Democrat Katherine Corpening, NC District Court, District 6, Seat 4
Career: Corpening has served as a public defender in New Hanover County for over 10 years, and helped establish Community Empowerment Court, aimed at assisting justice-involved individuals with mental health needs.
Education: Corpening earned her bachelor’s degree in sociology from Wake Forest University and her Juris Doctor from Campbell University School of Law.
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.
My name's Katherine Corpening. I'm a native of Wilmington, which sometimes is thought of as rare. I still know a lot of people that I grew up with, but I'm happy to raise my family in the same community that raised me.
My current occupation is a public defender, and I am running for district court judge, District Six, Seat Four. It's a lot of words, but it becomes a little bit clearer on the ballot. But I really hope to have the people's vote.
Certainly, my work as a public defender has taught me a lot about this community. Certainly broadened my knowledge from what I knew when I was growing up in our community, interacting with a lot of different people and seeing what our community is affected by — [and] the struggles that they face when they come to court, whether it's for criminal, for civil.
So working as a public defender, we certainly have our cases of the day. But I have always really looked at what will help my client pass this case. What's really going to help them avoid coming back to court? Because that's really the goal.
We don't want people to have that be a routine where they're coming back over and over again. So I look at what resources that I can refer for housing, for treatment, and employment. I've really tried to stay informed about those different opportunities through my work.
I think it's so impactful when the judges are aware and kind of help facilitate those things as well.
What do you think qualifies you to take this role beyond your law degree?
I think it has been the work that I've put in at the public defender's office. I actually started there as a legal assistant before law school, so my first job was making copies of files in the clerk's office, but it was a good experience to learn how the courthouse worked from the ground up.
So I was getting to know clerks, getting to know bailiffs, getting to know attorneys, and it really kind of taught me what goes on behind the scenes.
I think a lot of people graduating from law school really don't have that context, of the cases and the work that goes on behind the scenes, so I really do think that that has helped.
And then I'm in court every day. I am in District Court. I'm in Superior Court. I participate with our specialty courts. I go to first appearances. I see a lot of different aspects of what our judges do in criminal court. I've also sat with my clients through some of their civil sessions.
So I think having having access to all that court and really being able to see how that impacts people, and not just the case file that comes across and the cases of the day, but really, really studying the impact that has on someone's life and how we can work as a court system to try to improve it.
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 think for every lawyer, every day is a difficult decision with a legal issue, and certainly a moral issue.
I do criminal defense, so I represent people that have been charged with crimes — some that have done it, some that have not. And my role is very specific that no matter what, I defend them and their interests.
I work for the state, but my role is dedicated to them and what I can serve for them. So certainly a different role than being a judge – but we are still faced with those same difficult decisions.
When I transitioned more from strictly District Court practice to some Superior Court practice – it can be very difficult delivering someone a plea offer that's 10 years of their life and helping them see whether that's going to be the best decision for them or not.
What is your philosophy on sentencing, within the constraints set by structured sentencing?
So structured sentencing really doesn't provide a lot of discretion as far as felony sentencing, and I think that's a lot more constrained, and that's where we, I think, saw the biggest change when we went from fair sentencing to structured sentencing.
So there's not a lot of discretion – and that happens more often in superior court. In district court, for misdemeanor cases, there is a lot of discretion.
One of the things for sentencing for me that really, with my philosophy on sentencing, is accountability, but that doesn't mean the harshest punishment always. And jail might be the easy answer, but it's not always the right answer.
My work with our drug court and our mental health court have really shown me how accountability takes a lot of hard work, takes a lot of vulnerability on the part of the clients that are going through that.
But that accountability is so important, and drug court has a fantastic structure of really helping people change their habits, change their patterns, change their practice to really, really transform their lives.
We can't have justice without accountability, but we really need to look at your discretion of, let's not make the problem worse, because if jail for every person was the answer to no more crime, the jail would be empty, and it is not.
So we definitely struggle with that, and so it's finding who needs that chance, who needs that opportunity that's going to change their lives and really put them on a different path, and so I'm privileged to have been a part of so many opportunities in our court system.
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, in some ways, as a judge, we are elected officials, but I think people sometimes forget that they're elected, and so we really kind of end up in a bubble at the courthouse. So really your decisions are being made on a daily basis, and really with what's brought before you.
As a lawyer, I'm prepping my cases with case law because I want to tell the judge this appellate court has agreed with what I'm arguing to you, so that that there is that consistency in how the law is applied, and really grounding your arguments in decisions that have already been made, and really rooting it in that.
I think that it's important for judges to really look for case law, stay up to date on changes in the law, because there are changes in best practices.
I've seen a lot of changes in my career over how our judges react to things. Certainly, medication assisted treatment was not a very popular option when I first started, and now is becoming more and more common.
Our jail does have an agreement where people can continue with their dosing so that they maintain that consistent treatment, so that when they get out, that they are prepared and they're not as likely to overdose and they're safer when they get out, and that's a win-win for everybody.
What is a bias/prejudice that you currently struggle with? How do you work to overcome that prejudice?
