Deposition of Dave McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor - (Civil Service)

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND
DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012
Page 1
IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF WHATCOM CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
In re the matter of:
) )
PAUL MURPHY
) )
___________________________________________________________ DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL OF DAVID S. McEACHRAN ___________________________________________________________
DATE TAKEN: REPORTED BY:
November 8, 2012 BETH L. DRUMMOND, #2064
CORPOLONGO & ASSOCIATES REPORTING & REAL-TIME SPECIALISTS 114 West Magnolia, Suite 429 Bellingham, WA 98225 1(360) 671-6298 info@corpolongoandassociates.com
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: Paul Murphy Lori Murphy DANIEL L. GIBSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney's Office 322 N. Commercial, Suite 210 Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 676-6692 (360) 738-2532 Dgibson@co.whatcom.wa.us For Whatcom County EMILY BESCHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW Law Offices of Robert D. Butler 103 E. Holly, Suite 512 Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 734-3448 (360) 734-7975 Admin@rdbutlerlaw.com For Paul Murphy ROBERT D. BUTLER, ATTORNEY AT LAW Law Offices of Robert D. Butler 103 E. Holly, Suite 512 Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 734-3448 (360) 734-7975 Admin@rdbutlerlaw.com For Paul Murphy A P P E A R A N C E S
Page 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3 22 4 23 24 25 Correspondence Dated 6-17-2008 61 Facebook posting 59 EXHIBIT INDEX EXHIBITS FOR IDENTIFICATION 1 Correspondence Dated 6-12-2012 2 E-mail 5-18-2012 & Notes Murphy File PAGE 13 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. BUTLER PAGE 4 EXAMINATION INDEX Deposition upon oral examination before trial of DAVID S. McEACHRAN in the above-entitled cause, taken at the instance of Robert D. Butler, pursuant to Notice, at Executive Conference Room, 311 Grand Avenue, City of Bellingham, County of Whatcom, State of Washington, before Beth L. Drummond, Certified Court Reporter and a Notary Public for the State of Washington on November 8, 2012 at 10:07 a.m.
Page 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. A. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Good morning, Mr. McEachran. You're here for a deposition related to the matter of Paul Murphy. Do you know Paul Murphy? I do. And in what capacity do you know Paul Murphy? I've known Paul Murphy for a number of years as a EXAMINATION DAVID S. McEACHRAN, having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
deputy sheriff with the sheriff's department. Q. And for purposes of today's deposition, we're
focusing on his termination from the county. Are you aware of the circumstances around that? Yes, I am. And did you participate in any discussions with
anybody leading up to his termination? A. Q. A. I did. And who did you discuss Paul Murphy with? I had a meeting with the sheriff and there were a
number of people at the meeting. The first meeting I can recall is February 9th. And the people present: The sheriff was there; I
Page 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 believe the undersheriff; Inspector Cooley; I think the Chief Criminal Deputy Chadwick was there; Lieutenant Rossmiller; Assistant Chief Deputy Dan Gibson; and, also, Perry Rice. Q. With regards to the February 9th meeting that you
just identified -A. Q. happen? A. Q. A. Uh-huh. -- whose initiation caused that meeting to Did you initiate that or were you invited? No, I was invited. And who invited you? I can't remember, specifically. I think the
sheriff probably did, but it could have been the undersheriff, too; but it was either the sheriff or the undersheriff. Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection of any
conversations with anybody about Paul Murphy and his employment prior to the February 9th meeting that you described? A. You know, in his employment, I guess I've -- you
know, I've worked with Paul on cases, and people have discussed cases and discussed Paul in that relationship. But as far as what you mean "his employment," I talked to a number of people. Q. Termination. Discipline, any pending discipline?
Page 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. No. No. Not that I can recall.
Okay.
When you were invited to the meeting, were
you aware prior to the invitation that Paul's employment was an issue? A. There may have been some discussion about that,
but I -- well, I can't tell you that his employment was at issue. I knew there was a concern about his behavior; however, I can't tell you if it was employment. It was,
certainly, in relation to his employment, but it was not employment at issue, I wouldn't say, per se. Q. All right. When you were at the meeting on the
9th, do you recall, if anything, that you learned at that meeting about any pending discipline or issues related to Paul's employment and pending termination? A. Well, I don't think there was anything about
pending termination at that meeting. Q. A. Okay. It related to behavior in relationship to a
laptop and obtaining that back and how that would be done and if the laptop had been altered. It was really in that regard and the fact that the laptop was going to be taken and examined. really in reference to those facts. Q. What do you recall at a meeting about a laptop? It was
Page 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I recall that there was conversation that the
laptop was a county-issued laptop, and it had been altered. And it had been -- this was discussed at a meeting dealing with SECTOR, which is the infraction software. And there was a request by one of the deputies to obtain the computer, and Paul had indicated a reluctance; that he had a password; and that he had changed out the hard drive from the computer. Q. And was that the first you had learned of a
laptop issue related to Paul Murphy? A. I think that it is. I think that's the first
recollection that I have of hearing that. Q. All right. And with regards to altering a
computer, was that an issue for you? A. Well, it's county property, and it could very
well be an issue. Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other county property
being altered by a county employee? A. If county property is altered and damaged or
destroyed, we've certainly had that in the past. Q. Okay. Have you ever been involved in any
meetings where -- with regards to a sheriff department employee, where any county property had been altered and that was an issue for the sheriff? A. I have.
Page 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. And describe that. Originally -- well, many years ago, I had a case
involving a sheriff taking a great deal of property and deputies taking property. And I ended up prosecuting a
number of deputies, and I managed to remove the sheriff from office. And I got a judgment against the sheriff, which was a judgment against his bond and, actually, works as an ouster, which you lose your office. This took place -- it was a lawsuit, took police over quite a period of time. I think we had charged at And the
least two or maybe even three deputies with crimes. sheriff, I got a judgment against the sheriff.
The judge found the statute unconstitutional, but we got a judgment against him and his bond, and he subsequently lost an election. The other cases proceeded.
I think one ended in a not guilty; the other we got a guilty. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. And that was altering and removing property. Who was the sheriff in that? Bernie Reynolds. And roughly what year was that? That was 1978. Okay. Since then, you've been made aware of
Page 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deputies altering county property? A. I can't say that I have. If it would come to me
as that, it would either be an employment matter or it would be a crime. Q. A. Okay. And I had one other deputy that altered property
eventually by damaging property, and we did have a case on that, also. Q. That was probably in the '80s. What do you recall in the meeting on the
Okay.
9th being the concern around the laptop? A. There was a concern about the laptop being taken
apart and another hard drive substituted, and that, I believe, is what he had indicated had been done. Q. A. Uh-huh. It was county property, and there was a concern And that was the major concern, as I
that that was done. can remember. Q. Okay.
Did anybody discuss, to your recollection,
whether permission had been granted, the IT department had participated, or anything like that? A. Q. Not that I can recall, no. Okay. Did you take any action or do anything
related to that matter at the meeting? A. Q. I did not. Did you render an opinion at the meeting?
Page 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The attempt was going to be to get the property
back and to look at it, examine it, see if it had been changed, and I think my opinion was that that should be done. Q. A. Okay. But other than that, I don't think I expressed They described how they were going to
any other opinions.
do it, which I thought was a good manner in which they were doing it. Q. Okay. But that meeting was on February 9th.
What do you recall being the next time you had any communication around Paul Murphy's employment or discipline or termination? A. down. Q. A. Uh-huh. Because I could go back to that date, and I'm You know, the dates are difficult to really pin
quite sure that that was the date. There were other -- I understood, the computer, they did get the computer, and I know that. tell you when I learned that. And I learned that from the -- could have been Inspector Cooley; it could be the reports that I observed later on that told me that, but I did learn that that property had come back. But I can't
Page 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May. Q. Okay. Did you have any more meetings about Paul
Murphy and his continuing employment with the county? A. Q. I'm sure that we did. Do you remember having e-mail communication with
anybody around the issue of Paul Murphy? A. The sheriff did send me an e-mail, this would be
Sheriff Elfo, concerning Mr. Murphy. Q. A. Okay. Do you remember roughly when that was?
It, certainly, was after the February matter.
That was probably -- it would be -- it would be just an estimate. Let's see. It would have probably been around
I was involved in a couple major trials then, and I
think it was probably around that time. Q. And between February and May, do you recall
ongoing communication around it or do you think that that e-mail was the next -A. No. I think I did have sporadic contact, and it
could have been with Inspector Cooley, who I knew was doing the investigation. Q. A. Okay. I might have had a passing comment with the
sheriff and with the undersheriff, but I think Cooley probably was a person that I had talked to. Q. All right. And did you personally do any
Page 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigation? Did you do any personal inquiry to learn
about the laptop issue? A. Q. A. I looked at reports. Okay. And I reviewed the reports that were done, and
they were conducted by Inspector Cooley. Q. Okay. Did you task anyone from your office or
anybody under your control to do any investigation on your behalf into what you were looking at? A. Dan Gibson was involved in that. He handles the
personnel matters and works with the sheriff's office, so he is tasked, generally, with doing that, but not doing an independent investigation. That investigation was done by
