by Laura Adelmann
Thisweek Newspapers
Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom has agreed to a public reprimand and admitted he violated ethics rules by comments he made in a series of e-mails that defense attorneys claim caused an expert witness not to testify in a Washington County murder case.
The recommendation will be forwarded from the Board of Professional Responsibility to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which will issue a ruling and has no deadline by which to decide.
In an agreement with the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, Backstrom admitted his e-mailed comments to Dakota County Medical Examiner Lindsey Thomas regarding his opposition to a member of her staff testifying for the defense was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Under the agreement, the board recommends that Backstrom pay $900 in costs.
The complaint against Backstrom was filed in February by the State Public Defender’s Office regarding the comments.
After the witness, Dr. Susan Roe, read Backstrom’s e-mails to Thomas, Roe refused to continue on as a witness in the murder case of Nicole Beecroft, a teenager who was sentenced to life without parole for killing her newborn child.
Before reading Backstrom’s e-mails, Roe was prepared to testify to her findings that the child was stillborn, said defense attorney Luke Stelpflug.
Breaking his three-month silence on the issue, Backstrom issued in a prepared statement describing himself as an aggressive advocate for justice.
He also apologized for a lack of judgement regarding the timing of sending the e-mails.
Below is Backstrom’s entire statement:
“I have had the privilege of serving as the Dakota County Attorney for more than 21 years and have always been an aggressive advocate for justice.
“In this regard I have struggled with the practice of other public officials in this community accepting private work engagements which I believe conflict with the work of my office.
“These general concerns were the motivation for an e-mail I sent to the Dakota County Medical Examiner last fall.
“The e-mail expressed my concerns about members of the Medical Examiner’s office contracting to assist criminal defense attorneys in murder prosecutions.
“The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has determined that I did not comply with the rules of professional responsibility by sending this e-mail at a time when an Assistant Dakota County Medical Examiner was under contract to assist defense attorneys in a murder trial occurring in Washington County.
“My purpose in sending this e-mail was to share with the Dakota County Medical Examiner my concerns about this practice continuing in the future.
“I did not intend to adversely impact the Washington County trial in any respect.
“However, sending this e-mail at the time I did represented a lack of judgment on my part for which I apologize.
“As soon as I became aware of claims that my e-mail had caused the Assistant Dakota County Medical Examiner to withdraw from further involvement in the murder case, I immediately sent a clarifying e-mail to all parties involved, explaining that my purpose had been to address an ongoing policy issue and that I did not intend to interfere in any way with the Assistant Medical Examiner’s involvement in the Washington County case.
“I also spoke to the Dakota County Medical Examiner a few days later (while the Washington County trial was still underway) and asked her to urge her assistant to testify in that trial if she was requested to do so.
“This was a sincere effort to mitigate any negative impact my earlier e-mail may have inadvertently had upon the Washington County case.
“While I do not believe my action ultimately affected the outcome of the Washington County trial, as the defense had other expert witnesses and consultants available to them, I regret having sent this e-mail and have accepted the recommendation of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility that I receive a public reprimand.
“I care deeply about this job and the people I work to protect. I remain strongly committed to continuing to successfully carry out the prosecution of criminal acts occurring in Dakota County and the other responsibilities of my Office.”
Backstrom was not in the office or available for interviews Friday, May 15, according to his staff.
Stelpflug said another attorney is appealing the Beecroft case, and he was not certain whether Backstrom’s involvement would play a role in that appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment