Disciplinary Office Says Prosecutor Was Dishonest Or Incompetent, Asks For Suspension

By Sherman Smith, the Kansas Reflector

December 11, 2020

TOPEKA — A state official trying prosecutor Jacqie Spradling on ethics charges says her pattern of misleading juries about evidence in high-profile cases warrants the indefinite suspension of her law license.

The prosecutor’s actions in Dana Chandler’s double murder trial suggest she was either incompetent or intentionally dishonest, said deputy disciplinary administrator Matt Vogelsberg.

Spradling faces potential sanctions for her handling of the 2012 double murder trial of Dana Chandler in Shawnee County, and the 2017 trial of Jacob Ewing for sex crimes in Jackson County. Courts overturned both convictions because of false statements Spradling made to jurors.

“Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct in these two complaints,” Vogelsberg said Friday in closing remarks of a five-day disciplinary hearing. “She committed multiple offenses. Respondent engaged in deceptive practices during the disciplinary process. And finally, she has substantial experience in the practice of law.”

LJ Leatherman, a Topeka attorney representing Spradling, said she made unintentional mistakes at trial “in the heat of battle.”

“My client has gone on a four-year journey, and in that four-year journey she has grieved that publicly she has been embarrassed for her mistakes,” Leatherman said. “But make no mistake, that’s exactly what they were — mistakes. And they happen in litigation because that is of the nature of litigation.”

Alma attorney Keen Umbehr filed a complaint against Spradling in 2016 following oral arguments in the Chandler case before the Kansas Supreme Court. Justices grilled Spradling on a number of problems with statements she made to the jury about evidence that didn’t exist.

A prosecutor who initially reviewed the complaint on behalf of the disciplinary administrator’s office concluded Spradling did nothing wrong. The complaint was investigated further after the Supreme Court concluded otherwise.

Law enforcement authorities immediately directed their attention to Chandler following the 2002 murders in Topeka of her ex-husband, Mike Sisco, and his fiancee, Karen Harkness.

Vogelsberg said Spradling knew a “fictitious” protection from abuse order didn’t exist when she asked a Topeka police detective on the stand to confirm otherwise. She then told jurors in closing arguments that they knew Chandler was guilty because Sisco had obtained the order and Chandler violated it.

Spradling also had no basis for telling jurors about the details of a five-minute phone call between Chandler and Sisco shortly before the murders, or that Chandler had returned from Topeka to Denver by way of Nebraska after the murders. Those comments were based on unproven theories by law enforcement that lacked evidence.

The prosecutor also told jurors that Chandler had searched for news stories about how to get away with murder, even though the internet searches for celebrity crime that had been discovered on a computer by law enforcement were made before Chandler had access to the computer.

Vogelsberg said Spradling lied about the internet searches and protection from abuse order in sworn statements to investigators as part of the disciplinary review process.

In the Ewing case, Spradling misstated evidence during closing arguments in an attempt to inflame prejudice and passions of jury members, Vogelsberg said.

Leatherman said prosecutors shouldn’t fear every mistake they make during difficult trials will be used against them as evidence of misconduct. Every prosecutor who has reviewed Spradling’s actions at both trials concluded there was no misconduct, he said.

For Spradling to knowingly mislead jurors about the nonexistent protection order in the Chandler case, Leatherman said, she would have needed cooperation in the conspiracy from the trial judge who didn’t stop her, the police detective who testified about the order, and the defense attorney who didn’t object.

“What was she trying to do when she put in the motion?” Leatherman said. “She was trying to speak for the dead. You see, we have a horrible hearsay problem with Mike because he’s dead.”

Leatherman said he doesn’t believe discipline for Spradling would be appropriate.

“It simply doesn’t make any sense that the best prosecutor in the state of Kansas prosecuting the most difficult case, at least that I know of — circumstantial evidence — would be so dumb as to screw it up by creating a fictional order,” Leatherman said.

A panel of three attorneys appointed by the Kansas Supreme Court presided over the disciplinary hearing and will issue a report and recommendation to the court. Justices can accept the panel’s recommendation, or impose lesser or more severe punishment. Options include a public reprimand, suspension or disbarment.

The Kansas Reflector seeks to increase people's awareness of how decisions made by elected representatives and other public servants affect our day-to-day lives. We hope to empower and inspire greater participation in democracy throughout Kansas.