|
Suspended Graham County Sheriff Brad Hoxit was in court for four days last week. While he is the third sheriff who District Attorney Ashley Welch of the 34th district has petitioned for removal in the last nine months, this is the only case, so far, to go to trial.
Welch petitioned for Swain County Sheriff Curtis Cochran to be removed in June 2025, and he subsequently retired. Cochran is still facing federal and tribal charges. Cherokee County Sheriff Dustin Smith was asked to step down in February 2026 and complied.
Under North Carolina law, an elected sheriff can be suspended and then removed only through a judicial process. The first step in the process is for a district attorney or county attorney or at least five voting residents in the county to file a petition to the court, we reported.
In January, Hoxit was suspended from office following Welch’s request for removal based on allegations of abuse of power and misconduct. In Welch’s petition to remove Hoxit from office, she described Hoxit as having a “never ceasing obsession surrounding [Graham County Commissioner] Jacob Nelms.”
Nelms was being investigated by the Graham Sheriff's office and ultimately by the state Department of Insurance for allegations of fraud but has not been charged.
In her complaint filed against Hoxit, Welch wrote: “Unchecked power can be dangerous. In this case, [Hoxit] has used the power of his office to obtain search warrants, asked officers under his employ to fabricate evidence against a citizen, and spent numerous resources to target an individual who is the ex-husband of one of [Hoxit’s] romantic interests.”
Smoky Mountain News Editor Kyle Perrotti attended the Hoxit trial, and I talked with him about it. Our conversation was edited for brevity and clarity.
Knoepp: What are the district attorney’s accusations against Hoxit?
Perrotti: One was that he abused the power of his office in the course of an investigation into sitting Graham County Commissioner Jacob Nelms.
Now, there's a conflict because when the Graham County Sheriff's office began this investigation, then-Sheriff Brad Hoxit, who was having his removal heard, was in a relationship with Adrian Nelms, Jacob Nelms' then-wife. The Nelms divorced, and since then, Hoxit married Adrian Nelms. (Note: According to legal filings, Hoxit and Adrian Nelms have since divorced).
So the argument was that he concealed this conflict from the district attorney's office, and even other state investigators working the case, and abused his power to do things like get a tracker warrant for Nelms's vehicles and a data dump on his cell phone.
The other two claims [in the trial] were somewhat tangential. One was that in a conversation with his chief deputy, he wouldn't let the deputy get out of the vehicle, even though the deputy said he was uncomfortable and wanted to be taken home, and it was not kidnapping, but basically just saying that he was holding his chief deputy, Cody George against his will.
And then the third claim was that he'd extorted one of his employees, in the course of the investigation, he'd allegedly had her make up a fake email address, like a burner email, to obtain county records regarding Jacob Nomes. And then he told her, allegedly, that if she told anyone about it, that she'd never work in law enforcement again.
Knoepp: How did they move through these claims during the trial?
Perrotti: The removal hearing is technically neither a civil nor criminal trial, it's basically an administrative hearing, but it played out exactly like a criminal trial, minus a jury. Ashley Welch, the district attorney, represented the state, arguing for Hoixt's removal. And then there were defense attorneys representing Hoxit. The state put its case forward first, called its witnesses, presented its evidence and then the defense. There were opening and closing arguments.
Knoepp: You sat in the courtroom for four days. What was the mood?
Perrotti: There was a curiously large law enforcement presence. The first day, there were a lot of attorneys on hand representing different interests, and a lot of them had remarked that they'd never seen that kind of security presence. They were fully armed with long guns and wearing tactical armor. The Cherokee Indian Police Department (CIPD) SWAT team was on hand. Law enforcement was staged down below the courthouse, and there was actually a command center set up off site that had law enforcement from several surrounding counties. Ashley Welch, the district attorney, at the beginning of each day, at the end of each day, and then for lunch, was escorted in an up armored SUV with two law enforcement vehicles in front and two behind. There were multiple state troopers in the back of the courthouse, where the judge's office and district attorney's offices are.
Note: Perrotti added that he confirmed that a credible threat was the cause of the increased law enforcement presence.
Knoepp: Was there any testimony that stood out to you?
Perrotti: There was audio of a meeting that was actually secretly recorded by Ashley Welch's staff between her and Hoxit, where DA Welsh asked why it was that Hoxit wasn't forthcoming with the conflict, and he said that his attorney, David Wijewickrama [former Graham County Sheriff’s Office attorney], told him not to worry about it.
Well, on the stand, Wijewickrama ... refuted Hoxit's claims, saying that he didn't know of the conflict and that as soon as he did, he resigned.
Knoepp: I know these removal hearings are uncommon, but right now in Western North Carolina with District Attorney Welch, this is the third petition for removal she's filed in the last eight months. Was that brought up at all by the defense?
Perrotti: That wasn't brought up by the defense, but it was kind of an undertone throughout the whole thing. You know, the other sheriffs, Cochran and Smith, are both Republicans, same party as Welch. Hoxit is unaffiliated, but I think he's known as a more conservative sheriff who, in my research, pulled Republican ballots the last 10 years. So it's, in a sense, politically tough for her, but even more so just because of the instability it introduces to her prosecutorial district.
I think she feels like she has to do it because if a sheriff is able to basically undermine the power of the district attorney's office, then it removes that check and balance from the whole system and could compromise the integrity of the whole justice system.
Welch’s argument was that even the sheriff, the most powerful person in a given county, can be subject to accountability.
The judge’s decision on the trial is expected in the next few weeks. |
