Three Democrats are vying for the seat of Second District Circuit Judge, Div. 2, that is being vacated by Judge John T. Madden. They are Frederick E. Gardner, Tad Greene, and David W. Hummel Jr.



Frederick E. Gardner has been practicing law at 509 Seventh Street, Moundsville, for over 34 years. Upon his graduation from the West Virginia University College of Law he went to work as an associate in the firm of Rickey, Chase, Chase, and Hyre. He became a partner in that firm several years later, changing its name to Chase, Hyre, and Gardner, later Gardner and Jackson, and finally to Gardner Law Offices PLLC, currently practicing with his son, Jeremiah L. Gardner.

Except for the six years that he was employed as an Assistant Prosecutor in Marshall County, he has always actively represented criminal defendants in the Second Judicial Circuit and throughout northern West Virginia. Gardner has extensive real estate experience and is an agent for First American Title Insurance Company.

Gardner has been active with the Boy Scouts of America and Moundsville Kiwanis Club. He is a charter member of the Ranch Oleo Hunt Club, Viola Sportsman Club, and National Rifle Association.

He is married to the former Mary F. Kennedy who is the proprietor of The Hair Cuttery beauty salon. They have two sons, Jeremiah L. Gardner and Christopher A. Gardner. The Gardners have resided on Little Grave Creek near Glen Dale since 1975.



Tad Greene is a native of New Martinsville. He graduated from Magnolia High School in 1985 and graduated from West Virginia University with a Bachelor of Science in business administration in 1989. Thereafter. Greene obtained a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from the West Virginia University College of Law in 1992, where he served on the Moot Court Board.

After receiving his law degree, Greene worked for McDermott and Bonenberger in Wheeling. Greene is currently employed by Jackson Kelly PLLC and has worked at Jackson Kelly’s Wheeling and New Martinsville offices. Greene’s law practice includes work in a variety of areas, including labor and employment law, insurance law, products liability, contracts, and general litigation.

Greene is a member of the West Virginia State Bar and has served on the Board of Directors for Public Defender Corporation for the Second Judicial Circuit. He was a member of the New Martinsville Rotary Club and obtained a certification as an agent from the National Football League Player’s Association. Greene is a member of the New Martinsville First Christian Church and attends Wheeling First Christian Church. Greene and his wife Ashley live in Mt. Olivet and are expecting their first child in May.



David W. Hummel Jr., is an attorney in private practice at Hummel Law Offices on Seventh Street in Moundsville, where he handles a wide array of legal matters in both State and Federal courts. Additionally, Hummel proudly serves as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and Special Prosecutor.

Hummel, a Democrat, was born and raised in Marshall County. He is a graduate of John Marshall High School. He went on to attain his Bachelor’s degree from Marshall University where he was a Southern Conference Scholar-Athlete. Hummel earned his law degree from the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Okla.

Hummel’s wife, Melanie, served on the Marshall County Board of Education from 1998 to 2006. David and Melanie reside in Sherrard with their two children, David III and Hunter.

David is very involved in community activities. For many years, he has been a youth flag football and basketball coach at the YMCA. Currently, David coaches little league baseball. He also volunteers his time at local schools, amongst other things.

Last April, David was honored by The State Journal as one of the 40 best and brightest professionals in the state of West Virginia.



Do you think the home confinement alternative sentencing program or other community corrections such as the Day Report Centers are successful? Why or why not? Would you suggest any changes?



Gardner: I believe these programs are successful. They can be made even more successful by proper monitoring and the implementation of additional treatment for addiction. If we can successfully treat the addictions, we can save the taxpayers millions of dollars that is being spent to keep and house prisoners. There are, of course, persons who would not benefit from these programs, and the safety of society demands that they be incarcerated in the prison system.



Greene: The first two questions you pose, in my opinion, seek my position on sentencing issues. The first question asks for my opinion on the “successfulness” of home confinement and other corrections programs. The second question asks for my opinion on alternatives to sentencing youthful offenders to the Anthony Center. After reviewing the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, I have concluded that professing my specific views on these sentencing matters may run afoul of Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 5A(3)(d)(ii) prohibits candidates for judicial office from making statements which commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases likely to come before the court. Moreover, the Judicial Investigation Commission has cautioned candidates about expressing their specific views on social and legal issues. Therefore, I do not believe that I can comment specifically on the first two questions posed.

