Final Bar Complaint against Mark Lindquist 06 11 15.pdf


Preview of PDF document final-bar-complaint-against-mark-lindquist-06-11-15.pdf

Page 1 234103

Text preview


Despite repeated requests from Dalsing’s attorney, the prosecutor failed to provide a copy
of the photo for several months. While Dalsing was still in custody facing trial on the charges,
Detective Ames, who recovered the photo from a computer in the Dalsing home, sent an e-mail
that was received by the prosecuting attorney. Detective Ames’ email informed the prosecuting
attorney that Dalsing could not be identified in the photo, and that there was “definitely no link”
between Dalsing and any other child pornography on the computer. The prosecutor did not
provide this exculpatory e-mail to Dalsing or her attorney. Nor did prosecutors inform Dalsing’s
attorney that there was “definitely no link” between Dalsing and other child pornography that
was found. Dalsing remained in custody.
When Dalsing’s attorney finally obtained the photograph, he contacted a detective at
another agency for help. Within one hour of contacting a Tacoma Police Detective, Dalsing’s
attorney was able to unequivocally establish that the photograph did not depict Dalsing. The
photo was determined to be from a known series of child pornography completely unrelated to
Dalsing. The charges against Dalsing were dismissed and she was released, after spending over
seven months in custody and in jeopardy.
Several months later, Dalsing filed a civil suit against Pierce County. The Pierce County
Prosecutor intentionally stalled litigation and withheld discovery for years to avoid providing
Detective Ames’ e-mail to Dalsing. On March 25, 2014, the Pierce County Prosecutor lost his
final bid to avoid providing the e-mail to Dalsing in her civil law suit. Three days later, on March
28, 2014, the Pierce County Prosecutor re-filed new and more serious charges against Dalsing.
The new charges were not based on new evidence, but the Prosecuting Attorney had a new, and
novel, legal theory. The Prosecuting Attorney then argued that the “new” pending criminal
charges alleviated the Prosecutor from providing discovery (i.e. Detective Ames’ e-mail).

2