the sheriff's department, not by my office. Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other entity, agency,
person who performed any investigation into the laptop situation? A. Perry Rice was, certainly, one with IT. I think
that he had examined it, either he or his department had. Q. A. asking -Q. A. Q. Other than the sheriff's sheriff? No. I'm not aware of anybody else. Okay. Are you aware of anybody else? Outside -- and you're asking -- are you
I'm not.
Okay.
Page 13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Exhibit 1 & 2 marked for identification.) BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Mr. McEachran, showing you what's been marked as
Exhibit 1, do you recognize that? A. Q. I do. And we'll go through it a bit more in a minute.
The date on Exhibit 1 is June 12; do you see that? A. Q. I do. Since June 12, since you wrote this letter, have
you had any further involvement with Paul Murphy and his employment with the county? A. I've talked to the sheriff and I've talked to Dan
Gibson who, of course, has represented the sheriff, and who's my assistant chief deputy. Q. sheriff. A. the dates. Describe conversations you've had with the When did you have conversations after the 12th? I think there were things, and I have no idea of It would have been after this, and I was just
kept aware of what had occurred, and I had kept contact, of course, with Mr. Gibson. Q. A. Okay. And understood that and I knew that Paul had been
terminated and I knew that he had applied -- or had actually appealed that. Q. Okay. As far as any additional information,
Page 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 February 9, you were made aware of laptop issues. You reference that in the June 12th letter. A. Q. That's right. Since the June 12 letter, have you been made
aware, from either Sheriff Elfo or Dan Gibson or any other source, of any other issues surrounding Mr. Murphy's employment and reason for termination? A. The focus that I had in the letter was, really,
the focus that was brought to me in this case, and I have not looked at any particulars other than that. And I know that I've seen some of the -- saw the initial findings, but this was my focus, and that's really what I was involved with. Q. A. Okay. If there were other matters, it was tangential to
what I was looking at. Q. Okay. So you haven't, since the 12th, learned of
other issues that are as severe or more severe, in your opinion, that would generate a subsequent letter to this. Is that fair? A. Yeah. There's, certainly, no subjective letter This was the focus that I had
and I haven't learned of any.
when I actually issued this letter. Q. A. Okay. And I have not investigated it further, and there
Page 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q. may be further matters that I don't know of, but this was the concern that I had. Q. Okay. All right. Showing you Exhibit 2, which
is -- well, I'll let you describe. Do you recognize that? I do. The first page of it appears to me to be an
e-mail from Bill Elfo to you regarding Murphy file notes. Do you see that? I do. And it's my understanding, based on how this was
provided to us in discovery, that the e-mail references -he's attaching documents for you to look at and the following pages are those documents. Do you recall receiving the e-mail from Bill Elfo and documents attached about Paul Murphy? A. I do. These documents, I believe, are the ones.
Certainly, would appear to be the ones. Q. Okay. And you can take your time, as you're
reviewing through them, do you recall receiving any other e-mail with documents attached similar to this? recall this being kind of a one-time event? A. This would be the only one that I can think of Or do you
that I would recall. Q. Okay. Looking at Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2
Page 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 together, other than Exhibit 2, did you have any information from which to draft Exhibit 1? A. I had all the investigative reports. I did not
use this exhibit, Exhibit No. 2. My findings were all based upon the reports that I was given. Q. given? A. I was given the reports that were generated by They were not based on Exhibit No. 2. Do you remember what reports you were
Okay.
Inspector Cooley, and they included a number of people. They included Paul Murphy's statements. three interviews, I think, at least. They would have been interviews of Deputy Scott. There were a number of other deputies. I'm trying to think I'm just There were at least
of -- there were a number of other deputies.
trying to think of -- there were a number of other people that were present at the SECTOR meeting when this occurred with the laptop. And, also, there was an IT statement from
one of the IT people, so it would have been the investigation that Inspector Cooley did. Q. A. Okay. I assume it would have been all of the reports
that he had generated. Q. All right. Is it your understanding, to your
knowledge -- I recognize this is not your document.
Page 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is it your understanding that Exhibit 2 is Bill Elfo's compilation of, kind of, the results of the report that Cooley did? A. I know that Sheriff Elfo was preparing findings
and conclusions, and I would assume it was based on that. That was something I didn't spend a lot of time looking at, to be candid with you. Q. A. Did you -But I assume that he had done that based on that
investigation. Q. A. Okay. Did you respond to this e-mail? If I
You know, I can't remember if I did or not.
did this -- I was just getting ready for a murder trial, and I was very busy. And I had looked at this, but I was spending time with the investigation, and I was going to be making a determination of where we were with the investigation. So I know that I looked through this and I remember the specific parts about -- and I remember in the reports about the service gun, also, which was an issue. Q. Okay. Exhibit 2, kind of toward the bottom,
there's a sentence that says: "The red findings in the draft are even more tentative at this point and are dependent upon your findings," parenthesis, "and anything Murphy raises at the
Page 18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 his words. A. Q. A. hearing," closed parenthesis. Do you see that? I do. I do.
Do you know what he was talking about? There, apparently, were findings that he had made
in here that he is referring to, and they're not colored. So I -Q. A. Q. Yeah. Yeah. It appears to me that he's asking for your We didn't get the colored version either.
opinion, dependent on your findings. A. Sure. And what I would do and what I told him if
we did make findings, we, certainly, would accompany that with a letter that would embody the findings that I made. And I think this was in reference to whatever findings, if I made findings, but I, certainly, didn't use this to make my findings. Q. A. Is Exhibit 1 your findings? I didn't make the -- my letter is -- Exhibit No. That is really my opinion. You
1 is, actually, my opinion. can call it findings. Q. Okay.
It's my opinion.
So just is Exhibit 1 related to that
sentence "and are dependent on your findings"? And we're going to talk to Elfo tomorrow. I'm exploring your understanding of it. It's
Page 19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That has nothing to do with
what I did.
But I mean, he, apparently, was looking at
preparing findings based on what I was going to do, if I did anything. But that is not something that -- you know, I wasn't involved in doing the findings for him. I was,
actually, preparing a letter in response to how I viewed that investigation. Q. Okay. This e-mail is dated the 18th of May.
Your letter, Exhibit 1, is dated the 12th of June. A. Q. Uh-huh. Roughly a month later. Other than being in a
murder trial, do you recall doing anything else related to the formation of Exhibit 1 in the intervening time there between Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 1? A. You know, I reviewed all of the reports and
Inspector Cooley had given me a whole -- it was the entire investigation, I believe. And I spent quite a bit of time going through that, looking at that, and comparing statements that were made with statements that other individuals had stated, and I reviewed that, and that was what I based this letter upon. Q. Okay. How many meetings do you recall having
with Cooley? A. We had them. The one meeting, which was the
Page 20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 longest meeting, which was the one I had described, and then he dropped the reports off and I talked to him intermittently through this. I'm sure he was wondering if I had gone through or when I was going to make any type of decision. And we
may have met, we may have met once after that when I had -and I indicated, I believe, what my findings were, but I can't really -- there was not a meeting, as I can recall, like the meeting we had on the 7th. Q. A. Q. A. I'm sorry. The 7th of what?
Of February. Okay, the February meeting? Yeah. But I know we talked about it, and I know
I talked to him and I know I talked to the sheriff. But we had people coming up every day on cases, and they may have stopped in and talked to me, and I'm sure that that probably happened. Q. Okay. So I'm trying to get the time frame. The
February 7th or 9th meeting and culminating with the June 12 letter that you drafted -A. Q. Uh-huh. -- did you get the stack of reports on the
February 9 meeting, or did you get those sometime later? A. No. No. The February 9th meeting, those
meetings hadn't occurred that served as a basis for the
Page 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reports. The reports were all of the interviews, and to my recollection, they went through May, I think. I think they
were into May, so I think it was an ongoing thing, and I would get the reports as they came in. I know I got a big sheaf of them at one point, and they may have been added too, as time went on. Q. Okay. So focusing now on kind of the content and
purpose of Exhibit 1, what we have as Exhibit 1 isn't signed. Just for purpose of clarification, did you recall signing it? A. I'm sure that I did. If this was obtained, I
would have saved it in my computer, but I, certainly, signed one of the copies of this letter. Q. Okay. And that's fine. I assumed that, but,
just wanted for the record, to clarify. A. Q. Sure. Sure.
We asked in discovery for Brady letters and
policy around Brady. A. Q. Uh-huh. We received this letter and a letter that you
wrote related to Deputy Koch as the -- as the two in response. Can you think of any other Brady letters that you
Page 22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have written in the last ten years other than these two? MR. GIBSON: I'm going to interject here and
indicate that there's a problem with the characterization of your question. The discovery related to sheriff's deputies,
Brady letters with regard to sheriff's deputies from 2002 to the present; your question now is a broader question. MR. BUTLER: Fair point. We'll narrow the
question and then we'll broaden the question. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. deputies. A. Q. Uh-huh. Are you aware of any other Brady letters that These are the two we received related to sheriff
you've drafted related to sheriff deputies in the last ten years? A. I don't think there have been with the sheriff's
department. Q. Okay. Are you aware of any other Brady letters
that you have drafted related to any other law enforcement agency in Whatcom County? A. Q. A. There are. How many, roughly? Within the past ten years, I'd have to look at There have been at least one or maybe two.
