Loyalty obscured objectivity

There is little doubt that deputy prosecuting attorney Shane Smith, in his letter to the editor (March 24), was dutifully trying to demonstrate his loyalty to fellow prosecutor Larry Steinmetz in the aftermath of the police Officer Jay Olsen verdict. Smith blasted columnist Doug Clark for his depiction of Steinmetz as having utilized questionable tactics that may have contributed to such a deplorable outcome. However, Smith raises concerns regarding his own grasp of facts and issues since he blithely ignored Clark’s main point.

Clark criticized prosecutor Steinmetz’s choice not to utilize two witnesses who were present when Shonto Pete contacted 911. They were critical to the case, since the tape was mysteriously erased, and both were eager to testify.

What the witnesses claim directly contradicts the dispatch supervisor’s version wherein he said that Pete acknowledged stealing Officer Olsen’s truck.

At best, Steinmetz’s decision not to call these available witnesses should raise serious concerns in most people’s minds regarding his legal strategy and opens up conjecture as to whose side he’s really representing.

Consequently, fellow prosecutor Shane Smith deserves an “A” for the loyalty and support he renders Larry Steinmetz, but deserves a much lesser grade relative to his objectivity.

Don Bott

Spokane