Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Misconduct Allegations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents use public comment to press commissioners on alleged judicial misconduct and prosecutorial conflicts
Summary
Several residents testified at the June 24 Franklin County meeting alleging conflicts of interest, prosecutorial favoritism, and other misconduct by judges and prosecutors; commissioners did not take formal action during the meeting and some callers urged investigations or presentations from the prosecuting attorney.
Multiple residents used the board's public-comment period on June 24 to raise allegations about local court operations, judges and prosecutors. The claims were made by private citizens in public testimony; the board did not announce investigations or take immediate formal action in response.
Lawanda Hatch told the commissioners she believes a young man (identified by the speaker as Trevor) is being prosecuted "unduly for political purposes" after consulting auditor instructions on voter-challenge documents related to a candidate, Nikki Torres. Hatch alleged that the prosecuting attorney Shawn Sant publicly endorsed Torres and that the case was shifted to Pasco municipal court where she said political ties created conflict. "Franklin County and the citizens of Pasco deserve better and this case needs to be dropped immediately," Hatch said.
Other speakers — including Marcy/Marci Torres, Kat Aspinda and Mitch Snow — made broader allegations about judicial misconduct, conflicts of interest involving specific judges (named by commenters) and improper guardian-ad-litem practices. Several speakers urged court-watching, production of documents, and public accountability. Those speakers described filing complaints and promised to provide documentation to the board and to state investigators; the board did not record any formal acceptance of evidence at the meeting.
Commissioners acknowledged receipt of public comment but did not make findings on the allegations during the session. Several speakers asked the board to call the prosecuting attorney or other officials to explain specific decisions; one commenter specifically requested that the board "bring the PA before this board to explain himself." No formal request to subpoena documents or direct staff to investigate was recorded in the minutes of the session on June 24.
Because the claims are assertions made in public comment, reporters and officials should treat them as unproven until corroborated by independent records or formal inquiries.
