Defense says jury was misled in Johnny Lay case; state says counsel failed to investigate

The court heard argument Tuesday on Johnny Lay’s personal restraint petition, where petitioner counsel Mick Wojnarowski told the bench the jury at Lay’s trial "was lied to and the jury was misled," and asked the court to reverse or remand for further factfinding.

Wojnarowski said the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office failed to disclose material that he described as central to the complainant’s credibility, including a transcript of a burglary-case confession and a substance‑abuse evaluation that, he said, sat only in the prosecutor’s files. "She had had a massive daily crack cocaine habit since she was 16," Wojnarowski told the court, and he argued that those undisclosed records and a subsequent civil lawsuit created a motive and impeachment material the jury never heard.

The state, represented by Gabriel Jacobs, acknowledged the awkwardness of conceding a witness gave false testimony but urged the court to focus on whether the undisclosed information was prejudicial. Jacobs argued that defense counsel knew of the complainant’s convictions, could have obtained records or sought impeachment, and that deficiencies in the defense investigation weigh against finding a Brady violation. "The defense attorney still has to do that lawyer stuff," Jacobs said, asserting the defense had tools to pursue the materials and did not.

The parties disputed whether internal prosecutor files — including the substance‑abuse evaluation Wojnarowski cited and appendices P and Q in the petition — were truly inaccessible to defense counsel or whether the defense was on notice and therefore suffered its own failure of diligence. The bench pressed both sides on the core legal standards: whether the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony (a NAPU question) and whether any non‑disclosure was material prejudice under Strickland and Brady precedents cited by counsel.

Wojnarowski told the court that, beyond undisclosed documents, Amanda Harless’s deposition and the existence of a large civil demand (which he characterized as roughly $13,000,000) supported prejudice and motive to fabricate; he argued the government’s omnibus order in the King County case — asserting it had turned over all required materials — was inaccurate if those documents remained in the prosecutor’s files. Wojnarowski asked the court to reverse on Brady or ineffective assistance of counsel grounds, or, if not, to remand for a reference hearing to develop the factual record.

Jacobs countered that controlling precedent requires the court to evaluate actual prosecutor knowledge and materiality and that some issues (he said) were waived below. He urged the court to measure prejudice by how the jury would likely have viewed impeachment at trial, and argued the record did not show deliberate concealment by the prosecution on the scale present in decisions like Banks v. Dretke.

The presiding judge concluded argument after hearing both sides. The court did not announce a ruling at the hearing; counsel were thanked and the matter was concluded for that calendar slot. Further procedural steps or decisions were not stated on the record.