Judge Toby Hampson on Appellate Practice, Fairness in Courts, and the Future of Judicial Elections

Peter Pappas: All right. Welcome back to the Carolina Cabinet. I'm your host, Peter Pappas, in studio on my own today, which is maybe shouldn't be left without supervision, but here I am. I'm here with Judge Toby Hampson running for North Carolina Court of Appeals. Welcome, sir. Well, Peter, thanks for thanks for having me on. I'm looking forward to this conversation. So this is likewise. so here with the cabinet, we know that we are the smartest hour of radio. we are here to give the voices of to conservatives a fable, Cumberland County and beyond. And we don't just do political stuff, we do community interest stuff too. so we're I'm looking forward to getting past the election to get back to some of that. I I think I have twenty three interviews between now and November. So yeah. You guys running for office, run me, I'm telling you. It's it really it really is. But well, so Judge, a little bit about you. I have that you were born I'm not gonna say what year. No, thank you. 'Cause you got me by three years though, I'll tell you that. But you were born in England. but what Not only that is interesting, but she went to the School of Math and Science. that was in Durham, I assume. where did you so what county did you originate from that ended up? So I grew up mostly in Moore County in the Carthage area. You know, attending public schools like Sand Hills Farm Life and Union Pines High out there. My mom actually taught math at Sand Hills Community College. Okay. So that's that's that's where I grew up primarily and that's why, you know, my wife complained she married the one English guy that doesn't actually have an English accent. Right. That was gonna be one of my questions. If you does it so well, how long were you in England? Yeah, as a kid until I was about, you know, eight or nine. Okay. All right. So I guess the the question I was gonna ask is when you get mad, does any does any British accent come out ever like do you call people I don't know, flats or you know what like you know, like is that what they all the British humor that I hear. No, I I think every once in a while if I it might slip and I ask for a spanner or something when I'm working on it, okay. So it's in there. It's in there. There's a little bit in there. There's a little bit in there. Okay, okay. So School of Math and Science and then International Studies and History. Boy, I'm jealous. That sounds cool. And then a JD from Campbell Law. So you are of the North Carolina. I am. Through and through. There's there I mean and you took advantage of every good school we've got in North Carolina. Let's we're not throwing shade on Carolina or anybody else, but I know people watching this, they're you know, it's a divided house, state in Carolina, but you know, put down your swords. But that's the beautiful thing about North Carolina, right? Is there there are so many opportunities out there and so many great schools, so many paths you can take. And you know, and I I listen, I feel really blessed and fortunate to have had those opportunities presented to me. Yeah. And so I that's great. You know, not for nothing. I mean, people don't really retire up north. So you know, they're they're this is a good place to be. despite our our little election kerfuffles here and there. Here and there. So you first got to the North Carolina of Appeals in twenty eighteen. It was an eight-year term. Man, that's a long commitment for a job. I mean that's you know, it is. It's but it's it's nice to have an eight-year term because it does give you that sort of time and space, particularly in that judicial role, to actually do the job and not worry about re-election. Reelection, the politics, that kind of thing. on the same token, it's about three political lifetimes since I ran in twenty two. well, I mean, the The landscape has changed from twenty eighteen. That's right. I it just simply I mean, we went through COVID for I mean that so and we'll we'll get to that. So you are a Democrat? I am still welcome on the cabinet. Thank you. Thank you for being here. re election to seat two is on the ballot. And that the I the thing about this cycle is that there are three and all three of you guys Democrats are up for election this time. So this is very important for the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party. So and I've already told you the the code of conduct here. you're a sitting judge. So I'm not going to ask you, let's see, pending or impending cases pledge how you'd rule on certain issues or make commitments inconsistent with impartial performance of judicial. So yeah. I actually there's a clip running around of South Carolina Senator that just passed Lindsey Graham. No Lindsey Graham. I think he was in the confirmation hearing for Elizabeth Kagan, I believe. And he says, Where are you gonna be on Christmas? And she didn't want to answer. And then she says, Well, like all the Jews, I'll probably be in a Chinese restaurant or something. But it was a lighthearted moment compared to how I I joked with you, you know, pre-show. It's like, I'm not I can't why do they keep asking these poor judicial candidates, you know, how are you gonna vote for if something like this happens? It's like you're not you can't. You're bound by ethics. But it's but that shows like the difficulty, right? Of of running in these these these partisan judicial races in a world where people understand partisan politics, right? And they want you to they want to know who they're voting for. Sure. Right. They want to know what your positions are. And and it does. It puts all of us in this kind of kind of tough position. And