by Burl Barer
Sadly, His Honor’s stern warnings against “flirting with disaster” were repeatedly violated. The next crises generated by an alleged act of questionable ethics involved a conversation between Chief Deputy Prosecutor Quinn-Brintnall and Paul St. Pierre’s cocounsel, Jeffrey Gross. The St. Pierres and Andrew Webb all faced the death penalty if convicted of first-degree aggravated murder. There was, however, a way to avoid this. Quinn-Brintnall told Gross, “The first one through the door gets the deal.” The clear message inferred by Gross: “If your client doesn’t want to die, your client should make a deal.” The first one “through the door,” in all truth, was Christopher St. Pierre. However, it was Andrew Webb who got the deal. Gross and Connelly, backed up by Christopher St. Pierre’s lawyer, John Ladenburg, complained bitterly to the court and in the press.
“I recommended that no bargain be given to Andrew Webb,” insisted Quinn-Brintnall, countering this allegation. “I felt that Andrew Webb was a very dangerous individual and, for that reason, I would not bargain with him.” If there was going to be a deal cut with anyone, Quinn-Brintnall knew who shouldn’t get it. “Neither Andrew Webb nor Paul St. Pierre would have been my choice,” she admitted. As for a race down the hall, Quinn-Brintnall confirmed there was a race—but not between defendants.
The reason for the race was a stipulation in Washington State law that would prevent the prosecutor from upgrading the charges against the defendants from first-degree murder to first-degree aggravated murder—a death penalty offense—if the accused filed notice to plead guilty to the original lesser charge.
“There was basically a race to the clerk’s office door,” said Quinn-Brintnall, “between Larry Nichols and myself, and I think Tom Larkin representing Christopher St. Pierre at that time, and Ellsworth Connelly and Jeff Gross who were representing Paul St. Pierre at that time.”
Quinn-Brintnall filed her amended charges at 12:17 P.M. on June 29. Larry Nichols, according to the clerk’s office, filed the notice of intent to plead guilty as charged to murder one on behalf of Andrew Webb sometime between noon and 12:17 P.M.
After Webb won the race to the clerk’s office, the result was the same as if he had indeed run to the prosecutor’s office. The Pierce County prosecutor, Bill Griffies, and Assistant Deputy Prosecutor Carl Hultman negotiated an “agreement” with Larry Nichols on behalf of his client. Quinn-Brintnall was out of town during these negotiations.
The deal was supposedly clean and simple: the kidnapping and assault charges against Andrew Webb would vanish, as would any possibility of the death sentence. In exchange for his life and the possibility of parole, Webb would testify against Paul and Christopher St. Pierre.
“He was allowed to escape a possible death sentence by pleading guilty to the lesser charge of first-degree murder and turning state’s evidence,” complained Ellsworth Connelly. “I don’t think it is appropriate and I don’t think it’s right.”
“There is no ‘deal,’ countered Prosecutor Bill Griffies. “He has the right to plead guilty. Andrew Webb feels that the time has come for him to tell the truth, and to testify and attempt to cleanse what he’s done and that’s what he’s doing. He’s doing it out of a sense of what he feels is right.”
“Webb’s willingness to talk to police,” added Carl Hultman, “shows mitigating circumstances. Reports of a history of violence in the St. Pierre household do not.” The St. Pierres had no previous criminal records, Connelly pointed out, while Webb was convicted of assault in a case where he held a gun to a victim’s mouth.
“The ‘mitigating circumstances’ for Webb is that he won the footrace to the prosecuting attorney’s office and literally saved his neck,” said Connelly, “when he was the one who used the knife.”
Griffies acknowledged that he considered Webb’s “willingness to testify” against the St. Pierre brothers “a mitigating factor in itself. We have got to be practical.” He further explained that if there is no evidence to support a murder charge, and one member of the group of offenders is willing to testify against the others, then the prosecution would have its evidence. “It is not unusual at all,” said Griffies. “It is something that becomes necessary, and it is something that is done routinely in murder cases.”
