SCOOP: Judge bans photography, charges dismissed in contentious United Way case

Visiting Judge rules against photos, district attorney drops cyberstalking charges against Suzanne Porter, as Leslie Lewis charges dismissed after trial by judge

Jan 13, 2025

Situational awareness: An exclusive, or scoop is an important news story that is first reported by a journalist. This goes beyond breaking news when no other journalists are known to be reporting on an important issue.

News & Commentary

Rutherford County courthouse on Jan. 2, 2025 (Annie Dance)

In a contentious trial that highlighted the complexities of justice and transparency, on January 2 visiting Judge Steve Grossman first ruled that “there will be no picture taking in the courtroom,” barring me—a journalist and photographer—from documenting the proceedings visually. The case, involving Leslie Lewis and Suzanne Porter, included allegations tied to the United Way of Rutherford County and drew criticism of District Attorney Ted Bell’s role.

Grossman’s ruling, supported by Bell’s objections that photography was “not appropriate,” underscores the ongoing tension between modern transparency efforts and longstanding courtroom rules.

Charges Dismissed

Bell immediately dismissed charges against Porter, Lewis’ trial proceeded. Porter took the stand to testify. At its conclusion it took a pivotal turn when Judge Grossman dismissed the charge against Lewis following trial and arguments from her attorney, Andrew LaBreche. He had previously filed a motion to dismiss in December.

On Aug. 7, 2017 in video obtained by Cops & Congress, Bell said of Porter, “I’ve worked with her for years and I value her experience and abilities highly.” Grossman denied a motion for Bell to recuse himself in this trial.

While Grossman ultimately dismissed charges against Lewis, LaBreche noted his client’s vindication as a critical step toward justice in a case that he argued was mired in conflict of interest. “I’m pleased the judge saw the truth and approved my motion to dismiss the charges against my client,” LaBreche told Cops & Congress. “The district attorney Ted Bell has worked with Suzanne Porter and the United Way of Rutherford County for years. These charges should never have been brought, and he should have been recused.”

Transparency Barriers

The prohibition of photography brought another layer of controversy to the proceedings. North Carolina’s one-party consent law permits one party, such as a photographer, to consent to recordings. However, court-specific rules often impose restrictions that can override broader legal allowances.

Photographs, as one of the most compelling tools for storytelling, provide a visual record that written accounts cannot always convey. Yet courts, governed by outdated systems and regulations, frequently curtail such transparency under the guise of decorum.

Lingering Questions

The judge also did not allow LaBreche to question Porter about allegations of possible misuse of funds—a topic at the center of public concern. As LaBreche withdrew two protective order motions against Porter filed by his clients, Lewis and Diane Krisanda, he expressed satisfaction with the outcome but left unresolved questions about the broader implications of the case.

When approached for comment, Porter replied gruffly, “I have no comment for you, Annie.”

As a journalist, my role is to question everything and shine a light where transparency falters. Bell’s close ties to Porter and the United Way continue to raise concerns about impartiality, and I’ll be watching his actions closely as an elected district attorney for Rutherford and McDowell counties. The facts remain clear: justice and transparency should not be mutually exclusive. The public deserves answers, and this case is far from over.

Three things Porter said at trial

"There’s no missing funds."
Porter frequently emphasized that no money was unaccounted for when questioned by the defense.
“Leslie Lewis is unhinged.”
There has been a lack of detailed explanation as her critic, Lewis, raised questions about programs and funds. While claiming funds weren’t missing, Porter did not provide clear, detailed evidence of how the money was spent.
“She’s making a baseless allegation.” Simply saying funds aren’t missing isn’t enough—show the public exactly how those funds were used is crucial for maintaining transparency and trust.

Without full disclosure, public confidence in financial stewardship remains uncertain. The recent court proceedings highlight a troubling lack of transparency, especially when public trust is at stake.

Transparency isn’t just a legal or procedural formality; it’s the foundation of accountability, particularly when government funds or public contributions are involved. Organizations like the United Way should demonstrate openness at every step, especially when facing allegations of misconduct.

Bell should have recused himself in my view. He was on a committee that awarded opioid settlement funds to Porter’s organization. Public officials have a duty to recuse themselves from cases where conflicts of interest could cloud their judgment. This isn’t just about optics—it’s about ensuring fairness and trust in the system.

The people of Rutherford County deserve to know where their money goes and how it’s managed. When transparency is withheld, skepticism grows. Accountability isn’t optional; it’s a requirement, especially when public funds and trust are on the line.

Three things to watch as millions are given to United Way

Transparency in spending
United Way must provide clear, detailed accounting for every dollar spent. This includes disclosing administrative costs, program allocations, and any partnerships involving public funds. Transparency builds trust and ensures that donations serve the intended purposes rather than disappearing into vague budgets.
Accountability for allegations
Past allegations of misuse of funds or conflicts of interest cannot be ignored. Stakeholders must demand regular audits by independent firms and public access to financial records. It's critical to ensure that those in charge are held accountable for ethical practices.
Impact reporting
Beyond financial transparency, United Way must demonstrate tangible community benefits from its initiatives. Regularly updated metrics on outcomes, such as improved services or increased aid to local nonprofits, are essential to prove the value of the millions invested.

Public funds and charitable contributions require rigorous oversight. By watching these key areas, we can help ensure the United Way remains a force for good and not a source of controversy. Read my previous articles for more details and documents.