MOTION TO HEAR ALLEGATIONS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST GOLIK POSTPONED TO AFTER THE ELECTION.

Here is yet another display of media bias.  This one from a local election in Vancouver Washington

The hearing set before the Clark County Superior Court to consider allegations of prosecutorial misconduct against Tony Golik was moved from October 29th, to November 17th, after the election.
Golik, a Democrat, is running for County Prosecutor . He is running against Republican Brent Boger for the open seat.
The allegations were filed by Seattle attorney Neil Fox in Clark County Superior Court.
The Clark County Republican Party sent out a press release calling attention to the allegations last week. While the Columbian mentioned in a recent article that allegations had been filed they refused to report details of the allegations.
“The official position of the Columbian is that they will not report the allegations until the judge has made a ruling,” said Clark County Republican Party Chairman Ryan Hart.
“What is troubling is that the courts decision on these allegations will not be released until after the election,” Hart said.” “With an election coming up, the public needs to know about these allegations to make an informed choice about who our next prosecuting attorney should be," he said.
Newspapers regularly report allegations prior to a decision in court. A recent example is the October 21, 2010 edition of the Columbian when the paper reported on “allegations” against the No Tolls PAC. “Aren’t these just allegations?” asked Hart. “Shouldn’t the PDC make a ruling before the Columbian report on these allegations, at least by their own standards?” Hart added. “There is a double-standard from the Columbian here,” Hart noted. “They cover allegations against someone taking a political position they don’t like, while ignoring more serious and documented allegations against someone they support and are trying to protect,” Hart said.

Hart made it clear, “The Clark County Republican Party is not raising these allegations, nor are we presuming Golik to be guilty,” He said. “That doesn’t mean the voters shouldn’t be informed of the allegations.”
"This motion raises very concerning allegations, looks very well-documented, and should be taken seriously,” Hart said. “We had two criminal law specialist attorneys take a look at the motion and they told us the allegations of misconduct against Tony Golik were serious. I have spoken with prosecuting attorneys that have told me that allegations of this magnitude are not that common.”
Golik dismissed the allegations in a recent Columbian article stating that all of his colleges have had allegations of misconduct filed against them.
“That statement surprised the attorneys I spoke with,” Hart said. “I talked to a prosecuting attorney who has been practicing for more that 20 years who told me he has never had anyone accuse him of prosecutorial misconduct.”
Hart said that if the local paper won’t provide details of the allegations, the Clark County Republican Party will. “Voters have a right know,” Hart said.
Hart stated that there are several allegations against Golik in the motion that raise questions about Golik’s professional conduct.
Seattle attorney Neil Fox filed a motion in Clark County Superior Court seeking vacation of the criminal conviction of Dino Constance. The motion cites prosecutorial misconduct of Tony Golik, the Democrat candidate for Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. (Clark County Superior Court case number 07-1-00843-8).
The misconduct identified in the motion includes:
1. Tony Golik did not reveal, as required by law, the full criminal histories, outstanding warrants, and pending criminal charges of four key witnesses at trial.
2. For example, Golik did not disclose that prosecution witness, Zachary Brown, had reached a deal with prosecutors that no contact orders protecting a woman would be dropped. Brown's testimony was only relevant to the less serious charge of solicitation for assault. Brown's deal was reached over the objections of Brown's community corrections officer. Golik was present during a witness interview when Brown mentioned the no contact orders and Golik did not disclose the prosecution's assistance in getting them lifted. Brown also had pending drug charges that were not pursued, a fact which was not disclosed to the defense as required by law.
3. According to the motion, subsequent to lifting of the no contact orders, Brown assaulted the woman the orders were intended to protect.
4. As a result of the Prosecutor's office's failure to pursue the other criminal charges against Brown after giving testimony, Brown was free to commit a rape and kidnapping in Portland, charges to which he pled no contest to last May.
5. In addition to the community corrections officer, other persons questioned the lifting of the no contact orders against Mr. Brown. Those questioning were told the lifting was "going to get pushed through" because Mr. Brown was testifying in the Constance case. As a result of this pressure, another deputy prosecuting attorney withheld information from the Superior Court as to the reasons for dropping the no contact orders.
6. Tony Golik allowed prosecution witness Ricci Castellanos to testify that he obtained nothing from the prosecution for his cooperation in the case. In fact, Castellanos had received monetary compensation from the police "for his efforts." Golik did not volunteer that information when the issue came up in court.
7. The Prosecutor’s Office withheld discovery and Public Records Act requests for documents for four months while Golik was an announced candidate for Prosecuting Attorney. It took the intervention of the Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor to get the documents released. The failure to disclose these documents may have been motivated by an intention to protect Tony Golik's candidacy for Prosecuting Attorney.
“Elections are about choices,” Hart said. “Boger has an exemplary record. He will be tougher on crime.”