Prosecutor asks judge to change decision in Jasman case

EPHRATA - Grant County prosecutors are hoping a superior court judge will change his decision in their suit against Jerry Jasman.

Prosecutor Angus Lee and the prosecutor's office filed a motion for reconsideration in its civil proceedings against the former county coroner and present chief investigator at the coroner's office.

Visiting Douglas County Superior Court Judge John Hotchkiss ruled the prosecutor's office had a conflict of interest in the civil suit against Jasman. Hotchkiss stated the prosecutor is obligated to advise the coroner and the commissioners, and can't advise them while suing the coroner's office, according to court records.

Hotchkiss decided the Grant County Prosecutor's Office needed to withdraw and have either the state Attorney General's Office, another county's prosecuting attorney or another uninvolved attorney handle the case, according to the decision.

Jasman's attorney, George Ahrend, explained Jasman has until Nov. 9 to respond to the motion, and it will be decided without a hearing.

"As to the merits of the motion, it rehashes the arguments that the court already rejected," Ahrend stated. "The court's first decision was correct, and we expect that it will not be changed on reconsideration."

The prosecutor's office responded to the ruling stating the decision is based on the belief Coroner Craig Morrison is really the person being sued. Civil Deputy Prosecutor Lee Pence and Deputy Prosecutor Doug Mitchell stated the ruling was unclear about the extent and nature of the conflict.

Pence's and Mitchell's argument revolves around the type of case they brought against Jasman, called a "quo warranto" action. The type of lawsuit is aimed at correcting "an alleged usurpation or unlawful holding of a public office," according to the motion. The law states the type of lawsuit can only be brought by the prosecutor's office or a person holding the office.

Prosecutors are arguing only the coroner or a deputy coroner can legally sign death certificates in cases of murder and suicide, according to court records. They claim both positions are public offices.

Jasman previously entered a guilty plea to disorderly conduct. As part of the plea agreement, he agreed not to hold public office, according to court records. Since joining the coroner's office, following Morrison's election, Jasman signed death certificates in a murder and at least one suicide.

The prosecutors argued Morrison isn't the real party in the case, disagreeing with Hotchkiss' ruling.

"Obviously Coroner Morrison does not hold the office of prosecuting attorney, nor does he seek to oust Mr. Jasman from holding a public office that (Morrison) claims title to for himself," according to the motion.

Since the prosecutor's office has a legal authority to bring the case against Jasman, Pence and Mitchell claim a conflict of interest doesn't exist, according to the motion.

"The alleged conflict of interest fabricated by Jasman and imposed upon the court through deceit, misrepresentation and half-truths does not exist," they stated. "The instant case is a quo warranto action which involves two parties, and two parties only; the (prosecutor's office) and Jasman."

The deputy prosecutors stated Jasman's relationship to a county agency doesn't protect him from the type of case.

They claim the prosecutor's office isn't compelled to represent county employees. It does need to provide legal advice to county officers, precinct officers and school directors when the issue is related to official business. It is also required to prosecute all criminal and civil cases where the county may be a party and defend all suits brought against the state or the county.

Pence and Mitchell argued the prosecutor's office met its duty to provide advice to Morrison when it advised him Jasman couldn't sign death certificates.

"When Coroner Morrison approached the (commissioners) on July 19, 2012 'requesting funds to cover independent legal counsel to defendant and indemnify' an employee, there is no evidence that he solicited an opinion from the (prosecutor's office,)" they wrote. "On Aug. 2, 2012, Coroner Morrison was informed the request for 'funds' to defend his employee was denied. The same day, Coroner Morrison informed the prosecutor's office he was represented by attorney Ahrend."

Mitchell and Pence stated the prosecutor's office didn't have a conflict when they advised the commissioners to not provide Jasman with an attorney. Since the case was directed at Jasman, and not the coroner's office, they argued the prosecutor's office didn't have a conflict.

"(The) coroner's office is not a defendant in this matter, nor does this matter concern a claim for damages," they wrote. "Even if the coroner attempted to intervene or appear in a third-party capacity, the prosecuting attorney is not required to 'appear for or represent a county officer.'"