Grant County murder trial experts' names redacted

EPHRATA - People can't view the names and occupations of three

experts in a Grant County murder case until the trial starts.

Grant County Superior Court Judge Evan Sperline ruled releasing the

names and occupations of three defense experts would be redacted

until the murder trial of David Nickels begins.

EPHRATA - People can't view the names and occupations of three experts in a Grant County murder case until the trial starts.

Grant County Superior Court Judge Evan Sperline ruled releasing the names and occupations of three defense experts would be redacted until the murder trial of David Nickels begins.

Nickels, 29, is charged with murder in the first degree for the December 2009 killing of Sage Munro in his Ephrata home. The court found Nickels couldn't afford an attorney, but because of a conflict of interest the public defender's department couldn't appoint one.

This led a third party to hire Seattle attorney Jackie Walsh to defend the man, but because Nickels is indigent the county would pay for any experts hired by the defense.

Prosecutor Angus Lee has pointed out previously Walsh was involved in a Yakima County murder case where expert fees cost roughly $1.5 million.

Nickels' defense attorneys presented four requests to hire experts, and requested all information except for the amount approved to be sealed. Defense attorney Mark Larranaga argued allowing the public and prosecution to know who was being hired, and the explanation why, would hurt Nickels' chance for a fair trial.

"I don't think there's any question that courts are typically presumed to be open," he said. "But that presumption is not unlimited ... When the right to a fair trial is in play, the presumption may be moved toward sealing."

He argued sealing the motions was the least restrictive means to protect Nickels' right, saying just redacting the information would put too much of a burden on the court.

"It will be a hearing within a hearing," Larranaga said. "It places this court and us, but really this court, in a difficult situation of having to make decision after decision ... It is an administrative nightmare that will not solve this issue. In fact, it will create more issues."

Lee pointed out the Yakima Herald-Republic is currently involved in a public records lawsuit with Yakima County. The lawsuit revolves around the $1.5 million in expert fees requested by Walsh and her co-counsel.

"I don't want a public records request to come from the Columbia Basin Herald a week after a document is sealed and then two years later they get the document and come after us for money," he said. "That is a significant concern for the county as well as the commissioners."

Lee said the defendant does have the right to a fair trial, but Washington is an "open court" state. He argued the court should go with the less restrictive means by redacting the documents to preserve people's trust in the courts.

"We cannot simply sacrifice the openness of our courts on the altar of administrative convenience," he said. "(The defense) says, 'Your Honor, this is an administrative nightmare.' That is an insufficient basis to go forward and violate all these people's rights to have an open court and open files."

In Sperline's decision, he said the motions explaining why the defense wanted to hire the four experts explained the attorneys' strategy and shouldn't be available to the public or the prosecution.

Sperline said the amount paid to the experts should be available to the public, but the names and occupations of the experts would by redacted, except for the investigator hired by the defense.

"The defendant's right to fair trial is as fundamental and significant a right as our justice system recognizes, underlying every other right of an accused. It greatly outweighs the public interest in knowing before trial the identity and area of professional expertise of people retained to assist defense counsel, especially where the public knows the number of people who have been appointed and the rate and amount of their compensation," the judge read.

He also pointed out the names and professions of the experts would be revealed once the trial starts, but would allow the defense attorneys to file objections to any of the files being unsealed.

Sperline read his decision prior to taking comments from the public. Members of the family, police and the Columbia Basin Herald's publisher Harlan Beagley spoke about the motion.

Most of them objected to sealing the information.

The judge thanked the people who spoke, saying the public's interest isn't in seeing the case reach a certain resolution.

"Other members of the public might say, 'We want to make darn sure you're providing everything to that defense team that they're entitled to," he said. "It isn't a question of trying to favor one side over the other."

He also pointed out the Constitution has a lot of material about the rights of the accused, but doesn't have anything about victims. He wants to honor everyone's Constitutional rights, Sperline said.

"It's that way for a reason," Sperline said. "It wasn't written as the reaction to the suffering and misery represented by crime in our society. It was written to respond to the abuses of a tyrannical British monarch."

Sperline also noted not all of the information needs to be shared between the prosecution and defense, and the names of expert witnesses will be public when each side files its list of witnesses for trial.