The St. Pierres immediately moved to strike the death penalty, charging misconduct by the prosecutor in selecting which defendants would face a possible death sentence. They also requested that the trial be moved out of Pierce County. The court reserved ruling on the death penalty issue, but granted the change of venue. Under intense press scrutiny and local interest, the case against the St. Pierre brothers began.
Tony Youso was the second one through the door, but there was no one racing against him. Attorney Karl Haught told the court that Youso participated out of fear for his life, and his client readily admitted tossing the cement-encased head of John Achord into the Puyallup River. Charged as an accomplice in both homicides, he pleaded guilty to tampering with physical evidence. Youso received a one-year deferred, and forty-seven days in the county jail. Having served almost forty days, Youso was released within a week. As part of his plea-bargain agreement, he would testify against his former housemates.
Beginning September 20, prospective jurors in Pacific County were individually questioned in the privacy of Judge Sauriol’s chambers. “I know you’re a little bit nervous about that type of procedure,” said the judge, “but these questions are not designed to pry into your private or personal affairs or to embarrass you. All three of these lawyers are professionals, and very good ones. The purpose of this is to secure and to determine that the case is tried before an impartial jury.
“The prosecuting attorney has filed a notice of intention to seek the death penalty in this case,” Sauriol reminded the potential jurors, and detailed the degree of their sequestration. “You will not be able to have any communication with anyone other than yourselves, and you will not be able to discuss this case or any of the evidence until the case is finally submitted to you.” There would be no calls back home; they would be bused to Tacoma and kept in a hotel until everything was over. “You will be virtually out of touch with members of your family. That is virtually what sequestration means.” With that, the individual questioning began.
Chief Prosecutor Bill Griffies personally took charge of this high-profile case, with Assistant Deputy Prosecutor Carl Hultman acting as his aide. During the jury selection process, Griffies asked several potential jurors if they would give the death penalty to the St. Pierres even though Andrew Webb avoided it by cooperating with the prosecution. Any juror acknowledging reluctance in the matter was immediately excused. The defense strongly objected, insisting that the prosecution’s line of questioning was inappropriate and illegal. “They are making the challenge,” said Ladenburg, “that the jurors are unwilling to follow the court’s instructions.”
“Essentially,” John Ladenburg later elaborated, “Griffies was asking them, ‘If you find these guys guilty, will you hang them?’ You just can’t do that. It is not legal at all.” So intense was the objection, and the argument given in its support, the prosecution took the objection seriously, looked closer into the applicable policies, and recognized their error.
“The defense counsel were correct in their objection,” Hultman finally acknowledged. “We were prejudging some of the issues of the case.” When the situation’s perilous nature was realized, Chief Prosecutor Bill Griffies quietly withdrew from direct participation.
“I walked into the courtroom one morning,” recalled John Ladenburg, “and saw Carl Hultman sitting by himself, and he seemed upset. I asked him where Griffies was. He told me that Bill wasn’t going to be there. I knew right then something was up. Sure enough, poor Carl was left alone to face both the embarrassment and the uphill task of arguing against a mistrial. I felt sorry for Carl that day, I really did.”
Hultman valiantly argued for devising a remedial strategy that would satisfy legal requirements while still excluding the same proposed jurors.
“It is the state’s belief that this error can be sufficiently cured,” he suggested. “Simply bring back those jurors and excuse them all over again. This time they would be properly excused,” Hultman told the court, “and the trial can proceed.”
The prosecutor’s office also offered up some of their remaining jury challenges in appeasement. Ellsworth Connelly remained quiescent; John Ladenburg never quavered.
“Paul St. Pierre would object to that procedure,” said Connelly. “I just want to be on the record as having objected to that procedure,” added Ladenburg. The defenses’ objection fell upon sympathetic ears. Judge Sauriol, already aggravated by the prosecution’s previous borderline behavior, gave Chief Prosecutor Bill Griffies another stern lacing. “Should a similar incident occur again,” he snapped, “the attorney who caused it would be held personally responsible for the cost to taxpayers of the aborted proceedings.”
