With the primary election days away, we gave each of the three Democrats running for Douglas County district attorney a chance to answer voters’ questions on an ethics complaint, an accusation of prosecutorial misconduct, views on officer conduct and more.
Incumbent Suzanne Valdez, elected in 2020, will face newcomers Tonda Hill and Dakota Loomis in the primary election on Tuesday. The winner of Tuesday’s primary will face Republican candidate Mike Warner in the Tuesday, Nov. 5 general election.
This article aims to answer some questions and concerns that readers have shared with us recently.
More info on the candidates:
Valdez facing a new complaint
Valdez’s previous deputy district attorney, Joshua Seiden, left the office in June after he had dressed up as a Lawrence anti-mask protester and frequent public commenter, Justin Spiehs. The incident was recorded on courthouse security cameras, and the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office released the video footage, which was subject to an open record request.
The video shows Seiden holding up a phone as if to record interactions with people, as Spiehs often does. Valdez can be seen laughing in the footage. Seiden and Valdez stepped into the lobby of the courthouse momentarily and interacted with deputies working in court security before walking back into the DA’s office.
Spiehs said last week that he had filed a complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator against both Seiden and Valdez.
Spiehs’ complaint alleges that “Instead of recognizing how unprofessional, mean, and inappropriate this all was, the security video shows Ms. Valdez going along with, encouraging, and ratifying Mr. Seiden’s public mockery of me by laughing and pointing at Mr. Seiden as he strutted around the courthouse entrance impersonating and mocking me.”
The DA’s office has previously prosecuted Spiehs “and has also declined to prosecute people who committed crimes against me,” he wrote in the complaint.
Valdez said via email that “Mr. Seiden’s unprofessional incident involving his mockery of Justin Spiehs, lasted mere seconds. My response was that of surprise and shock.”
She said she dealt with the incident swiftly once she had time to do so that day.
“Mr. Seiden’s misconduct was not ratified by me, and that is why he is no longer with my office,” she wrote.
She said of her reaction in the video that “I was looking and pointing at the court security deputy who was startled at seeing Mr. Seiden. I was not pointing or looking at Mr. Seiden. Again, we were caught off guard. All of us were due (to) how quickly the situation unfolded.”
Valdez said Friday that she had not yet received the complaint, but she will promptly respond if she does.
Complaints filed with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator are only subject to public disclosure if they have been docketed for a hearing in front of a panel of disciplinary attorneys. Many complaints are resolved before that happens.
Valdez is still facing another pending complaint that has been docketed with the ODA regarding her conduct toward a judge. After a three-day hearing in December, a panel of disciplinary attorneys recommended in April that Valdez face a public censure.
The Kansas Supreme Court will make the final decision on whether Valdez faces any discipline for that complaint. If the court determines a public censure is appropriate, it would not impede her from continuing to practice law. It is still possible that she could face probation or suspension, however. The special prosecutor on the case had asked the panel to recommend Valdez’s law license be suspended for a year.
Other complaints have been filed against Valdez but not docketed. Read additional background on the docketed complaint and more in the articles at this link.
Hill accused of prosecutorial misconduct
Attorneys have accused Hill, currently a prosecutor in Wyandotte County, of prosecutorial misconduct in a case in which the defendant was initially charged with rape, aggravated burglary and domestic battery.
Victims in criminal cases do not often have their own attorneys; however, in this case, the woman did have an attorney appointed to represent her. Hill sought to subpoena that attorney to testify in the defendant’s jury trial. Because of attorney-client privilege and Kansas’ rules for prosecutors, it is very rare for attorneys to be subpoenaed to testify about their clients.
The woman’s attorney had his own attorney file a motion in February asking the judge to quash the subpoena.
Hill wrote in response that “In the present case, (the victim and her attorney) no longer have privileged communications” because the victim had discussed her attorney’s representation during a jail call. Hill wrote that the victim was aware that the calls were recorded and subject to monitoring, and “Of significance to this case and possible unethical actions is the fact that (the victim) discusses that (her attorney) advised her not to speak or cooperate with the State.”
In a subsequent motion, the attorney for the defendant wrote that “According to (the victim’s) sworn trial testimony, Ms. Hill explicitly threatened to criminally charge (her) unless she adopted the State’s version of events,” which was why the victim had hired her own attorney. The motion also stated that the victim “supports leniency and has repeatedly voiced her opposition to the charges.”
It was not clear from available court records how the judge had ruled regarding the subpoena of the victim’s attorney. Hill did not respond to multiple emails asking about this case, though her campaign manager responded to other questions.
A jury could not come to a decision in the case, and the defendant ultimately pleaded to lesser charges. He was sentenced last month to almost eight years in prison.
Hill has filed more than 15 small claims cases in various courts, including two against different people who allegedly rear-ended her vehicle, and one against Walmart, seeking $250, because a backpack she bought stained her clothing. Many of the cases have been resolved with dismissals, and a few have proceeded to bench trials.
Anyone can file a small claims case, but some readers have shared concerns about how that pattern might be reflected in her judgment for filing cases as DA if she is elected.
