DEFENSE COSTS

Reader disagrees with judge's decision

From a taxpayers point of view, some serious questions arises on Judge Sperline's decision to redact information on David Nickels indigent defense team. Redact, meaning "the process of removing or masking unwanted or sensitive areas of a document prior to disclosure". Judge Sperline states " the amount paid (past tense) to the experts should be available to the public." The question is, how does the judge keep control of the cost of an outside attorney and three defense experts at a time when this county is reeling with budget cuts and laying off employees? Is he afraid that appealable errors might be made during trial at the expense of the taxpayer? As stated in the Columbia Basin Herald, defense attorney Walsh, in a Yakima County murder case with defense experts, ran up a $ 1.5 million bill. The judge and county commissioners should insist on a dollar amount limit or cap as part of the redact decision. An adequate defense for an indigent defendant is important but the taxpayer should not have to shoulder a "dream team defense" for an indigent defendant, regardless of Constitutional guarantees. The redaction from the stand point of protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial is reasonable but the cost should also be reasonable.

Greg Hansen

Moses Lake