Are Whized Witnesses “Better Witnesses?”
To beat down Sheila LaRose’s case against King County the county’s lead attorney, Patty Eakes, hired a trial consultant, Amy Hanegan. Hanegan advertises she makes witnesses “better,” thus the name of her business, “Better Witnesses.” The lawyer and consultant came up with what they hoped would be a “persuasive trial theme” for Eakes’ defense of the county. They then plotted how to “keep the theme in front of jurors throughout the trial” by “incorporat[ing] the themes into … witnesses’ testimony.” (See Hanegan’s website for her business, Better Witnesses: https://www.betterwitnesses.com. )
Just like consumers of Cheez Whiz may have no idea what went into the Whiz or what real cheese looks or tastes like, LaRose jurors listening to the county’s processed witnesses didn’t know how Hanegan and Eakes “improved” the witnesses (to make sure their testimony incorporated the persuasive theme) or what the witnesses were like in their natural states, preprocessed. Exactly how were the county’s witnesses trained to incorporate the county’s themes into their testimony? Did the witnesses’ observations honestly happen to support the county’s arguments against Sheila LaRose or was testimony conforming to the county’s “persuasive trial theme” the product of shaping by Eakes and Hanegan?
Amy Hanegan was paid over six thousand dollars for one month’s work. She worked many months. She prepared the county’s key witnesses for their depositions and trial testimony. Eakes or another attorney from the firm would always be in the room when Hanegan was processing a witness. Sitting with Hanegan while she prepped witnesses added billable hours for the attorney but also enabled Eakes to shield from discovery Hanegan’s influence on the witnesses by claiming the sessions were work product. During these sessions the witnesses were prepared to incorporate the county’s defense themes into their testimony.
You’ll have to ask the county’s witnesses about their experiences, but one way Hanegan has been known to process witnesses is to video tape them during practice examinations conducted by the attorney who hired her. The witness then views the video with Hanegan’s helpful feedback. The process of practice examinations and video and criticism is repeated until the witness seems able to testify to Hanegan’s and the attorney’s satisfaction. The fact that a witness was prepped and video taped by Hanegan is not voluntarily disclosed to the opposing counsel. Hanegan requires written agreement by the attorneys who hire her that her video taping of witnesses, and the tapes, will be treated as confidential work product.
Why did Eakes and Hanegan take pains to hide Hanegan’s preparation of the county’s witnesses from opposing counsel? Why did they want to make sure the jury didn’t know how the witnesses were introduced to the “persuasive theme” Hanegan and Eakes concocted? Why didn’t they want Sheila’s attorneys to question witnesses about their sessions with Amy Hanegan? If it’s all good, shouldn’t the county be transparent about their witnesses being made “better?”
If King County and the Department of Public Defense (DPD) believes hiring a professional witness coach was a good expenditure of public funds, truly promoting truthful and effective witness testimony, why doesn’t it fund the same service for DPD’s clients, the criminally accused individuals public defenders represent? While the county’s witnesses against Sheila were almost exclusively highly educated professionals, primarily attorneys with extensive courtroom experience, DPD’s indigent clients and their witnesses are often lacking in formal education or any experience in public speaking. Which category of witnesses needs help, county employed attorneys who spend their lives in court or indigent clients and witnesses off the streets? Could it be the county cares far more about itself than it does about the supposed mission of public defense, vigorous representation of those who cannot afford to hire private law firms?
I must reiterate my admiration for the witnesses who, while still employed by the Department of Public Defense, had the courage and integrity to testify truthfully.
Observations 