Whistleblower FILE COPY.pdf
GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT - RETALIATION
Violations of state or federal law or County ordinance
Conduct At Issue Disclosures Untimely - The PCPAO is not meeting its obligation to
timely disclose “Brady” materials. Negotiating deputies do not receive
“Brady” materials as a matter of routine before the omnibus hearing,
and commonly not at pre-trial or earlier. Disclosures may be triggered
at the time trial subpoenas are issued, but that late date prejudices most
defendants who do not then have the benefit of “Brady” material when
considering a plea.
• No Training Nor Access - The PCPAO has not effectively
communicated its “Brady” policy to its DPAs. The DPAs are not trained
on the policy. The office lacks procedures to ensure “Brady” materials
are timely disclosed. DPAs do not know who is a “Brady” witness.
DPAs do not know how the “Brady” disclosures are accomplished or
when the disclosures are provided to defense counsel.
• Vengeful Application - Mark Lindquist publicly and aggressively
labeled the two officers known to have been critical of him as “Brady”
officers, (Ames and Woods) but other officers who are known to have
been dishonest or whose honesty has been questioned have never been
labeled “Brady” officers. The PCPAO fails to identify officers who are
dishonest and in other instances label officers who have not been
dishonest “Brady” officers.
ii. Law Implicated - CrR 4.7(h)(2) and CrRLJ 4.7(g)(2) and the common
law. See attached table of authorities.
b. Intimidating Public Servants/Witnesses
Conduct at Issue •
Disparate Treatment of Declarants: On or about May 1st of 2014
in the matter of Ames v. Pierce County, 13-2-13551-1 a number of
members of the local bar filed declarations to oppose efforts to
sanction Det. Ames and his attorney for seeking a name clearing
hearing against the PCPAO. When the declarations were filed,
PCPAO leadership disseminated a list of the declarants to DPAs.
Supervisors instructed DPAs to discriminate against these