The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO) is responsible for the direction of the criminal legal system in Washington state’s most populous county and, for the first time in roughly 15 years, it will have a new leader.
King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg announced in 2021 that he wouldn’t run for a fifth term in office, opening the field to new candidates.
One is Leesa Manion.
In some respects, Manion has a similar background to her current boss. Satterberg was former Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng’s chief of staff; so is Manion. Satterberg served in the PAO for nearly two decades prior to his November 2007 election; Manion has spent 27 years in the PAO. Satterberg used his time in office to seek out alternatives to traditional prosecution and was an early supporter of Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD); Manion also believes in alternatives to incarceration, helping to found the Family Intervention and Restorative Services (FIRS) program that cuts down on youth domestic violence filings.
However, Manion is quick to point out that, if elected, she would be a prosecutor unlike any that King County has ever seen — she would be the first woman and the first person of color to hold the seat. She describes herself as the “public safety candidate,” highlighting a recent collaboration with Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison that has decreased crime in the downtown, while also acknowledging the inequities in the criminal legal system and impacts on marginalized community members.
Her opponent, Jim Ferrell, is the current mayor of Federal Way and is running with the explicit endorsement of several law enforcement and correctional officers unions. He and other mayors have criticized the current PAO for a surge in crime, lax diversion programs and a case backlog.
Which message will resonate with King County voters? Manion believes that her experience leading a department will shine through.
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Real Change: Why do you want to be the King County Prosecuting Attorney?
Leesa Manion: It is my goal to build a fair and transparent justice system that protects both public safety and achieves racial justice. I don’t think that those important concepts need to be in opposition to one another. I have served for 27 years in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (PAO). I’ve dedicated my entire career to public service and to public safety. … I also think that as the first woman and the first person of color to hold the seat, if elected, I will bring an important and different lived experience and perspective to this office.
RC: What makes you suitable for this position, and why do you feel that you’re better for it than your opponent?
LM: … I’ve long been tackling tough issues and problem solving, and I’m often doing that work behind the scenes because, for me, it’s really about ensuring that our communities are safe and supported. I’m also the only candidate in this race that has worked with 100 percent of our office, all four of our divisions and both of our unions. I’m the only candidate in this race that has experience leading a workforce of nearly 600 employees and our annual budget of $80 million.
I’ve been through 22 years of the King County budget cycle and budget process. I also have been endorsed by more than 200 individuals and organizations that run the broad range of elected officials like Dow Constantine, Bruce Harrell, Mayor/Dr. Lynne Robinson, retired judges, civic leaders, victims of crime, unions. And, to me, that’s really important because it means that voters… Well, values are important to our voters, and it says something that they know something about my values, my integrity, my work ethic, my reputation, and my ability to get things done and to get results. I’m also the only candidate in this race that is a Democrat in good standing with our state party.
And, I’m really proud to have earned the endorsement of every single Democratic legislative district in King County and every Democratic organization that is endorsing in this race.
RC: Do you feel that the track record of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is such that 27 years of experience is something that will appeal to the people you’re trying to serve?
LM: I think people will remember the leadership of Norm Maleng; I was so proud to be his deputy chief of staff. And they will remember the leadership of Dan Satterberg, who, quite honestly, put us on the map as one of the most effective, fair and just prosecutor’s [offices] in the country. We have a national reputation of being fair, just and effective, and I do think that people will remember that and not confuse it with some of the challenges that we’re facing as a result of the pandemic: closed court, reduced police resources.
And I think that some might try to characterize my 27 years of experience as part of the status quo. But if you look at the past four prosecutors — all white males over the past 74 years — my opponent quite literally looks like the status quo, and I would be the first woman, the first person of color. I bring a different lived experience. My ties to the community are very deep, and I think the support that I have from a broad range of our King County communities says something about me and my integrity and my ability to work collaboratively to get results with all types of communities.
RC: What do you define as justice? How do societies achieve it? And do you believe that punishment can constitute justice?
LM: I think we can have a modern and thoughtful and effective criminal legal system that does both address crime and help people restore and recover their lives. …
It means that absolutely, without question, we prosecute violence crimes like homicides. We prosecute sexual assault cases, gun crimes. It also means that we’re free of hate crimes born out of discrimination. It means that we offer victims services that are culturally responsive and that we respect victims’ desire for healing and restorative practices. It means that we offer nonviolent youth that make stupid choices a second chance. It means that we have to acknowledge and dismantle the racial disparities that are in our criminal justice system. And it means that we address both incidents of crime and root causes, that individuals who need help get the support and services they need so that the behavior stops. So to me, all of those things mean public safety.
