This story was originally published by the Nashville Banner. Sign up for their newsletter.
After her declining fitness for the job became too clear for attorneys on both sides of her cases to ignore, Judge Cheryl Blackburn’s court hid the evidence from the public and media. Another judge's actions kept things under wraps for another two years.
According to recently unsealed filings citing local attorneys, after suffering a stroke in 2021, Blackburn, a Davidson County Criminal Court judge for nearly three decades, struggled with elementary judicial duties. She appeared confused and irritable on the bench, and her court staff scrubbed cases from the Criminal Court Docket and limited courtroom access to keep the public and media from observing her “mental deficits.”
On Tuesday, after a multiyear legal fight by the Banner and following a mandate from the Tennessee Supreme Court, Davidson County Criminal Court Judge Angelita Blackshear Dalton officially unsealed filings from a 2024 case in which defense attorneys called Blackburn’s competency into serious question. Blackburn stayed on the bench for more than a year after the Banner began reporting on her competency, eventually retiring in May 2025 before the files could be unsealed.
The previously sealed motion to disqualify Blackburn from a 2024 rape trial, written by defense attorneys Bernie McEvoy and Melanie Bean, cited the judge’s “apparent cognitive impairment.” McEvoy and Bean also provided sworn affidavits in support of the motion, explaining the research that went into it. They wrote that Randall C. Johnson, the defendant, brought up concerns about Blackburn, after which they began to investigate.
According to the motion, McEvoy interviewed at least seven private attorneys and attempted to confirm the allegations with members of the District Attorney General’s office. He also requested video recordings of Blackburn’s court proceedings but was denied and told only Blackburn could order their release.
“In summary,” the filing reads, “multiple members of the bar report that they have observed the Court to struggle with following legal arguments, both complex and simple. The Court is unable to provide extemporaneous rulings on evidentiary and other issues. Attorneys are often berated when the Court becomes confused and frustrated, despite attorneys making concise legal arguments. This is exacerbated when the matter requires an extemporaneous decision.
“The Court has been observed to struggle reading jury instructions. It is reported the Court has become so confused, she has forgotten whether she was in the middle of a bench or jury trial, or whether she had already sentenced a Defendant.”
To hide her mental state, Blackburn’s staff limited public access to her courtroom. Since the pandemic and Blackburn’s stroke, the filing reads, defendants’ family members were not allowed in the courtroom, and the number of people allowed in the room has been limited to “control the courtroom environment by limiting the number of people in the courtroom and the number of tasks the Court is required to perform.”
“The Court places herself in the position of never having to decide multiple matters at the same time, or in quick succession,” the filing continues. “These efforts have included…ordering cases not to appear on Court dockets or on the Criminal Court Clerk's website when the media or public at large appear to have an interest in the case.”
“That’s shocking,” said Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, about the allegations. “That goes against every understanding that our courts are supposed to be open, that justice is supposed to be open, that people deserve a fair trial. The public needs to have confidence in the courts, and to have confidence they need to be able to observe what happens.
“We don’t have secret courts in the United States. And we certainly don’t have secret courts to somehow protect the judge.”
‘More compelling interests’
In the spring of 2024, conversations about Blackburn hummed across Nashville’s legal community. Attorneys whispered in the halls of the Justice A.A. Birch Building, talking aloud only in sealed court filings. They wouldn’t comment publicly, but their concern was clear — in her mid-70s, after nearly 30 years in one of the city’s most mentally taxing jobs, was Blackburn still competent?
After reporting that Blackburn was falling asleep on the bench, mixing up names, and generally appearing confused on the bench, the Banner intervened to try to unseal the motion that McEvoy and Bean had filed. They also filed two sworn affidavits, both of which the Banner also sought to unseal. In the case file, there was neither a motion from McEvoy asking to seal those documents nor an order from Blackburn doing so, although the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct would’ve required the judge to explain the decision in writing. Eventually, Blackburn agreed to recuse herself.
A few days later, in a separate Blackburn case, defense attorney Kevin Kelly filed a motion to postpone the trial to research his client’s “constitutional rights to have this trial heard by a Judge who is competent to rule on issues related to this trial.”
Despite a lack of opposition to the Banner’s motion to unseal the filings from both the state and the defense, Dalton, the case’s new judge and the colleague who helped save Blackburn’s life after her stroke, denied it, citing “more compelling interests at stake.”
“This Court declines to discuss or confirm any speculation regarding the specific content of the referenced documents,” Dalton wrote at the time. “This Court further finds that the public disclosure of these particular documents, especially at this premature juncture, would likely result in the publication of claims that (a) are currently insufficiently supported, (b) would annoy, embarrass, oppress, or create undue burdens for involved persons, (c) deny involved persons their rights to substantive, procedural, and administrative due process, and (d) delay court proceedings.”