you know, and and the thing I try to tell voters is that the reality is at the end of the day, whatever your issue is, right? Those decisions are gonna come through the courts. And here in North Carolina, you have that constitutional right to select the judges that are gonna be making those decisions. Right. And as a voter, you mean. Yeah, yeah. I don't think you get to pick when you're going up. No, no, no. Hopefully not. Somebody's gonna call. How do I pick my judge? At the at the ballot box, bro. The ballot box. Okay. So I I noticed that the misses runs your calendar these days. Yeah, she does. always. You know, always always good. So she's in charge. So you do have supervision. That's good. so how did the two of y'all meet? We actually we met in law school. we great, a whole household full of lawyers. yeah, absolutely. Right. No, she's well like I say, you know, when you realize you're not an even the best lawyer in your own house, you it's time to run for judge, right? Those who can't teach. Yeah, yeah, something like that. So I met in law school. Yeah, in the we were In a running club. I was president of the running club at Campbell called Legal Runarounds. I knew something about your build. I was like, this guy's probably a athletic runner or something. Yeah. Nice of you to say the campaign trail's a little rough on the Well like to be well fed. I I gotta eat my own product, so that's why I stay healthy. so do you so school of math and science, do you run into any former classmates now that like are on the ballot or you know, we we do. Actually, you know, one of my classmates was Ralph Heise. so he was ev even then we've we've lived in separate dorms. So we've we've always been on on the other ends of okay the ends of those I I think the angle for me is that you know North Carolina grown and grown and bred, you know, and you know that the people that go through these schools, they they stay around. Yeah. And they get involved. And that's that's the important thing, is that I think we nurture that hometown feeling at least. what made you like so you did a pellet law That's your you were the leader of the firm's appellate practice group. I'm not gonna go through the five names that or four names that is, but appellate work is not as I don't think it's as sexy as like we see on T V, you know, the the the the the suits kind of thing, you know. So what made you what attracted you to the appellate part? Yeah y y you know, when young lawyers always ask me like how do you become an appellate lawyer? I say it's easy. I just kept losing all my trials. which was only half true, let's face it. It was only half true. Okay. give or take. Yeah. Right. You know, so I kind of grew up as a lawyer in the Court of Appeals. My first job was serving as a law clerk. to three different judges. So you there that was your volunteer experience. And I I fell in love with it. You know, I fell in love with the work of the court. I think anybody that spends any time specifically in our state court of appeals kind of becomes part of the fabric, become part of the family. And you know, and it's heavy research and writing. It's it's nerdy, nerdy work. and so so I went into practice and I was doing trial and appellate work and and enjoyed the trial piece as well, but I just kept feeling drawn to that that appellate practice, the ability to work on such a variety of cases. You know, our North Carolina Court of Appeals hears pretty much any kind of case you can imagine, civil and criminal. and so I just sort of started developing expertise. You know, I was a guy that didn't mind writing a brief and doing the research. And then I and then I f was fortunate to have mentors that let me argue cases in the Court of Appeals, in the state Supreme Court. And so it just kind of sort of developed organically that I just found myself developing that specialized practice. You're not of course you're not the one bringing the suits, but you're in the appellate division, are you examining the possible failure or of the lower courts of adhering to their own rules or What's what what would be an example of an appeal that you've I don't I I'm trying to Sure because like I said, we have experience with traffic ticket court, maybe most people, but they don't get to your level. So well actually, you know, they can. I'm sure they could if they get in enough trouble. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what but particularly in that realm, a lot of the cases we see on the criminal side would be a DUI. Okay. Right. And so you're looking at questions there might include, you know, was there in fact probable cause or reasonable suspicion for that initial stop? Sure. Right. Should that evidence have been suppressed? Or what was that evidence let in incorrectly? You know, was there you know, same like, you know, blood alcohol testing, those kinds of issues. Was was there something Was it done correctly? Was it done correctly? Was it administered or suppressed or Exactly. Okay. So, and then, you know, on a on a civil side, again, same sorts of things. Should evidence have come in or not? Was the jury So you're examining the decisions that gated what people were portrayed at well, I mean the evidence allowed or not allowed. You're you're looking at those decisions from a previous judge. That's right. We're not, you know, we're not weighing evidence, right? We're not redeciding the case. Right. you know, we don't have juries. We're not looking taking testimony, the exhibits. We're literally looking at the sort of what we call the cold record, sort of the written record of the written transcripts, what the jury was told by the judge as to how to apply the law. You know, you know, whether