Republican Janelle Cline, NC District Court, District 6, Seat 3
Career: Cline began as a law clerk at the Arkansas Court of Appeals before serving as the financial crimes prosecutor in Wilmington. She currently serves as a Special Resource Prosecutor for the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, handling complex cases and training prosecutors statewide.
Education: Cline earned her bachelor’s degree from University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a master’s at University of Maryland College Park, and her Juris Doctor from University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen 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.
Well, thank you so much for the opportunity. First of all, my name's Janelle Cline, and I'm running for District Court Judge Seat 3.
I think as I've started on this campaign trail, I've realized that the number one question folks have for me is, "What does a district court judge do?”
Oftentimes, followed up by a second kind of question, which is, "What kind of judge will you be? Will it be family law, criminal, civil?” And it's just a really good opportunity for us to talk about the work of the courts.
I think sometimes our courthouse walls are a bit too thick, and we don't really do a good job getting the people in our community to really understand the work of justice that goes on every day inside the courthouse.
So, for those who don't know, a district court judge can be a judge for any of those areas. They can be a family court judge. They can be a civil court. We do civil matters up to $25,000.
We do juvenile law there, and then in New Hanover County, we have amazing specialty diversionary courts for drug treatment, mental health, and veterans' treatment.
So, really, the job itself is very wide. It's something that takes a lot of care, and it takes someone who's willing to kind of put their ego aside and work from a place of empathy and respect.
So, I believe I am that person. I have experience being a prosecutor. Right now, I'm a special prosecutor for our state. Prior to that, I was a local prosecutor here. And prior to that, my legal experience is kind of broad. I worked in civil law. I worked for in corporate law for a little while, and I was a clerk for two appellate court judges.
So, my experience there has really shaped me. I would also say for our WHQR listeners, my career started unconventionally. It started in journalism, and so it's funny how oftentimes the first thing that you do shapes what you become later on.
And really, journalism is the work of a community. You're there because you're the people's voice, and that is something that I've always carried with me into any job that I've had after that.
Just really knowing that it's the people that matter and getting their stories is what matters, and that's something you can do on the bench as well.
What do you think qualifies you to take this role beyond your law degree?
Well, I think the number one quality character trait of a judge should be empathy. I think it would be very difficult to be effective in that role if you don't lead from that place. You are there to listen.
You cannot have an ego behind the bench. Your job is, one to show respect – and really to get to the heart of the matter.
You know, in district court, we, for the most part, there's some exceptions for civil, but for the most part, we don't have juries. So it's the judge that becomes the fact finder in district court, which means you have to be curious, you have to have a lot of questions, and you have to go in willing to hear and to listen to folks.
When was the last time you had to make a difficult decision on a certain legal or moral issue? How did you handle it?
Every day. So right now, I serve as a special resource prosecutor for our state.
So that means I'm sworn in all 100 counties. I serve at the pleasure of the elected district attorney. So if there's a case that's particularly complex and they need a specialist in that area, or if it's a conflict of interest and they're not able to prosecute it, we'll be called in to prosecute those cases.
And that means that you know I evaluate cases every day, and we make the decisions in that moment whether or not to proceed or to dismiss the case.
I mean, just the other day, and I can't go into any details, but just the other day, I was evaluating a case and looking at the evidence, and I'm sure something happened. But the truth is, I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So I dismissed the case, and those are difficult decisions to make.
Those are hard conversations to have with victims, but it's also absolutely essential that we uphold the standard of beyond reasonable doubt for our community, and really just explaining that and walking through those decisions with the victims is the best thing we can do in those moments.
What is your philosophy on sentencing, within the constraints set by structured sentencing?
Yeah, structured sentencing. So a lot of people don't know what that is. I'm sure most of your listeners are aware of it, but some may not be. If you imagine a grid — that is structured sentencing.
If you imagine the x-axis being like one through six, and that's prior record level points, and we calculate that based on the number of crimes and the severity of the crimes committed and convictions committed before this.
And then A through I, being the Y axis. That would be A: capital murder, I: using someone's credit card without their permission.
So you've got A through I, and then you've got one through six, and that's the felony sentencing chart, and where the X and Y axis meet.
So, what crime it is you're accused of, and how many prior record level points you have — that's the box that the judge is stuck in for the most part. And there is some ability to move within that box.
So you have mitigating factors, you have presumptive range, which is where most people end up, and then you have aggravating factors. And the same thing is true in misdemeanors.
Think about things like a DWI, something aggravating would be if a child was in the back seat at the time. A mitigating factor would be they took responsibility for their actions early on.
So that's where the judge uses that judgment, that's where they have the opportunity to look within the sentencing box and decide what the appropriate sentence is.
So all that to say, and that's a very long answer to your question, but within the structured sentencing box itself, it has to be very fact specific.
So my philosophy on sentencing is hard to explain because you can't do that until somebody's in front of you. It depends on the facts of the cases.
Are there aggravating factors? Are there mitigating factors? Is this something that you know is a cut-and-dry crime, and they should be sentenced in the presumptive range? Have they done anything to provide restitution to the victim in advance?
These are all questions that are going to be case by case, and that's how sentencing should occur.
I mean, truly, in a structured sentencing format that we have, that's the best way that a judge can apply their discernment and discretion in those moments.
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 law is actually not that complicated. I mean, when it comes to the work of being a judge, it's the facts of the case, like discerning what happened. That's where the real work occurs: figuring out whether the state has met their burden of proof for each element of the crime.
