Deputy Prosecutor Dan Crawford’s Past Comes Calling
Shelton, WA (10-15-18) — Daniel Crawford served his country as a Marine. He later went to law school, passed the bar, and was admitted to practice law in Washington State 7 years ago. Then he hired on as a deputy prosecutor under Mike Dorcy. Despite Crawford’s handling of the prosecution of the most serious crimes in Mason County Superior Court, any background check was cursory at best.
Dan Crawford has been zealous in his passion for justice and punishment under the law, perhaps especially in Domestic Violence cases. Dan is, naturally, a law enforcement agent as well as an officer of the court in his current capacity. Prosecutors are expected to carry, if for no other reason, then for their own protection–something a Marine would easily understand. But a Domestic Violence conviction/finding bars possession/control of a firearm. Dan claims he wasn’t aware he was barred (contrary to his own sworn declaration in 1998!) and hastened to remedy his handicap earlier this year when, once Dorcy was informed of the problem, he was told he’d best take care of it.
Acting on Dorcy’s advice, Crawford filed a petition to have the lifetime restraining order imposed against him by a Pierce Co. Superior Court for DV lifted earlier this year. He succeeded. Still, are the optics all wrong, is the appearance of fairness principle violated by a reformed alcoholic or abuser persecuting defendants for the same offense? Moreover, does this conundrum reflect on elected prosecutor Dorcy’s judgment in who he hires/retains for such prosecutions? DV is, after all, a serious offense spanning every income bracket, ethnic profile, and demographic. It is endemic.
Yet, perhaps of necessity, when Dan argues a DV case before a jury, he infers that he and the jury are sufficiently virtuous to cast the first stone…regardless of how fragile the glass houses in which they reside(d).
How fragile is Dan’s glass house? Read the following declarations from a 1998 DV dispute and draw your own conclusions:
Crawford v. Crawford, PCSC No. 98-2-02332-1 (DV)
Crawford v. Crawford slams Persecutor’s character
“My office got a call yesterday from an inmate at the jail. He said that the rumor in the jail is that 3 or 4 deputy prosecutors are quitting because [REDACTED] is putting too much pressure on them. Don’t know if that’s true, but 3 have said they are quitting, including the very aggressive and unreasonable Daniel Crawford. Crawford takes the position that if the guy won’t plead guilty as charged, he is evading responsibility and so Crawford will add as many additional charges as possible, even if it means the defendant will do many times more prison if convicted. He thinks that is fair and so does Dorcy. I think it’s immoral and have told them so. I have two felony cases where they are so unreasonable that I applied maximum pressure, and was met with a motion to disqualify me from the case for a non-existent conflict of interest. Which took all my time away from defending my clients.”