Roy Moore, Alabama's U.S. Senate candidate at the center of sexual misconduct allegations, has vehemently denied the claims of the women who have stepped forward in recent weeks and called the scandal a "witch hunt" aimed at dismantling his campaign.

While voters on Dec. 12 will ultimately decide whether Moore's political future includes a senate win, as a judge and later chief justice of the state's supreme court Moore was often faced with having to form an opinion on the fate of men charged in sex crime cases.

So how did he treat them?

AL.com reviewed news stories and decisions Moore made during his time on the Alabama Supreme Court and found 16 such cases-- some in which he agreed with court colleagues, and others in which he dissented in favor of the male defendants. One other case was identified from his time as a judge in Etowah County.

Among the cases in which he broke away from his colleagues was one in which he believed jurors should have been allowed to hear evidence that two 15-year-old female victims were in a lesbian relationship.

"It's a mixed bag," said Jenny Carroll, a professor at the University of Alabama's School of Law. She didn't necessarily see a pattern of Moore siding with sexual offenders, but said he tended to make "close calls" in several cases.

AL.com provided the Moore campaign with copies of the following opinions and the basis of this story, but two officials with the campaign did not respond to requests for comment. Moore, with a couple exceptions, has not responded to questions from reporters over the past few weeks since allegations first surfaced.

Moore served as an Etowah County circuit judge beginning in 1992. He was elected to the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in 2000, but was removed from that position in 2003 for not following a federal order to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments he placed in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. However, Moore was again elected to the Chief Justice position in 2012 and took office in Jan. 2013. He was again removed in 2016 for defying another federal order, this time regarding same-sex marriage.

Throughout his years on the bench in Etowah County and on the state supreme court, Moore has had occasions to rule in cases involving sexual abuse, rape, and sodomy. Sometimes he has been in the minority on rulings before the Alabama Supreme Court, and in one case, a federal appeals court reversed a ruling Moore made as a state court judge.

Some of Moore's opinions from his time on the Alabama Supreme Court, like in the case of David Pittman, fell outside the "norm" among other jurists-- but, these were discretionary decisions and not outside the bounds of "permissible rulings," Carroll said.

Pittman pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to 102 months' imprisonment, split with 24 months to serve. Moore wrote in his dissenting opinion, "The facts before us indicate that Pittman filed his motion...on the admissibility of evidence of the complaining witness's sexual history to show that the complaining witness had a motive to lie about having been raped by Pittman. The first basis for Pittman's motion was to argue he was not the source of the complaining witness's sexually transmitted disease."

"Instead, it appears Pittman was unable to confront his accuser, to cross-examine the complaining witness and her parents, and potentially to discredit the complaining witness's testimony," Moore wrote.

Moore's opinions on some of the sex crime cases he reviewed while on the court showed, according to Carroll, that he tends to have outlying opinions, especially on the topic of sentencing guidelines and issues involving evidence.

Carroll said the rulings show Moore's interpretation of law in those areas differ from those of his former colleagues.

For example, in the case of James Ware, Carroll said Moore's opinion was "off base." She said legal experts would expect a ruling like his in the early days of forensic DNA evidence-- the early 2000's-- but not in 2014.

Ware was convicted in 2008 of first-degree rape, robbery, and burglary. According to the court's majority opinion, Ware broke into a University of Alabama student's room, where she was sleeping, and raped her twice. He left her blindfolded and with her feet bound with an electrical extension cord. Moore concurred with his colleagues to reverse Ware's burglary and robbery convictions but dissented with his fellow justices who had affirmed the rape charge. He wrote in an opinion, "Other than the DNA evidence, no witnesses or evidence was presented that would identify the rapist in this case," Moore wrote.

In other cases, Moore's rulings seemed out of step with modern legal principles- particularly in the area of rape shield laws (which are designed to protect victims from inquiries into their prior sexual history), Carroll said. For example, in the case of Sherman Tate, Moore ruled that evidence the two 15-year-old victims were in a relationship with each other should have been admitted to demonstrate that they "colluded" in their accusation.

