Spokane7
60°
March 19, 2009 in City
In Olsen case, responsibility lies with prosecutor
Sure, the jury blew the Jay Olsen verdict.
Like all of you, I’m enraged that a boozed-up, off-duty cop shot Shonto Pete in the head and got away with it.
But as long as we’re playing the Olsen Acquittal Blame Game, let’s start at the right place:
Larry Steinmetz.
Like a coach in a Super Bowl, this was the deputy prosecutor’s Big Moment to win or lose.
And now, when it’s too late to do anything about it, we’re beginning to learn why the battle was lost.
Steinmetz’s decision to not bring Michael R. Dale back to court, for example, strikes me as the sort of managerial blunder that could get a coach canned.
Dale would have directly countered the testimony of Marvin D. Tucker, the Spokane Police Department’s dispatch supervisor.
Tucker testified that during a 911 call, Pete told him he stole Olsen’s pickup.
That’s what I’d call a bombshell. Olsen’s claim is that the truck theft was the crime that precipitated a wild chase and the shooting.
“Pete never said that,” Dale told a reporter after the verdict. “I was three feet from him.”
That is what Dale would have testified had Steinmetz brought the man back to the trial.
And that’s how you turn a bombshell into a soggy firecracker.
Dale, after all, was the guy who called 911 after a bleeding and frightened Pete showed up at his door one dark and cold February morning two years ago.
So whom does a jury believe?
A cop crony who has no taped evidence to back his claim?
Or Dale – the Good Samaritan who took Pete into his home and had an eyewitness view of all that happened?
Pete, of course, was acquitted in a separate trial of stealing Olsen’s truck.
Unfortunately, the jury never got to hear that little nugget.
Steinmetz seems like a truly nice guy. I logged a couple of days in court, and I’ve never seen a milder-mannered or softer-spoken prosecutor.
Imagine Mister Rogers as a trial lawyer and you’d have a pretty good idea.
And I’ll give Steinmetz credit for good intentions in not recalling Dale.
“It would have been very, very difficult for him to get back over here,” he said in Karen Dorn Steele’s revelatory front page story Wednesday about the Olsen trial aftermath.
“I didn’t want to put his health in jeopardy.”
Aw, isn’t that sweet?
Good intentions don’t always win court cases, alas.
It’s true that Dale, who lives over on the West Side, is apparently in ill health. But in the aforementioned story, Dale sounded more fired up than Steinmetz.
He told Dorn Steele he would have been glad to make another appearance, because “justice has failed to be done simply because Tucker has lied.”
I seriously wonder whether the Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office ever realized how important to the community the Jay Olsen trial was.
The acquittal has spawned the deepest distrust in our Police Department and judicial system that I’ve ever seen.
Olsen’s acquittal was a DISGRACE!
And as a final jab in the eye, we taxpayers must now give Olsen $153,000 in back wages and something called “estimated overtime,” whatever the heck that is.
A lot of people are probably hoping Olsen uses his windfall as “get outta town” money.
Not me. I say he stays put.
In fact, I’d like to see Olsen use his loot as a down payment on his own nightclub.
He could compete with Dempsey’s Brass Rail, the cocktail lounge where Olsen was downing stiff drinks prior to engaging in gunplay.
I even know what he could call his new place.
“Olsen’s Brass Cartridge” – the world’s first gay bar/shooting gallery.
Doug Clark is a columnist for The Spokesman-Review. He can be reached at (509) 459-5432 or dougc@spokesman.com.
Recent stories by Doug Clark
Doug Clark: Roskelley’s candidacy is all downhill from here May 27, 2012 15- Clark: No clear inspiration for ‘Spokane Motel Blues’ May 24, 2012 6
- Professor’s ‘Motel’ mystery needs you to solve it May 22, 2012
- Clark: City ordinance shows lack of sound thinking May 20, 2012 21
- Doug Clark: Many wrongs, one big right in Zehm case May 17, 2012 24
ChefGus/ John Olsen on March 19 at 8:32 a.m.
So I do not remember…. but is not the “Prosecutor” an elected position… ? and if so.. how did he get elected a second time…? and also what if any recourse is there through a “recall” process, or for being fired by the County Commissioners??? there has to be a better way to get citizen complaints prosecuted with an effective attorney…. “Nice” does not cut it in a court room…. and is no excuse for not doing the job in the same way that even an average citizen can see would have worked better? john
reederbay on March 19 at 8:53 a.m.