the time period.
There have been at least two.
Page 23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Okay. And I would have to check and just see for that There have been a number of them that have
time period.
come in before and I would look at the investigation and indicate there was a problem that we would have with Brady versus Maryland, and the individuals have either been fired or resigned their positions. So there have been a couple that we did not even issue letters on. I remember, specifically, meeting with a
Bellingham City attorney and a number of attorneys in that office in relationship to a Bellingham office or that subsequently resigned before I even wrote an opinion. Q. Okay. Other than BPD, any other jurisdictions
come to mind that you've drafted a Brady letter for? A. Q. A. Ferndale. Okay. Ferndale is another one.
Is it a fair characterization --
And I should -- Ferndale, there was an issue and I know we had a very thorough
I think I wrote a letter.
discussion with the Ferndale case, and the officer is no longer working there. Q. Okay. All right.
Is it a fair characterization to say that Exhibit 1 is a Brady letter that you drafted? A. Q. I think it is a fair characterization. Okay. And this is written to Bill Elfo?
Page 24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. That's correct. Why is this written to Bill Elfo? The letter would be written to Sheriff Elfo to
notify him someone in his department, we feel, comes under Brady versus Maryland as far as discovery; and, consequently, that's going to compromise our ability to use that deputy, that officer in further cases. to the head of the department. What I have done, in either discussions where we've met face-to-face or letters would go out to the chief, and then if the individual's going to be called, then we would deal with court and with counsel. Q. In this particular case, have you notified any of So it would go
the individuals who were accused and/or subsequently convicted that Paul Murphy was involved with their investigation, historically? A. Q. I have not. Okay. No, I have not.
Do you have a policy around what
constitutes a Brady letter from you? A. The policy that I have relates specifically to
the case law, and it relates to exculpatory evidence. And I have an obligation, as a prosecutor, not only to seek convictions but to make sure things are done fairly. And Brady related to any exculpatory evidence, and And that is a very
I have an obligation to provide that.
Page 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 broad, a very broad, definition. Brady was a 1963 case, and the progeny of cases that have come after that have really given heft to that opinion. And they indicate even if you show that there is a
credibility issue, it would be something; that can be raised on looking at the credibility of the witness; that can definitely be evidence that has to be given to the defense. And then, in fact, the case law has gotten to the degree that even if I don't know it, it's known within the police agency, that is imputed to me. And so that is
something that I'm really aware of and concerned about. Q. Okay. What steps do you, in your office, take to
learn the information? A. The way that that has occurred is through WASPC, And
and that's the Association of Sheriff's and Chiefs.
they have a policy, and the association of prosecutors has met with them indicating -- and, in fact, we've done training with them -- indicating that this information, if it relates to credibility and its discipline within their departments, has to be provided to the prosecutor's office, and so that has been ongoing on a statewide basis. Q. A. Do you do anything to seek the information? It has really been done through WAPA and WASPC
and when I meet with some of the -- I meet with the chiefs often. This would come up on occasion, and when it comes up
Page 26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we talk about it, and the necessity that I have that. Or
it's been done through our associations, primarily, and that's really how it was handled. Q. How often do you meet with the chiefs of the
jurisdictions in Whatcom County? A. Q. meeting? A. It is not, unless something that has come up that And, then often, it would be Once a month, usually. And is it a topic of conversation on the monthly
would give rise to it.
something that I would speak to the chief that was involved. Q. A. Okay. It would be something that would be raised to me. I wouldn't have
I would be made aware of it by the chief. heard about it, ordinarily. Q. A. Q.
So you are relying on them to tell you -That's correct. -- as opposed to doing anything to seek it out or
enforce Brady? A. No. No. We have done that through the training
and then through their association and our associations. Q. Okay. Is it your understanding of the obligation
of Brady that the accused and/or counsel for the accused receive information about officers that relate to their credibility?
Page 27
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. question. Q. Okay. See if I can do it, again. Why don't you -- I didn't understand your
Is it your understanding of your obligation and your office's obligation under Brady, to provide the defendant and/or defendant's counsel all the information about any of the officers involved in a case's credibility? A. No. Only if there was an issue with credibility.
No, that is not a standard thing that we would do a survey and look at credibility. If we had anything that would be a finding that we would think comes within Brady, then there would be a responsibility. And I can do it one of two ways.
I can either give it to counsel for the defense or I can make a motion for an in camera hearing to the Court and provide that information to the Court and let the Court determine if that information should be provided to the defense in discovery. that can be done. Q. And in the last ten years, have you ever -- you So there are two avenues in which
or your office -- sought an in camera review? A. Q. We've sought a number of them. Yes, we have.
And have the results of those in camera reviews
resulted in disclosure of information to the accused? A. I can think of two recent ones that have not, and
Page 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I can't tell you over ten years if any others have. Q. And is the seeking of an in camera review a
public record? A. The in camera review, the materials are not Those are sealed, so in other words, what it
public, no.
would be -- if I were having a case with an attorney and I have an issue, I could make a motion for an in camera hearing. Q. A. I would give that to the defense attorney. Uh-huh. And I would have an order, whether if the judge
ordered it, then there would be an indication that there will be an in camera hearing based on this request. And then I would either appear or I would just provide information to the court in an in camera hearing. And if the court indicated it should be disclosed, that would be given to -- the subject would be given to the attorney. sealed. Q. Does the attorney -- in that example hypothetical If it was not, it would not, and it would be
that you just provided, does the attorney know the context of the in camera review? Not the content, but are you giving notice to the attorney that we're seeking an in camera review related to Brady of a witness? A. We would indicate we're seeking an in camera
Page 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 review concerning whether evidence should be given in discovery. Q. A. Q. Okay. And that would be the gist of it. All right. And have you sought any in camera
reviews related to a Whatcom County sheriff deputy in the last ten years? A. Oh, boy. Not that I can think of at this point,
and I can't tell you that I can think of all of the cases. I can't think of one that I have done that in the past ten years. Q. A. Q. Okay. With a deputy. All right. Looking at Exhibit 1, when you are
looking at an investigation, if you will, in this case, the Cooley report, I'll refer to it as, is there under Brady and the cases that follow from Brady, is there a template or a model that is applied if the conduct is "X" you do "Y" or what's the standard there? A. It's not really that simple. It really relates
to something that you would deem as an indication of credibility of whether a person could be believable or credible. And it relates -- it really relates that, and There's
it's based on your opinion viewing the evidence. not exactly a template that would work for that.
Page 30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Is it fair to say that it's kind of in the eye of
the writer, in this case, you? A. Q. To a degree. And that Skagit County sheriff -- or Skagit
County prosecutor looking at the same thing may or may not come to the same determination as the King County prosecutor or the Spokane County prosecutor, or in our case, you? A. You know, it's hard for me to say what someone
else -- what opinions someone else would come to. But I think when it relates to credibility, I would be surprised if the opinion would be different. Credibility is credibility. my office. We deal with that every day in I deal with
I deal with that with witnesses.
that with officers, with all types of situations, and credibility is something that all prosecutors are very familiar with. Q. Okay. And in this particular case, what was it
that you determined impaired Paul Murphy's credibility? A. The thing that I was concerned about was that The subject matter, itself, to
this was an investigation.
me wasn't as important as that this was an official investigation. The department was questioning him about this. They have gone through the warnings that they have to give him, and his answers were all over the place. And he was
Page 31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 credible. very clear in the beginning and, I guess, the clarity of his responses in the beginning. If he had indicated he didn't know or had some real difficulty describing what he had done, but that was not the case. He was very, very clear.
And later, every time that he either initiated contact with the department or he was questioned, his answers were -- just became markedly, markedly different. And I viewed that when I looked at everything, as the fact that he was not being forthright with the officer. I didn't think he was being credible. And the thing that really concerned me and why I felt this was under Brady v. Maryland, there was an official investigation. This was something that he was being questioned about, about how he handled property. very clear. And he initially was
And when he realized, and I felt this was clear
looking at what was going on, that this could put him in a very tight spot with the department, he changed and changed and changed his answers. And when I looked at that, I thought that was not I thought that came under Brady, and then if we
had him as a witness, it would be something that was disposable and that would compromise our ability to call him as a witness.
Page 32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Q. Did you talk to Paul about this? I did not talk to Paul. Did you rely on anything other than Cooley for
coming to that? A. I relied on everything that I've told you that I
relied on, which were the reports. Q. A. Okay. And they were reports by people other than
Inspector Cooley. Q. A. Okay. He had initiated the questioning, but there were
