Michael Haas has refused to answer any questions on how he handled the case of State versus McAllister and the woman at the center of that rape case.  As reported previously, Haas dismissed the charges without ever first telling the victim.  He did not speak with her for eight months after getting the case, and then only ten days before her deposition.  He refused to meet with her beforehand, and, as our next report will show, failed to protect her from impermissibly intrusive questioning by an investigator who should not have been allowed to interrogate her in the first place.

Our last report will show how a competent attorney would likely have succeeded in convicting Patrick McAllister.  Contrary to Haas’ representations to the court, without his doing anything, his case had grown considerably stronger and not weaker.  He had much more to work with, thanks to McAllister himself and his attorney.  Instead, Haas dumped the case and dropped all charges against a man with a long history of violently and sexually abusing women.

It is our policy to always contact the subject of a story before publication.  When we receive written answers, we publish them verbatim.

We have twice contacted Mr. Haas with questions and an open invitation for him to speak.  We would say he might have ignored us.  But he has made it clear he is refusing to answer any questions.  On his campaign website, after we invited him to comment on our reporting, he issued a statement accusing us of “mis-stating” facts–but not stating what it was he contends we got wrong.  He also stated he would be answering no questions.

So that our readers know we have attempted to investigate this case fairly and thoroughly, while giving Mr. Haas full opportunity to tell his side, here are the questions we have put to him which he will not answer.  We have summarized then from two lengthy emails to Mr. Haas:

1.  Has he ever spoken with SL to explain why he dropped the case even though he told her he believes that she was raped and assaulted?
2. Why did he allow a non-lawyer to interrogate her, why did he require SL to travel 100 miles roundtrip to the defense lawyer’s office, why did he not insist she get a meaningful break during the over 4-hour interrogation and why did he not stop the investigator from asking questions prohibited by Washington’s rape shield law?
3. What did he do to prepare his own case for trial?  Why did he not obtain assistance from the Sheriff’s office to investigate the defense’s claims and its witnesses?  Why did he not obtain expert help to assess the credibility and accuracy of medical experts the defense intended to call as witnesses?
4. Did he ever speak with the detective who had conducted the investigation of the rape and assault charges against McAllister?
5. Did he obtain the files of the federal conviction in which McAllister had admitted to lying to immigration authorities when he brought SL into the country?  Did he obtain the sentencing report which would have detailed McAllister’s full prior criminal history and his statements about his involvement with SL and his crimes?
6. The defense contended that McAllister was physically unable to have raped SL.  What did Haas do to investigate those claims, such as obtaining evidence from McAllister’s five years in prison as to how he conducted himself or conducting surveillance to determine if McAllister were feigning his physical limitations?
7. Had he attempted to contact the women before SL who were assaulted by McAllister?  McAllister had overpowered them and their testimony would contradict his claims of being physically unable to rape a woman, especially someone as small as SL.
8. Lastly, why had he refused to meet with the woman whose rape case he was supposed to be prosecuting?

Our prior reports on this:

Dumping a Rape Case, and its Victim Part 1.

Dumping a Rape Case, and its Victim, Part 2.