The first mistake they made was in having a Spokane County prosecutor handle this case. They work in close relationship with the Spokane Police Dept and are dependant on them for their cases. They should have brought in a prosecutor from outside the county who would not be concerned with how this case could affect future relationships with the department. Also, if Steinmetz didn’t recall the 911 witness because of concerns for the witness’s health, he could have tried to have the witness testify by telephone.
SpokaneIsFun on March 19 at 9:56 a.m.
Not to armchair the jury but, my husband and I are both Law Enforcement and WE were both shocked at the juries outcome. This is an excellent article and was written by someone that understands the system. I am sure that Spokane PD has many great officers, I just hope that the Police Chief does the right thing and gets rid of this bad apple.
1960 on March 19 at 10:11 a.m.
I believe that the police guild had a talk with the prosecutor in this case and said something like lose the case or else we as a group will botch cases before you can try them. And think about the fear the jurors have knowing the police have their information and could retaliate for giving an unfavorable verdict. The SPD is a force to be afraid of and has shown to be murderous and vindictive.
Ron_the_Cop on March 19 at 10:44 a.m.
Chef Gus,
I couldn’t agree more. County Prosecutor Steve Tucker is an elected County official. The prosecutor in this case is an employee of and responsible to Tucker. The Board of Commissioners has no authority over Tucker other than approving his budget. Tucker is elected to office because no other credible candidate have chosen to run against him. Tucker has been backed by the S-R twice so far when running for office. I’m told on most days you can have an audience with Tucker at the 19th hole of the Downriver Golf Course or The Globe. Doug has commented on Tucker’s activities in the past. Does that give you some insight:-)
I posted a related comment in Camden’s thread the other day and will post as a separate comment here as it is relevant. In the meantime here’s an email I sent to Doug Clark re his assessment of the prosecutor and my opinion of Tucker’s job performance
*****
Doug,
I don’t know if you saw my post at “A Matter of Opinion” but sometimes we do think alike:-). As you are aware there is another important case that the Co Prosecutor’s Office is currently dithering on. Steve Tucker has sought a limited review of this case by the State AG. I’m smelling a setup here and will post an analysis later. Bottom line is no one has done the underlying criminal investigation that is necessary. Key witnesses have not been interviewed. See my followup letter to Sheriff Knezovich and Chief Kirkpatrick … http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=116
Based on my professional experience there is strong probable cause for issuing a criminal complaint. This case needs to go to trial so that a jury can weigh the facts and decide if anyone is guilty of manslaughter. Steve Tucker shouldn’t be allowed to dump this case. Those who have responsibility for doing a criminal investigation are all passing the ball around the bases without throwing the ball to home plate.
dianawaldvogel on March 19 at 11:07 a.m.
I think it is high time that this department creatrs a internal affairs department,as this is just one of many injustices of the police department and sheriffs derpartments in Spokane.Its time that they be held accountable for their actions or in some cases lack of action as in my sons murder case.
Ron_the_Cop on March 19 at 11:13 a.m.
Here’s my previous post in Camden’s thread the other day regarding the Olsen verdict
*****
Ron_the_Cop on March 17 at 3:13 p.m.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/opinion/2009/mar/13/officer-olsen-not-guilty/#c22744
CheGus,
Nice to see you’re back in town. Just a little perspective from my point of view. I haven’t spoken with anyone inside the PD on the Olsen shooting. I’ve just read the S-R reports and listened to Mark Fuhrman when his show was on.
Olsen was way out of line re police policy/procedure and tactics. If the jury had decided to hold him to the level of a police officer they should have convicted at least for “reckless endangerment.” Without sitting in court and hearing the evidence I’m speculating the defense was able to convince the jury to hold Olsen accountable to the standard of an ordinarily citizen. Of course the testimony of the dispatcher saying Pete admitted to taking the car gave rise to some reasonable doubt (Mind we have another tape missing). It then comes down to state of mind of Olsen and what he believed Pete was doing that caused him to be in imminent fear for his life. The defense apparently was able to sway the jury in this direction. The jury is what the jury is and whether good or bad brings the perspective of ordinary citizens into our criminal justice system.
In my 35 year tenure as a police officer we lost six officers alone from gunshots. This is not to mention many more from surrounding agencies. Hesitation can kill. On the other hand Olsen did not display good tactics and judgment that somewhat precipitated the events.
Don’t get me wrong the Spokane PD is in need of major reform but from what I’ve seen the majority of street cops I’ve seen are hard working and trying to do a difficult job for many different constituencies. If there is anyone to find fault with I would look at the County Prosecutor’s Office for not making a compelling case in front of the jury. You are very well aware of my concerns re this office involving another manslaughter case that they are currently dithering on whether to file.