and and essentially whether the statutes and controlling laws were properly applied in the trial court. So I mean, it seems to me if you just train the judges better, they don't need you. But I mean so I mean, is it so it's pretty common that people file an appeal and you do have to go through and 'cause just 'cause they come to you doesn't mean it's gonna get heard, does it? Or does it? No. How does that work? No, see, that's actually one of the beautiful things is that in North Carolina, in most cases, you actually do have a right to appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, right? In criminal cases and civil cases. And so we do. We review every case that comes to us. Some cases are are very meritorious and and may result in a reversal or or a remand back to the trial court for a new trial. Other cases maybe we simply look at and say, Nope, everything was was done correctly. And so we affirm those. But even, you know, even some of the most what you would consider frivolous appeals, particularly in criminal cases, you have a right to appeal and you have a right to have our court actually take a look at the record. So you're not okay, because we've had an example here in Cumberland County of a superior court judge. I the simplest example is you get evicted, magistrate court, you appeal it, it goes up to her, him, who, or whatever. Before they were hearing the case, they would look at the defendant or the plaintiff in that case and say, Why why did you bring this? And if the justification wasn't sufficient to the sitting jurist, well, I'm not going to hear that. And I'm thinking, I don't think that's the way that's supposed to work. I I and I I know we can't judge, you know, you weren't there, I wasn't there, whatever, but that just seems to me like not administering justice to the people. They're already getting kicked out of their homes. So I would think that our system would have a safety net for people like that. But I think that's, you know at the end of the day, win or lose your case, I think most people if if they're heard and they feel like they at least got a fair shake, you know, that's that's what we can ask for from our system of justice. But you don't equally you don't have that ability in the appellate court to just say, No, this doesn't have merit and kick it out. I mean, do you? I mean Well, we do, but only after only after you've reached when we actually look at it. Yeah, you have to yeah, you Gotta read it first. Okay. Before you okay and and and it's funny, sometimes you'll actually find those cases where you have a criminal appeal. The the the lawyer that's appointed to handle the appeal will file a brief in our court and say, Listen, I've researched this and I see no meritorious argument. we'll let the defendant speak for themselves. Sure. but we see no meritorious argument. And under our law, including US Supreme Court law, North Carolina Supreme Court law. The the court has an as an obligation, an affirmative obligation to actually go through through the record and just make sure nobody missed anything. Sure. And you know what? Every once in a while we'll find something. Yeah. So so it's a really, really important role. And and so I think it's important that folks understand, like, you know, the Court of Appeals really is watching out for you. Yeah, no, I I agree with that, especially the way you put that. That's great. All right. So I know I I keep wanting to say senator, answer this. Yeah, I keep I keep feeling like we're at this damn Senate comrade. so and this is Look, I hate saying what's your judicial philosophy? But I how do you how would you describe that? Yeah, my jud judicial philosophy is that, you know, if we're properly applying the law and properly interpreting the law, it should make sense in the real world. You know, a a a a case that I had in practice that that shaped how I view the law. I represented a a grandmother out of Columbus County and her daughter had died in a single car accident, leaving behind a little boy. And so the only parental figure this little boy had ever known in his life, you know, sort of six, seven, eight years old, was the grandmother. And but after mom died, dad and his family kind of came back into the picture. They sued for custody. at the end of the trial, the the judge awarded full custody to dad, no rights to grandmother. And to the point where like she couldn't even go to his baseball games. They would call the cops every time he showed up at the baseball game. And so and the judge looked at my client at the end of that hearing and said, ma'am, I'm sorry. It this isn't real life. It's the law. And that really struck me. And so yeah, I I took that case on appeal. we got it reversed, and remanded on the basis that no, dad hadn't done anything right. He was never aroused horrible to the kid. But he'd sort of ceded some of that parental responsibility to grandmother. And therefore sort of giving her leaving the kid is a pretty big indicator, but you know fair. and so the case got remanded, and the judge then in Columbus County was then able to award custody to my client, the grandmother, but then format a visitation schedule for the that gave dad visitation schedule and the ability to increase that visitation as he built that relationship with the child. And to me. That's a decision that reflects a proper application of law into w in a way that that makes sense in the real world and and is a win win for both parties and both of So it struck you when the judge said, ma'am, this is law, not the real life. Yeah. That is scary. 