And I do believe that punishment is part of our criminal justice system. I think what’s lacking is that we aren’t always honest about that.
RC: Washington state disproportionately targets Black, Latine and Indigenous people. If elected, how would you tackle the deep, structural racism within King County’s criminal legal system?
LM: I believe we have a moral obligation to acknowledge and address racial disparities, and we know that they’re in the criminal legal system. And unless we think the system actors are doing this intentionally, the data alone suggests that we have institutional racism built into our system. So, we have to dismantle that.
And here are some things that I’ve personally done to help dismantle the racism that’s in our criminal justice system. I launched our office’s Equity Social Justice Committee. I implemented mandatory implicit bias training for all deputies and staff in the office to improve fair and impartial decision making. I implemented mandatory cultural competency training to better understand race and how it intersects with our criminal justice system. I also think that well, and under my watch and under my leadership, we were also the first prosecutor’s office in the state to launch a public-facing dashboard that shares the racial demographics of referrals and charged cases. And we still have work to do. I believe that we can apply a race equity tool to our work. And I would invite the participation of our BIPOC communities in that process, one, because it would be new for us.
RC: Just in the first eight months of 2022, six people have died in King County Jail, including four from suicide. One independent expert labeled the suicide rate as “astronomical.” If elected, how would you address the crisis in jail?
LM: I will say I find each of those deaths very troubling. And as the prosecuting attorney, I don’t have the full rein to run the jail. The jail is run by the executive and the executive branch. But as a leader in the county — and as the chief legal adviser to the executive — what does that have to say to me is that we have to offer services to get root causes.
The individuals who harm themselves in the jail were definitely suffering from some type of mental health, depression, substance use disorder or behavioral health challenge. And so how do we as leaders work with the jail and jail staff to ensure that there’s the appropriate screening tools, that jail health is appropriately resourced and that we are learning from medical personnel on how to improve this important function in our community and not just learning from corrections officers who have maybe just a very narrow view of the challenges that they’re seeing.
RC: If elected, would you eliminate cash bail? Why or why not?
LM: The thing about cash bail — and just the sudden elimination of it — is that it creates this binary choice for judges: either detain or release. Cash bail was originally developed to ensure someone’s return to court. And we know that it disproportionately impacts poor people and people of color and that your ability to secure your freedom while you’re awaiting charges or awaiting trial is tied to your access to money.
… [W]e have less of a problem with this in King County than we do in other parts of the country, but what we do know from research and from studies is that there are really simple alternatives that can help ensure someone’s return to court, that address root causes and also protect public safety. And these are things like electronic monitoring, community housing, treatment, text reminders. And in order to implement these types of effective alternatives at the local level, I would work with the elected leaders who’ve endorsed me — including our 17 retired judges — who value both public safety and equity. And together we could work to ensure that they are effective, that they’re designed to be fair, and that they’re designed to protect public safety.
I think that is the important opportunity ahead of us, is to create those robust alternatives, because we just simply don’t have enough of them in King County.
RC: Many defense attorneys have argued that they can’t adequately prepare for trial if their clients are detained. Do you not think that cash bail creates this two-tier legal system where poor defendants cannot adequately prepare for a trial while rich defendants can?
LM: First and foremost, I met with Public Defense on this very issue. And what we did — and what I did as a leader in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office — is we brought the director of our King County jail and his top staff to the table, along with our top criminal staff and leadership, to determine how we could improve access together, in collaboration. So, some of the things that we did was we shared information, and we identified where some of the bottlenecks were, and some of the bottlenecks were defense attorneys not knowing when prime hours were, when there are more jail staff available as opposed to fewer to grant access to seeing their clients, because there is transport that is just part of that work.
… The other was to talk about how we create more access virtually with video conferencing and making sure that we create both the space to do that and that we have the bandwidth and technology to do that. And also, we created an open line of communication so that the defense leaders knew how to reach our criminal leaders if they were having any specific challenges on any specific cases.
RC: In what cases would the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office request defendants to be jailed or otherwise restricted before trial?
