Recently, the Loudoun Times published an article concerning the lack of diversity on the bench in Loudoun. The local chapter of the NAACP conducted a study of the breakdown of the surrounding counties and their benches. There is indeed an astounding lack of diversity. I agree with the NAACP concerning the lack of diversity. However, the study and article hinted that competent minority candidates were put forward in Loudoun County. These candidates were Lorrie SInclair and Zaida Thompson.
I take no issue with Ms. Thompson other than the fact that she has been an employee of the Loudoun County Attorney’s office for a number of years. This raises red flags in that she has very limited experience in defending clients and has a personal relationship with Sandra Glenney. I would prefer a judicial candidate who has experience in defending clients and understands the importance of discovery and the release of all evidence. Other than that, I have no major concerns with Ms. Thompson. I doubt that anyone who is employed in the County Attorney’s office has any in depth experience in defending clients.
Lorrie SInclair is another story, I have serious concerns with SInclair becoming a judge. It would lessen the credibility of the justice system within Loudoun County. Sinclair is tied too closely with the Commonwealth Attorney’ s Office and the County Attorney’s office. She served as an Assistant County Attorney during the retrial of Bruce McLaughlin, a father who was so blatantly false accused by ex-wife of sexual abuse. No ethical prosecutor or assistant would have retried Mr. McLaughlin, he was re-tried in order for the County to save face. Ms. Sinclair took part in this, this alone is sufficient to disqualify her for the bench.
During the first trial, exculpatory evidence was withheld; the actual audio tapes of the children interview were withheld from the defense. The jury never heard the actual tapes, instead they were treated to the typed report, written by the County, of what the children said. Ms. Sinclair during the retrial heard these types and still attempted to prosecute an innocent man. The actual words of the children did not even remotely reflect what was typed in the report.
Also during the trail, Ms. Sinclair observed the testimony of Dr. Maggie Bruck concerning the suggestibility of children. Sinclair chose to ignore this testimony and believed the hired gun testimony of the Commonwealth’s expert. A judicial candidate must discern between the science and junk-science. To this day, Sinclair does not critically examine or investigate the testimony of experts who are hired by the County,
In addition to this, Sinclair does a poor job when appointed as A Guadian Ad Litem on civil cases. She readily and consistently agrees with Child Protection Services in all matters, she is vulnerable to believe the psychologists who lower themselves to testify on behalf of CPS. During civil cases she consistently rejects the testimony of psychologists who disagree with CPS and Sandra Glenney. She routinely fails to conduct a thorough and independent investigation.
Due to her close affiliation with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office , she would almost assuredly favor the prosecution in all cases brought before her. This is not justice, it would more resemble a kangaroo Court,