Rediscovering home: County attorney court case settled

The court case that triggered the dispute between the Mineral County attorney and the Sheriff’s Office has finally been dismissed after little more than three years. 

In a related ruling, the District Court found that the county attorney must provide certain information to criminal defendants regarding past allegations against Sheriff Ryan Funke when he was a deputy in Lake County.

Judge Shane Vanetta dismissed the writ of mandamus filed by various criminal defendants on Sept. 20, 2022, seeking an order that the county attorney turn over information regarding deputies’ misconduct that might be helpful to a defendant. 

After the court initially granted the writ, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which attorney Robert Long was appointed to supervise the county attorney’s efforts to disclose information regarding past misconduct by deputies. Vanetta had indicated at a hearing in October 2024 that he was going to dismiss the case, as the settlement tasks were completed, and the requirement for disclosure was ongoing without the writ in place. 

The U.S. Supreme Court required prosecutors to turn over evidence that “shows unreliability, bias or untruthfulness of a prosecution witness,” including law enforcement officers, in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Montana statutes require “all evidence” that tends to mitigate or negate the defendant’s guilt or that tends to reduce his or her sentence must be disclosed.

However, left to be decided was a motion for additional fees and costs by defense attorney Lance Jasper. Jasper was largely responsible for pointing out misconduct by past deputies that had not been turned over to defendants.

In granting the motion, Vanetta pointed to the “intransigence” by the County Attorney’s Office, as reported by Long, in completing the tasks required by the settlement. He noted that Long found assistance provided by Jasper to be “invaluable” to determining the information required to be given to the defendants. 

Vanetta ordered that Jasper be paid $62,215.36 beyond the $113,740 he received under the settlement terms. The judge said the fees were appropriate for Jasper’s continued monitoring and enforcement of the settlement terms. The fees included $5,000 for Jasper hiring an attorney to represent him when he was deposed by the county attorney in the case regarding whether the county attorney was required to turn over information regarding past allegations against Funke and Deputy Micah Allard. Vanetta had earlier decided that allegations against Allard regarding employment disputes with the former sheriff, which led to his firing, did not have to be disclosed to defendants.

Ongoing is the suit by Allard against the county commissioners, Attorney’s Office, and County Attorney Deb Jackson and her Deputy Wally Congdon, alleging the county’s refusal to rehire him as a deputy under Funke and for defaming him. Jackson and Congdon are sued individually, attempting to make them personally liable. The county disqualified Vanetta from the case, and it was assigned to Judge John Larson. Allard has moved to disqualify Larson.

My wife and I were both recently called to jury duty in criminal cases in district and county court. Jackson, with deputies by her side, prosecuted the cases. While I only observed the questioning of the jury panel, I saw no evidence that any division between the offices of the sheriff and attorney affected the case.

In his ruling requiring the county attorney to turn over past allegations against Funke, Vanetta examined in his chambers a settlement agreement between Funke and Lake County, and related documents from an investigative report dated March 17, 2017. Funke agreed to resign if the county paid a severance and terminated investigations into allegations that he violated the county and sheriff manuals. 

(I have represented a number of employees, including law enforcement officers, in employment cases. I caution against concluding an employee only agrees to resign if they admit they have done something wrong. There are a myriad of reasons to settle.).

Vanetta found that evidence alleging Funke was not truthful in official reports must be disclosed. (Note: A requirement that the evidence be disclosed does not necessarily mean it will be admissible at trial.)

He found that other allegations of his alleged involvement in a “Coyote Club, poaching, hunting without a license or tampering or destroying evidence” were not sufficiently supported to require their disclosure.

The judge pointed out that the law does “not require police officers to be model citizens in everyday life and maintain perfect honesty and integrity in everything they do.” However, the law requires disclosure of alleged dishonesty related to an officer’s official duties, Vanetta said, because “the peace officer uniform often gives jurors the impression of credibility and reliability which should not be afforded in cases where the prosecution has information that indicates the uniformed officer has a history of dishonest conduct.”

Disclosure is not required if there is no corroboration or substantial evidence supporting that the “allegations are based on accurate events,” the ruling said. “In this case, there is corroboration or substantial evidence” of “falsities found in the course of investigations done by Funke,” Vanetta found.

An excerpt from a March 16, 2016 letter from an unspecified office included in the ruling says: “Based on differences between what videos and other evidence shows and what Mr. Funke writes in his reports, this office is reluctant to rely solely on verbal or written reports from Mr. Funke.” 

This material “may be used by the defense to show by comparing video footage of the incidents [in question] and the reports from other deputies that Funke may have the capacity to exaggerate facts or engage in embellishments within his reports,” according to the decision.

The ruling cites an investigative finding that while Funke reported that he advised a person of her rights before questioning her regarding a theft at Ninepipes Lodge, an audio tape showed he questioned her extensively before advising her of her rights.

On the other hand, the judge found allegations “regarding Funke and illegal hunting activities, as well as his participation in the ‘Coyote Club,’ [were] speculative and based on rumor and strings of circumstantial evidence.” 

He referred to participation by law officers in the club as “a long-whispered conspiracy.”