a superior court judge is, particularly in civil cases, is often to decide an issue where there is no clearly defined law — which is why it is the subject of a contest. Research, listening to arguments, and trying to anticipate both the legal and practical ramifications of deciding one way or the other is generally an analytical guide.
What is your philosophy on sentencing, within the constraints set by structured sentencing?
Well, as you correctly observed, some people incorrectly believe that a judge in a criminal case can do whatever he or she may desire, but that's not the case.
Structured sentences, enacted by our legislature, provide a range of permissible punishments from which a judge may impose.
Oftentimes, the discretion may be only a matter of a few months to sometimes a year or a year and a half, so there's not a wide range of discretion.
My job is to follow the law respectfully. The legislature has decreed that this is what should occur, and by listening to both sides carefully and treating both sides with respect, generally the appropriate judgment is reached.
Judges determine how the law is applied, and not what the law should be. How will you balance between being an independent judge who rules on what the law is, and an elected official who has a responsibility to your voters?
I think the chief responsibility of an elected superior court judge is respectfully to follow the law.
I was not elected to make popular decisions, I was elected to make legally correct decisions. Policy matters and lawmaking is best left to legislators or our appellate courts.
It's an example of what I do daily, and that is to first ascertain the correct law to apply, and then secondly to ensure that my decision-making is objective — that I eliminate any preconceived ideas or biases.
What is a bias/prejudice that you currently struggle with? How do you work to overcome that prejudice?
My bias, I tend to lean toward optimism. In the sense that I believe every problem is capable of resolution, and that there is good in every individual.
And routinely, I have to temper that optimism with the realities of my experience or the realities of an individual who may be appearing before me.
What is a quality you have seen in a judge that you would seek NOT to emulate on the bench?
I think first and foremost, a lack of respect, which can manifest itself in a number of different ways: not allowing parties to be fully heard, not showing up on time – much less early, not respecting litigants' or attorneys' times and their scheduling conflicts, not respecting the individual's right to be fully heard on any issue.
So, a lack of respect is absolutely one attribute that I do not emulate, nor will I ever seek to emulate.
What is the biggest mistake you have made in your career? How would you seek to avoid it on the bench?
One mistake that readily comes to mind is in a case out of county involving self-represented litigants, members of a family involved in a squabble over an estate. I attempted — so there were no attorneys present, there was no ready source of argued law — I made a decision which I felt was equitable.
Probably either that night or the next day, I researched it more fully, because again, in the context of these are motions that are heard one right after the other, I researched the matter, found that my equitable arrangement or judgment was not consistent with law.
I voided or rescinded my judgment and drove back to Columbus County and rescheduled and reheard the matter from anew.
So I think one mistake oftentimes is to avoid keeping people waiting, and in that case, I'm reminded that if the law is not readily available for me, then I need to stop, do my own research if attorneys or litigants are not prepared, and then make that decision.
And that's, I think, it's been a good reminder. It was a good experience, and it served me well, probably in the last seven years since that occurred.
How will you handle conflicts of interest on the bench?
Well, being from Wilmington, having represented, as I mentioned earlier, literally 10s of 1000s of folks, it's inevitable that I may know parties.
I believe a conflict of interest presents itself in two ways. One is an actual conflict of interest, which may interfere with objectivity and decision-making, and equally important is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Oftentimes, for instance, I will state on the record, I represented this individual eight years ago and inquire of counsel or parties if there is any objection to me proceeding, and I don't believe that I have ever received an affirmative response.
The appearance of a conflict of interest is a little bit more difficult, but equally important, because avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest instills confidence in our judicial system.
If I feel that there is either a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest, then I'll generally recuse myself.
How do you define injustice? How will you deal with injustice when you confront it in your courtroom?
I believe it's subjective. It's kind of like beauty; it lies in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes injustices are not realized or known at the time of sentencing.
I often, in a probation violation context, am required to review a judgment, and find that the original provisions from a colleague really are not workable or sustainable for that individual. And if so, then and if appropriate, then I generally will modify the judgment, making it a judgment that they in fact can comply with.
On the other side, there are oftentimes individuals who commit crimes against persons, particularly property-related crimes, they're generally allowed out on low or no bonds.
Then, after a repetitive string of behaviors, people who become victimized by that individual could rightly perceive, perhaps, that continuing to allow that individual out on bond is an injustice, and in which case, and if appropriate, then I will modify the bond to ensure the safety of our community.
How do you ensure impartiality in your judicial decisions for people of all backgrounds in your courtroom?
I think first and foremost it comes from a life experience of being involved and participating with people from all different backgrounds.
Growing up in Wilmington as a young man, generally, you worked either in construction or restaurants, and I did both, where you're, by definition, exposed to people of all different races and backgrounds.
Also, I generally enjoy people. I truly do, and I think that's one of the reasons for the earlier leaning toward optimism that I have.
But yes, I mean judicial decision-making, like most human activities, it's certainly not perfect, but reflection and forethought on decision-making, which I try to employ generally, lead to an objective decision without regard to race or gender, ethnic background.
As a superior court judge, I see folks from different nationalities, different genders, and so, again, day-in, day-out, it is an affirmative duty, which I do my very best to employ in each and every decision.