04/22/2006

By SHANNON DININNY  / Associated Press

Lisa Sorger sat impatiently outside a Grant County courtroom for days, glaring every so often at the wooden doors that barred her entrance. Inside, a teenager accused of murdering her 13-year-old son has been standing trial as an adult.

The mother in her demanded to know details about son Craig's death three years ago, yet Sorger remained a witness in the case, shut out and prohibited from hearing testimony. Behind the scenes, her lawyer bustled to ensure the Sorger family's interests are represented in court, much like any other high-profile criminal case.

However, Sorger's attorney, Garth Dano, was appointed by the judge at county expense — a highly unusual move that has drawn criticism from defense attorneys and praise from victims' rights advocates as they prepare to observe National Crime Victims' Rights Week.

"It's a big one," Dave Johnson, executive director of the Washington Coalition of Crime Victim Advocates, said of the decision. "More and more you're seeing victims put in a position where they feel they have to hire an attorney to represent their best interests in court. Because the reality is, the legal justice system does not do that."

The Sorger case attracted national attention almost from the day Craig, a special education student who loved video games and catching turtles, was found beaten and brutally stabbed to death Feb. 15, 2003. Two 12-year-old playmates, Jake Eakin and Evan Savoie, were accused of his murder, making them among the youngest murder defendants ever to be charged as adults.

Two years later, Eakin pleaded guilty to second-degree murder by complicity in a plea deal, pointing at his best friend, Savoie, as the killer. Savoie has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence, and defense attorneys focused their attention on any suspects police may have missed.

As part of their discovery process, they sought confidential medical records for members of the Sorger family. In addition, the Sorgers were barred from court for days because the defense intended to recall them as witnesses later.

All 50 states have passed victims' rights laws, and about two-thirds have amended their constitutions to guarantee rights for crime victims. In Washington, that includes allowing victims and survivors of victims to be present in court during trial, or if subpoenaed to testify, to be scheduled as early as possible.

Prosecutors tried to protect the Sorgers' privacy and open the court proceedings to them, but were limited in how far they could go to argue on their behalf, said Grant County Prosecutor John Knodell.

Prosecutors represent the state, not the victims, Knodell said, and victims' rights are largely disregarded because there is no one to represent them.

"It's a common defense tactic to attack the victims," Knodell said. "And the easiest way out is to violate the privacy interest of victims, because it's not going to lead to a conviction being overturned."

Defense attorneys argued against the appointment of Dano on two grounds: State law does not allow for an attorney to be appointed to victims' families at public expense, and that same attorney has no standing in the criminal proceedings.

The judge's decision "muddies" the waters of the criminal justice system, said Randy Smith, one of Savoie's attorneys.

"It's a sad state of affairs when you raise victims' rights to the same level as the constitutional rights of the accused," Smith said.

Mark Vovos, a criminal defense attorney in Spokane, sees both sides' points.

"Truth be told, this is an adversary proceeding," Vovos said. "This is not anything that is unusual, where witnesses have information and, I as defense attorney, am trying to get it."

In order for the system to work properly, the accused must be provided a defense attorney, said Dano, the court-appointed attorney. Why shouldn't victims be afforded the same right?

"The underlying premise of the Crime Victims' Rights Act is to recognize that victims and victims' families have already been victimized once," Dano said. "It's kind of an evolving area of the law, but an important one."

And a potentially more popular one, said Doug Beloof, law professor at Lewis and Clark College and executive director of the National Crime Victims Law Institute in Portland, Ore. The institute runs clinics in eight states, offering free legal counsel to victims and victims' survivors, and assisted Grant County in researching the Dano appointment.

"Victims have rights in criminal proceedings. People, of course, have a very hard time asserting their rights without counsel," Beloof said. "More and more, we will see victims appointed counsel to ensure their rights."

The defense recalled Lisa Sorger to testify Thursday, eight days into the trial, after which she was allowed into the courtroom to observe the trial. In the meantime, Dano's fees are being paid through Grant County's program for victims and witnesses, which is funded by offenders' fines. The county currently has extra money in the program.

That is not the case in other counties, Johnson said.

"A lot of counties in Washington barely have enough money to fund the victims' program," he said. "I think there's definitely cases that scream out for this type of intervention. I would like to say it could become a trend, but given the funding constraints, I have my doubts."