'Cause you know, we want you attorneys to go to school and learn how to administer and read the law and all, but I still think sandwich makers should be able to understand that stuff too. It should reflect what we're doing out here. Well, it impacts how you run your business and what you want out of the law is something that's you know, that has accountability, that has predictability in the law. So you can make sound, smart business decisions, right? Because in in in business, uncertainty creates risk and risk ultimately costs money. Absolutely. And absolutely. So so so I think that's a really, really important role for the courts to make sure we are giving that accountability. And I think people need to understand too the appellate, you are remanding a case back to the lower court, not to overturn it. You're remanding it to be reheard. Is that yes. I mean there are so it's not like the judge gets it back down. Well, damn it, I'll just rule the other way this time. No, that's right. I mean they have to it has to be gone through again. Yeah. There I mean there are cases where we will just reverse outright. But in in most cases, if we're if we're sending it back, we are sending it back for a new hearing with maybe with some instructions to the trial court as to what you should be thinking about and considering and making this ruling. I think people misinterpret the Court of Appeals as, they're just going to get in there and just, you know, turn the clock back. Yeah. It doesn't like you said, there are some explicit cases where you're like, okay, yeah, we're going to just reverse that and let's move on with life, but you are sending it to be looked at again. In in most instances, that's right. So it could come back out either way. and that's that's that's actually a a really great point about the appellate process. A lot of times we're we're just you know both parties can can come back and come back to the trial court and make their arguments again and we're just looking for a proper application of the law to pay. Sure, sure. So out of seven years you've been there so far, I mean you're going on eight now. So ask so What area of law do you think best reflects your approach to this life not law construct? Wow. I well, I I I hope I am able to apply that in in every area of law that comes before us. But, you know, I you know, I one thing I try to talk to my my law clerks about is is is that, you know, when we get a case, it's so easy. Because you know, we weren't in the heat of heat of the moment in the trial court, right? And we can and we can be really judgmental. Sure. Sort of in the title, right? But so we can look at what happened in the trial court, man, why'd that lawyer do that? Why'd that judge do that? That's crazy. And and so what I you know, what I try to tell him is like nobody's out there really trying to mess up or try to re- truly act in an arbitrary, capricious fashion, right? Sometimes like so I think having that understanding and that sort of level of humanity as we review these cases, recognizing they're, you know, these are good people trying to do the right thing in most instances in our trial courts. But you know, so I I try to bring that philosophy to to each and every area of the court, bringing my trial and appellate as experience being on the other side of the podium for those judges to the case. So but you know, you if you you know w you know, one one case I think is actually sort of interesting to me in that vein was if you remember in twenty eighteen there was an a constitutional amendment on the ballot to protect the the traditional methods of right and right to hunt and fish. Okay. I I don't but I'm gonna go along with that opinion with that. And so it passed it passed as an amendment in twenty eighteen and and some conservation groups brought a lawsuit and said, listen, if we're gonna have the right to hunt and fish, that actually's gotta it it can't just be window dressing, right? You actually have to have sort of gotta impose a duty on state government to ensure that there is in fact wildlife. Right and fish. Okay. Yeah. It's gotta be something too. Right. So it's so to me that's a you know, it's kind of a that to me is a really great real life interpretation. And and I wrote an opinion It's an odd opinion from a conservation group. Hey, we want to make sure you have enough animals to kill. Well but I mean but that's but but it's a recognition, right, of that of that relationship that we have to have both. Okay. Right? We do have to have so What was sort of the outcome with that? So I wrote authored an opinion. it was actually me and it was bipartisan unanimous opinion saying that that suit could proceed. That with the constitutional amendment and some of the other provisions of the state constitution, that case should be at least be out allowed to proceed. and so yeah, and so I I wrote, right? If the if the right to hunt fish is what ultimately happened, do we still have the amendment or do they throw it out? No, no, the amendment's still there. Okay. I mean the amount the the the amendment's there, it's unchallenged and stands. but this was this was like what is the impact of that amendment, right? And so and so yeah, we said well it's one thing to pass a law or an amendment or another to implement. If there's no apparatus, then is that really worth it, the paper it's printed on. That's right. So you have talked about balancing efficiency in the courts, but what do what's the role of AI in your court? You know, the the role of AI in our court right now is is the challenge. it's it's creating. you know what we've seen recently is number number one, we see an uptick in pro se or or people representing themselves in our courts. We see and we see that in our trial courts, we see it in our appellate courts, you know, and I think that's caused