LM: We request bail in very serious crimes like homicide, very serious sexual assault cases, very serious violent gun crimes. When there is great injury to a person, we are known to make what I would consider reasonable bail request. We do have bail guidelines in those cases, and I think we have to just be really honest about that. There’s nothing to hide there. And I recognize that some may disagree, but those are the types of cases we see cash bail.
RC: Do you support the zero youth detention and incarceration targets that were set by the King County Executive, including the closure of the jail by 2025?
LM: I support the aspirational goal of zero youth detention, but I also believe that we owe it to ourselves to be honest about the fact that we have young people who, sadly, commit very serious violent crime, young people who commit homicides, who commit serious sexual assaults, and those individuals, I think, should be kept.
And the reason I say that is not because I think that we don’t owe them services. I think that every young person who is detained in the King County youth detention facility should be met by a social worker and should be offered services immediately upon entry to start the rehabilitative process. … I think that we could employ a team of medical professionals who work alongside the correction staff, because there are federal guidelines on who has to receive young people in a detention facility or adults in a detention facility, but that doesn’t preclude us from also having qualified therapeutic and medical professionals.
RC: So, closure by 2025 is a ‘no’?
LM: I would support closure by 2025 if data suggests that is something that we’re ready for. I’ll just be really honest: I hope that we don’t have young people committing homicides or sexual assaults or violent crime by 2025. And if we get there, great. But I just want to be honest and real. I think until we can be honest about the size of the need in our community and we address root causes on a grand scale in a way that serves all families and all young people way upstream, I’m not sure if we’re going to get there by 2025.
RC: Under the leadership of Dan Satterberg, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office has been criticized for accepting donations from anti-sex worker organizations, conducting stings of people who hire sex workers. If elected, would you continue to criminalize sex workers and their customers? Why or why not?
LM: We, in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, we actually don’t prosecute sex workers. We do tackle the demand side of that industry, and I know that there are some who are critical of that lens or that practice.
To me, I don’t support prosecuting sex workers. It’s just not how I would use my prosecutorial discretion. … [W]e know by looking at the data that the people who are buying sex are often violent, are preying upon vulnerable individuals, who are creating harm, who are committing physical assaults and rapes on sex workers. We have to hold those individuals accountable.
I think that we also owe it to ourselves to offer people services, that if there are sex workers who want out of the life, who are being trafficked and don’t know how to get out, we have to be able to offer help and services to help those women and men and young boys and young girls who are in that life.
RC: Would your office, under your leadership, accept money from organizations like Demand Abolition [an organization that donated $200,000 to the PAO]?
LM: Not under my leadership. I think that that was something that, at the time, was revolutionary because they came with a promise of offering services, particularly to those who are buying sex in an effort to change behavior. I’m all for changing behavior, but I think that what I learned from those criticisms was that it creates this impression that the work of the office is not impartial … not fair. So, I would avoid that.
RC: Do you support drug decriminalization? Why or why not?
LM: The thing about drugs right now is that it’s really murky waters. The [Washington Supreme Court] has de facto decriminalized drugs, and then our Washington state legislature worked to recriminalize drugs, possession of drugs for a period of a year. But those cases can only be prosecuted when we have two attempts at diversion.
Rather than get hung up on criminalize/decriminalize, the thing that I see the opportunity is: I would like to see a system where we have robust treatment and we have robust access to treatment. I think that we should have the database that determines, that keeps track of individuals who’ve been referred to treatment and what happened, because we’ll learn something from that data. What programs are working? Where can we invest more money? What are the types of treatment and services that work well when they’re in combination with one another? How many of the individuals are suffering from homelessness? How many individuals have had previous contact with our criminal justice system, and we just don’t have that system right now.
RC: It sounds like for possession, perhaps you support decriminalization, but not for dealing. Is that correct?
LM: I would not decriminalize drug dealing. And I think for possession, we have the de facto decriminalization, and I will say that we in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office declined to file possession and small enough personal-use cases long ago. So I think every prosecutor has that discretion, whether it’s being a statute on the books or not.
RC: Pretrial diversion programs have been hailed as a way to reduce the burdens of the criminal legal system and provide more resources. Your opponent, Jim Ferrell, has criticized one such program, Restorative Community Pathways, that lacks “judicial oversight.” What is your position on pretrial diversion?
