The Docket: Briefs and Boxers

As Jefferson Griffin’s bid to invalidate more than 65,000 votes in the state Supreme Court race moves into its fourth month, the voters behind that figure want to make sure their stories are heard.

Monday was the deadline for filing briefs with the state Court of Appeals in regard to Griffin’s dispute with the state Board of Elections. A flurry of amicus briefs from voters and groups supporting them were filed Thursday.

“Through all of the legal wrangling and procedural maneuvering amongst the parties to date, the voices of the challenged voters themselves have been glaringly absent,” attorneys for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice wrote in a brief filed on behalf of more than two dozen voters and seven civil rights organizations. “These voters deserve not just to be heard, but to be centered in this proceeding.”

Griffin has challenged the validity of ballots from three groups of voters:

• Some 62,000 from voters whose registration allegedly is missing the last four digits of their Social Security number or their driver’s license number.
• About 5,500 from overseas and military voters from four largely Democratic counties who did not provide photo ID because state law exempted them from having to do so.
• More than 260 ballots from overseas voters who have never lived in North Carolina but are registered to vote here because of parents’ past residency.

Attorneys from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and the Raleigh-based Ballew Puryear firm also filed an amicus brief on behalf of six overseas voters and the Association of Americans Resident Overseas and the U.S. Vote Foundation. They contend that “under the guise of ‘election integrity,'” Griffin “seeks to selectively silence these voices for his political gain.” (Another group of overseas voters seeking to intervene also note that Griffin himself voted absentee in 2019 and 2020 while deployed with the National Guard.)

The voters whose ballots are being challenged, the attorneys add, “jumped through every hoop required of them to cast a ballot.”

Forty-two former county elections directors also have asked the state Court of Appeals to give input in the case proceedings, saying they have “a shared perspective on the administration of state election laws based on many years of collective experience and the harm that would arise from allowing the changing of election rules post-election to invalidate votes.”

Allison Riggs, the Democrat who leads Griffin by 734 votes, has also asked the appeals court to have Republican Judge Tom Murry recused for a possible conflict of interest because he contributed $5,000 to Griffin’s defense fund from a campaign fund he established while considering a run for state attorney general.

In her filing, Riggs said she doesn’t know if Murry has recused himself, but outlined her case for why he should. The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct says a judge “may not personally make financial contributions or loans to any individual seeking election to office (other than himself/herself) except as part of a joint judicial campaign”; her attorney also notes that the state Supreme Court disciplined a judge for contributing to another judge’s campaign committee. 

Griffin has indicated that he will oppose Riggs’ motion. He also is opposed to Riggs’ second request, which is to bypass a three-judge panel and have what is known as an en banc hearing, where all the judges hear the case at the same time. 

Attorneys for Riggs and the State Board of Elections argued that this case deals with significant legal issues and there is some urgency to settle the matter as quickly as possible. If a three-judge panel hears the case, the losing parties have the option to appeal to the full Court of Appeals or go directly to the state Supreme Court. 

—Anne Blythe and Michael Hewlett

Have any suggestions for improving this newsletter or stories we should look into? Email us at courts@theassemblync.com.

Thank you for supporting The Assembly! Below are this week’s exclusive stories that are available only to our Premium Subscribers like you:

He Did It Again (Allegedly)

Four months ago, a judge found that Wake County prosecutor Robert Stewart repeatedly withheld possibly exonerating evidence from a defendant. Last month, attorney Molly O’Neil filed a motion alleging that Stewart did essentially the same thing to her client, Ossiwald Moore. 

Raleigh Police arrested Moore, 22, on December 29, 2022. He was the passenger in a car driven by an unidentified co-defendant. Moore was later indicted on four counts of carrying a concealed gun, trafficking opioids by possession, possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, and other various drug charges. (We mentioned a previous charge against Moore, which ended in an acquittal, in this 2022 profile.)

