Durham DA wants judge removed from Mike Peterson appeal

Durham, N.C. — Durham's top prosecutor is asking that a Superior Court judge be removed from a case involving one of the city's most high-profile murder cases.

District Attorney Tracey Cline filed a motion Wednesday requesting that Judge Orlando Hudson not be allowed to preside over a Dec. 5 hearing as to whether novelist and former Durham mayoral candidate Michael Peterson should be granted a new murder trial.

Cline and Hudson have criticized each other over their handling of several cases.

Last week, Hudson said in a ruling that Cline delayed presenting a murder case to the grand jury and misled defense attorneys for months.

Cline fired back, in what legal experts say is an unprecedented move, accusing Hudson of corruption and asking the state Judicial Standards Commission to bar him from hearing criminal cases in the county.

Hudson presided over 68-year-old Peterson's nearly three-month murder trial in 2003 when he was found guilty of first-degree murder in the Dec. 9, 2001, death of his wife, Kathleen.

She was found dead in a pool of blood at the bottom of a staircase in the couple's upscale Durham home.

Prosecutors were never able to establish a clear motive nor a murder weapon, and Peterson, who has nearly exhausted his appeals, has long denied any involvement in her death.

The latest request for a new trial involves claims that a former SBI agent who testified at his trial lied or misled jurors about evidence.

13 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 13 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

Peterson's appeals are exhausted. There would not have been a hearing except for the problems at the SBI that raised questions about the handling and processing of evidence during the years when Peterson was tried. There is NO EVIDENCE that anything was done wrong in the Peterson case; the SBI's role was in the reconstruction of the murder in the courtroom. The accuracy of that reconstruction became moot with the guilty verdict. In any case, there will be a hearing to determine if the illegal actions of the SBI influenced the evidence in this case - it didn't. Even if there is a finding that that SBI acted improperly, would that be sufficient to merit a new trial? These are the issues the hearing will address - NOTHING ELSE.

seankelly15
November 24, 2011 12:57 p.m.

Tax Man - "Peterson deserves to be heard and if found not guilty he needs to be put back where he was before this case began. If he is guilty, then that is fine, but let's look at this evidence now that DNA is a solid science. Perhaps new judge and prosecution should review the Peterson case."

Peterson cannot be found "not guilty" from a hearing determining whether the SBI acted illegally in the processing of the evidence. THAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE HEARING. This has nothing to do with the Durham Court System or the DAs office. And, this was not a DNA case. The body needed no DNA identification; and Peterson was found with her blood all over him (no need to use DNA to corroborate that it was her blood).

seankelly15
November 24, 2011 12:39 p.m.

itsmyownopinion - "I believe the Peterson case should be retried with a new DA and a new Judge, with a change of venue, and not on Court TV with Freda Black auditioning for a reality court show."

In what way was Peterson's murder trial unfair? Not what are all of the possible scenarios that could have accounted for her beating (darn that owl), but what was unfair about his trial. Peterson was able to pay the leading forensics scientist of the time to spit ketchup for the jury. He certainly had the best legal minds money could buy. He had forensic accountants demonstrate how wealthy the Petersons' were - discounting the prosecutions contention that they were broke. What exactly was unfair; that Peterson did it and was found guilty of doing it? Is that what was unfair?

seankelly15
November 24, 2011 12:30 p.m.

It's time for Tracy Cline to go. I think she has embarrassed us ALL with unprofessional, childish, posturing. First it was the Duke Lacrosse players and all of the media attention that caused, and now we have Tracy Cline accusing a long respected judge of corruption. This has to stop. Durham doesn't need another black eye. I only hope that she is disbarred when the dust settles which I believe will happen.

Deep thoughts
November 24, 2011 12:04 p.m.

Tracey Cline is as much an embarrassment to Durham as Mike Nifong. If anything she is continuing a tradition of bad jurisprudence.