DA Spared Removal as Report Flags Years of Delay

An independent counsel has concluded that Rutherford County District Attorney Ted Bell should not be removed from office under North Carolina law, finding insufficient evidence to meet the state’s high legal standard for ouster. However, the report documents years of delay, conflicting explanations, and structural problems in the county’s trial courts that raise new questions about how serious felony cases are prioritized and prosecuted.

The findings stem from a petition filed by Matthew Fenner, the victim in a 2013 assault and kidnapping case, who sought Bell’s removal under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-66. That statute is reserved for the most serious allegations against elected prosecutors and requires proof by “clear, cogent and convincing evidence.”

In a report submitted late Monday, Feb. 2, Independent Counsel Otis Walker concluded that Fenner did not meet that burden. But Walker wrote that the extraordinary length of delay in the prosecutions constitutes “prima facie evidence of impropriety” and warrants close scrutiny.

The report was filed with Special Superior Court Judge Michael Stetzer, who must now decide whether to order an evidentiary hearing or otherwise dispose of the petition.

Background of the case

The underlying criminal cases arise from allegations that leaders and members of the Word of Faith Fellowship church assaulted and kidnapped Fenner in 2013. Five defendants were indicted in 2014 under the prior district attorney.

Bell took office later that year and re-indicted the defendants in early 2015, citing defects in the original charging documents. One defendant’s case ended in a mistrial in 2017. After the assistant district attorney handling the matter left the office, Bell assumed direct control of the prosecutions.

No retrial occurred for the next eight years. A retrial was scheduled for December 2025 in Buncombe County but was canceled after Fenner filed the removal petition. In January 2026, Bell referred the remaining cases to the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys for appointment of a special prosecutor.

Findings of the independent counsel

Walker was tasked with determining whether the delay was improper and whether it amounted to willful misconduct, willful failure to perform duties or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

He concluded that, while the delay was extraordinary, the evidence did not establish the required intent under the statute.

The report credits Bell’s explanations that the delay resulted from staffing shortages, heavy District Court obligations, COVID-19 court shutdowns and Bell’s involvement in related state and federal investigations, including allegations of witness tampering following the 2017 mistrial.

At the same time, Walker noted that the felony prosecutions were not legally dependent on those investigations and that nothing prevented the state from retrying the cases. None of the defendants were incarcerated during the period of delay.

Conflicting explanations

A central theme of the report is the presence of shifting and sometimes inconsistent explanations for why the cases did not move forward.

Fenner’s filings assert that Bell offered different justifications at different times, many of which were not disclosed contemporaneously. One disputed issue involves plea negotiations around 2019 and 2020.

Fenner stated under oath that Bell proposed a felony plea requiring an admission of guilt, asked Fenner to prepare a victim impact statement and then withdrew the offer without explanation. Bell later told the independent counsel that the plea was withdrawn because Fenner was dissatisfied with it, a claim Fenner disputes.

Walker did not resolve the conflict, writing that credibility determinations would require sworn testimony and cross-examination beyond the scope of his informal investigation.

Giglio concerns raised late

The report also addresses Bell’s assertion that Fenner might be subject to impeachment under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Giglio doctrine, which requires disclosure of credibility issues affecting witnesses.

According to Fenner’s affidavit, no Giglio concern was raised during years of delay or plea discussions and was disclosed only after Bell was interviewed by the independent counsel. Fenner maintains the issue involved a clerical error by law enforcement, not his own conduct.

Walker noted the timing of the claim but did not determine whether it was justified.

Court backlog and prosecutorial priorities

Beyond the individual case, the report offers a rare look at Rutherford County’s trial courts.

Former colleagues interviewed during the investigation told Walker that Bell has tried relatively few Superior Court cases during his tenure, averaging roughly one per year in the county. The report also states that available Superior Court terms were not fully utilized.

After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, the first Superior Court trial handled by Bell’s office was a three-day littering case against a local attorney, which ended in an acquittal. Fenner argued that prioritizing that case over long-pending violent felony prosecutions undercuts claims that resources were insufficient.

Contacts with church leaders

Walker also examined disputed contacts between Bell and leaders of the Word of Faith Fellowship.

Bell told investigators that a prominent church leader asked that the charges be dismissed, which Bell said he refused. The church leader denied that dismissal was discussed. Another church leader also contacted Bell seeking dismissal, which Bell said he rejected.

Walker interpreted those interactions as evidence that Bell resisted pressure but acknowledged that his conclusion depended on accepting Bell’s account over conflicting statements.

Loss of evidence and potential prejudice

Fenner’s filings allege that key video evidence of the alleged assault once existed but was never obtained before retention periods expired. Fenner said he repeatedly informed Bell of the recordings, which are now gone.

Walker noted that prolonged delays increase the risk of lost evidence, faded memories and speedy-trial challenges. While he did not find intentional misconduct, the report states that the harm to the prosecution may be irreversible.

What happens next

Under state law, removal of a district attorney requires proof of misconduct or failure to perform duties by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Walker concluded that the standard was not met.

However, the report repeatedly emphasizes that many of the most serious questions cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. Judge Stetzer must now decide whether to order one.

Bell faces a contested 2026 primary election with challenger David Norris. While the report spares him from immediate removal, it leaves unresolved questions about delays in violent felony cases and the operation of Rutherford County’s courts.