Jorgensen denies Savoie new trial

EPHRATA — Grant County Superior Court Judge Ken Jorgensen denied a motion for new trial filed by defense attorneys representing convicted murderer Evan Savoie on Tuesday, setting the stage for the 15-year-old boy's sentencing next week.

A Grant County jury found Savoie guilty on April 28 of first-degree murder for beating and stabbing to death 13-year-old playmate Craig Sorger more than three years earlier in a wooded spot at Ephrata's Oasis Park.

Savoie, of Ephrata, faces more than 20 years in custody for the murder.

Jake Eakin, Savoie's life-long friend and co-defendant in the murder, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of complicity to second-degree murder in April 2005, more than two years after the brutal killing. Eakin, also 15, of Moses Lake, was sentenced by Jorgensen to 14 years in custody. Both Savoie and Eakin were 12 years old at the time of Sorger's murder.

In documents submitted by the defense and ordered sealed by Jorgensen, Savoie's defense attorneys, Monty Hormel and Randy Smith, argued Savoie must be granted a new trial based on several factors.

The defense's primary reasoning for seeking a new trial centered on the appointment of a publicly funded defense attorney for Sorger's parents.

Smith said prosecutors met with Jorgensen, outside the presence of the defense team, to discuss appointing a defense attorney for Sorger's parents. Jorgensen eventually approved the appointment of the publicly-funded counsel and Moses Lake-based attorney Garth Dano was hired prior to the first day of trial.

Hormel and Smith repeatedly objected to the appointment and believe it caused evidence crucial to their client to be excluded during trial.

A court-appointed and publicly-funded attorney for a victim's family is unprecedented, according to county officials and the state bar association.

"Why should you be given a new trial because of that?" Jorgensen asked Smith in Grant County Superior Court Tuesday.

Smith argued that Dano's work for Sorger's family interfered with Savoie's right to due process.

"That's a big deal. I think that may result in the reversal of the case," Smith said.

The appointment, he said, required the defense team to fight suppression of evidence from not only the state, but also from Dano.

"Victims are not afforded the right to have an attorney," Smith said. "That could really make a mess of the law if that starts to be precedent."

The Grant County Prosecutor's Office lobbied Jorgensen to order the appointment and the county commissioners to fund the position because Smith and Hormel sought to defend Savoie by trying to place responsibility for the murder on somebody else, including someone from the Sorger family.

During a pre-trial hearing, however, Jorgensen barred the defense attorneys from presenting evidence that showed other possible perpetrators in the February 2003 murder of Sorger, an Ephrata special-education student.

"(Jorgensen's ruling) shifted the burden of proof from the state to the defendant," Smith said.

The defense, he said, "essentially (had to) prove somebody else was guilty before (Jorgensen) would allow us to present evidence somebody else may have committed the crime."

Smith argued the defense team should have been allowed to present evidence to the jury showing how others — not just Eakin and Savoie — may have killed Sorger. Smith cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling to support his argument.

The justices in the Supreme Court case unanimously agreed a South Carolina murder defendant's constitutional rights were violated by a ruling that barred him from introducing testimony blaming somebody else for the murder of an elderly woman.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, stated the South Carolina courts mistakenly looked only at the strength of the prosecution's evidence and did not adequately consider information gathered by the defendant, Bobby Lee Holmes.

"Just because the prosecution's evidence, if credited, would provide strong support for a guilty verdict," Alito wrote. "It does not follow that evidence of third-party guilt has only a weak logical connection to the central issues in the case.

"The point is that, by evaluating the strength of only one party's evidence, no logical conclusion can be reached regarding the strength of contrary evidence offered by the other side to rebut or cast doubt," Alito wrote.

Smith agreed with Alito and the Supreme Court's ruling in the Holmes case.

"You don't base admission of evidence for the defense upon the strength of the evidence for the state," Smith said. "What the (Supreme) Court is also saying is you have to provide the defense an opportunity to present a defense even if it includes third parties (as perpetrators)."

Smith said Savoie is also entitled to a new trial because prosecutors failed to prove premeditation, which is a requirement for the first-degree murder conviction. The jury received instructions for premeditated murder despite several objections from Hormel and Smith. Because the jury was not instructed on first- and second-degree manslaughter, Smith said, the defense believes the jury received flawed instructions.

Grant County Prosecutor John Knodell said premeditation was convincingly proven by the state.

"It couldn't have been more clear," the prosecutor said following Tuesday's hearing.

Knodell said Savoie lured Sorger to a secluded spot in the park, brought a knife to the scene and stabbed Sorger more than 30 times.

"What was (Savoie) thinking after he stabbed him the first time?" Knodell asked. Eakin's testimony against Savoie provided further evidence of premeditation, the prosecutor said.

Eakin was the state's star witness in the case, but an incident following his testimony led the defense team to conclude juror misconduct occurred, providing them further basis, they believe, to seek a new trial.

As Eakin finished testifying as a prosecution witness, and walked to the door leading from the courtroom to the jail, a male juror near the door was seen speaking briefly to the teenager. Eakin reported the comments to his defense attorney, Alan White, who informed prosecutors and the court.

Jorgensen questioned a jail employee working in the courtroom during the incident to determine if the juror spoke to Eakin. Following the jailer's account, Jorgensen determined no conversation occurred.

Savoie's sentencing is set for June 27.

Jorgensen ruled Tuesday that he would allow two members of Sorger's family to speak at Savoie's upcoming sentencing hearing. Additionally, Savoie himself may speak along with members of his family.