Spin, records and reality: Separating fact from fiction in the LaBreche-Martelle judicial race
This is a guest article published by Annie Dance | Lake Lure News | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary. Her substack, Cops and Congress, is a must read. Click here to learn more about it.
RUTHERFORDTON, N.C. — Early voting begins on Feb. 12. What is going on with a key race? Let’s begin with clarity.
This publication is not endorsing any candidates, especially in the Rutherford and McDowell County District Court judge primary. Cops & Congress is not campaigning for Andrew LaBreche. It is not campaigning for Robert Martelle.
The first time I met Martelle, he said, “You’re all guilty,” at a campaign event.
The first time I met LaBreche was in a courtroom when he was fighting for his client’s First Amendment right to criticize a nonprofit’s executive director, for having little to no written evidence of program outcomes. (Where the sitting district attorney, Ted Bell, objected to me taking a photograph in open court of that person, who didn’t have a mugshot, but LaBreche’s client did have a booking photo.)
The public record — including court filings, disciplinary outcomes, FBI tips, and LaBreche’s own released chapters of observations — exists independently of opinion. My previous reporting has laid those materials out in detail, and those materials speak for themselves.
Voters will reach their own conclusions. What deserves examination is how those records are being framed, amplified, and spun in the political arena — particularly by outside voices who have chosen to step into the campaign narrative. Because in this race, messaging has become as central as qualifications.
The landscape voters are navigating
At its core, this judicial primary involves two very different campaign trajectories.
Incumbent Robert Martelle represents continuity — more than a decade on the bench, institutional familiarity, and a network of supporters speaking publicly on his behalf.
Challenger Andrew LaBreche represents disruption — positioning himself around transparency and accountability tied to his public release of materials alleging systemic failures involving past judicial conduct.
Rather than engage exclusively in courtroom philosophy or experience, the conversation has centered heavily on past events:
Public records surrounding institutional awareness of misconduct by former Judge Randy Pool.
Documented records of years of historical facts.
Misrepresentations of programs as local ones when they’ve been state-mandated.
A 2017 impaired-driving conviction from Martelle to LaBreche.
A 2018 driving-while-license-revoked matter was resolved through a prayer for judgment.
Public commentary by supporters, attorneys and former law enforcement officials.
None of those items is hypothetical. They are part of the documented landscape shaping voter awareness.
The record — not interpretation
The 2017 DWI case
Rutherford County court records show LaBreche was convicted of a low-level driving while impaired charge following a crash investigated by the North Carolina State Highway Patrol.
Records reflect:
Alcohol was cited as a contributing factor.
Disposition in district court.
Sentencing ordered by Judge Martelle.
Financial penalties satisfied.
facts exist in public filings accessible through the state court system, where his last name was misspelled.
LaBreche has emphasized personal accountability in campaign statements he has outlined in chapters of observations and proposed policies.
The 2018 license-revocation case
Court files show LaBreche pleaded guilty to driving while license revoked for impaired revocation, resulting in a prayer for judgment continued.
All assessed financial obligations were paid. No outstanding balance remains.
Judicial discipline history
Separate from LaBreche’s record, disciplinary action involving former Judge Randy Pool resulted in removal from office through North Carolina’s judicial oversight mechanisms.
That outcome demonstrates:
Complaints were investigated.
Findings were made.
Institutional action occurred.
LaBreche’s campaign messaging centers on his interpretation of systemic awareness before formal resolution.
Martelle has not publicly addressed those assertions directly.
That absence is also documented in my previous factual reporting.
Where spin enters the arena
A significant portion of recent narrative escalation has not come from either candidate directly, but from third-party commentary, including a failed 2020 primary candidate for district court judge.
The most widely circulated example comes from retired Highway Patrol supervisor Brian Gilreath, whose lengthy social media post recounts recollections of LaBreche’s case and critiques his campaign claims.
The post represents:
Personal memory, nearly a decade removed from events.
Interpretation of public records.
Opinion regarding integrity and judgment.
It does not represent:
An official investigation.
A court determination.
A sworn, evidentiary finding.
That distinction matters.
It also raises a legitimate question about timing — specifically, why recollections of this nature surface during an election cycle less than a week before early voting begins.
That observation is not an endorsement on my part of LaBreche. It is context.
Direct engagement versus proxy messaging
One of the defining features of this campaign dynamic has been a shocking asymmetry in communication style.
LaBreche has:
Published written material.
Released documentation.
Issued personal statements.
Martelle has emphasized:
Judicial experience.
Professional reputation.
Campaign messaging through supporters and allied voices.
This outlet requested a direct response from Martelle in December 2025 regarding specific allegations involving Pool. Martelle allegedly told LaBreche,
“I’ve heard about it. If I were you, I’d stay out of it,” when discussing Pool’s inappropriate relationships with women.
Martelle never responded to my email. That silence is not interpreted here — merely documented.
But it exists alongside a volume of third-party advocacy defending the incumbent and critiquing the challenger.
Readers can evaluate how much weight they assign to each communication approach before voting.
Perspective — not endorsement
Commentary exists to examine environment, framing, and narrative pressure points.
It does not exist to instruct voters.
So again, plainly: This outlet is not telling anyone how to vote.
The documented court history involving LaBreche is real.
The judicial discipline history involving Pool is real.
The absence of direct rebuttal on certain allegations is real.
The third-party amplification surrounding those issues is real.
So are the chapters LaBreche released.
So is the prior reporting that laid out those materials.
They remain accessible and unchanged by commentary, even if it’s a retired judge, a current attorney, or a retired state trooper.
What ultimately matters
Judicial elections often generate more noise than illumination.
Supporters defend. Opponents criticize. Narratives harden.
But elections are not decided by:
Commentary columns.
Social media threads.
Advocacy posts.
Campaign talking points.
They are decided by voters reviewing available information, including factual reporting rooted in public records.
This race is no different. The documentation is public. The messaging is public. The arguments are public.
Nothing written here substitutes for that information. Nothing written here instructs how it should be interpreted.
The record already exists. Reporting has already presented it. LaBreche’s published material already presents his position. Those elements stand on their own.
And when ballots are cast, interpretation will belong — as it always does — to the public, at the voting booth.