On May 21, the Tennessee Supreme Court ordered those files unsealed. In the decision, Justice Mary Wagner wrote that there was “no compelling interest that would overcome the presumption of openness for judicial records.”
Following a Supreme Court mandate and an order from Dalton, those court filings officially became public Tuesday.
‘The basic functions of a trial judge’
The filing makes significant allegations about several of Blackburn’s 2024 cases, corroborated by attorneys who were present whom McEvoy and Bean interviewed. The motion states that “it is believed” that the facts are also confirmed by Assistant District Attorneys who participated in the cases the filing references. Bean and McEvoy’s affidavits state that the allegations have “been sufficiently and generally confirmed, including by members of the District Attorney General's Office,” but that “formal attempts” to confirm certain information with the DA’s office “were still being attempted” at the time of the motion.
During motion hearings in Johnson’s case, the filing reads, Blackburn was “irritated and confused,” complaining and shuffling papers while the defense referenced transcripts and exhibits they had filed in support of their motions. “In general,” the filing reads, “there was a concern the Court lacked understanding of certain motions the Defendant was attempting to present.”
In particular, the defense filed a motion to dismiss one count of the indictment in which Johnson was charged with the rape of an incapacitated person. The defense made the argument that law enforcement had a duty to collect and maintain evidence related to the alleged victim’s incapacitation. Per the filing, the alleged victim was asked to give a blood sample at the hospital, in part to determine her blood alcohol level. She declined, and officers did not procure one.
The filing states that Blackburn declined to allow an evidentiary hearing on this motion, although the defense had subpoenaed witnesses. The filing alleges that Blackburn said, “[Law enforcement] get to decide what they investigate and what they collect.”
“Counsel was concerned that the Court lacked an understanding of the evidence and argument despite lengths taken to draft the motion,” the filing reads.
Blackburn appeared confused by transcripts of the witness interviews that the defense had filed alongside the motion. “What do you want me to do with these?” she asked. The defense attorneys told her that they were filed in support of the motion. “I think you know where I am going with that one,” she allegedly said, indicating that she’d made up her mind without a hearing.
Blackburn also requested, through staff, that lawyers refile certain motions using names instead of initials, because she was having trouble understanding “who was who.”
“Speak English” in the motions, Blackburn told the defense attorney at a hearing.
In a child sexual abuse trial running parallel to Johnson’s case, according to four attorneys involved in that trial, Blackburn struggled to run her courtroom. Early in the case, defense attorneys attempted to introduce several documents and recordings as evidence. The State did not object.
“Judge Blackburn appeared very confused,” the filing reads. “She repeatedly asked why the defense was attempting to introduce these items. This evidentiary ruling would be simple for a seasoned Judge with the Court's same years of experience.”
Per the filing, as a result of this confusion, Blackburn insisted that motions filed in the case be numbered and entered into evidence as exhibits. Blackburn’s law clerk later contacted attorneys saying they should not have been entered as evidence and corrected the error.
During the same hearing, the filing reads, “Judge Blackburn asked the defense attorney what he wanted her to do in response to his legal argument and evidence in the form of exhibits. He replied that he wanted her to review the evidence, make findings of fact and rule on the motions. Judge Blackburn responded that if he wanted her to do this, he should have included it in his motion.
“Judge Blackburn appeared not to understand the basic functions of a trial judge, which had been set out by motion and with verbal explanation by Counsel,” the filing states.
At a later hearing, the filing alleges, “The Court appeared to be unable to follow the legal argument and unable process legal argument of counsel in real time.” During jury selection, an attorney who was present described the instructions that she read aloud to potential jurors as “word soup.” Later in the trial, Blackburn also appeared confused by an argument over whether or not a certain witness’s statements were hearsay.
“Judge Blackburn appeared confused,” the filing states. “She discussed the issue but did not rule on it or clearly clarify. Both attorneys were left not knowing how the Court ruled, resulting in the State choosing to not use the evidence that was the subject of the objections since the ruling was unclear.”
At closing arguments, the filing states, Blackburn left the courtroom for multiple hours without explanation, despite having previously chastised attorneys for how long it had taken to litigate certain matters. When she returned, she struggled to read the jury charge and pronounce the defendant’s and alleged victim’s names, despite those names having dominated the trial.
“During the pretrial motions and continuing through trial, Judge Blackburn was angry when attorneys made objections and requested side bar discussions,” the filing reads. “She was unwilling to make contemporaneous rulings on objections. She often appeared confused and mentally and physically fatigued by the trial process. The Court engaged in uncomfortable, noticeable pauses midsentence during instances of apparent confusion.”
‘Mental deficits’
In a third case involving homicide and aggravated assault that began in February 2024, the filing states, at least three attorneys observed several additional issues in Blackburn’s courtroom.