statements made by other officers, and it was the, you know, entire investigation. were many statements. Q. Okay. The materials that you reviewed, did they IT was in it, as I'd mentioned, there
address the difference in terminology with regards to the concept of copying a hard drive? A. You know, there were different -- there was
different terminology that was used, but that wasn't the issue. Q. A. The issue was not that at all. What was the issue? The issue that I felt was that he was so firm
about what he had done, and then it started slipping away and slipping away, and I felt as he realized that he was in a problem as far as his discipline with his job.
Page 33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And I felt there was -- it was just something that I felt he was being less and less credible. And to me,
it was really clear, that it was under the investigation and there was a huge change in the statements and what he actually admitted that he had done. Q. Okay. How do know the sequence with regards to
his apparent change in answer in relationship to your opinion that the answer was changing because it was going to affect his employment? A. What in the reports told you that --
The first part, I had the first contact, which
was when they had actually wanted the -- and I think this was Deputy Scott -- wanted to look at the computer. And we had the comments that were made and Mr. Murphy's comments at that point. Q. A. Uh-huh. And he subsequently described that and described
the action he'd taken with the computer, then he later -there was one point where he initiated contact. I don't have the dates in front of me now, but I know the first one was -- and the others were subsequent to that. And the subsequent contacts and statements all They differed markedly. At the end
started to differ.
there was a complete disavowal of what had occurred at the beginning. So when you put that together from the beginning,
Page 34
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and you go through these contacts, you see a slipping away and a changing. And it was during the time that the
investigation was going on, and so it's very clear that he knew he was being investigated. Q. A. How was it clear? Well, he was advised by the inspector. The It was very clear --
inspector is set up to investigate personnel problems. Q. A. Okay. When was he advised of that? You know, I From the first
Well, you've got the reports.
reviewed all of those.
The dates are there.
time that goes through each of these times and he knows he's being investigated, he was actually relieved of duty. knows that. And so, to me, it's very clear that he changed his statements in the process of an investigation, and that, to me, went right to credibility, and that's Brady. Brady versus Maryland. Q. Okay. In the conduct of an investigation, does That's He
the credibility of the investigator factor in to you? A. Q. Sure. Okay. Sure, it does. Are you aware of any prior contact,
investigation contacts, between Murphy and Cooley? A. Q. Investigation contact? Uh-huh. Are you aware that Murphy reported
Cooley's misconduct in the past?
Page 35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I heard something about that, and I can't tell But I heard there was some difficulty
you what it was. there. Q. A.
Does that matter to you? It would matter to me if it were just purely --
in other words, if I just had a report from Inspector Cooley, and if I knew there was a problem between these two people and that was it. But Inspector Cooley had reports from people who listed their statements and what they observed, what they saw, and to me that, you know, that -- I thought was really -- there was also statements that Paul Murphy had made, so I thought it was very clear. Q. Okay. Have you provided -- and I may have asked
this, but let me double check. There's reference, I believe, in an Elfo letter, that you weren't able to call Paul in a trial because of this. A. Q. Do you recall that? I had a case, in fact, I did not call Paul. And do you recall notifying counsel in that case
that as a witness, in the larger scheme of the case, you had issued a Brady letter to Bill Elfo? A. No. I did not call him as a witness, so he was
not a witness in the case. If I had called him, I would have gone through --
Page 36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. either I would have given the information directly to the attorney or I would have had the in camera hearing. I did not have to call him. a witness, so I did not disclose that. Q. Is that WAPA and WASPC's policy around Brady, He was not called as
that only if the witness is on the state's witness list? A. Only if the witness is going to be called. In fact, the Yeah,
it didn't have anything to do with it. evidence wasn't used that he obtained. Q.
So I'm clear on that answer, is that -- I
understand that's what you did in this case. Is that WASPC and WAPA's policy? I don't know if that's WASPC's policy. And for
WAPA's policy, my understanding would be when someone is called as a witness, that is when it is done or if you're relying on what that person has done. this case. Q. The evidence wasn't used. And what about historically, cases where, not Nothing was done in
including Paul Murphy, but where a Brady letter is issued, is it WAPA and WASPC's policy to notify previous defendants that were affected by that officer? A. directly. That's -- that's -- I couldn't answer that It would probably depend on the role that the
person played. Q. Okay. Have you ever, with any jurisdiction in
Page 37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Whatcom County, given a historic Brady letter after a conviction? A. After a conviction? I don't think I've had to --
I don't think I've had that involvement after a conviction that that would have been necessitated. Q. Okay. With regards to how you obtained the
information, is it fair to say that if law enforcement doesn't tell you, that your office doesn't know? A. Q. I think that'd be fair to say. And the distinction there is, you don't have a
policy or a tasking of asking; is that correct? A. Well, as I had mentioned, the training that we
have we were involved in setting up the procedures through the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys and with the Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs. And the training and the policy that we have is that they would notify us if there is such a situation. only thing we can do is ask that they do that. Q. Okay. You would agree that it's not necessarily The
in their interest to disclose, though, correct? A. really do. I think it is in their interest to disclose. I think that they have an obligation. You know, what we do in our work is a search for the truth, and they understand this is an obligation; and I think it is in their interest to do that. I
Page 38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. case? A. Q. I do. I do. I mean, I think it's a requirement. Okay. Do you recall the Carol Greene homicide
You're aware that the evidence room was
compromised in that case, correct? A. Q. A. Q. I'm not. Do you know Ron Peterson? I do know Ron Peterson. Do you remember receiving a memo from Ron
Peterson that the evidence bags were mixed up, open, evidence was spelled out? A. Q. I don't recall that. Okay. Would that be in the sheriff department's
interest, to admit that a homicide was compromised? A. Q. case? A. Q. At this point, I have no idea. Do you know if it was prosecuted? Was it Well, I think you have to admit what occurred. What's the status of the Carol Greene homicide
prosecuted or is it open? A. It wasn't here. And I don't know if that was I can't tell
done in a federal -- if it was a federal case. you that. the '70s. I know that I'd looked at it.
This goes back in
Page 39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I had looked at that case and we developed one or two suspects. It never went anywhere, and that may have
been done in federal, in federal court. Q. Okay. Are you aware of a Brady letter going out
regarding the evidence room being compromised? A. A Brady letter going out because the room had
been compromised? Q. A. That the evidence was compromised? That isn't a Brady letter. Brady letter relates
to credibility in a case.
If evidence -- this would be
another -- it would be information that would come out to the defense. Q. A. Uh-huh. But I just don't have any knowledge on that. I
don't know how I can speculate on that without having been involved in that. Q. All right. Do you recall Connie Mayer (phonetic)
being taken home -- the evidence room tech, being taken home because she was drunk on duty? A. Q. A. Do I recall? No. I didn't take her home.
Do you recall the incident? I recall hearing
I don't recall the incident.
that there was a problem with that. something on the job and -Q.
I recall that there was
Would that be, in your opinion, part of your
Page 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obligation to the defense to notify that the evidence room and evidence in that room may have been compromised? A. Q. A. Q. A. Because she was drinking? On the job. Unless there's more than that, I would think not. Are you aware of -How would you -- first, I would have to determine
that the evidence was compromised. Q. A. Okay. Because she was drinking doesn't mean the
evidence is compromised or if she was taking drugs. Unless there's something to show the evidence is compromised, I don't think there's an obligation at all. If
the evidence is strewn about on a case and is all over the place and it looks like it's compromised, absolutely. Q. A. Okay. Chain of custody is important, correct?
Chain of custody, it's not as important as
defense attorneys make it. Q. Okay. Providing the jury with evidence that
hasn't been tainted is important to the pursuit of justice. Would that be true? A. It is true, and it depends on what you would
determine to be tainted. Q. A. Okay. And who makes that determination?
That would be made by the Court.
Page 41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. And if the Court isn't made aware of it by
the sheriff's department and the defense attorney isn't notified of it, who, ultimately, is making that determination? A. Well, if people don't know about it that are --
either the judge doesn't know about it, the judge wouldn't determine. Q. It would be whoever has the information. And if the sheriff's office knows about it and
doesn't tell you about it, that wouldn't be made known to the judge, correct? A. Q. happened? A. It would depend. It would bother me that it was That's correct. And would that pose a problem to you if that
not disclosed. of tainting is.
To me, it would depend on what the question
Now, if you're talking a chain of custody, chain of custody is nowhere viewed as strictly as a defense attorneys view it. Q. A. Okay. The law indicates that chain of custody, all you
have to show, is that the item was taken from wherever it was, whatever scene, and was kept in that relative condition; was placed in an evidence room; then it was returned to court.
Page 42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, if you're talking about DNA evidence, that's a different thing. If you're talking about an item, a
stolen piece of property, the chain of custody is not something that -- let's say that there's a breach in it, but you can show by serial number that it's the same thing, that is not a problem as far as introducing it. that's a problem. Q. A. If it's DNA,
DNA's a different animal.
Weight can matter, correct? Weight can matter in drugs, in some drugs. Well,