by a number of factors, right? I mean the reality it's AI. I know, I know. Because they can practice the thing will practice your whole case. That's right. And so and you know and and you know com combine that with just the sheer cost of having an attorney and having to litigate and you know, particularly when you if you're coming up on appeal after you've already litigated to you know, I think it puts a lot of pressure on on litigants to to use sources of AI, right? And it used to be if you know, ten years ago, maybe you'd look go look up a YouTube video. Right. But now you've got AI that can generate documents instantaneously. And so what we're seeing in our court is that it's putting a lot of pressure on our clerk's office because you know, we can have litigants that are filing eighty documents within minutes, right? And we have to do something with that. You still have to process them. We have to process them, we have to look at them, we have to review So I think the challenge is in in in our court is now trying to figure out how we can best utilize AI. in a manner that's actually helpful to us before it just overwhelms our court system. Right. And, you know, the thing about our courts is, well, the legal system generally and in law practice is like, you know, we're we are not early adopters of this stuff, right? Like there's there's there's a traditional sense of how we go about things. I mean, well thinking about it, you know, AI can give me I was thinking if you dump eighty documents on the clerk's desk, I'm sure that he loves that, but Even if you were to feed them all to AI and say, summarize these and give me high points, I still am assuming that clerk or an attorney is going to read all the document. You hope so. So yes, you know, so I'm just thinking AI as it is now is not perfect and it it will miss things. So I think that is very dangerous if you guys were to adopt AI, especially right now. so you don't see any tools coming to help you guys with you know, I I triaging documents. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think it's there. You know, the biggest concern with using AI within the courts is the confidentiality component, right? You never know what it's going to come across. And particularly if you're using like an open source type AI, right? once you put that into the open source AI, it's part of the open source. Everything you input into AI becomes part of the AI, right? And so we want to be extra cautious that we're not putting people's sensitive financial, personal, medical type information into these systems. So until we I think until we develop a closed system that we can we can truly trust and is and is verified and and make sure we are protecting folks. Because 'cause that I mean that's I mean, I think for the for a judge and the courts, that's the thing we're one of the things we are most terrified of is that we're gonna somehow expose people's confidential information in a way that it shouldn't be. No, that makes perfect sense. I I don't want you reducing the number of clerks because you got an AI bot. No. I think we still need those bodies and that seats. Well we see it in you know, we we we have seen, you know, briefs filed in our courts, legal arguments where we have like hallucinated case citations, right? Where it's like because AI wants to give you a good answer. Yeah. And so if it can't find something, it invents it. It'll just make it up. So it'll invent case citations. Didn't some law students get in trouble for that? Or I mean it has been happening, I think they've got across the country out. And usually I think it's much it's kind of it's sort of like we said, it's the reset, it's it's it's it's probably more lack of oversight than any intentional, nefarious Right. Well, and so from what you're saying also about the lower courts, people are generally trying to do good. Right. The the appellate court is not daddy to give you a spanking. It's it's we're gonna look at how you conducted yourself, how you allow this evidence, and you realize that heat of the moment influences those decisions. And so you guys look at it as a as a very well orchestrated Monday morning quarterback. That's right. And you're able to read the transcripts and you're able to take your emotion out of it. That's right. Because you're able to I don't want to say dehumanize it, but you're able to take the take the emotion out. So I don't think a lot of people understand that. I think they hear appellate court and they think automatically, they're just gonna turn stuff over. Right. So I can't I know you can't you won't I and I'm not gonna ask you to discuss a pending case, but what's a ruling of yours that the conservatives disagreed with in the past and why do you think it would still be correctly decided? Well, I I'll I'll I'll give you the the one and ultimately conservatives ended up agreeing with it. But I wrote what so in Judge Griffin and Justice Riggs We're in the twenty twenty four Supreme Court election and it was a razor thin margin in that race, you know, seven hundred and thirty-four vote margins. That's the one that held out and had different recounts over and over and over again. That's right. And so ultimately, that case came through the State Board of Elections, the Wake County Superior Court, and it came to my court. And I was on the three judge panel that decided that case in our court and and it was a two to one decision. And I was in dissent and Republican colleagues on my court wrote to to say no, we should to my mind kind of put the burden on the voters to have to come back and prove they were eligible to vote rather than it was a matter of a ballot curing for in Wayland like it was a couple of