Court appoints lawyer for victim’s kin

EPHRATA, Wash. – Lisa Sorger sat impatiently outside a Grant County courtroom for days, glaring every so often at the wooden doors that barred her entrance. Inside, a teenager accused of murdering her 13-year-old son has been standing trial as an adult.

The mother in her demanded to know details about son Craig’s death three years ago, yet Sorger remained a witness in the case, shut out and prohibited from hearing testimony. Behind the scenes, her lawyer bustled to ensure the Sorger family’s interests are represented in court, much like any other high-profile criminal case.

However, Sorger’s attorney, Garth Dano, was appointed by the judge at county expense – a highly unusual move that has drawn criticism from defense attorneys and praise from victims’ rights advocates as they prepare to observe National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.

“It’s a big one,” Dave Johnson, executive director of the Washington Coalition of Crime Victim Advocates, said of the decision. “More and more you’re seeing victims put in a position where they feel they have to hire an attorney to represent their best interests in court. Because the reality is, the legal justice system does not do that.”

The Sorger case attracted national attention almost from the day Craig, a special education student, was found beaten and brutally stabbed to death Feb. 15, 2003. Two 12-year-olds, Jake Eakin and Evan Savoie, were accused of his murder, making them among the youngest murder defendants ever to be charged as adults.

Two years later, Eakin pleaded guilty to second-degree murder by complicity in a plea deal, pointing at his best friend, Savoie, as the killer. Savoie has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence, and defense attorneys focused their attention on any suspects police may have missed.

As part of their discovery, they sought confidential medical records for members of the Sorger family. In addition, the Sorgers were barred from court for days because the defense intended to recall them as witnesses later.

All 50 states have passed victims’ rights laws, and about two-thirds have amended their constitutions to guarantee rights for crime victims. In Washington, that includes allowing victims and survivors of victims to be present in court during trial, or if subpoenaed to testify, to be scheduled as early as possible.

Prosecutors tried to protect the Sorgers’ privacy and open the court to them, but were limited in how far they could go to argue on their behalf, said Grant County Prosecutor John Knodell.

Prosecutors represent the state, not the victims, Knodell said, and victims’ rights are largely disregarded because there is no one to represent them.

“It’s a common defense tactic to attack the victims,” Knodell said. “And the easiest way out is to violate the privacy interest of victims, because it’s not going to lead to a conviction being overturned.”

Defense attorneys argued against the appointment of Dano on two grounds: State law does not allow for an attorney to be appointed to victims’ families at public expense, and that same attorney has no standing in the criminal proceedings.

The judge’s decision “muddies” the waters of the criminal justice system, said Randy Smith, one of Savoie’s attorneys.

“It’s a sad state of affairs when you raise victims’ rights to the same level as the constitutional rights of the accused,” Smith said.

Mark Vovos, a criminal defense attorney in Spokane, sees both sides’ points.

“Truth be told, this is an adversary proceeding,” Vovos said. “This is not anything that is unusual, where witnesses have information and I, as defense attorney, am trying to get it.”

“The underlying premise of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act is to recognize that victims and victims’ families have already been victimized once,” said Dano, the court-appointed attorney. “It’s kind of an evolving area of the law, but an important one.”