marijuana now, marijuana's legal, so the weight doesn't matter in marijuana. Other drugs, there's no other drug that weight really matters, other than if it's a huge amount, we would use that in sentencing to determine the sentence should be greater than if there's a lesser amount. Other than weight, weight could have some evidentiary value. If you knew what something weighed and
that was the key to the admission of the evidence and it weighs something differently now, but other than that, it's not going to be that big of a concern. Some of our
evidence, in fact, loses weight because it dries out. Q. Okay. You were aware of Steve Cooley being
investigated for furnishing alcohol to a minor, a cadet? A. Q. I did hear about that. Okay. And there was an allegation involving him
Page 43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 having some level of sexual contact with that minor, correct? A. Q. I did hear about that. In your opinion, is that something that should be
disclosed regarding his credibility? A. It depends. The credibility -- let's say someone
steals something, issues of credibility related to whether they're being honest or dishonest. If someone has a DUI, that is not going to, necessarily, be a matter of credibility. The Court determines credibility based upon whether it goes to an issue. In fact, cases are described, Those are
if you have theft, you have a forgery. credibility. issue. Q. A.
Possession of drugs is not a credibility
Assault is not a credibility issue. Uh-huh. So those things are determined by the Court. That's not a good thing, but
None of those are good things.
whether that's a Brady issue, it depends on whether it can be viewed as something that will be evidence that could be used to show that a person's not credible. And if you have, let's say, an officer assaulted someone in a private situation, that really -- as far as credibility, if the officer is honest about it when he was interviewed, would not really rise to that level. It's not
Page 44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a good thing, but it's not an issue of credibility as the law has described it. Q. With regards to an officer using his position to
break the law, different than an assault where somebody's hotheaded -A. Q. Sure. -- different from a DUI where somebody may have
had an extra glass of wine with dinner and thought they were okay, and the limit catches up to them. But where somebody volitionally knows the law and breaks the law, is that an issue? A. Q. It would depend on what it was. Okay. Let's use Steve Cooley as a specific,
furnishing alcohol, using his badge to get alcohol, for a minor who was a cadet? A. Q. A. Using his badge to do it? My understanding -Did he have the storeowner give it to him because How would that be?
he showed his badge? Q. My understanding is he used his badge at the
Bellwether Bar to allow the minor to be served without being carded. A. Well, that's a very bad judgment, and that's
something that should go to the department. Q. Okay. What of that is "the bad" that should go
Page 45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the department, the using the badge or giving the alcohol to a minor? A. sure. Yeah. If it's done under color of his office,
That's just not a good thing, and that's something
that should go to the department and should be looked at. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Okay. No. Were you made aware of that?
I've not heard that before.
Would that be -I've heard allegations of something. -- part of what WASPC's policy is? Well, I'd, you know, have to look at the facts. I don't know
And what I'm saying is I'm made aware of that. if that occurred.
I know I heard that something occurred
with someone getting liquor, but I had not heard that specific allegation. Q. Okay. And to be clear, if he hadn't used his
badge, he just bought her alcohol, and they drank alcohol together, would that be bad? A. I think it's all bad if you're giving alcohol to If you're using your badge to do it, that to
a juvenile.
me, is very bad as far as the department's concerned. And that is a concern that goes over and above the violation of law of providing liquor to a minor. it involves the office, and that is a real concern. a concern to anyone who's supervising an office. It now It'd be
Page 46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. And how do you understand the training and
the policy that you've referred to with WAPA and WASPC on something like that? A. That would be, yeah, we would have to investigate
that; take a look at it. And if it looked like there was a credibility issue, and as the investigation progresses, if the individual gives a statement, you would have to look at that. You'd have to look at all these things in making a If he's using the color of his office,
determination.
that's something that's just not a good thing; and that very well could be. Q. And, to clarify, who in that answer you just gave
is the one to do that investigation? A. Well, it would either come to either the
department or they would have a different agency do it. Q. Okay. What if that didn't happen? What if no
investigation happened? A. tell you? it, right? Q. And is that okay with you, as an elected I don't know how I can speculate, but what can I If it didn't happen, then no one would know about
prosecutor in the State of Washington, knowing your obligations under Brady and obligations to the accused? A. If, in other words -- run the question by me.
Page 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is it all right by me if we don't know about it? And I think I already said that we want to know about this; that's part of the policy, if it relates to credibility. Q. So it seems to me, if I've got this right, that
WASPC's training is the department determines whether an investigation should be done and the prosecutors rely on them to do that. A. Q. Uh-huh. And, ultimately, it's up to the department to
determine what is or is not a credibility issue? A. Q. Uh-huh. And the prosecutors rely on the departments to Is that --
make that decision and hand it up. A. Q. Absolutely.
And the prosecutor's office, your office, doesn't
do any investigation or push that issue; you simply receive the information and make a decision? A. We don't have investigators in my office that can
go out, and we don't subpoena the personnel records without having some idea that there is a problem. We wouldn't
subpoena them then, unless we thought we were being lied to and there was something that we relate to an investigation we were doing. But we rely on the departments investigating, if they have cause to do it, and then providing us with issues
Page 48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that would relate to credibility that would trigger a Brady versus Maryland obligation. Q. Okay. Have you, in your experience with Whatcom
County, ever tasked a different agency to investigate an agency? For example, have you ever been concerned about I have no issues with Everson,
take, for example, Everson?
so I really am making this one up as a hypothetical. And you're not comfortable with Everson dealing with something, so you say, "Hey, Blaine," or "Hey, State Patrol, would you look at this issue?" Have you ever had another agency -- tasked another agency to investigate for you that way? A. I think that I have, and I can't tell you -- I I think that has come
can't give you an example right now.
up, and it would be with the agency's approval. What we would indicate on those, it's something that should be viewed by someone else. officer-involved shootings. We've done it with
We do it all the time, and that
is something that we want to have an outside agency do, just so that there's confidence in the result of the investigation. Q. In your opinion, as the person who looks at the
investigations and makes decisions whether to write a letter, would a deputy having sexual contact with a minor cadet who had been on numerous ride-alongs, would that be
Page 49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 something that would be of concern to you regarding their credibility? A. It would be of concern to me. As far as If
credibility, it depends on what actually was involved.
they were confronted and lied about it, it would absolutely; that would trigger Brady. Brady is credibility. It's credibility. It's
not for doing things that aren't good things to do, unless they're crimes. Q. A. Okay. And is Brady only lies?
Brady would not only be lies; it would be
anything that would be exculpatory, but the basis is going for an officer. I mean, Brady could be anything that's exculpatory. But when we're talking about officers, and
that's where your questions have been directed, the issue then is there's something that could be used to impeach the credibility of the officer; that is something that would relate specifically to credibility. Q. And do you think an officer, who's furnishing a
minor alcohol and having sexual contact with her, could be used as impeachment material? A. I don't, unless it relates specifically to what No, I don't. I
is being investigated by that officer. don't think that could come in.
I think no judge would let
Page 50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that in, unless it relates to what is going on with the investigation. Q. All right. And would you agree with me that the
holding in Brady is you are tasked, you are imputed, to know all of that, whether you've been told that or not? A. Q. A. Brady doesn't say that, but it has been -The progeny? Yeah. The progeny of cases, Kyles versus That is correct.
Whitley, there's a whole variety. Q. model -A. Q. Uh-huh. Okay.
So if an agency doesn't follow the WASPC
-- of handing it up, that doesn't relieve you of Is that correct?
your obligation to the accused. A. Q. That's right. All right.
You were aware, last year, the issue
around Michelle Boyd and Lee Beld, correct? A. that. Q. And the specific issue was Lee Beld saying under Do you remember Uh-huh, I was. I think you brought a lawsuit in
oath that he had not had sex with Michelle. that? A. Q. Uh-huh, I do.
And Michelle saying, yes, and then providing a
polygraph to prove against her --
Page 51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I didn't know she provided a polygraph, but I
know that, in fact, there was a lawsuit that I think that you brought. Q. A. Q. Uh-huh. I think it was dismissed. The question is: Your office was provided a
polygraph by Deputy Boyd that said, in fact, she had had sex and Lee Beld lied? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. By Deputy Boyd? Uh-huh. By Michelle Boyd? Michelle. Okay. Okay.
She provided a polygraph that contradicted Lee
Beld's testimony under oath. A. Q. A. Uh-huh. Have you done anything to investigate that? I looked at the submittals. I can remember. And
I felt there was no real resolution of it one way or another, could say one or another, to make any kind of a finding. Q. That's a situation where there's sworn testimony
by an Officer, Lee Beld, correct? A. There was sworn testimony, as I understand it.
You know, I would have to go back and look at this, Bob.
Page 52
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I know the general area that you're speaking of. And I know that you were involved, as a lawyer, with a lawsuit, and I understood that it was dismissed. Q. A. Uh-huh. And I know that something came into the office.
And there was no way to indicate enough that would show that there is a Brady issue at all in that matter. Q. Do you recall if Lynden Police provided any
information to you? A. Q. A. I can't remember. Okay. So?
I think there was -- I think we had -- I did have
a discussion at some point, and that was with, I believe, was Jack Foster. Q. Do you recall if that was before or after the