When it comes to the application of the law, the law is actually pretty clear. It's cut and dry, you know.
If they've proved their case beyond reasonable doubt in all of these areas, you apply the law as it's written. I don't feel that those two issues come to a head.
People elect judges because they want that fairness, they want that consistency, they want that predictability in their courts, and if you do the work of being a judge with fairness and consistency, and predictably, both of those things live in harmony.
What is a bias/prejudice that you currently struggle with? How do you work to overcome that prejudice?
I think as a prosecutor, you always have the mindset that you're having to work against, which is proving this case.
You're going in with the mindset that this crime has occurred, and you have to check yourself on that because you know it's really easy to look at everything through that lens, but the true work of a prosecutor is not to get a conviction.
The true work of a prosecutor is to do justice. So you're constantly having to check this criminal bias.
So keeping that front and center, and constantly asking myself, do I have every element of this crime to the exacting standard, to that high bar that I need it to be? If I don't, I have to dismiss it.
And so I, I think I hold myself accountable by reminding myself constantly what I have to prove, what that standard really is, and holding myself in check, because in doing so, that ensures that justice is done. It's not just, you know, a prosecutor trying to get convictions or put people in prison.
What is a quality you have seen in a judge that you would seek not to emulate on the bench?
So I have a very unique job in that I get to travel our whole state and see how courtrooms are run in jurisdictions all over. Recently, I was in Asheville. I was in Pitt County. I've been in Halifax and Wayne County. I go everywhere.
One of the things I pay very close attention to is the person behind the bench. How do they treat the people in front of them? How do they manage their courtroom? Is it run well? Is it run efficiently? And there are people who do it really well. And without naming names, there are people who don't.
I think one common denominator in courtrooms that are not run well is a lack of respect for the parties. You know, people just want to be heard, and I think it can cause a lot of chaos when they're not. I also think that when you give respect, you get respect; and those courtrooms tend to run a lot more efficiently.
Now that also means that you have to draw boundaries, of course, and efficiency is a huge thing that I'm personally very passionate about.
I know folks, we live in a beach town, they don't want to spend their Friday in court sitting and waiting all day for their case to be called up. And we have the opportunity, both as prosecutors and behind the bench, to move the court in a very efficient manner and to respect people's time.
So, I would say the thing that I see in terms of judges not living up to that high standard would be that maybe they're not giving enough respect to the folks there, and maybe not leaving their ego at the door.
What is the biggest mistake you have made in your career? How would you seek to avoid it on the bench?
Man, I feel like I've been very lucky. I'm an overpreparer, so there's not a lot of mistakes that happen. That sounds bad, I guess, to say it like that. But the truth is, I don't walk into a courtroom unless I have it down.
I need to know everything that I can control is in control, and there inevitably something pops up in every trial that you weren't anticipating. But it allows you in those moments just to focus on that and in dealing with the unexpected.
I walk into every situation as prepared as I possibly can be. That allows me to leave every situation without any kind of regrets, whether it goes my way or not.
Knowing that I've done everything that is required of me, and as long as I maintain my character through all of that, I really don't believe that there are mistakes at that point.
How will you handle conflicts of interest on the bench?
Yeah, I mean, a conflict of interest should be handled easily, right? You just recuse yourself. This isn't a really hard thing to think about. It should be done.
The reason it should be done, though, is the thing that's important to talk about because our whole job depends on the trust of the public.
That is not just for the judicial office, but all public offices. It couldn't be done without the public's trust in us and putting us into those positions.
So, the way that we show respect to that public trust is to know when we have conflicts of interest and to take the step to recuse yourself from that, so they can continue to trust the system.
How do you define injustice? How will you deal with injustice when you confront it in your courtroom?
Yeah, injustice is when the person who is accused of a crime, those standards, their constitutional rights, and all the protections that we have in place are not being yet met.
So we call it a justice system, and it's because we have all of these safeguards in place.
In district court, we don't have a jury, so that means that the judge has to be the kind of person who's looking at the facts of the case, who's asking questions, who's really digging down and deciding what happened, and then after that fact-finding purpose, applying the law fairly and evenly to everyone.
I talked about my job, I go into all these different counties. I make a point of giving very similar plea offers to every single person, no matter where they are, because it's important to me that the application of justice is evenly spread.
So I think when it comes to injustice, I define injustice as failures in the system. When there is not enough evidence to pursue a case against someone, and yet it's done. When a person is not afforded their rights, they're not being protected. That's injustice.
As long as our system is in place and it is followed strictly. That's what justice for all means.
How do you ensure impartiality in your judicial decisions for people of all backgrounds in your courtroom?
It really is the even and consistent application of the law. I think the idea of being predictable and following the law is comforting to folks. Right? You should know what it looks like before you even walk into that courtroom.
Now the facts of every case are different, and that's the nuance of the law, right? You're really digging into that, and for Superior Court, that means the jury of your peers is digging into that. For District Court, that means the judge is really digging into that. And, of course, we're talking here about criminal law, but district court is so much more than just criminal law.
I mean, think about family law. You know, to be assured that you are going to be treated fairly in very personal matters of divorce and child custody. I can't think of very much else that's more important to everyday folks.
Similarly, with kids, juvenile court, making sure that you're reaching in and you're understanding what that child, their circumstances are, what kind of supports do they have?
It's a much deeper question than just criminal law, although that's what's easy to focus on. But the even application of the law should be across all of the different types of courts.