I think there's always in the criminal justice field a fear of what might happen with a decision, and so I think that that's something I still struggle with. And even asking to become a judge. I think that's going to be the hardest part of those decisions is worrying a little bit about what comes next for someone.
And we certainly hope for the best, and we hope that whatever bad might happen doesn't come to fruition. So we really do hope for that. But that's something I think weighs on a lot of judges.
But I think we take an oath, both as lawyers and as judges, and remembering that your oath is to the Constitution, and it's to really hold true to what those ideals are and make sure that we are following the law.
And I see a lot of criticism and comments online when things happen that they don't know exactly that the judge did follow the law, and it's not always the popular decision when something happens.
But following the law is still so important, and certainly I think transparency helps with that as well. Just being as clear as possible with why decisions are made.
What is a quality you have seen in a judge that you would seek not to emulate on the bench?
I think I would say impatience.
So I think there's always a pressure to be efficient, and I think there's always a pressure to keep things moving.
There are millions of cases that come through district court every year, and if you do lose speed in district court, it can quickly become overwhelming. Then people aren't getting their justice as quickly as they deserve.
But there's a balance, and so efficiency for efficiency's sake is not, I think, the best quality. You miss hearing an important detail if you're rushing through. You're not really giving each side a fair opportunity to be heard if you're rushing through.
On the flip side of impatience, I think it requires a lot of patience to be understanding and to really make the litigants feel like they've had an opportunity to be heard. And you never know what a little bit of patience will help pull out of someone.
What is the biggest mistake you have made in your career? How would you seek to avoid it on the bench?
I certainly think moving too quickly, if you don't have all the information, you definitely miss some pretty important information.
Early in my career, when I had a high district court caseload, we could have 30 clients in one day. That can be a lot of people to get through, and it's hard to give everything the time and attention that it needs in that moment. And it's easy to get in a routine and a pattern and forget to really make that connection.
I have grown more as I've gotten more comfortable with the law and comfortable in my career, it's not as difficult to kind of remind myself alright, slow down. Ask that next question. Make sure to check in with people about where they are.
How will you handle conflicts of interest on the bench?
I think that's a big one. There are a lot of times I have to get out of cases.
I have represented a lot of people through my career, and so if one of my former clients is a victim in a case, then I have to get out, and I can't continue to represent the person that has maybe committed a crime against them.
So I definitely am in a pattern of spotting when I might have a conflict coming.
Likewise, I'll face issues for a while if I'm on the bench, of former clients that would come before me. Transparency is so important.
Then there's some personal conflicts. Growing up here, knowing a lot of people that come through court, there's certainly going to be connections, relationships that I have that it's good to recognize — I don't think I can be fair. I'm too close to this person and this issue to be fair.
So I think as a judge, I'm able to have those conversations and certainly make the right decision.
How do you define injustice? How will you deal with injustice when you confront it in your courtroom?
An injustice can be very difficult to define. It's almost like a feeling that you know it when you see it, and certainly I have seen a lot of it for my clients, both in the courtroom and in the community that they face.
People don't always have fair opportunities. Those things really impact their ability to have the same outcomes on cases, and certainly in how – when something does go wrong – they get treated.
One of the things that I think, for me, that I have argued so hard against, and don't always feel like I get the response that I want, and I would not want to to emulate that on the bench, would be in probation violations.
There's a laundry list of things that people are to comply with when they're on probation, and I see a lot of clients that are struggling to be in perfect compliance, but they are doing the best they can with the circumstances that they have.
When someone has no transportation, they are not going to be in perfect compliance with every appointment or with every treatment opportunity. But if they are making an effort to make as many as they can, and they're communicating about their difficulties and accepting help where given, I think that that's something that should be taken into account.
Fines and fees have long been a punishment that isn't applied fairly. A person might be in jail not because they're a public safety risk, not because we're really worried about them harming the community, but really just because they can't afford that bond.
We see a lot of people in jail right now with $100 bonds, $50 bonds. I've even seen someone with a $5 bond that they weren't able to post.
I have seen a lot of those circumstances, and I think it's important to carry that knowledge of what a huge section of our community faces to make sure that that's respected and understood on the bench.
How do you ensure impartiality in your judicial decisions for people of all backgrounds in your courtroom?
I think it's important to know as much as you can. It's important to know the parties before you, and really listen. If you're making your decision too quickly, it certainly gives off that perception that you've already made up your mind before anyone argued.
I think explaining your decision where possible, and so that people walking away may not agree with your decision, but they've heard your ‘why,’ and they've heard what you've taken into account.
I think appearance is also a big issue in district court.
When I'm in line with with members of my office, with members of the private Bar, when I'm waiting for the DA to attend to my cases, it's important to keep in mind what the public is seeing.
If they see joking, laughing, unprofessional behavior, that impacts how they view the court system and affects how they feel like they're being treated, even if no one has really done anything wrong or nothing is against them in that case.
But I think that being aware of what clients see can really impact how they view the judge's decision, and I think that's important to avoiding impartiality.