polygraph was provided? A. Q. I have no idea. Okay. Would that follow the WASPC policy of
giving you these investigations? A. I have no -- I would have to look at that whole If you wanted to ask me about that, I wish you That is in my rearview
thing, Bob.
would have told me about that today. mirror. Q. I have no idea. Okay.
Have you used Lee Beld in any trials since
that information came up?
Page 53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 object. MR. BUTLER: MR. GIBSON: not testimony. MR. BUTLER: BY MR. BUTLER: Q. With regard to Lee Beld, have you done anything Okay. Okay. You're not -- we need a question, A. Q. about -A. I didn't think there was any Brady issue from all In fact, I know the case was Yes, I have. Yes, I did.
Did you provide any information to the accused
of the stuff that I saw.
dismissed, which would tell me there wasn't an issue. Q. Don. The case wasn't about that. The case was about
The question for you -MR. GIBSON: MR. BUTLER: MR. GIBSON: I'm going to -You want to object? I'm going to object. I'm going to
since you received that knowledge, to pursue whether or not he's credible as a witness? A. As far as -- and I -- the knowledge you're
saying, and I think saying "knowledge" is not something that I would equate with what I received. I received a statement; I believe it was from Michelle Boyd. And I've looked at that, and I can remember
Page 54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talking to the chief. And I didn't feel there was an issue I understood
that could be decided one way or the other. later that your case was dismissed. Q. A. Uh-huh.
Which I felt was indicative, there was not
something that could be decided. Q. A. What did you understand my case was about? I thought you had sued and I thought your suit
was involving the department, and it was involving Lee Beld, I think, he was named. Q. A. Q. Uh-huh. And that's about all I know about it. Okay. But you're, under Brady and its progeny,
imputed to know before you put a witness on the stand, correct? A. Q. I am, yeah. Okay. And my question is: If he has lied under
oath, is that a big deal to you? A. Q. Oh, of course, it would be. And would that be a bigger deal to you than
somebody who in an internal investigation about a computer may have changed his answers in an internal -A. the same. It's important it's an investigation; that's the Credibility's all the same. It's going to be all
Page 55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 important thing. And if it's under oath in a trial, of
course, it's a major, major concern, major concern. Q. You're aware of other complaints about Lee Beld's
credibility, correct? A. Q. I am not. Okay. No, I'm not.
Would it matter to you if an officer -We're not talking about Lee Beld
changing jurisdictions. anymore.
Would it matter to you if an officer lied on his application to become a police officer and that was known to the agency? A. I would think that's certainly a concern. It
depends on what it is.
You know, in all of these things,
you have to look at where -- and just put it into the framework of what the requirement we have on discovery. Q. Okay. Is there a historical aspect to it, with
regard to your obligation? A. Q. And what do you mean by that? Well, if an officer lied on his application, and
specifically, lied about having been convicted of previous crimes; lied, got hired anyway, does the passage of time make that lie not matter under your understanding of Brady and its progeny? A. Q. No, passage of time does not. Have you been made aware that Officer Bean of the
Page 56
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BPD lied on his application? A. Q. I have not, no. Would that be following the WASPC's policy to get
that information up to you? A. It would depend on what it is and it would depend If it's on an official
on what it relates to.
investigation, absolutely, absolutely. If he was under oath on an investigation and lied, absolutely. If he submitted a report on an
investigation and lied, absolutely. Q. A. Q. A. What about the application for employment? If it's something -- I would really -That's sworn. -- have to look at it to see if it is an issue
that would trigger Brady. And, you know, when you're asking me questions, if you ask them in a vacuum, I'm not going to be able to answer. I could not answer that. Brady -- and I should describe to you, when you look at the Brady issue, you have to look at the entire background and it's not just -- it would relate to exactly what is going on; what is the context of it; how it comes up; and whether or not it relates to credibility and then could be used in a trial in which that credibility could be attacked by the defense.
Page 57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. A. Okay. And I should mention one thing: As far as the
passage of time, that relates to whether the Court is ever going to let it in, as another thing. Q. A. Q. Who makes that decision? The judge. The judge makes that.
And would you agree that the defense has the
opportunity to raise that -A. Q. defense? A. No, the defense may not have the opportunity to That would be something that could be brought Uh-huh. -- and you have an obligation to give that to the
raise that.
to the judge in camera, as I described to you the procedure that we've utilized. Q. A. Right. So that may just be a judge's call. But you asked the historical -- the way the history relates to if this happened in 1950 and the officer now is still serving. Q. A. Uh-huh. And, if he did something on an application, does I can't conceivably judge, unless it There's two ways to do it.
that still come back?
was some incredibly important thing, anyone would ever let that happen. So there is a historical basis, but it would
Page 58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be up to the Court. Q. Okay. You were involved with the Deputy Jeremy
Freeman and VanderVeen in the Weiderspohn matter, correct? A. Q. Just tangentially. And the issue there was the federal court lawsuit
was around them lying about entering the residence? A. Q. A. Q. Uh-huh. Do you recall that? I do. I do.
Did you do any investigation regarding their
credibility? A. Q. A. In my office, that was done. Okay. And what was the outcome on that?
When it was looked at, we did not believe that We think there was a -- they
they were being dishonest.
just misinterpreted what was going on. There was not a finding that we felt would indicate that they were being dishonest that would have related to their credibility. Q. Okay. Did you speak with anybody or anybody in
your office speak with anybody at your direction from the Department of Justice after the civil lawsuit? A. Q. I did not. I didn't handle that case.
Are you aware of anybody in your office speaking
with the Department of Justice about investigating the
Page 59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. county? A. I have no idea. I have no idea. It was never
mentioned to me if it was.
In other words, are you saying
whether we were asked to investigate this or whether they were? Q. No. Whether you were aware the Department of
Justice was on the edge of launching an investigation into Whatcom County? A. There was an interview I did have with a And it -- let me think what It might have been
Department of Justice attorney.
case that was -- and they had inquired. that case. Q.
Do you know if the sheriff's office is --
believe the term is, "certified" or something like that? Do you know if they're a certified agency or accredited, maybe? A. Is that a term you're familiar with?
It's a term I'm familiar with, and there are
various accrediting agencies. And I would have to ask the sheriff. Okay. (Exhibit 3 marked for identification.) BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Showing you Exhibit 3. I'll give you a second to read it, but for context sake, I don't anticipate you're familiar with it.
Page 60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is the Whatcom County Sheriff's Office Facebook and postings there, so that gives you the context of what you're looking at. A. Q. I have read that. I just read it now.
This purports to be an individual complaining
about an officer lying about a stop; do you see that? A. Q. I do see that. And it purports to be the sheriff's office
responding that if he wants to file a complaint, contact us, and they'd look into it. A. Q. Uh-huh. Under your WASPC/WAPA training model with regard Do you see that?
to that, is this something you would expect to come across your desk, an officer lying? A. Well, you're assuming the officer is lying, and I I think that is
wouldn't assume that from looking at this. a real huge leap.
It would be something you'd have to
investigate, and if the officer lied about it and if the investigation showed that he lied in the investigation, then it should come. But to say that the officer's lying from looking at a post on a Facebook page, I certainly would not go there. Q. A. Would you want to know? I would want -- and the department, apparently,
Page 61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. they've indicated here, they have looked into it. I would expect that if they'd looked into it, they would have some idea. And if there was something that
the officer was lying about and began an investigation and he lied, they would tell me because then it would be a Brady problem. But I would never jump to believe that the officer lied based on this Facebook post. Q. Okay. Showing you Exhibit 4.
(Exhibit No. 4 marked for identification.) MR. GIBSON: BY MR. BUTLER: Q. A. Q. Do you recognize this? I do. The first paragraph says that the investigation Do you have a copy of that, Bob?
included incidents and complaints about Deputy Koch's behavior from the perspective of the witnesses that were involved, interviewed. And the investigation also contained statements by Deputy Koch concerning the allegations raised and the sustained findings entered. Do you remember the context of this? I remember a number of the complaints, yes, I do. Were those complaints internal,
officer-to-officer about Koch or were those external
Page 62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 complaints? A. They were internal, as I can recall. There were
some that would have been external. were external. Q.
There was some that
It seems to me that it says behavior from the
perspective of witnesses; those would be external. Do you have a different recall than -MR. GIBSON: I'm going to object. I'm going to
object to the form of the question.
It states a conclusion
that's not warranted from the evidence provided. BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Okay. Can you explain why your words there seem
to imply that this was based on perspective of witnesses? A. Because I assume that's what the witness
statements were; they were perspectives of witnesses. Q. A. Do you remember how this got to you? It came to me in an investigative package from
the sheriff's department. Q. Do you remember if you had heard any complaints
about Deputy Koch before you got an investigative package? A. came. I did hear some complaints before the package The package had many incidents that I've never heard And I don't think we're -- as I can remember, I
of before.
don't think those had been disclosed before to the department.
Page 63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Okay. Do you have any involvement in deciding
which complaints by prospective witnesses or citizens get investigated by any particular jurisdiction, or in this case, the county sheriff? A. I do on occasion. I'll have witnesses that come
