Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Reagan Dunn's "Extensive Courtroom Experience" as a Federal Prosecutor: One 3-Day Jury Trial and One Appeal

Posted by on Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 5:12 PM

One of the biggest disappointments of the 2012 campaign season has been our media's credulous refusal to examine Republican Reagan Dunn's suspiciously inflated resumé.

When Dunn's website claims he "participated in the investigation" of the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui, no reporter bothers to ask in what capacity. When in a debate, Dunn claimed to have prosecuted drug dealers in Florida, nobody questioned how such a prosecution was even possible during his brief three-month stint at that Florida post. And when Dunn's website claims that he "earned his stripes in the courtroom as a federal prosecutor," editorial boards reliably echo it as fact.

"[Dunn] has extensive courtroom experience," the Tacoma News Tribune kvells in handing Dunn their endorsement.

Except, you know, he doesn't.

Indeed, a review of federal electronic court records at PACER.gov finds that Dunn was co-counsel on only a single three-day federal court trial in the Western District of Washington—U.S. v. Ramon Carona-Alverez (2004)—a case in which Dunn was technically the lead attorney, but in which a senior Assistant US Attorney (WUSA), Douglas Whalley, conducted much of the questioning and gave the closing arguments. PACER.gov found no court records for Dunn during his Justice Department stints in D.C. or Florida.

Every other federal case of Dunn's was settled before ever coming to trial. To be fair, that's mostly what prosecutors do: Plead down cases. But that doesn't give Dunn the "courtroom" experience that he claims.

As for Dunn's appellate courtroom experience, that appears equally limited. Court records show Dunn handled a single appeal in which he made an argument before the court. Of Dunn's five other cases that were appealed, one was reversed without argument, two were handled by other WUSAs, and two were withdrawn by defendants before coming to the appellate court for arguments.

I suppose PACER.gov could be wrong, and we've emailed the Dunn campaign asking him to confirm or deny. No response. But as far as I can tell from court records, that's Dunn's entire "extensive courtroom experience" as a federal prosector: One trial and one appeal. You'd think, considering Dunn's impressive claims, this might be something the real reporters would want to look into.

A tally of Dunn's courtroom experience via PACER.gov, after the jump:

FEDERAL CASES OF REAGAN DUNN (per PACER.gov on 10/18/12)

While at Inslee Best
CIANI v. AGRA EARTH - NOT TRIAL (settlement) (1999)

While at District of Columbia
No cases found

While at Northern/Central/Southern District of Florida
No cases found

While at Western District of Washington
US v. COHN - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing) (2003)
US v. IULIANO - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing) (2003)
US v. WUTZKE - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing) (2003)
US v. VILLINES - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing) (2003)
US v. R. MYERS - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing) (2003)
US v. SUMMERS - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing) (2003)
US v. JARVIS - NOT TRIAL (probation hearing/appeal) (2003)
US v. S/W - NOT TRIAL (warrant) (2003)
US v. HEAD CARRIER - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2003)
US v. MIDDAUGH - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2003)
US v. KNAPSTAD - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2003)
US v. RAMIREZ DE LA PAZ- NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2003)
US v. LE - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. GIANG-TIEN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. HUBRIS - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. TRAN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. TOPOUZIS - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. CANTO-ROSALES - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. FIRTH- NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. S. HOY - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003)
US v. J. HOY - NOT TRIAL (first, trial FTA, and plea) (2003)
US v. B. MYERS - NOT TRIAL (first, suppression, plea/appeal) (2003)
US v. DIAZ-GONZALEZ - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. MEDINA - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. MONTES DE OCA - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. MILFORD - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. PADRON - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. HIEBERT - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. NELSON - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. MARTINEZ-VASQUEZ- NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2003-04)
US v. ORTIZ - NOT TRIAL (plea and trial preparation) (2004)
US v. VILLA-HERNANDEZ - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. PICKETT - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. SUEN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and sent.) (2004)
US v. DAWSON - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and sent.) (2004)
US v. CAMPBELL - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. BELT - NOT TRIAL (first appearance, dismissal) (2004)
US v. YOO - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. HAMBURG - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. HEMING - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ- NOT TRIAL (first appearance, plea, appeal) (2004)
US v. ALEJANDRES-SANCHEZ- NOT TRIAL (warrant and transfer)
US v. MAGALLON - NOT TRIAL (warrant and dismissal)
US v. G. CARDENAS - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. CARONA-ALVEREZ- TRIAL (3-day jury trial to verdict) (09/2004)
US v. E. CARDENAS - NOT TRIAL (dismissed) (2004)
US v. JOHN DOE - NOT TRIAL (warrant and dismissal) (2004)
US v. GRAHAM - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. PROFIT - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. JENNINGS - NOT TRIAL (first appearance / Colasurdo) (2004)
US v. OLDSMOBILE - NOT TRIAL (search warrant) (2004)
US v. LAGOS - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. PHAN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and warrant) (2004)
US v. PETER NGUYEN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. HUYNH - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. CAO - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and FTA) (2004)
US v. YOUNG - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. DAVIS - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. HENDERSHOT - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. HERRERA-NEVARES- NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. LALLY - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. P. NGUYEN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. D. NGUYEN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. CHIN - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. FOWLKES - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)
US v. LAWRENCE - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. DINH - NOT TRIAL (first appearance and plea) (2004)
US v. SMITH - NOT TRIAL (first appearance) (2004)