"Not only is this ruling inconsistent with other court's rulings, but it was inconsistent with Moore's fellow Alabama jurists," Carroll said. "I think that's a red flag," she said about Moore's stance.

Tate was accused of "engaging in deviate sexual intercourse" with the two girls whom he mentored at a Mobile youth advocate program. Moore said Tate, of Eight Mile, should have been allowed to present evidence that the victims were bisexual. "I believe Tate should have been permitted to offer in his defense evidence of the existence of the two victims' "romantic relationship" with each other, evidence I believe could be relevant to the victims' alleged bias against Tate or their collusion...," he wrote.

Moore wrote the girls' supposed relationship with each other would not be barred from trial under the state's rape-shield law.

During Moore's first stint on the Alabama Supreme Court, he concurred with his colleagues on a 2001 decision involving the case of a man--only identified by the initials D.L.H.--who was convicted of first-degree rape by forcible compulsion, one count of first-degree sexual abuse, and two counts of first-degree statutory rape. He petitioned the state's highest court to review his convictions. The court did review his case, but affirmed the appeals court ruling.

D.L.H. said the trial court did not correctly apply the rape-shield law, because he was not allowed to rebut the victim's testimony and introduce evidence that could have impeached the victim's testimony.

Moore did not publish an opinion.

In other cases, like the Ernest Randy Judd case, Carroll noted that Moore took steps to protect the victim as she testified. Moore presided over Judd's trial when Moore was a circuit court judge in Etowah County.

Judd was convicted by a jury in 1994 of two counts of first-degree sodomy and three counts of first-degree sexual abuse. He was sentenced to two concurrent 30-year terms on the sodomy convictions and three concurrent five-year terms on the convictions for sexual abuse. According to previous stories from The Birmingham News, in 2001 the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the public was wrongly removed from a Gadsden courtroom when then-Circuit Judge Moore asked spectators to leave during a 14-year-old girl's testimony. The victim was testifying that her adoptive father-- Judd-- sexually abused her.

The federal appeals court said Moore's decision violated Judd's constitutional right to a speedy and public trial and sent the case back to a federal judge in Huntsville.

Their ruling said the Judd case involved "total closure" to the public, rather than partial closure in which the press and family members of the parties are allowed to remain. The panel described the total closing as a "drastic remedy," unsupported by any testimony, and said Moore did not follow procedures established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Previous news stories state Moore cleared the courtroom out of fear that the public presence might have had a detrimental effect on the victim.

Carroll said this ruling too seems out of step with modern legal doctrine which requires decisions to exclude the public from the courtroom be made only in extraordinary circumstances which, according to the federal court that reversed the conviction, were not present in this case.

"Taken as a whole, Moore's decisions reveal a disturbing pattern," said Carroll, "not because he favors one side over the other, but because he seems unable or unwilling to produce decisions that consistently conform with established legal norms."

"It's one thing to challenge a line of legal thinking by explaining its flaws or why it should not apply in a particular case, but Moore seems to disregard legal doctrine whenever it suits his particular sense of what 'ought to be done.' Such lawlessness from the bench both undermines the judiciary and disrupts the rule of law," she said.

One dissent by Moore in the sex abuse case of Eric Higdon became fodder for Luther Strange, who was Moore's opponent in the Republican primary. Strange ran a TV ad blasting Moore's opinion.

Higdon was an intern at Momma's Place Christian Academy, a day-care facility where his duties consisted of cleaning and supervising children. Court records show Higdon accompanied a 4-year-old boy at the daycare to the bathroom in 2012, where he sexually assaulted the child and performed oral sex on him. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Higdon's conviction for first-degree sodomy of a child less than 12, but reversed Higdon's conviction for first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed their decision on the forcible compulsion charge.

Moore wrote in his 2015 dissent, "Because there was no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury under this definition, or of an implied threat of death, Higdon cannot be convicted of sodomy in the first degree 'by forcible compulsion.'"