to me, specifically, with complaints. Q. A. Uh-huh. And I will look at those, and if I think they're
warranting an investigation, I will send them to whatever jurisdiction has jurisdiction, so I do. Q. A. Okay. And if I get other investigations that I don't
think are complete, I will send them back, so I will ask that the investigation be complete or look at specific things I wish to have done. Q. A. Q. A. Q. And using Exhibit 3 as an example. Exhibit 3? It's the Facebook page. Oh, the Facebook, yeah. If that's determined to -- they don't want to
investigate that, the sheriff's office doesn't want to investigate that, would you have any overriding power to make them investigate things? A. I wouldn't have overriding power to make them If there was something that was a concern,
investigate it.
Page 64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then it's something I could investigate. Q. Would you agree that these investigations that
you're relying on are the result of the agency deciding what they're going to investigate and what they're not going to investigate? A. That is the case in everything that comes before
the agency. Q. A. Q. Okay. Any agency. And those decisions to investigate or not
investigate can be made based on personality and personal issues, correct? A. They could be. I've -- I think the agencies try
hard not to do that.
I think our agencies in this county
are very good, and I don't think they are looking just at personalities. I would be shocked if I saw that, to be
candid with you. Q. that? A. Q. A. Q. If I receive a packet? An investigation packet? Do I look into what? The underriding -- if there's any underriding And when you receive a packet, do you look into
personality or animosity or other sub-issues? A. I would have to be made aware that there was such
Page 65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a thing that existed. If there was, certainly. I,
certainly, would look at that. Q. And to be made aware of that, that would be from
the agency, correct? A. It could be from the agency. It could be from We bring
what we hear from individuals we've discussed.
witnesses in as we're preparing the case if we're looking at it from a standpoint of a prosecution. cases and we, actually, talk to people. We look at other And if we find
something there that would trigger a further inquiry, we would follow that inquiry, if it's an inquiry that would be warranted. Q. Okay. All right. I'll apologize if this is
viewed as repetitive, but I want to make sure that my record is clear on this. With regards to Paul Murphy and the Brady letter that we have as Exhibit No. 1, have you notified any counsel or accused regarding his credibility? A. not. Q. A. Q. A. Okay. Do you anticipate that in the future? I have -- you mean, going back in time? I have
At this time I do not. Okay. So with regards to his current -That's something I
But I should qualify that.
would certainly -- I, certainly, can think of one case I
Page 66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would take a look at that. Q. A. And which case would that be? It's a case I tried a while ago in which he was a
witness, a number of years ago. And I could, certainly, look at that and see if that would be something we should do. the name of it right now. Q. backwards? Okay. Is it your opinion that Brady relates I can't even think of
So we talked about, does Brady get stale in the
application -A. Q. That's a very, you know -- very --- if somebody does something today, does that
affect their credibility years ago? A. -- very interesting question. I would think that
it would not, but it depends on how it's juxtaposed with all of the facts of the case. I would think that it would not. I would think
that it would not and I would have to look at that, specifically, with what the problem was and what the prior case was about. Q. Okay. Are you aware of any pending prosecutions
that you would need to issue a Brady letter on with regards to Paul Murphy? A. Q. I am not. Okay. So if he were to be reinstated to
Page 67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 second. employment in a capacity that didn't include him being regularly or needing to regularly testify, there'd be no issue with your office; would that be correct? A. We would not -- the only time that we would have That
an issue under Brady, is if he is called as a witness. is when that is triggered, and that is an issue. Q. All right. And you're familiar, because we
received it, of the LaFrance, Kitsap County -A. Q. I am, uh-huh. Do you remember if that case changed the
WASPC/WAPA policy on Brady? A. case law. I have no idea. The policy has evolved with the
I would assume that that's subsumed in it, as
part of it. Q. Okay. All right. I think we're done. Hang on just a
MR. BUTLER:
Let's take a break. (Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. BUTLER: Q. Going back to the February time frame, do you
recall, February time frame or before, any conversations around Paul's -- Paul Murphy's Facebook postings? A. I remember hearing some comment about them, but I
can't tell you the context or what it was -- there was some mention about it; that the Facebook postings were unusual.
Page 68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I can't tell you how that came up. about that. Q. A. Q. Do you remember -I can't tell you what time frame it was. I was going to say, can you give me a time frame? I do remember something
Was it a long time before February or -A. Q. Oh, before February, you say? I'm just using February as the benchmark of when
you knew about the Facebook. A. It would have been during the time that this was
being actively discussed, which ranged from February to June, when I posted my letter. I actually did that -- I should mention, Mr. Gibson pointed out my date was wrong. met. I said the 7th we
We didn't meet -- the meeting with the sheriff's
department and Mr. Murphy was on the 7th, so we met sometime later that week. It could have been on a Friday; it would
have been two or three days later, so I was mistaken on that date. But in regard to your question, there was something mentioned about that, and it would have been from this time on through when I wrote the letter. Q. Okay. Do you recall any discussion around who
Paul Murphy supported in the sheriff's election? A. Not in conjunction with this. I'd heard that
Page 69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there were a number that were not supporting the sheriff, but that was -- you know, that was during the election, I think. Q. Not in conjunction with this. Prior to this -- so prior to the February, do you
remember Facebook discussion and election discussion? A. Not that I -- there were election discussions as
far as Steve Harris was running against the sheriff, and that was pretty well known. Q. A. Uh-huh. And there were a number of people that had lined
up both ways, but nothing in conjunction with this that I can -- but I certainly was aware of it. Q. In conjunction with Paul Murphy, specifically;
not necessarily this termination thing, but do you remember being asked about Paul's Facebook? A. remember. Q. A. Facebook? Q. Asked about whether the Facebook was appropriate; All right. You mean, asked about whether I'd read the I wasn't asked about it, no; not that I can
whether discipline based on Facebook; anything along those lines. A. There was something mentioned about Facebook, and
that could very well could have mentioned about, was that a
Page 70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cross. issue. MR. BUTLER: about dates on a dep. (Deposition concluded at 11:45 a.m.) (Signature reserved.) Yeah, I rarely am ever too worried problem? I can't give you the specifics. There wasn't
enough that I felt it was a problem, I guess. Q. A. Okay. Yeah. I can remember something was mentioned.
There was some conversation at some point in time. Q. Okay. MS. BESCHEN: THE WITNESS: Before or after the election? I have no idea. It would have been
-- well, it would have been within this time frame that we've talked about. MR. BUTLER: We'll order, e-tran. MR. GIBSON: And I don't believe that I have any I think Dave clarified that date I don't have anything further.
We've clarified.
Page 71
1 2 3 4 I, BETH L. DRUMMOND, Certified Court 5 Reporter in and for the State of Washington, do hereby 6 certify; 7 That the foregoing is true and correct 8 to the best of my skill, ability, and knowledge, 9 taken on the date and at the time and place as shown 10 on Page Two hereto; 11 That I am not related to any of the 12 parties to this litigation and have no interest in the 13 outcome of said litigation; 14 Witness my hand and seal this 27th day of 15 November, 2012. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________________________________ BETH L. DRUMMOND, CCR #2064 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT BELLINGHAM. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF WHATCOM ) ) ) SS: C E R T I F I C A T E
Page 72
1 2 3 4 5 6 TO: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C.C. 22 23 24 25 ROBERT BUTLER ____________________________ WENDY S. RAYMOND, OWNER Corpolongo & Associates, 114 West Magnolia, Suite 429 Bellingham, Washington 98225 (360) 671-6298 Please have DAVID S. McEACHRAN read and sign the deposition noting any errors that may have been made in the transcript, and return the signed correction sheet within 30 days of this letter, pursuant to Washington Reports 34A, Rule (e), or three days prior to trial, whichever occurs first. If the signed correction sheet is not returned within the specified time period, the original transcript will be filed with the questioning attorney. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If there are any questions I can assist you with, please feel free to call. DANIEL L. GIBSON Whatcom County Prosecuting Attorney's Office 322 N. Commercial, Suite 210 Bellingham, WA 98225 In re the matter of: Paul Murphy THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF WHATCOM
Page 73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Signed and dated this ____ day of ___________, 2012. 23 24 See: 25 Wash. Reports 34A, Rule 30(e) USC 28 __________________________ DAVID S. McEACHRAN TO THE WITNESS: PLEASE READ YOUR DEPOSITION CAREFULLY. On this correction sheet make notes of any errors I have made. Please sign this sheet at the bottom, and return this to me at 114 West Magnolia Street, Suite 429, Bellingham, WA 98225. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (360) 671-6298. _______________________________________________________ Page-line correction _______________________________________________________
Page 74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C.C. DANIEL L. GIBSON _____________________________ WENDY S. RAYMOND, OWNER CORPOLONGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. 114 West Magnolia, Suite 429 Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 671-6298 ____ The Deponent waived signature. ____ The deposition has been read and signed by the Deponent. ____ No changes have been made to the deposition. ____ The attached CORRECTIONS sheet reflects the changes made. ____ The Deponent failed to appear at our office or notify us pursuant to CR 26.30(e). ____ The Deponent refused to sign the deposition. ____ Other. RE: Deposition of: DAVID S. McEACHRAN Taken on: November 8, 2012 Date filed: Please be advised that the above-referenced deposition will be filed with: ROBERT D. BUTLER 103 E. Holly Street, Suite 512 Bellingham, WA 98225 In re the matter of: Paul Murphy _____________________________ THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF WHATCOM

