Fabrication of Evidence within Policy in Clark County, WA?
Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, Tony Golik:
I recently attended the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing involving the $9 million civil award owed to Ray Spencer for Clark County's fabrication of evidence that led to nearly 20 years of his wrongful incarceration. Like the Honorable Judge Andrew Hurwitz, I was astonished that in Clark County, it is considered "acceptable practice" for law enforcement to fabricate evidence as long as the officer feels the accused is guilty.
My question for you, Mr. Golik Is this: As Clark County's elected Prosecutor, is this still your position today?
Let's not mince words. We have been at this since before the conviction of John Garrett Smith. Prior to Smith's conviction, you received and ignored an email from a witness with information calling into question the voicemail recording used to convict Garrett Smith of 2nd Degree Attempted Murder. According to the evidence log, VPD entered the iPhone into evidence 38 minutes prior to the incident. Additionally, while the phone was logged into evidence, "it" made two phone calls to Garrett Smith's landline, just prior to capturing the subject voicemail recording.
Since Smith's conviction, you have been provided with expert analysis demonstrating that the voicemail recording was manufactured.
RPC (Rules of Professional Conduct) 3.8(g) requires a prosecutor to make prompt disclosure to an appropriate court or authority when he or she “knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant is innocent of the offense of which the defendant was convicted.”
Is it still your position as the elected Prosecutor for Clark County that it is acceptable for police officers to manufacture evidence as long as they believe the accused is quilty? The citizens of Clark County look forward to your reply.
CC: Senate Law and Justice Committee, House Judiciary Committee