In a recent story The New York Times noted that while Moore has been conservative on social issues, he has been known to be sympathetic to convicted criminals in crimes not related to sexual misconduct.

Among the cases The Times noted was that of Lee Carroll Brooker, a 77-year-old Houston County man serving a life without the possibility parole sentence for his 2014 conviction for possession of a few pounds of marijuana.

Moore concurred with his colleagues in denying Brooker's appeal. But he didn't like it. "Brooker's sentence is excessive and unjustified," Moore wrote in a separate special opinion.

Moore was outspoken as a member of the Alabama Prison Reform task force in 2014 about the state's habitual offender law that has resulted in three-time convicts serving life without parole sentences for non-violent crimes. "I'm concerned about the sentences we are rendering," Moore said. "I think the habitual offender law is being applied unfairly."

Matt Lembke, a Birmingham appellate lawyer who has argued cases in front of Moore, told The Times that "(Moore) consistently was more interested in the arguments of the criminal defendants than many of his colleagues." He said, "And I think that stemmed from a distrust of government power reflected in his judicial philosophy."

Below are several other opinions AL.com reviewed. All information below comes from court records and Alabama Supreme Court rulings in the case. Opinions written by the court are linked.

Lanice Bonds: Dissenting opinion Moore wrote in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in April 2016.

Bonds, a police officer, pleaded guilty to engaging in sex acts with a 16-year-old student while he was working as a school resource officer at Dothan High School. While Moore said he would have granted Bonds' request for the Alabama Supreme Court to review the case, Moore did not write any details as to why.

He did write that he does "not condone the behavior engaged in" by Bonds.

Robert Simmons: Dissenting opinion Moore wrote in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in June 2015.

Convicted of sexually abusing and sodomizing his 6-year-old stepdaughter in 1986. Moore wrote in his opinion there were several factors that could have "create[d] a legally sufficient doubt as to Simmons's guilt in the minds of the jurors." Moore said Simmons was entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on his claims of ineffective counsel.

R.C.W.: In this May 30, 2014 opinion Moore agreed with the majority on the Alabama Supreme Court against the defendant.

R.C.W. (only identified by initials in the court records) was convicted of first-degree rape, incest, first-degree sexual abuse, and two counts of first-degree sodomy. He was sentenced to life in prison, but the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his convictions. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the appeals decision and remanded the case back to the appeals court.

Records show at trial R.C.W.'s daughter testified that the sexual abuse she suffered from her father started when she was 9 years old, and continued until she was 13. Another of R.C.W's daughters, and a third girl, also testified that he had sexually abused them at a young age.

Charles Marquis Simmons: Dissenting opinion Moore wrote in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in June 2014

Simmons was convicted in Lowndes County for having sexual contact with a student less than 19-years-old. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, which reversed the judgment. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision and remanded the case, stating the circuit court could exercise its jurisdiction unlike the appeals court ruled. Moore dissented.

"The majority opinion, in trying to uphold the circuit court's jurisdiction in this case, denies Simmons his constitutional and statutory right to demand a copy of the accusation and so deprives Simmons of his liberty without due process of law," he wrote.

Terry Tatum: Dissenting opinion Moore wrote in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in October 2014

Tatum was convicted of two counts of first-degree sodomy and one count of first-degree rape, and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for each conviction. He petitioned the state supreme court to review his conviction, but the court denied his request.

Moore wrote that he would have granted the request. In 2013, Tatum filed a motion for sentence reconsideration, but the motion was denied. "Because [state code] requires circuit courts considering a motion for sentence reconsideration to order the Department of Corrections to submit to the circuit court an evaluation of an inmate's behavior while in prison, I believe... Tatum is entitled to certiorari review of [the lower court's] decision," Moore wrote.