Deposition of Dave McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor - (Civil Service)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deposition of Dave McEachran, Whatcom County Prosecutor - (Civil Service)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

In re the matter of:

DATE TAKEN: REPORTED BY:

November 8, 2012 BETH L. DRUMMOND, #2064

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

When you were invited to the meeting, were

pending termination at that meeting. Q. A. Okay. It related to behavior in relationship to a

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

being altered by a county employee? A. If county property is altered and damaged or

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

that that was done. can remember. Q. Okay.

Did anybody discuss, to your recollection,

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

any other opinions.

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

It, certainly, was after the February matter.

I was involved in a couple major trials then, and I

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

and I haven't learned of any.

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

that I would recall. Q. Okay. Looking at Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

of -- there were a number of other deputies.

that he had generated. Q. All right. Is it your understanding, to your

knowledge -- I recognize this is not your document.

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

investigation. Q. A. Okay. Did you respond to this e-mail? If I

You know, I can't remember if I did or not.

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

1 is, actually, my opinion. can call it findings. Q. Okay.

So just is Exhibit 1 related to that

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

But I mean, he, apparently, was looking at

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012

meetings hadn't occurred that served as a basis for the

IN RE THE MATTER OF PAUL MURPHY COURT REPORTER: BETH DRUMMOND

DAVID MCEACHRAN VOL. I PROCEEDING DATE: November 8, 2012