However, the above said, judges have at their disposal several different types of sentencing alternatives. If the facts of the case warrant, judges should explore alternative sentencing programs. Judges must consider, in all sentencing matters, the rights of the victim(s); whether the sentence would serve the interests of justice; and whether the sentence would serve the interests of the communities in which we live. Judges must be cognizant that, in some cases, alternative sentencing programs may be the best option, from both a justice and economic perspective, inasmuch as we, as citizens, are paying for the incarceration of inmates in our jails and prisons.



Hummel: Certainly, there are circumstances where alternative sentencing programs are successful as tools of the criminal justice system. First and foremost on the topic, it is my belief that such alternative sentencing should only be considered for persons who are first time offenders and the crime for which they have been convicted is non-violent.

Not every person who has been convicted of a non-violent crime needs to go to jail. This is particularly true in light of the ever increasing cost to taxpayers. Currently, it costs taxpayers $48.50 per day, per inmate.

Home confinement alternative sentencing programs shift the expense of confinement from the taxpayers to the convicted criminal. Additionally, such alternative sentencing allows for the continued employment of the defendant; thereby, allowing them to earn income which will, in turn, be used as restitution to the victim, if applicable.

One change that I would like to see with home confinement is the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) to guarantee that those in the program are where they are supposed to be and not where they aren’t. One other change that I would like to see is the addition of a Community Service Program as another alternative sentencing tool.



A youthful offender may be sentenced to the Anthony Center, but sometimes the program is not suitable for everyone. What sentencing or alternative to the Anthony Center do you favor and why?



Gardner: At the present time, the only alternative to the Anthony Center is incarceration in the adult prison system. I believe that a separate corrections unit should be developed for youthful offenders between the ages of 18 and 25. Drug and alcohol treatment should be available to every youthful offender in the system.



Hummel: The Anthony Center is an alternative facility for the housing of male as well as female young adult offenders who have been convicted of or plead guilty to violating the laws of the state, but who the court determines may truly benefit from other than traditional lock-down confinement. Young adult offenders are not juveniles as they range in age from 18 to 23. The intent of the center is give young adult offenders a better opportunity for reformation and encouragement of self-discipline.

The warden of the center is required by law to administer programming to the young adult offenders which shall include: (1) a work program; (2) an educational program; (3) a recreational program; and (4) a counseling program with an emphasis on substance abuse and life skills.

If it is determined that the Anthony Center is not suitable for a particular young adult offender, all sentencing options available to the court for adults may be utilized in the sentencing of young adult offenders. For example: (1) jail or penitentiary confinement; (2) home confinement; (3) probation; and (4) day report centers. As with adults, the sentencing of young adult offenders must be handled on a case-by-case basis.



Many of our readers are unfamiliar with the judge candidates. All judges must follow the letter of the law; what can you tell the citizens of Wetzel County about yourself that will make them say to themselves, “This one is unique--I’ll vote for him”?



Gardner: I have been practicing law for 34 years. I have tried dozens of cases before juries in circuit court. I have experience as a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, civil plaintiff’s lawyer, and civil defense lawyer. My extensive courtroom experience is what sets me apart from the other candidates.



Greene: I am staunchly independent; I do not make decisions or reach conclusions on matters simply to please the populace or to “fit in.” Likewise, I am a fervent believer in the independence of the judiciary. I strongly believe, as did the founding fathers of this great country, that judges must decide cases free from popular passion and political influence. As a judge, I will decide cases based solely upon the facts and the evidence presented in the courtroom, and I will apply the law in a fair, impartial manner without regard to any constituency, political or economic. I believe that these are qualities that make me unique and an excellent candidate for judge.



Hummel: Politically, I firmly believe what clearly sets me apart from my opponents is the fact that I am the only candidate who has been a registered Democrat throughout his entire legal career. I am also the only candidate who earned the endorsement of the Marshall / Wetzel / Tyler AFL-CIO Central Labor Council.

When it comes to criminal law, I can proudly say to the citizens of Wetzel County that I have never represented a criminal defendant. I do, however, have vast experience and training in the criminal justice system as an assistant prosecuting attorney and as a special prosecutor. It’s been said, “A tough prosecutor makes for a good judge.”

In my private practice at Hummel Law Offices I represent the legal needs of fellow West Virginians in everything from simple wills and deeds to highly complex litigation involving multi-national corporations and insurance companies. In doing so, I have successfully litigated literally thousands of civil cases with, as well as against, some of the very best attorneys in the country.

Notwithstanding the demands of my legal career, I am actively involved in my community as a multi-sport youth athletic coach, school volunteer, and FFA supporter, amongst other things.