Davon Lashon Davis: Dissenting opinion Moore wrote in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in January 2015

Davis was convicted in Houston County of committing domestic violence by strangulation or suffocation and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The appeals court upheld his conviction, but Davis asked the state supreme court to review his case. They denied his request; Moore however, dissented.

The charges came after Davis went to his ex-girlfrend's house to retrieve some of his things, court records state. The victim threw some of Davis' things out of the window, and Davis grabbed her by the throat and threw her against the wall. The victim could not breathe or speak while she was being held by her throat, but she did not lose consciousness. Davis eventually threw her to the ground.

Moore wrote, "Davis argues that, because [Alabama code] does not define 'asphyxia,' the definition of 'asphyxia' is unclear and that it is unclear whether a professional medical opinion is necessary to establish asphyxia. I agree."

"Davis's conduct was reprehensible and certainly deserves to be punished. Grabbing a person by the throat and throwing her to the ground certainly is punishable as assault in the third degree or as menacing...We cannot allow someone to serve a 30-year prison term if the only basis for his conviction is a vague statutory provision," Moore wrote in his dissent.

John Swain: Dissenting opinion Moore wrote in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in February 2015

Swain was convicted in Houston County of sexual abuse of a child less than 12 years old, and was asking the state supreme court to review his case. The court denied his petition, but again Moore dissented.

Moore wrote that the victim's babysitter discovered Swain-- the victim's mother's boyfriend-- had been sexually abusing the 7-year-old victim. Swain's first trial resulted in a hung jury, and he represented himself in the second trial where he was convicted. Before his sentencing, Swain filed a motion to have an appellate lawyer appointed. Moore argued Swain did not know he would withdraw his waiver of counsel during the second trial, Moore said Swain should have been given a new trial.

Howard Carl Whited: Moore dissented against the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in February 2015.

Whited was convicted of first-degree sodomy and sentenced to 35 years in prison. The appeals court confirmed his conviction, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for a new trial, based on Whited's claim of ineffective counsel.

According to court records, the 14-year-old victim lived with her father at an apartment complex, where Whited often visited. The victim said Whited had once groped her, and she told the school nurse. One night in May 2005, she said Whited, her father, and another man were in the apartment and she went to bed. She said at some point, the three men entered her bedroom and sexually assaulted her.

Moore dissented in the case, but did not write an opinion.

Carless Ledon Wagner: Moore concurred with another justice's dissenting opinion in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in September 2015

In 2007, Wagner pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree rape and one count of first degree burglary. He was ordered to serve 5 years in prison followed by 5 years of probation. In 2014, prosecutors argued Wagner violated conditions of his probation and his probation should be revoked. The appeals court said Wagner had not violated his probation, but the supreme court disagreed and remanded the case.

Moore dissented and concurred with Justice Murdock's opinion that the appeals court made the right decision.

Michael Brandon Kelley: Moore concurred with the majority opinion in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in November 2015

Kelley asked the supreme court to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision affirming his conviction and death sentence for two counts of capital murder and his life sentence and conviction for one count of sexual torture. The supreme court reversed Kelley's sexual-torture conviction, and Moore concurred.

Court records show the issue in Kelley's sexual-torture sentence was that the trial court did not state a sentence, but entered a written order with the life sentence included.

"The Court of Criminal Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review Kelley's sexual-torture conviction. However, Kelley's argument that that lack of jurisdiction rendered the entirety of the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion merely advisory is unpersuasive. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment insofar as it affirms Kelley's sexual-torture conviction, and we remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion," Justice Parker wrote. Moore concurred.

Richard Eugene Demouey: Moore concurred with the majority opinion in favor of the defendant while Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice in March 2016.

Demouey was convicted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a child under the age of 12 and first-degree sodomy. The 14-year-old victim testified during trial, where the courtroom was closed to all spectators during the victim's testimony. On appeal, Demouey's convictions were overturned because the State had failed to show a total closure of the courtroom met the requirements of the four-prong test set forth in case law.

The state supreme court denied to review the case, and Moore concurred.