The trial was over and everything was back to square one. “At that point,” recalled John Ladenburg, “there was really only one thing we defense attorneys could do that made sense to all of us—we went out to lunch.”
Paul and Christopher St. Pierre’s attorneys commiserated over sandwiches and coffee.
“Ellsworth Connelly ran against William Griffies in the previous election,” recalled Ladenburg. “Connelly was considered the front-runner, and was favored by the local Bar Association.” As the election approached, Connelly, because of his prestigious endorsements, extensive experience in the prosecutor’s office, and strong name familiarity, was far ahead in the polls. When Election Day drew near, he was targeted for what some considered a “smear campaign” in the press. Griffies won the Pierce County election, but not Pierce County’s hearts.
“He was not the predetermined choice,” acknowledged attorney Ben Bettridge, Pierce County’s 1985 Republican party chairman at that time. “I think a lot of people wanted him to fail and I think a lot are angry because he hasn’t. It’s hard to argue with results.”
The results lauded by Bettridge were, for many residents, insufficient. Corrections officers openly complained of too many plea agreements, and several police officers, while complimenting the efforts of Hultman and Quinn-Brintnall, said that the prosecutor’s office was “giving our cases away.”
In Connelly’s estimation, a good man to replace Griffies would be John Ladenburg, Christopher St. Pierre’s defense attorney. The concept was not initially appealing to Mr. Ladenburg. “I had a successful practice, had won quite a few high-profile defense cases, and was quite happy doing what I was doing. I’m a real Tacoma ‘hometown’ type of guy. I like doing a good job in my profession, and being of service to the community. I just never really seriously considered running for chief prosecutor.”
At age six, John Ladenburg was the third of sixteen children when his family settled in Tacoma. He graduated with honors from Stadium High School, then took off for Spokane, Washington, to attend Gonzaga University. In 1969, he married Connie Chapman, his high school sweetheart. To support his family and his education, Ladenburg worked in gas stations and grocery stores. “I also bused tables and cooked at a Denny’s restaurant,” said Ladenburg. “I would attend classes during the day and then often work until two in the morning. This paid off in 1974 when I graduated from Gonzaga Law School and passed the bar exam. That’s when Connie, the kids, and I returned to Tacoma, and I joined Binns, Petrich, Hester and Robson, a well-known law firm. In 1976, a good friend from childhood and I formed our own firm, Ladenburg and Haselman.”
It wasn’t simply Ladenburg’s legal background and expertise that prompted Connelly to suggest that he run against Griffies. A significant aura of civic service surrounded Ladenburg’s career—he served as the president of the South Tacoma Business Club, several advisory committees to the Tacoma City Council, including the Urban Policy Committee. In 1982, he was appointed to the Tacoma City Council over twenty-seven other applicants, and was elected for another term in 1983, immediately prior to the St. Pierre case. During his tenure on the council, he chaired both the budget committee and the utilities committee. A strong and practical environmentalist, he was instrumental in saving local taxpayers tens of millions of dollars by pioneering energy conservation standards.
“Despite being an attorney who represented ‘the bad guys,’ law enforcement personnel respected me because I strongly endorsed increased police and fire services for Tacoma,” Ladenburg said. “The police union and the sheriff’s guild earlier suggested that I run for chief prosecutor, but I didn’t seriously consider it. Everything was going great for me both personally and professionally. I appreciated Connelly’s complimentary suggestion, and I tucked the idea away in the back of my mind. The defense of Christopher St. Pierre and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution were my top professional priorities at that precise point in my career, and at that general point in our pleasant mealtime consultation.”
Eight
The bold-type headline of the Tacoma News Tribune on October 9 was a surefire attention grabber: KILLER GIVEN LIFE SENTENCE; MURDERER IMPLICATES ST. PIERRES. The opening paragraph referred directly to a new elaborate confessional statement by Andrew Webb in which he claimed that he “slashed Wells’s throat because he feared he would be killed himself if he didn’t.”
Webb’s narrative of Damon Wells’s tragic fate differed dramatically from those of Perez, Marshall, and the brothers St. Pierre. In Webb’s version, he bravely opposed each and every instance of violence, came to the aid of Damon Wells, and did everything possible to mitigate the severity of the situation.