Appeals from above cases to US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
US v. B. MYERS (oral argument, unpublished, and affirmed)
US v. JARVIS (no oral argument, unpublished, and reversed)
US v. VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ (appeal withdrawn by defendant)
US v. PROFIT (appeal withdrawn by defendant)
US v. CARONA-ALVEREZ (appeal done by AUSA Whaley – trial co-counsel)
US v. JENNINGS (appeal done by AUSA Colasurdo – successor on case)

 

Comments (14) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Good reporting, finally, been sayin', let's have their court records, ask them what are the biggest most complex trials you guys have done, etc. Glad finally some reporter did some work.

BTW what about Ferguson's record in the courtroom, what is the biggest case he personally led, and tried?

While we're pro D here isn't there a basic level of fairness at work that would counsel presenting that info, too?
Posted by both unqualified on October 24, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Goldy 2
@1 Ferguson's hasn't been running claiming extensive trial experience. His resume is mostly in civil law... which by the way is what the Attorney General's office mostly does.

But I think the larger point here is that Dunn appears to be misrepresenting his experience, running as this accomplished prosecutor.
Posted by Goldy on October 24, 2012 at 5:27 PM
3
While I think Reagan Dunn is a jackass, this analysis really means nothing. Just because something is "not a trial" does not mean it is not court room experience where counsel are present, arguing in front of judges, and adhering to the rules of evidence. In addition, very little of what an Attorney General does has to do with courtroom experience. If something is going to court, it is typically one of the many AAGs that represent the state, not the AG him/herself.

Please focus your reporting on why Dunn's positions are a poor choice for our state, as this kind of "investigating" seems only to mislead.

We can beat Dunn on the substance.
Posted by ourkind on October 24, 2012 at 5:29 PM
michaelp 4
Being someone who cares about judicial economy and civil rights, I find the mudslinging-fest that is this campaign troubling at best.

Reagan Dunn and his supporters attack Ferguson over his assistance in securing counsel for a murderer. But last I checked, all accused individuals have a constitutional right to counsel. Do Reagan Dunn and the GOP believe that this right isn't all that important?

And now Ferguson is attacking Dunn for slinging deals as an AUSA. As Goldy correctly points out - that's their job. And not even just for judicial economy, but for things like protecting victims of crimes from having to relive the same, protecting the safety of informants and flipped co-defendants, and, oftentimes, pushing toward treatment as a part of punishment...which is actually a good thing.

Ferguson is clearly the superior choice, but goddamn this race is getting especially stupid.
Posted by michaelp on October 24, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Goldy 5
@3 Dunn can't have it both ways. If he's gonna run as a tough law and justice prosecutor (even though criminal prosecuting has almost zilch to do with the office), he can't run away from the fact that he has almost zero trial experience.

@4 To be clear, Dunn's side started it. I suppose Ferguson and his supporters could choose to stay above the fray, but that would just amount to handing the office over to Dunn. If Karl Rove hadn't decided to play big on Dunn's behalf, none of this would be necessary.
Posted by Goldy on October 24, 2012 at 6:46 PM
Catalina Vel-DuRay 6
With a name like Reagan, he's got to be sleazy.
Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay http://www.danlangdon.com on October 24, 2012 at 6:49 PM
7
If an attorney lies about being an attorney during a period when he WASN'T an attorney, that's all you need to know: he's a liar who doesn't care about anyone knowing he's a liar, because he's got money behind him. Not a great recommendation for being the highest legal official in the state.
Posted by sarah70 on October 24, 2012 at 8:08 PM
michaelp 8
@5 - You are very much correct, and the ads were hard hitting, well done hit pieces. It also took Ferguson way too long to respond.