LM: I believe in the power of diversion. I have personally worked with community to build proven and effective diversion programs that have reduced juvenile crimes to all-time lows in King County. I was a co-founding partner of CHOOSE 180, and I have seen the decline of juvenile crime — including police referrals — since that time. And every sharp decline has coincided with a reform in our juvenile justice system. I was one of the key leaders in getting our Family Intervention [and] Restorative Services diversion program up and running.
… It’s a prefiling diversion program designed to address young people who are caught in family conflict and violence. And when those individuals — because we have mandatory arrest in our state for domestic violence for age 16 and up — police bring those individuals to the detention center, but instead of being booked into detention, they are taken into a respite center where they’re given an important time out, and they are met by a social worker. And the social worker, within 24 hours, reaches out to the family and works with the young person and gives them new tools to be a family and to resolve conflict.
And we never file the case. They used to be one of our most disproportionate crimes. So, I’ve seen the power of what happens when we offer therapeutic services upon entry in a respite environment.
With Restorative Community Pathways, first and foremost, I don’t think people realize that in our state we have mandatory juvenile diversion for all first time misdemeanors, and Restorative Community Pathways meets that legal obligation. But, we also refer certain nonviolent, first-time felony offenses to Restorative Community Pathways because it is one, prefiling, but it’s also a program that offers immediate services not just to the young person but to their family and also to the harmed party.
That’s one of the things that’s revolutionary about Restorative Community Pathways is that it is an unprecedented investment in serving harmed parties, because it also has a loss recovery fund that covers out-of-pocket losses for harmed parties — things like insurance deductibles, the replacement of a cell phone, the cost of replacing a broken window — because that type of potential restitution was what was keeping a lot of young people out of effective diversion programs.
And while my opponent does take some issue with the fact that it’s prefiling, one, it’s what our law requires, and two, it is also a more cost-effective way of feeding that money into community-based nonprofits that can meet the needs of young people after hours, in their homes, in their schools.
And, with all due respect to judges, I don’t know a single judge that meets with a family at 6 p.m. on Saturday or goes to school at 7:30 in the morning or talks to the family and talks to the neighbors of the family. So, they fill an important role in our system and in our service, in our community.
RC: Recently, Satterberg requested a criminal investigation into Jenny Durkan’s, deleted text messages and violations of public records to the King County Sheriff’s Office. Would you prosecute Durkan if the Sheriff’s Office finds that she likely broke the law?
LM: You know, I read through that question before the interview, and, I have to say, I took issue with the word “likely.” And that’s because as prosecutors, we should never file charges unless we have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime. And I think that in so many of our challenging cases, and this is one that’s closely watched, there will be a cry from certain parts of the community that will say, “You should prosecute the former mayor and others. Take it to a jury and let the jury decide.”
But that’s not actually the role of the prosecutor. The role of the prosecutor is to really grapple with our ethical obligation on: Is there evidence to support charges? And if there is evidence of intentional destruction of public records, then that is something that I will have to grapple with. And one of the things that we’ll have to do also is really screen for conflicts. I did work with our former mayor and when she was our U.S. Attorney. We worked on Project Safe Neighborhoods together. And, of course, I worked with her and her administration when she was mayor on issues.
… One, is there evidence? And two, would I be conflicted out of making this determination because of my past relationship with the mayor?
RC: As prosecuting attorney, would you spend resources going after white collar or environmental crimes or other kinds of crimes that we see less prosecuted?
LM: The answer to that is that we in the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office have a long history of going after those who commit environmental crime and white collar fraud. The challenge in those cases is that we rely on law enforcement, and we review cases after they’ve been referred to us by law enforcement. And, often, law enforcement lack both the resources and sometimes they lack the expertise to really investigate a complex fraud or an environmental crime. In order to increase the number of prosecutions for those types of important cases, we would have to ensure that police have access to forensic accountants and have the ability to go out and interview witnesses in potential environmental crimes.
The other thing is that we don’t have jurisdiction over all of those acts. The Attorney General’s Office has a broader jurisdiction for environmental crime, business crime and some business corruption cases.
RC: Many studies have shown that wage theft is by far the largest single type of theft. Yet, many prosecutors tend to prioritize retail theft and petty theft. If elected, how would you prioritize labor rights violations and wage theft versus other property crimes?