He and Wells were having a friendly postfight chat, he asserted, when Paul and Chris suddenly burst into the bathroom. “They started hitting and knocking him into the corner,” said Webb. “I stopped them and told them that Damon was OK, but Paul would kick him and tell him to shut up. I gave up arguing with him because he was getting mad at me, so I helped him walk Damon out to the car.”
Wells possibly died, according to Webb, from being kicked in the head by Christopher St. Pierre. “We all chased him and tackled him,” Webb said of Wells’s attempted escape at Salmon Beach. “He was on his hands and knees and he raised his head up to yell for help. That’s when Chris kicked him in the head, which either knocked him out or killed him. I thought he was dead because he wasn’t breathing.”
It was then, said Webb, that Paul St. Pierre compelled him under implied threat of death to slit the throat of the already lifeless Damon Wells. “Paul then grabbed the knife from me and said, ‘This is how you kill somebody,’ and stabbed him in the back. He then handed the knife to Chris and told him to stab him, so Chris did that once that I know of.”
“How did the newspaper get hold of Andrew Webb’s blatantly self-serving plea-bargaining statement?” asked Ellsworth Connelly. He also provided the answer. “The Tacoma News Tribune got it courtesy of the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office.
“Here’s how they did it,” offered Connelly, explaining that an ordinary guilty plea has a simple defendant’s statement that merely acknowledges the essential elements of the offense. “They put in as part of his plea the entire statement that he gave when he wanted to make his deal. Yes, the whole statement covering every alleged murder, the decapitation, everything you can think of. The prosecution knew full well the press was dying to get their hands on that, and as soon as they got their hands on it, they’d print it. Which they did!”
The newspaper story, accompanied by a large picture of Andrew Webb, gave prominence to his recent version of events. “Andrew admitted slicing Wells’s throat—although under pressure from Paul—and he absolutely threw the knife into that kid’s back just like he used to throw knives and hatchets into his folks’ garage door,” said Marty Webb. “In this version, almost all the blame or guilt is put directly on Paul and Chris, and he makes himself out to be the most innocent of the three. By pleading guilty and cutting this deal, he got a twenty-year minimum sentence, but he could serve as little as thirteen or four
teen years.”
Connelly, outraged by the apparent manipulation of Tacoma’s print media by Prosecutor Griffies, was equally angered when Griffies and Chief Deputy Prosecutor Chris Quinn-Brintnall granted a special in-depth interview to television station KSTW. Broadcast two weeks before the trial, the “St. Pierre Case” was discussed in remarkable detail.
“We see the prosecutor and his chief deputy go on television, channel eleven, and talk about this specific case,” Connelly said with ill-concealed anger. “The purpose of this apparently is some sort of means by which the general public can be reached, every potential juror. This station goes out all over the state on cable. Presumably hundreds of thousands of people could have watched this program. Is that proper? No. Is it legal? No. Is it a violation of our ethical rules? Yes. Why is it done? Why would a man do this? The obvious reason is so he can have some sort of advantage outside the courtroom before anything really gets under way.”
Connelly sought dismissal of all charges, claiming that the prosecutor’s reprehensible conduct made a fair trial impossible. “I submit to Your Honor that there has been a concerted effort of misconduct by the prosecutor in an effort to give themselves an edge with reference to Webb, and to hurt and prejudice St. Pierre in every way possible that they can. Not by coming and putting on a strong case in court, but before we even get there with this publicity business, this TV, this leaking to the newspaper, and finally this thing on the plea.
“I say it’s an abuse of process,” Connelly insisted. “I say that it is misconduct, and I think that what you should do is to strike the death penalty. I don’t know how they can act like this with someone’s life hanging in the balance and expect to salvage a death penalty case.”
John Ladenburg joined Connelly in the motion to strike the death penalty, and filed a few of his own. Among those were a motion to drop the entire case against the St. Pierres because of prosecutorial misconduct, and a motion for a restraining order to gag the prosecutor from any further public comment on the case.