Ryan Pitts on March 19 at 11:50 a.m.
NOTE TO READERS: Two versions of Doug Clark’s column were inadvertently published to the website this morning, and both began to generate comment threads. This is the final version of the column, so I have moved all comments here and deleted the duplicate.
I apologize for any confusion, and we are working on this issue in order to avoid duplicate versions of stories in the future.
jenny on March 19 at 2:21 p.m.
Pete, not guilty of stealing Jay Olsen’s truck, not guilty of threatening Olsen is getting a raw deal here. The jury should be mad because they did not get all the facts. I agree with Clark that the jury may have been afraid to rule against Jay Olsen as he gets preferred treatment from the police department. His head shots could be headed in the jury’s direction if they ruled him guilty which he was. Thanks to Clark for pointing all that out.
jenny on March 19 at 2:24 p.m.
Pete, not guilty of stealing Jay Olsen’s truck, not guilty of threatening Olsen is getting a raw deal here. The jury should be mad because they did not get all the facts. I agree with Clark that the jury may have been afraid to rule against Jay Olsen as he gets preferred treatment from the police department. Thanks to Clark for pointing all that out.
flutieflakes on March 19 at 6:03 p.m.
fcuk the police
cflowers on March 20 at 2:03 p.m.
The thing is it is outrageous that Olsen was found innocent. I also agree that it is because the prosecutor did a poor job. The thing about Larry S. is he is the boring- est person to have to sit and listen to, seriously. Obviously no one prepped Pete on how to be a believable witness. There is just more to it than that 911 call…jury instructions???
BulletProof on March 22 at 6:28 p.m.
Ok jurors check out this credibility. Olsen Lies to his family and the police department for 16 years about being gay. Olsen drinks and drives to Dempsey’s bar while having a loaded gun and enters the bar with the gun, against police policy and the law. Also, why was his friend’s seat still in a reclining position after his so called high speed chase after his vehicle? It was a lie. His friend also said that Pete was wearing a black jogging suit with a big white stripe going down the sleeves and across the back and he was also wearing a hat backwards. Pete was on camera at the Davenport clearly NOT wearing a hat and had no stripes and was wearing blue jeans. Let’s see, what else? There were no fingerprints and no DNA inside of the truck that belonged to Pete. Also, the crime lab did extensive tests of fibers off Pete’s coat that didn’t match to fibers tested on the truck seat AND dog hair that was found on the seat and Pete’s coat and they did not match up.They were two different dogs. Now that’s CSI physical facts that don’t match up to Olsen’s lies when he tried to make everyone believe that Pete had stolen his truck. How about moving a so-called stolen vehicle from the crime scene? If it was stolen why move it? A 16-year veteran cop must know better than to tamper with evidence if it was evidence? And don’t say you are privileged now because you are gay. Main drives the wrong way in the same truck that is claimed to be stolen on a one way and gets pulled over. Ok, some how Pete was shot in the back of the head while he was facing Olsen. Explain that one. Does Olsen have top secret “Roger Rabbit” bullets? Here’s another one from Olsen. Pete supposedly turned on Olsen again after running away from him on a steep incline going downhill. This was supposed to have occurred after Pete had already been shot in the head. When you’re being shot at and have nothing to return fire with, you don’t turn around and face your assailant, you run!! Now, Pete was interviewed in the ER room an hour or so after being chased, shot in the head, injected with a highly potent pain killer, intoxicated. Also a bullet had been pulled from his head, he was in post traumatic stress, had blood loss, and his head had been stitched up. Pete had a massive concussion due to all this and there was bleeding on the brain. Now tell me exactly what you can remember, hours before, under that duress? That’s the only time Pete’s story ever changed. On the other hand, Olsen had to be told by the detectives where Pete was standing when he shot him and that was days later when he gave his statement. When Pete went on the hillside with detectives his account of the events matched perfectly with the physical facts, hence the blood trail and the tests done in Olsen pick up truck. Furthermore, Olsen said he was 90 to 95 percent sure he never shot towards any houses. Low and behold, days later after he made that statement there was a bullet found in the same house where Pete left his bloody hand prints banging to get help. There’s more, Olsen never calls for backup. He makes calls to his friend Rene Main, an attorney friend and the police guild. Before that he walks right by one of his fellow officers without even acknowledging himself to him and he was suppose to be so scared. At last, What about the “Damn” statement he made. when he learned that Pete was still alive, “Damn!” This is Olsen who makes the statement that he doesn’t think he hit Pete when he was shooting at him because his shots were fired at the ground. Does that sound like a credible witness to you dear members of the jury.