Lindquist coverage lacks context of the landscape

Q: What’s the difference between a lawyer and God?

A: God doesn’t think he’s a lawyer.

In the last couple of months, The News Tribune has exhaustively reported on a string of scandals within the Pierce County Prosecutor's Office. Front-page stories, backed by pages of followup, cite numerous instances wherein the county's elected prosecutor, Mark Lindquist, has allegedly run roughshod over criminal defendants, defense attorneys and even a few sheriff's deputies.

This embarrassing situation recently escalated when a judge ruled in favor of a recall against Lindquist that could place his future in the hands of voters.

Lindquist's critics have found a friendly ear in the TNT, which has chosen to air their grievances in many lengthy articles. The community is fortunate that their local paper is so dedicated to probing local stories.

But . . . (did you sense that coming?) I have an issue with the TNT's coverage. Before I get on my high horse, however, it is only fair to mention that Lindquist and I are friends. So if you're still reading, now is the time to crank up your bias filter to whatever feels right.

In truth, nothing that has been said about our elected prosecutor in these pages bothers me on a personal level. Lindquist is confident to a fault, passionate about his job and less concerned about his image than many would believe. Despite an exhaustive schedule filled with meetings, trials and nightly community events, he has repeatedly told me he has "the best job in the county." Handling criticism is simply part of his job.

What's missing in the scathing analysis of Lindquist's performance? In a word, context.

Many of the complaints aimed at Lindquist arise from the aforementioned criminal defendants and defense attorneys. Let's face it, you're not likely to find a happy customer inside the county jail. Or for that matter, will you find many defense attorneys in love with the prosecutor's office (and vice versa). This is a relationship that is at best adversarial – to be fair, that is by design.

During my law enforcement career, I had the opportunity to work in three counties: Snohomish, King and Pierce. What I discovered was that, to a greater or lesser extent, the so-called scandals currently circling Lindquist are present in every prosecutor’s office. While Lindquist has been questioned about the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on private attorneys defending his office, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg has purportedly paid millions for the same purpose.

In most cases, this is simply the cost of conducting the people's business; it points less to the character of the elected prosecutor than it does to the warped reality of the legal system.

Much has been made of Lindquist’s use of a personal cell phone for work, but it must be acknowledged that technological innovation has far outpaced the legal system's attempts to address relevant issues (such as privacy). Pending appeal, the recent ruling against Lindquist is a precedent which should send a chill through every public sector employee who uses a personal cell phone.

Last are the allegations concerning the prosecutor's vindictive behavior towards certain criminal defendants and county employees. Because I lack background knowledge on these complaints, I will not attempt to defend Lindquist's behavior, right or wrong. Instead, I will offer a personal experience.

I investigated a murder in King County a few years ago. A young man displayed gang signs at a resident, and when the resident approached the gang member shot him with a stolen firearm. By the time I arrived at the scene, another officer had the shooter in custody. To sum up: Gang member instigates fight, shoots and kills victim with stolen weapon. A slam dunk, in other words.

Unfortunately not. King County declined to press charges – any charges, including possession of a stolen firearm. The decision so shocked my police chief he demanded that the prosecutor explain it to him face-to-face. I ran the entire case by Lindquist's office (this was before I knew him) and was informed that had it been in their jurisdiction, the shooter would have been charged with homicide.

That should be no surprise to anyone familiar with Pierce County's aggressive pursuit of justice on behalf of crime victims. Time and again, Lindquist's office has made headlines, whether for its lauded conspiracy prosecution against the violent Hilltop Crips or the office's exemplary prosecutions on behalf of elder abuse victims.

None of this should be seen as an attempt to excuse any actual misconduct. Like anyone, our prosecutors – Lindquist included – are capable of making mistakes. But if we are to view the breadth of complaints against his office in the appropriate context, we must be willing to separate fact from innuendo. That's hard to do when one is unfamiliar with the landscape.

And that's no joke.

Brian O’Neill is a Gig Harbor resident and former police officer. He is also a former reader columnist currently working on a crime novel. Email him at btoflyer@comcast.net.

This story was originally published September 27, 2015 at 8:50 PM with the headline "Lindquist coverage lacks context of the landscape."