In one of the more hotly contested elections of the season, the district attorney race flared up again in McCaysville last Saturday. During a debate hosted by The Fannin County Republican Women and The Fannin County Tea Party Patriots, the district attorney candidates sparred again.

From the start, candidates Harry Doss and Alison Sosebee launched their assault on Incumbent District Attorney Joe Hendricks. Doss honed in on the back-log of cases in the district attorney’s office, pinning the responsibility on Hendricks.

“Between the three counties, we have approximately 2000 to 3000 cases,”

he said,

“We don’t need to plead them down to eliminate cases. In seven in-a-half years as district attorney, the incumbent has tried less than five cases.”

In a previous forum, Hendricks argued, however, that the number of cases has decreased in the last seven years. Doss also accused Hendricks of plea-bargaining down certain serious crimes, highlighting an arson case. Doss said if elected, he would try cases.

During the question and answer session, the candidates were asked if they thought trust existed between the DA’s office and the law enforcement departments. Here, Sosebee sad no, criticizing Hendrick’s office, saying currently a lack of trust exists between the entities. As district attorney, she said she would reestablish this trust, highlighting that she already has a strong relationship with the law enforcement in the area.

“I will assist and work with law enforcement to create a cohesion and cooperation that does not currently exist,”

she asserted, explaining,

“I enjoy great law enforcement support…I will assist them and I will not simply show up when it is convenient for me.”

In his rebuttal, Hendricks refuted this accusation.

“We work daily with law enforcement,”

he said,

“I’ve been called out to scenes at three o’clock in the morning to see double homicides and work with them to develop a case we could prosecute.”

In comparison to other debates, Hendricks seemed more adamant in defending his record. However, his opponents seemed more vigilant in their battle for the office of district attorney.

In another stormy race, the Superior Court Judge Candidates also participated in the event. Typically reserved, Incumbent Judge Roger Bradley took a more effective stand than in previous debates. Challenger and Municipal Judge Robert Sneed took his usual aggressive approach.

As in the DA race, Sneed accused Bradley of an extreme backlog of cases, focusing specifically on child custody cases. He said some of these cases take four to six years to go through the system, adding that it takes two years to get a child custody hearing. In response, Bradley called this latter claim

“a bold untruth.”

Bradley also explained that the court system has certain safety nets in place which prevents languishing custody cases. One example, he said, was the option to call an emergency hearing, which, once requested, is heard that day or shortly thereafter. A similar procedure is in place, he noted for divorce cases involving child custody.

During the question and answer session, the candidates were asked to define fairness.

“I don’t have a perception,”

Bradley responded,

“that somebody who starts off campaigning, running for judge and first castigating everybody including your judicial system and the judges, has the basic fairness and truthfulness that it takes to go to a contested custody hearing or any other hearing for that matter.”

In his rebuttal, Sneed clarified that he was not castigating the system or other judges, only Bradley and his docket, calling it deplorable.

While Sneed said the Superior Court Judge’s office needed a change, Bradley, defending his position, made a case for familiarity and experience.
Video of debates coming soon.