I may be naive, even though I was married to a prosecutor in Pierce County, but isn't the truth the TRUTH and the job of the police is not to "help" the procecutor but rather to tell the truth while under oath. If the truth weakens the prosecutor's case it really is of no concern to the police. Do police actually sit there and wonder if they are weakening the prosecutor's case by telling the truth or giving accurate testimony?

"I would make it impossible for the covetous and avaricious to utterly impoverish the poor. The rich can take care of themselves."
^@^

One of the defense attorneys told me after the hearing that the prosecutor's office has been really sloppy and careless about getting discovery to defendants on time, to the correct address, "forgetting" to send things, etc., and he hoped this decision would encourage the office to comply with the rules concerning procedure for producing discovery. There was some question about whether the delay in producing certain documents, for instance the one that was over a year old, was due to misconduct on the part of the prosecutor's office, or by the Sheriff's Department. It couldn't really be determined at the hearing, but it was clear that somewhere along the chain, a governmental agency had either intentionally or negligently failed to produce the discovery that the defendants were legally entitled to.

I'll answer OlyCop's question and then make a few general observations:

I had attempted to schedule an interview with Det. Mike Hirte and Chief Jim Chamberlain of the Sheriff's Office. I knew they were involved in the case and that they had been in communication with the prosecution, but I was not sure (and still not sure) to what extent, and the prosecution was refusing to say, claiming that they had nothing to do with the case.

At the time, I did not even know what agency Det. Hirte worked for. I asked him in person, and not only did he refuse to answer that basic question, but he refused to provide me with any contact info! I didn't know what his first name was, or even how to spell his last name.

At least two other lawyers contacted the prosecutor's office asking for more information on Det. Hirte and requesting to schedule an interview with him. The prosecutor denied the request, claiming it was unrelated to the case and that it went against "the public interest." We filed motions to compel the prosecution to allow us to do so, and those motions, which were filed as early as April, were not heard in court until June 12.

Despite the prosecution's continued claims that Hirte and Chamberlain had nothing to do with the case, Det. Hirte was added to the prosecution's list of witnesses last week, with no explanation why. Trials were to begin as soon as June 18. We had just been given a list of at least 15 additional witnesses that the prosecution may or may not be calling up and a bunch of extra police reports, including one that someone had been sitting on for over a year. I should qualify the "we" by noting that some of the counsels and pro se defendants weren't even given these documents at all.

All of this would have been bad enough, except that it was an ongoing issue through the enitre year of court proceedings, all of which we documented in numerous briefs throughout the case.

There was a police videotape that we asked for and that the prosecution claimed no knowledge of and no interest in. Yet when we tried to acquire the videotape on our own, the prosecution suddenly became interested in it and told us the tape was destroyed. Then when we scheduled an interview with the police officer who shot the tape, the prosecutor rescheduled the time and date of the interview without asking us and also moved the interview to the prosecutor's office. Then when we arrived for the rescheduled interview, the prosecutor tried to tell us which lawyers and pro se defendants could interview the officer, and which ones couldn't.

This went on and on. Later, during trial, the prosecution purposely withheld information that I believe would have averted a mistrial. However, the prosecution knew that it was losing the case and wanted a mistrial in order to start over. This isn't mere suspicion. I reviewed the transcripts and could clearly see the prosecution's gradual maneuvering into a mistrial. This was further corroborated by the prosecution's sudden changes of tactics for a second trial, which the judge also noted with concern.

Although I'm glad the case is over, I am disappointed that the prosecution deprived us of the opportunity to be exonerated by a jury in the first trial. And that means a lot of people are going to complain that we were hardened criminals who got off on a technicality. Then again, if we had won at trial, the same folks would just complain that the prosecution lost by incompetence and not by the merits of the case. After all, we were arrested, and that's guilty enough.

Beyond that, I remain astounded that people would think a mere allegation of misdemeanor trespass, 2nd degree, amounts to $29,000 of damage, violence against police, putting soldiers at risk, demoralizing the troops, and providing aid and comfort to "The Enemy," and that various comments (not here) have suggested that we should have been beaten up (some were), run over, or even killed. The Port of Olympia even held us responsible for actions supposedly committed while we were sitting in jail!

People have put up a fuss over unsubstantiated damage to a fence and how we supposedly instigated some sort of violence, without recognizing the extent of violence that we as a country are exporting to other parts of the world -- or the extent of violence that has been inflicted by and inflicted upon the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division as a result of the successful departure of the USNS Pomeroy from the Port of Olympia last year, prior to the 3rd Brigade's own deployment a month later. (Almost 40 soldiers from the 3-2 Brigade have been killed since deployment, unknown number wounded, unknown number of Iraqis killed or wounded)

Some people may disagree with our tactics, especially when they have crazy ideas about what actually went on at the Port. But they should lead by example, not by the weight of their keystrokes.

Finally, we are still concerned about the unresolved issue of unknown government agencies spying on the constitutionally-protected activities of local activists, not to mention spying on confidential attorney-client work privilege (and here, I'll note that we know some gov't agencies monitor OlyBlog, and I'm not talking about OlyCop). This issue broke open during the Oly 22 trial, and it may have been partially resolved if the case had continued. Instead we will be pursuing our investigation of this matter through other channels. Legally, of course.

What kind of perks or bonuses,if any, do OPD officers recieve for their collars being found guilty versus being found not guilty?

If another cop, or friend or family member was being tried for something and you happened to be the arresting officer, would you work as closely with the prosecution as you would against your average arrest?