Background
On September 10, 2024, Christopher Spanjer fled a traffic stop and crashed into a vehicle driven by Sean Plunkett, a deputy prosecutor in the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PCPAO). The collision injured Plunkett. Spanjer was charged with seven offenses, including vehicular assault relating to Plunkett’s injuries.
Spanjer moved to disqualify the entire PCPAO from prosecuting him, arguing that Plunkett’s status as both a victim and co-worker of every attorney in the office created an irreconcilable conflict. The trial court granted the motion, applying the appearance of fairness doctrine and reasoning that Plunkett’s colleagues had “a vested interest in his wellbeing” that could affect their judgment and plea offers. Before oral argument, Spanjer and the PCPAO reached a plea agreement, and Spanjer withdrew his disqualification objection and pleaded guilty, rendering the appeal moot on its face.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s disqualification order, holding that neither Plunkett’s personal conflict nor the PCPAO’s collective relationship with him required office-wide disqualification. The court applied the continuing and substantial public interest exception to reach the merits despite mootness, finding the issue likely to recur and important for future prosecutorial guidance.
The court reasoned that under Washington precedent and current Rules of Professional Conduct, Plunkett’s disqualification as a crime victim and necessary witness did not impute to the entire office because: (1) Plunkett was effectively screened from participation in the case; (2) RPC 1.11 eliminates imputation of government attorney conflicts except for elected prosecutors who previously represented the defendant; and (3) RPC 3.7(b) allows other lawyers in the firm to proceed when one lawyer is a necessary witness, provided RPC 1.7 does not independently bar the firm. The court further held that the appearance of fairness doctrine does not apply to prosecutors performing executive functions like prosecutorial discretion and plea negotiations, and found no actual evidence the PCPAO treated Spanjer differently because of Plunkett’s victim status.
Key Takeaways
- A deputy prosecutor’s personal conflict of interest—including status as a crime victim—does not impute to the entire prosecuting attorney’s office if the attorney is effectively screened from the case.
- Washington’s 2006 RPC amendments eliminated automatic imputation of government attorney conflicts to the entire office, except where the elected prosecutor personally represented the defendant in the same or closely related matter.
- The appearance of fairness doctrine, which applies to judicial and quasi-judicial actors, does not apply to prosecutors’ executive prosecutorial decisions such as charging, plea negotiations, and case handling.
- Prosecutors routinely have close relationships with crime victims and cannot be expected to recuse entire offices based solely on a colleague’s victim status absent evidence of actual unfair treatment.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Washington prosecutors need not disqualify entire offices when a colleague is harmed by the defendant, provided proper screening is in place. The ruling protects prosecutorial efficiency and public resources by preventing defense-initiated office-wide disqualifications based on the inevitable fact that prosecutors work closely with crime victims. Importantly, the court distinguished between elected prosecutors (whose prior representation of the defendant requires presumptive office-wide disqualification) and deputy prosecutors (whose personal conflicts can be managed through screening), solidifying the framework for conflicts analysis in prosecutor’s offices.
For defense counsel, the decision narrows grounds for challenging prosecutorial impartiality based on office composition or victim relationships, focusing scrutiny instead on actual evidence of differential treatment or improper conduct. The court’s reliance on the modernized Rules of Professional Conduct signals that structural safeguards like case screening are sufficient alternatives to broader disqualification in the government attorney context.