O’Neil said in her motion that after Moore was indicted, she requested Stewart turn over evidence in a process known as discovery–specifically, messages from cell phones and statements the co-defendant made to both law enforcement and the prosecutor. The co-defendant made the statements after he had already pleaded guilty. 

According to the motion, Stewart revoked a plea offer to Moore without providing those to O’Neil. 

Stewart did eventually turn over a heavily-redacted copy of those statements, and after a hearing, Superior Court Judge G. Bryan Collins ordered Stewart to turn over an unredacted copy. Collins also reduced Moore’s bond from $400,000 to $20,000, which allowed him to get out of jail. 

Stewart gave O’Neil a “less-redacted” copy of the statements, according to the motion; the redacted portion included the co-defendant saying he had bought the fentanyl seized in Moore’s arrest.  The co-defendant was again interviewed in July 2024, but O’Neill said she didn’t receive the  officer’s report until seven months later. 

This wasn’t the first time Stewart has been accused of withholding evidence. In November 2024, Superior Court Judge A. Graham Shirley issued an order admonishing Stewart for withholding favorable evidence in a case we have written about involving Alden Rasmussen, who faced drug-trafficking charges and claimed innocence. 

When asked about Shirley’s order, Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman said Stewart was a young prosecutor who did not intentionally violate Rasmussen’s constitutional rights. She said she did not discipline Stewart, who remains on the DA’s felony drug unit, but did order additional training and counseling. 

As for the latest case, Freeman said: “We look forward to having this matter considered by a Court at which time the State will address the allegations.”

O’Neil declined to comment. Stewart did not respond immediately to a request for comment. A hearing on O’Neil’s motion has not yet been scheduled.  

—Michael Hewlett

---

Dellinger Survives This Round

Hampton Dellinger, the longtime Durham resident who sued President Donald Trump after being abruptly fired from the Office of Special Counsel last month, has persuaded a federal judge that his dismissal was unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled in Dellinger’s favor over the weekend. The Trump Justice Department quickly announced plans to appeal; the case is expected to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dellinger, a Biden appointee, sued the Trump administration on February 10, three days after receiving a two-sentence termination email from the director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office. Dellinger was sworn in on March 6, 2024 to lead the office that investigates whistleblower complaints, for what was supposed to be a five-year term. Decades-old law establishes the length of the term but allows for dismissal if a president finds “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.” No such allegations were made in his termination notice.

Dellinger has been reinstated as special counsel, over the protest of the president.

The Trump administration has argued that the law that specifies the special counsel’s term and reasons for dismissal is unconstitutional and should be struck.

They argued “that the Constitution demands that the President should have unfettered authority” to fire Dellinger for “no reason at all,” Jackson wrote in her ruling. “The Special Counsel’s job is to look into and expose unethical or unlawful practices directed at federal civil servants, and to help ensure that whistleblowers who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of government agencies can do so without suffering reprisals,” Jackson wrote in her ruling. “It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal.”

The judge, an Obama appointee, pointed out that special counsel can conduct investigations, but has no power to enforce subpoenas or “overcome other agencies’ objections to his requests for records.” If wrongdoing is revealed, they  must petition the appropriate administrative agency under presidential control or a multi-headed judicial agency. “They are free to turn him down,” Jackson wrote.

“I’m grateful to see the court confirm the importance and legality of the job protections Congress afforded my position,” Dellinger told The Assembly in an email. “My efforts to protect federal employees generally, and whistleblowers in particular, from unlawful treatment will continue.”

—Anne Blythe

---

Around The State

Neighborly Dispute Over Vultures Puts Wildlife Feeding in the Spotlight

One couple says the birds came with their house. Their neighbors say the duo won’t stop feeding the scavengers, and the town has weighed in.

Thom Tillis Is Already Navigating a Delicate Balance for Reelection

Asked what he makes of primary threats, Sen. Thom Tillis was wry. “They’re cute,” he said.

UNC Men’s Basketball is Having a Kodak Moment–and Not in a Good Way

Kodak was among the most valuable brands in the world before its insular culture contributed to its demise. UNC men’s basketball could be making the same mistake.