different things. It was early and absentee voting, that was there questions to the registration, and then overseas voters, including our military members serving us overseas, who've never had a voter ID requirement and and no other military voters. I I think if you go back in time enough to this show and when that was happening, you'll hear my disdain for that whole thing being dragged out by the Conservative Party because you know, you start talking about overseas voters and something that are our military and they just it did not sit well in this room. Let's put it like that. Well And and so so I so and and that's part of the the story, I think, is that you know, this you know, everyone kind of looks at it and it was like, it was Judge Griffin versus Justice Riggs. And but that's not the way we looked at it. And frankly, I don't think it was the way my Republican colleagues looked at it. We were simply looking at the process. We were looking at, you know, what it what are the rights of the voters in this instance. And we disagreed on on that point and strenuously disagreed. you know, and ultimately the Supreme Court, state Supreme Court took a look at that and agreed with me in part as to the the voters who could validly register to vote, but maybe numbers didn't match up on their driver's licensure or some somebody who would some people are dyslexic. Some people miss a miss a number. Yeah, and or it was inputted incorrectly into whatever database or system. But but left in place the piece dealing with our overseas voters and ultimately that case went to a federal judge. Judge Myers in the Eastern District, who was who was appointed by Donald Trump. Okay. and he ultimately agreed with my underlying proposition, which is you don't change the rules of the game after the game's been played. Right. And so you know i irrespective how you feel about the politics of that, I actually think the fact that it came through our courts, we had disagreement, and then ultimately it was resolved by that federal judge who comes from a different political stripe. than me was actually a real victory for the rule of law and the process to go through, right? And at the end of the day, everybody had their day in court. Right. In that case. Well, justice was served. The system worked. Didn't not you know, there's always going to be a winner and a loser, unfortunately. And that's where people get been out of shape and say, no justice. No, it was done. It just you know, it's a sucky outcome for you. And yeah, you know, sorry. But again, as long as as long as the process holds, the process works Everybody was heard. Everybody was heard plenty in those cases. and and everybody got their dame. I think at a certain point, I think watching that develop, it was more after the first, I don't know, one of the first maneuvers or whatever by that campaign, you could just see that now he's trying to make a point. Now it's not about winning or losing, it's about those defendant or those parties trying just to make a point about the law and how we apply it. And how we're administering our board of elections, stuff like that. So I still didn't agree with how long it took. I was like, come on now, just let it go. Yeah, the the the last uncertified race in the country was the state Supreme Court race in North Carolina. You know, Fayetteville and Durham, we compete on the worst of metrics sometimes, like homelessness and murders. And why does North Carolina have to be we were the only state didn't have a budget and the only state that had the last contested election. Yeah. And we just resolved the budget this year finally. So that's sort of the the beauty and the curse of North Carolina being such a such a closely divided state, right? Is that on one hand it makes for these great political conversations, right? I think it actually creates an an amazing community of North Carolinians. But yes, it also puts us like ground zero for every one of these political fights. We're taking the national brunt of this stuff. It's like, come on. Try running for judge. Yeah. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. so Let's see. I I didn't ask you pending cases, so I'm I'm good on that. now Are aren't judicial elections, aren't you is it a is a partisan race or nonpartisan? No, these are partisan races, you know, since and you know, in twenty eighteen was the first year that the races had been then made partisan again. So since twenty eighteen, you know, we had this period where it was where it was we was yeah, it was nonpartisan. and then yeah, so sort of slowly these races have been made partisan again. So yeah. So you're seeking re election. what in your eight years, Do you feel like that you've accomplished and you want to continue working? I mean, it's every case is different. They're all like snowflakes. but what is maybe a theme you've developed or just a pr I mean, you've practiced plenty. So I mean, what what do you want to continue? You know, I I think the biggest thing we've we've kind of hit on this theme a lot is, you know, I'm I'm it's really important to me to keep making sure people get their day in court, you know, at the end of the day. Win or lose, they're getting a fair shake, they're having access to our courts to have their cases heard. Okay. And that we're deciding cases in a manner that treats everybody with respect, with dignity, and treats their arguments with a level of thoughtfulness and seriousness that they merit, that they deserve. Sure. and I think if we do that, you know, I've written over 400 majority opinions on my court, most of which are unanimous, most of which are bipartisan. And draw bipartisan support and I'm really, really proud of that record