A sad story of a critically-abused child and TWO bond reduction requests
District Court judge Beth Tanner, currently facing voters in her first reelection bid, has spent much of her sole term in office vocally criticizing the job performance of other elected officials. We thought it was only fair to take a close look at hers.
Back in 2023, there was a quite tragic incident in Moore County’s Cameron community that required the attention of the Moore County Sheriff’s office:
Two people were arrested Wednesday afternoon,
charged after a 2-year-old was taken to the hospital with a possible overdose.
Joey Palmer, 35, and Kacey Holt, 32, are facing several charges, including felony trafficking in opium, felony maintaining a dwelling place for a controlled substance, felony child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia
According to a press release from Moore County Sheriff Ronnie Fields, the incident occurred on June 15, when deputies responded to reports of a 2-year-old child who had overdosed.
The child had life-threatening injuries and was transported to UNC Hospitals for treatment.
Sheriff’s investigators conducted a search of the home, where they recovered around six grams of suspected fentanyl and a small amount of marijuana.
Palmer and Holt are at the Moore County Detention Center under a $1,500,000 secured bond pending a first appearance in the Moore County district court on June 28.
The child is currently in stable but critical condition.
Okay. So both parents were thrown in jail on $1.5 million bonds.
Here is some paperwork from investigators justifying those bond amounts:
Now, let’s look at some selected language from the arrest warrant in this case:
Now let’s go to some language from the April 2024 grand jury indictment of the parents:
Last but not least, let’s look at what happened when each of these model citizens attempted to get their $1.5 million dollar bonds reduced.
Kacey Holt, the child’s mother, went before Judge Warren McSweeney. THIS is what happened:
Joey Palmer, the child’s father, went before Judge Beth Tanner:
Two judges. The same courthouse. Looking at the same case documents and circumstances. Two VERY different conclusions. Dad gets his bond reduced. Mom does not.
If you so desire, you can go to ecourts and read the whole case file – the whole sad story — for yourself. (If you choose to do that, please do it before you go vote.)
If you are a serious journalist — print all the facts.
The Chief District Court Judge ALSO lowered the mother’s bond to $750,000. I see that you didn’t include that fact.
The defendant IS STILL IN JAIL awaiting his trial and has been the entire time. I see you didn’t include that fact.
The bond I set was still WELL ABOVE the bond guidelines. I see you missed that fact too.
This story is tragic. What would be even more tragic would be if an unconstitutional bond caused a problem in getting a subsequent conviction. The trial and sentencing is NOT BOND — BOND is PRETRIAL. This defendant has not had trial. That happens in superior court, not district. I don’t control the scheduling of felony cases.
US Supreme Court has been clear that bail is constitutionally excessive if it is more than needed to assure the presence of the defendant at trial. He is in jail. His presence is assured.
“When the battle is lost — slander is the tool of the loser.”
Be better.
YOU are the one who is on the ballot facing the voters right now. What Skipper Creed did or did not do is not as important right now as what you did or did not do. When it’s his turn on the ballot, he’ll surely have to answer for decisions like this.
Your colleague Judge McSweeney’s signature is on a piece of paper — one week before you — denying a bond reduction for the mother. Your signature is on the paper — one week after McSweeney — authorizing a reduction in bond for the father. Two district court judges looked at the same set of facts and came up 180 degrees apart. It was important that you explain that to your voters. And you’ve tried. (Let’s see if they buy it.)
Under that logic, it also would not matter what Judge McSweeney did either. ?. I see logic in this “news” outlet’s world is defined as fitting a particular narrative. Is the guy still in jail or not? If so, is the point of your “article” that an educated, professional female judge made an independent decision to set a bond that was clearly adequate since the guy still in jail? OK I get the point then.. Thanks it was very informative. Y’all are really reaching here ?
Sexism. Yep, that’s it. That’s why they’re trying to replace her………… with a strong, educated, female.
Brilliant!
You missed the point Ham, The most important word in the sentence is independent, but thanks for emphasizing my point with your reference to the infamous “they”. Judges are supposed to be independent and follow the law,, not legislate from the bench. To pledge in advance that a decision will always be made in a certain party’s favor before hearing the facts and without considering the rules/law sounds far from independent to me. That has happened far too much in our country of late with judges making decisions based on politics for improper reasons instead of sound legal decisions based on facts, procedure, and law. We need more judges who don’t bend to the whims of the “they”., not less.
What about judge McSweeney? Are you telling us that he acted irresponsibly and unconstitutionally while judge tanner did not? A week apart, they looked at the same circumstances and produced radically different responses.
No, certainly not. Judge McSweeney made an independent decision as well, and I am not criticizing him in any way. He’s a good judge. As I understand it, 4 Judges have reviewed the case, and each made an independent decision based on the facts presented at the hearing each conducted. The tone of your post seemed to indicate that something inappropriate resulted from the decision, and the guy should be in jail. My point is the bond decisions by each of the 4 Judges who heard the matter was in fact adequate to assure that result because he is still in jail and will appear in court when his case is called. I am not criticizing any seated Judge.
I have no knowledge about the facts of this case or the circumstances surrounding it, so take this comment with a grain of salt. It is not unusual for two people charged in connection with the same offense to have varying degrees of success when applying for a bond modification. Maybe the dad presented a better argument for a bond reduction because the State had a questionable case against him, but the evidence against the mom was much more compelling. I believe that all the judges involved in this matter (and in our judicial district as a whole) make conscientious decisions about bond modification motions.
Rich Costanza