Appeals court hears challenge to Pierce County prosecutor’s disqualification; defense says issue is moot

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division 2 heard arguments June 16 in Cause No. 610213 on whether a trial court erred by disqualifying the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.

Pam Leginski, deputy prosecuting attorney for Pierce County, told the three-judge panel that Washington precedent limits wholesale disqualification of an office and that the correct remedy where a conflict exists is to screen the conflicted lawyer rather than disqualify the entire office. "The relief the state has always sought is the vacation of the order disqualifying," Leginski said, arguing the order still stands on the record and asking the court to issue a published opinion to clarify the law.

Leginski relied on State v. Finch as a controlling precedent, urged the court to apply the public-interest exception to the witness doctrine, and warned that recurring disqualifications cause delays and could disenfranchise voters by frustrating the electoral authority of county prosecutors. She further told the court there is no record evidence the screening erected in this case had been violated.

Responding for the respondent, Stephanie Cunningham said the issue is moot because the defendant, Christopher Spanger, pleaded guilty and the plea agreement contains explicit language withdrawing the disqualification motion and waiving the right to reassert the challenge on direct appeal, collateral attack, or federal habeas corpus. "This issue is moot," Cunningham said, noting the trial court was authorized by the appellate stay to accept the plea and that the agreement includes a waiver not to revive the order.

The judges pressed both sides on the practical effect of the plea and on whether the circumstances still satisfy the criteria for discretionary review. Cunningham told the panel that because the parties have acted — the plea has been accepted and the defendant sentenced — discretionary-review criteria focused on impact and manifest error are weakened, and the plea language limits future attacks in this case.

Leginski briefly rebutted that discretionary review was granted because the state alleged probable error with impact beyond the parties and reiterated the state's request for published guidance so trial courts will apply binding precedent consistently.

The court completed oral argument on the first case and proceeded to the next matter on the docket. No decision was announced from the bench.

Context and next steps: The arguments focused on two legal questions — (1) whether a trial court may disqualify an entire prosecutor's office under Washington law and (2) whether the case remains justiciable after the defendant's guilty plea and waiver language in the plea agreement. The panel heard argument and has taken the matter under submission for later decision or order.