“Sometime in 2023 the Court ordered the Criminal Court Clerk to remove the case from any docketing so that the case would not appear on any docket or on the Criminal Court Clerk's website in order to conceal from the public and media when the case would be heard,” the filing states. “It has been reported by multiple attorneys in different cases that the Court has an aversion to media presence. Counsel at bar is concerned these efforts are to further control the environment of the courtroom to limit observation of mental deficits, and to control the number of decisions needed to be made by the Court.”
Early in this case, as in Johnson’s, the defense filed a motion to dismiss one count of the indictment. The State also sought to exclude one of the defense’s expert witnesses. The filing states that Blackburn struggled to understand the legal argument both sides were making.
“Throughout the argument on all motions, the Court appeared confused, unable to follow legal arguments and relevant case law and make rulings,” the filing reads. “After being pressed, the Court made a ruling from the bench, which was most likely legally improper and would significantly affect the outcome of a constitutional trial.”
After “extensively” litigating motions on Feb. 26, 2024, court staff asked attorneys to return to the courtroom at 11 a.m. the following day to re-argue the same things. The state and defense agreed to continue the case, which the court had initially denied, and the court accepted an agreed order between the two sides that mooted the “legally improper” ruling. The hearing was cancelled, and per the filing, “multiple conversations bearing on the Judge's lack of mental acuity occurred.”
During a bench trial in a case dealing with the rape of a child in March 2024, the filing states, Blackburn became agitated with a staff member for not preparing jury instructions. That staffer reminded her that it was a bench trial — a non-jury trial — so jury instructions weren’t necessary.
“It is reported the Court did not respond kindly to the reminder,” the filing reads.
Near the end of the unsealed motion, the attorneys acknowledged the significance and prestige of Blackburn’s nearly three-decade career. Blackburn was an admired veteran of Nashville’s legal community, a well-respected judge for a reason. During the Banner’s initial 2024 reporting on Blackburn, some attorneys said she was still a capable judge and that concerns about her competency were exaggerated. Appointed by then-Gov. Don Sundquist in 1996, she most recently won reelection in 2022 by a commanding margin, with nearly 62 percent of the vote. At the time of her retirement, she was the longest-serving judge on the Criminal Court bench.
“Cheryl Blackburn is my friend, a fabulous judge and a better person,” prominent defense attorney Peter Strianse said in a statement released by the judge’s office upon her retirement, adding that Blackburn was “smart, tough, kind and fair.” Other attorneys described a younger Blackburn as “sharp,” and her rulings as “consistent and firm.”
“Her life is the court," David Raybin, another notable local defense attorney, told the Tennessean. "She has handled some of the toughest cases in Nashville and done just exemplary work with the cases.”
With Blackburn’s stature in mind, McEvoy and Bean wrote, they didn’t take this action lightly.
“Counsel for the Defendant is mindful of the gravity of this motion to an otherwise lengthy and esteemed career of a judicial servant.”
“However,” they added, “the gravity of that concern has been weighed and measured against the gravity of the rights of the accused.”
Widespread sealing
Part of what prompted the Banner’s initial reporting was a larger issue with sealing at the Davidson County Criminal Court. In many cases, sealed documents lacked accompanying orders, despite Tennessee case law requiring one. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s ruling to unseal the motions included an admonition of widespread, unchecked sealing.
“Technology or processes that automatically remove cases or records from public facing dockets should be eliminated,” Wagner wrote. “Except as might be required by statute, sealed cases and records should still appear listed on the public facing docket with properly anonymized titles.”
McEvoy declined to comment for this story, stating he would let the motion speak for itself. The Banner left messages with Bean’s law firm but did not hear back. The Banner sent a list of questions to Dalton through Trial Court Administrator Bart Pickett but did not receive answers in time for publication.
Banner attorney Daniel Horwitz called the Tennessee Supreme Court decision to unseal the filings a “landmark victory.” The ruling has significant implications for transparency in the judicial system and accountability from elected officials — and that reaches far beyond Blackburn.
“Government officials must be held to high ethical standards to make certain their activities are conducted in the public's interest,” reads a Tennessee Supreme Court opinion cited by McEvoy and Bean in the motion. “Furthermore, governments have a responsibility to the public to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to act to reduce the opportunities and incentives for unethical behavior by their officials and employees.”
The details in the sealed motion — and the process behind the sealing itself — speak to the failure of the judiciary to police its own, a willingness to hide errors in spite of the costs.
“There are judges in the courthouse,” one attorney told the Banner in July 2024, “that deserve this type of scrutiny in a much bigger way than Cheryl Blackburn.”
This article first appeared on Nashville Banner and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Young or old, we all love to play board and card games! Those games become even more important when you are indoors and don't have the ability to get outside, like patients in a hospital. Austin Pollack shares the story of students in a Nashville family who have helped re-launch the Red Wagon project to collect games for patients at the Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt.
- Lelan Statom
