Assistant Attorney General urges reversal of verdict in AK v. State of Washington

Assistant Attorney General Joshua Share, arguing for the State, asked the Other Court to reverse the trial court's denial of a CR 50(a) motion and to overturn post‑trial sanctions, saying the record contains no testimony establishing that an investigation in 2004 would have prevented Officer Martinez's alleged abuse.

"No witness in this case, lay or expert, ever testified how an investigation in 2004 would have unfolded, let alone what a protective intervention would have done to stop Officer Martinez's abuse," Share told the panel. He pressed that the plaintiff did not present evidence tying a hypothetical 2004 inquiry to the cessation of the misconduct.

The panel asked whether testimony about a later investigation in 2012 — particularly Lieutenant Steen's descriptions — could support inferences about what would have happened in 2004. Share acknowledged Lieutenant Steen described how a 2012 inquiry might proceed but said that testimony concerned different circumstances (notably video evidence the plaintiff possessed in 2012) and could not supply the necessary causal link to 2004.

Panel members probed the legal standard for causation in tort — distinguishing proximate cause and cause‑in‑fact — and referenced Washington precedent the attorneys cited. Share relied on the court's instruction that a plaintiff must show more than speculation; under the State's reading of Reese v. Stroh and related authority, a jury verdict on causation must rest on evidence that establishes it is more likely than not that the abuse would have ceased.

Plaintiff counsel Drew Lombardi countered that the record contains evidence supporting a reasonable inference AK would have disclosed in 2004 and pointed to expert testimony (Jane Raymond) and earlier witness testimony to argue the evidence was sufficient to send causation to a jury. Lombardi said a juror's question and Raymond's testimony supported the inference the plaintiff "wanted to disclose" and that an investigation "would have occurred."

The panel repeatedly pressed counsel on what specific 2004‑era proof could show an investigation would have stopped the abuse and how limitations on testimony at trial affected the record the court now reviews. The hearing ended with both sides asking the court to resolve whether the record — including the limited expert testimony and other evidence — sufficed to support the jury's causation finding.

The court did not announce a ruling at argument; counsel preserved rebuttal and urged reversal (State) and affirmance (plaintiff) based on the written record and trial rulings.