because I think that is what we're we're doing on that court is is really protecting the rule of law here in North Carolina. So when you hear an appeal, is it only a panel of three or does it ever get larger than that? Well, to date it has only been panels of three. in gosh, probably about Ten years ago or so, maybe maybe ten to fifteen years ago. the General Assembly did give us the authority to sit what we call en banc, which would be all fifteen judges reviewing a case, but we have yet to actually f fully utilize. So you can do it. So we can. But you haven't. But we have not yet. Okay. Okay. Okay. I always wonder like Supreme Court cases, the US Supreme Court get decided and it's whatever, so many in the four and against five to four. But it's like okay, so if it's four the five to four. Which one of the four gets to draw the lucky straw to write the dissent? Like, you know, I'm like, who who gets that short straw to write that? Or I mean it's probably a sought after role, I would think, to write the dissent. Yeah, which which is why sometimes in when you see those US Supreme Court cases, they have multiple dissents, right? You have different j justices of that writing separate dissents on either different So they still could write their own. sure. I mean they could each write it's not like they were like, Okay, we vote for you to do it this time. Right. In fact, a lot of sometimes in the particular US Supreme Court, you might see an issue where we have what we call plurality decisions where you've got multiple decisions that at when you add them up, create a majority. Okay. Right. And so you have to kind of read each opinion to figure out, okay, what is the consistent through line through this to actually get what we hold, you know, to see what s what did five justices actually agree on in this case, right? And I like how you just you rolled off the off the tongue with the plurality thing and the whole structure of it. So yeah, you obviously know a couple of three things about practicing law. I try. you yeah. so h how often so now I look, I know I walk into rooms and I forget why the hell I went. how often how how often are you going back to the book as you're like, No, that's just not right. Yeah, no, I was actually I was joking the other day. I'm definitely that age as as a lawyer where, you know, when you know I'm talking my clerks about a case and you know, and I've I've seen all this case law and I I know there's a case out there and it says this. And they're like, Great. They're like, great. Yeah, let me let me search the the interwebs for something that happened somewhere to somehow. Yeah. And somehow you sometimes you like remember like one little minute detail that's completely irrelevant to whatever you're talking about about the case. that was Justice So and so that wrote in nineteen seventy three. And I don't remember the name of the case or what it was about, but I think it's on point here. They'll come back and say, Well, there is that case and it's Yeah, it's it's out there. Close. I get yeah, I completely get that. It's like I I s I know something's around here. so what so as an attorney, you have continuing ed and stuff like that every year like anybody else. what else do you do to keep yourself sharp? And I mean, do you is there any fiction, nonfiction you like to read? Is there Yeah, no, you know I mean you probably read enough in your job. Yeah, we read a lot of true crime and so yeah, I mean our our work very much is is very research and and writing heavy. so sometimes it's more about just kinda clearing the head and and trying to find other resources and releases. So I I you know, I I enjoy reading some books about history and okay you know when I read recently it was actually about John Marshall. It's called Without Precedent. It was kind of really interesting autobiography, taking him his life and, you know, realizing he certainly he was a Valley Forge. Yeah. You know, and but but sort of taking his biography but also like interspersing some of his key rulings and and and sort of showing how his life experiences and and how he was able to take that and and actually in a really fractious time. in our political history. What years are we talking from because I remember the Marshall Court. Exactly. So we're talking about like around eighteen hundred. Okay. Right. So when you've got the turnover from the Federalists to the Jeffersonian Republicans, right? And and so he was a Federalist in a Jeffersonian world, and you know, and with incredibly heated political rhetoric and and and and members of his court that were Jeffersonians. And And the his ability to draw consensus among in in that politically divided time and create consensus opinions, unanimous opinions for that court, which really helped then strengthen the court and strengthen public trust and faith in that court. Well, because at that time we had the constitution, but you needed tests. Exactly. It had to be put up to test. That's what people don't understand about law sometimes. You might not like it, but it needs to be challenged before it gets tossed out. So yeah, no, that's he's a very interesting guy and a very key to our history in this country. let's see. So I know you're itching, you're itching to ask the question. No, no. There's nothing, there's nothing you they're really you know, look, this is so the purpose of the cabinet, you know, and people have heard it before from me. I'm here to show the guy running on the ballot. I had people that said they don't want to come because they don't want to be Gotcha or whatever. And I don't do that generally until you piss me off and I might get one or two. But the thing is, you know, nah. The thing the thing