Hill’s co-campaign manager, Lois Orth-Lopes, responded via email with a clip of Hill at a candidate forum. In the video Hill posted on her Facebook page, she says she filed the small claims cases appropriately in an attempt to resolve different situations, and that the concerns are attempts to “assassinate my character.”
“I’m not embarrassed or ashamed regarding that,” Hill said in the video. “I have had situations where I’ve had accidents, car accidents, or different type of situations where I’ve filed small claims cases. I’ve always wanted to be an attorney, I understand the law and I use the law appropriately.”
Hill said she doesn’t come from a privileged background, and that nothing has been given to her because of her name or her connections.
“So when I’ve had civil wrongs that have happened to me, I didn’t have the ability just to write it off and say that I can try to recover from it. I had to make myself whole,” she said in the video.
In retrospect, Hill said, if she would’ve known how her past filings would be used “as a way to assassinate my character,” she probably would not have filed the small claims cases.
“I probably would have let those things go, but hindsight is 20/20,” Hill said in the video. “And that has nothing to do with my ability to be a competent professional that can try cases, that can do what they’re supposed to do in the criminal law.”
In an email response on behalf of Hill, Orth-Lopes wrote, “this has nothing to do with her ability as a solid prosecutor. It’s just one more thing that has been pushed to discredit Tonda (like telling people that she doesn’t even live in Douglas County).” Hill said in response to our candidate questionnaire that she has lived in Lawrence for 13 years.
Orth-Lopes added that “If Tonda was not considered highly ethical she would not have been appointed recently to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.”
Loomis’ standards on officer conduct under question
Law enforcement officers who are called to testify are subject to scrutiny during court proceedings. Prosecutors need to be aware of any dishonesty or bias in criminal and professional histories, and they have a legal duty to turn that information over to defense attorneys.
Put very simply, Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States were landmark cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors must provide to defense attorneys all evidence that could show that a defendant is not guilty. That includes information that could make a jury question a particular witness’s credibility — for instance, if a witness had been granted immunity in exchange for their testimony.
If a law enforcement officer commits a “Brady” violation, that could generally mean they had withheld exculpatory evidence or that they had fabricated evidence; “Giglio” evidence could generally include information showing that an officer had been untruthful, had shown racial bias, had a criminal history or history of professional complaints, and more. (Incidents involving these kinds of misconduct can be, and often are, career-ending for officers. Read more about local Brady-Giglio issues and policies in the articles at this link.)
All of this information could be critical to a defendant getting a fair trial. When there are violations, it can lead to cases getting dismissed, convictions getting overturned, and/or innocent defendants getting wrongly convicted.
During a public forum, Valdez alluded to Loomis, a Lawrence defense attorney and the prosecutor for Baldwin City, accepting cases from Baldwin City Police Sgt. Clint Epperly, who was charged in 2014 with two counts of misdemeanor false impersonation for statements he allegedly made on social media. The charges were later dropped, and the case was expunged from his record in February 2022.
Epperly was also charged in Lyon County in connection with a 2008 traffic stop made while he was employed by the Kansas Highway Patrol. According to court documents, Epperly was accused of removing multiple items from a semi-tractor trailer that was seized and impounded during a drug investigation. He was acquitted after a bench trial in January 2010. (Read more in the articles at this link.)
Valdez said Epperly is the only officer in Douglas County from whom her office will not accept affidavits.
Loomis said he conducted a review of all documents related to Epperly to determine if any could be considered Brady/Giglio material and turned over all documents that could potentially trigger disclosure.
“As the Baldwin City Attorney and a practicing defense attorney, I am very sensitive to the importance of properly identifying and turning over Brady-Giglio material,” Loomis said via email. “In my role as the Baldwin City Attorney, I review all potential Brady-Giglio material and did so with respect to the prior cases involving Clint Epperly. I determined that out of an abundance of caution, the materials related to previous cases and investigations should be turned over to defense counsel should Clint Epperly be called as a witness.”
Valdez said a couple years ago, Loomis and the Baldwin City police chief sought to persuade her to accept affidavits from Epperly, “despite this individual’s very troubling and documented misconduct as a law enforcement officer,” she wrote.
Loomis said he and Valdez agreed that there were documents that should be turned over to defense counsel should Epperly be a witness, but disagreed that the documents precluded Epperly from testifying.
Loomis said he does not have any active Baldwin City Municipal Court cases in which Epperly is an affiant or witness at this time.
Find out what’s really going on in your town. Read The Lawrence Times.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
Natasha Torkzaban (she/her), a contributor to The Lawrence Times since June 2023, is a recent graduate of Lawrence High School. She was an editor-in-chief of The Free Press at Free State High School before becoming an editor-in-chief for The Budget at Lawrence High School for 2023-24. Read her work for the Times here.
Mackenzie Clark (she/her), reporter/founder of The Lawrence Times, can be reached at mclark@lawrencekstimes.com. Read more of her work for the Times here. Check out her staff bio here.
Was our election guide helpful to you?
How can we do it better next time?
Please let us know by taking our quick survey at this link.
Mackenzie Clark/Lawrence Times
Latest Lawrence news:
Molly Adams / Lawrence Times