LM: First and foremost, wage theft is morally wrong. I just want to be really clear about that. And, to me, it’s a both race and gender issue, because we know that women and immigrant workers and BIPOC workers are disproportionately impacted by wage theft. And these cases are also under-prosecuted in part because they’re underreported and under-investigated. So, one of the things that I would do is I would work with all of the labor unions who have endorsed me and seek additional resources to form a taskforce. And the role of the taskforce would be this: Let’s partner with the Attorney General’s Office, Labor and Industry, labor and prosecutors around our state to, one, ensure that workers know their rights and to ensure that workers feel safe reporting wage theft.
There’s an entire public awareness campaign that’s part of this work. And then, on the other side of the coin, we have to work with Labor and Industry, labor, prosecutors and police to ensure that they know how to investigate these cases and how to preserve evidence with an eye toward increased prosecution. And then, I also think that there is an opportunity to examine with this taskforce how do we hold contractors accountable, because it’s often the contractors that are preying upon individuals that are creating this kind of underground economy.
RC: Do you think that the current inquest system into police killings is fair or functional? Is it doing the job that it’s meant to do? And why or why not?
LM: I think the inquest system — as we have it, as it’s been revamped by the executive — I think there are parts of it that are fair. I am pleased that surviving victim family members have an attorney and have representation. I appreciate that the inquest process is really geared towards bringing transparency to what happened.
I think that the current inquiry process also does a disservice in that it raises expectations that aren’t met through the inquest process. …[S]ome of the facts that come out during an inquest process are not admissible in criminal trials. Compelled statements by officers don’t come in in criminal trials. And I think that as a result, going through an inquest process puts a family through a lot of grief, and it may raise expectations that what comes out of the inquest process is useful in a prosecution.
RC: In what instances would you or your office prosecute police who kill people? And given that the inquest process is a fact-finding mission, do you see yourself prosecuting police officers even if the inquest jury rules in favor of those officers?
LM: We have actually charged an Auburn police officer with murder, and it’s the first instance of an officer being prosecuted after the passage of I-940. And I don’t want to talk about that active case, but absolutely there are instances when it is appropriate to prosecute police officers for murder. Obviously.
RC: Your opponent has been endorsed by many police officer guilds. They say that Ferrell is the “only way” to address public safety. What does that say? And are you concerned about the political influence of law enforcement unions?
LM: I intentionally declined to seek the endorsement of any police unions, and here’s why. I secured resources and I formed a Public Integrity Unit after the passage of [Initiative] 940 because I believe in those reforms. And the Public Integrity Unit in our office is dedicated to reviewing officer-involved shootings and police use-of-force cases. And I don’t believe that the review of those cases appears fair and unbiased if I’m endorsed by police guilds.
… For me, policing is a common ground issue, that when we are afraid and call 911, we want a response. And maybe that’s from a police officer or maybe it’s from a social worker. But dispatch should decide that. We also want police who know how to deescalate volatile situations and police who are dishonest or who abuse our authority, we want them off the force.
We all want that, and I think police want that, too. And I think that we do need police, one, because they’re here and they’re part of our public safety network, separate and apart from how 10 different individuals may feel about that. And here’s what I would do. Unlike Dan, I would attend our monthly police chiefs and sheriff’s meeting as the elected actor would be in the room to build relationships, hold myself accountable and to build allyship on important public safety initiatives. Dan never went, and I would go.
RC: Do you think the fact that Ferrell has held a press conference with police guild leaders could actually hurt his independence in these types of officer misconduct cases?
LM: Well, to me, I think about … The appearance of fairness is just as important as actual fairness. And I think that if I were experiencing or a party to a police use-of-force case, I may not feel like that case was given a fair shake if the elected prosecutor is endorsed by police unions or police guilds, which is why I intentionally declined to seek those endorsements.
You had asked a question about whether I don’t know if it was whether police endorsements mark a candidate as the “public safety” candidate, but I will say, to the extent that this is a phrase, I believe I am the public safety candidate, and it’s because of my 27 years of proven leadership and experience. It’s because of my ability to collaborate and get results. There’s no one greater concerned about public safety in Seattle’s downtown core than Mayor Bruce Harrell, and he’s endorsed me. The Downtown Seattle Association has reported that property crime is down in the downtown corridor by 20 percent since January, and they are beholden only to their paid membership. And I think it has something to do with the collaboration that I initiated with our new City Attorney Ann Davison.
Ashley Archibald is the editor of Real Change News.