That said, while I would love to live in a world where we could campaign on facts and reality, Ferguson's camp did what they had to do. I may not like it, but it is what it will take to ensure Dunn doesn't bring the lazy to Olympia.
Posted by michaelp on October 24, 2012 at 8:37 PM
9
This is a fair attack on Goldy's part. It's well known in the criminal-law world that Dunn got the position because of his mother, that he was't a stand-out by any stretch of the imagination, and that he's seriously overselling his "prosecutor" cards.
Posted by Gidge on October 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM
10
Damn near every law-school graduate who somehow passes the bar can get a job as an assistant prosecutor. It is in no way an indication of legal acumen or personal integrity. There are definitely great prosecutors, but mainly prosecutors' offices need warm bodies to go down and file Notices of Appearance and be gofers for the real trial lawyers.
Posted by sarah70 on October 24, 2012 at 10:32 PM
michaelp 11
And one last thing now that nobody's watching:

Who The Fuck Cares???

To the extent folks aren't aware, the AG's office rarely, if ever, prosecutes crimes. That is left almost exclusively, if not 100% so, to County Prosecutors and City Attorneys. The Attorney General's office issues some opinions to the legislature on the possible constitutionality of laws, drafts the ballot titles for initiatives, and basically dabbles entirely in civil and administrative law.

A history as a federal prosecutor, prosecuting criminal matters, is in no way preparation to be what is, more or less, the chief CIVIL attorney for the State of Washington.

And that is all.
Posted by michaelp on October 25, 2012 at 8:59 AM
12
Man oh man, I cannot even stand the name "Reagan Dunn" --- reminds me of one of the top neocons of the past 35 years, Ted Olson (recently became a poster boy of neocon gaytards for his pro bono work on behalf of marriage equality in California, said work being mandated by his firm, Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher --- for better relations with their wealthier San Fran gay crowd, ya know?).

Olson was counsel to Reagan on Iran-Contra,

Olson was a founding member of the ultra-neocon Federalist Society,

Olson worked on Richard Mellon Scaife's Arkansas Project, to dig up any and all dirt on the Clintons back in the 1990s,

Olson was the counsel for Bush on Bush v. Gore, to steal the 2000 presidential election,

Olson did much damage as Geo. Weasel Bush's solicitor general,

Olson was the counsel for Citizens United case before the Supreme Court (paid by Koch Industries, and you should all know who owns that by this time!!!),

And the last time we saw Olson, he was prepping Paul Ryan for the VP debates.

Also at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher with Olson for many years: Kenneth Starr (former spec. prosecutor and trust fund baby, nephew of founder of AIG, the ultra-corporate welfare bailout baby), and Antonin Scalia's spawn, Eugene Scalie.
Posted by sgt_doom on October 25, 2012 at 11:01 AM
13
@2 weak response.

Anyone running for AG needs legal experience in complex litigation. That ferguson's prior exp. is civil doesn't mean he doesn't need exp. That he's not touting it doesn't mean he doesn't need it. We, the public, deserve reporters, even on this blog site, that have basic fairness, so why not report on Ferguson's experience good or bad, as well as Dunn's??????

The AG runs a 400 laywer law firm. The AG determines legal strategy in mega cases like suing the tobacco companies or banksters. The AG needs legal chops. Why not report on the biggest and baddest ass cases Ferguson has done? I suspect that both he AND Dunn never really led major complex litigation. Or did real trials. While you don't need to do trial to know complex litigation, you do need more than a few years of exp. holdilng the briefcase of senior attorneys. We, the public deserve to know for both of them, what's the biggest most complex case you did? What's your war stories? This is basic factual reportage. They're running for top lawyer for the state, their actual legal chops are relevant, duh!
Posted by both not too qualified on October 25, 2012 at 1:56 PM
14
I counted 108 cases (1 civil and 107 criminal) before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington that indicate Reagan Dunn was an attorney. Your list seems shorter. Why?
Posted by marksleen on October 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy