Re: “Prosecutors, not TNT, doing the misleading” (Karen Peterson column, 8-16).
Peterson outlined Prosecutor Mark Lindquist’s insidious attempts to manipulate the news, but did not address his attempts to manipulate criminal investigations.
The resources and funds provided to a prosecutor are much greater than those provided to public defenders. The defense relies upon the integrity of prosecutors to not withhold exculpatory material and information. A prosecutor even has a duty to direct law enforcement to follow up on leads that may lead to exculpatory evidence.
Months before the prosecutor first dismissed charges against Lynn Dalsing, Detective Mike Ames informed the prosecutor that there was no evidence implicating Dalsing. This information was withheld from the defense, and only when it was made known were the charges dismissed.
For his honesty, Ames was labeled untrustworthy by the prosecutor. This led to his retirement. Detective Danny Woods resisted the prosecutor’s pressure to conclude that Sheriff’s Deputy Glenda Nissen had sent a threatening letter to a prosecutor. Woods has also been labeled untrustworthy.
What the chilling effect the retaliation against these detectives has had upon other investigations is unknown. What exculpatory evidence has been withheld in other cases is unknown. An untrustworthy prosecution based upon shady tactics robs both the defendant and the victim of the justice they deserve.
(Cain, a Tacoma attorney, is one of three people who have filed a complaint against Lindquist accusing him of trying to improperly influence a judge.)