Former Pierce County medical examiner on prosecutors’ list of impeachable witnesses
Prosecutors have decided there is potential impeachment information against former Medical Examiner Dr. Thomas Clark they must turn over to defense attorneys, despite Clark’s requests to be taken off the “potential impeachment recurring witness list.”
Prosecutors are required to disclose information that could call into question a witness’ credibility, also known as impeachment information. Clark has been the subject of past workplace complaints by employees, which involved allegations he mismanaged investigations and created a hostile workplace.
In response to his requests, the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office wrote Clark March 2: “The disclosure for potential impeachment evidence for prosecutors in criminal cases is extraordinarily far reaching.”
The letter to Clark, provided to The News Tribune on Wednesday as part of a records request, went on to say: the prosecutor’s “(potential impeachment) committee has determined that the allegations of professional missteps made during the course of the two whistleblower complaints is information about which prosecutors are required to give notice.”
Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office spokesman Adam Faber said in a statement to The News Tribune the “committee has determined that there is potential impeachment information regarding Dr. Clark (and other forensic experts as well) that we turn over to defense attorneys. When called as a witness in a criminal case, this information is disclosed.”
Faber noted that, even when prosecutors provide that information to a defense attorney, it’s up to the judge whether it’s relevant and admissible in court.
Court records show prosecutors made a motion in February to exclude the potential impeachment evidence against Clark it provided to the defense as part of a murder trial. It wasn’t relevant, they argued.
The judge granted the motion, which said in part: “The only purpose for admitting the potential impeachment evidence would be to prejudice the jurors against Dr. Clark, his opinions regarding the cause of death, and by implication the State’s evidence. The information has the potential to confuse the issues as the jurors may become unduly interested in the details of the disclosed information and distracted from their primary duty, to declare a proper verdict in the criminal case.”
The motion went on to say: “... the allegations in the complaints are allegations only, and have not resulted in adverse findings to Dr. Clark. They in no way constitute sufficient facts to establish that the State’s witness now has a reputation or character for untruthfulness.”
Jurors convicted the defendant in that murder trial, Lance Gene Francoise Rougeau, and he was sentenced to more than 45 years in prison last month.
Clark announced his planned retirement last year, and the County has since hired Karen Cline-Parhamovich as his replacement.
Clark was the one who ruled the March 3 death of Manuel Ellis a homicide by oxygen deprivation. Ellis died after being physically restrained by Tacoma police, and Clark’s 14-page report said the restraint, body positioning and spit guard placed over Ellis’ face were the most significant factors in his death.
The Ellis family’s attorney, James Bible, told KIRO 7 that he trusts Clark’s analysis.
“We have a finding of homicide by somebody that’s traditionally worked on behalf of the state and had testified on behalf of the state,” Bible told KIRO.
The Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office recused itself from the Ellis case, and Gov. Jay Inslee on Wednesday ordered the Washington State Patrol to investigate Ellis’ death to see if a crime was committed.