is that, you know, that they maintain, well, I'm going to do plenty of community forums. Yeah, but what can honestly, let's not be politician or anything involved with the electorate right now. What can I as a citizen go to a community forum and glean from the same question asked eight times in a two minute bite? This is to show the long form. You know, put a face to the name on those ballots. That's what's important. Yeah, well, and and and we talked before, I I appreciate this discussion, right? This is we we should be having more of these these discussions and conversations. It's funny. I always talk about everyone talks about like you have arguments in front of the Court of Appeals and the lawyers come and the judges ask questions and you go back and forth. And I always say I would as a as a lawyer and as a judge, I always try to think about that as a conversation, right? Because the judges are trying to gain information. They're trying to learn about the case. And sometimes we're even talking amongst ourselves through the questions we're asking as we figure out what our different positions are, what maybe our points of tension and conflict might be as we are we're deciding those cases. And so, you know, and and and fast forward that into into this space and this election process is that, you know, as Court of Appeals judges, we don't interact with lawyers on a daily basis. We don't interact with the public on a daily basis. So we're not really an outward facing court. So maybe the silver lining on judicial elections is just kind of forces out of the building. Right. And and and to me, it it's not just from a standpoint of of hopefully, you know, winning an election. I think it helps make me a better judge as I as I hear and and gain that input from folks and community, whether it be at forums or through spaces like No forums are very important. I mean, but it's just, you know, the this venue versus a forum, you're gonna get different sides. I think as a candidate you go in these forums and you you are looking for right who's gonna get right in my craw about you know, who's gonna really try to throw me off my game or whatever. But if you've you've been around long enough that I how many do you think negative interactions you've had run for office the first time and now? Have has anybody come up and spit in your face? No or yelled at you or maybe yelled, but not but but not but nothing I mean nothing nothing that bad. I between two campaigns I had two interactions that I was like, okay. No. Cool. We just won't come back here. No problem. You know. So have you knocked doors? Yes. Have you? Yeah. how does that go? You know, it goes really well. you know, it is the funny is that when they find out you're the judge, inevitably the questions get awfully specific, you know, and you're like, this seems really at the doorsteps. So if you had a friend who had a you know child custody issue and you're like, this this sounds Very particular and I think you have a friend in mind when you're talking about that. Yeah. but no, it's it's it's it goes really well. And and you know, I for the most part I think folks are just happy that you're making the effort to do the outreach, you know. And so we've it it does mean a lot when a when a politician sorry, you're a politician now. Yeah, it turns out I'm But you know, it does I think it does mean a lot that At least they've made contact with a guy that the name's on the ballot. And I think it it it definitely they're not gonna forget you, good or bad. Right. So Right. So just, you know, another seven and a half million dollars to knock it out will be there, you know. I feel for I feel for you on that one. I don't envy you. And you know, it seems like I wish we could move the elections to like February so we could knock doors in November, December in North Carolina, because holy crap, it is offensively high. It's not even a f it's like Actively offensive. Yeah. Like it's trying to hurt my feelings right now. so Judge, where can people find out about you, your campaign? Yeah, the best place to find me is judge Tobyhampson.com. That's T O B Y H A P S O N. You can also find me on social media every once in a while. on I'm on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. That's great early. and every once in a while you might even see me cooking something on there as I Try and cook up something and and talk about the role of the quartz a little bit. Okay. What's last dish you cooked on live or gosh, I think the last one I did was it might have been actually some some lamb chops with a with a sort of soy mint garlic sauce that I did on our grill. You know, high heat on the grill, hitting real fast, and then it's amazing. Come on, I'm Greek. I only want lamb with the lemon, the oregano. That's it no, that's I that's it. That's all that belongs. It was it it's a really simple sauce. And you know, it's funny, you'd think with like the the soy and the mint, it's it's kind of a weird combination, but it comes together beautifully and serve that serve that over some saffron rice. I'm definitely gonna have to find your socials to get some tips on cooking. I own a restaurant, but I'm I'm a I'm a budding chef. I'm not I my father used to joke, you know, I'm a short order cook, you know, and so but anyway, well, Judge, it was a pleasure having you on today. for everybody watching, please go to the Carolinacabinet.com. You can find all of our shows. You can just it cost you four seconds. Go there, like it, subscribe. It's free. There's no cost, no cash involved. But please go do that. And with that, we appreciate you watching and we will see you next Monday for our live broadcast. Have a good afternoon. Thank you.