Washington Appellate Court Overturns Grant County Convictions Over Undisclosed Witness Signaling
The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I, has vacated the convictions of a Grant County man on charges including child rape, molestation, and incest. In a unanimous ruling, the court determined that a trial judge failed to adhere to the appearance of fairness doctrine by not disclosing reports that a local victim advocate had signaled to child witnesses while they testified.
The decision unwinds a significant case involving a defendant identified as a Grant County man. He was convicted in a bench trial held in Ephrata in November 2023, and subsequently sentenced to 318 months in prison. The charges originated from abuse allegations involving his stepchildren in Soap Lake, which were followed by a confession he provided to a designated crisis responder at Grant County Integrated Services in Moses Lake.
According to the appellate court's opinion, the integrity of the trial was compromised by an undisclosed irregularity. In December 2023, several weeks after the trial had ended, a second Grant County judge casually mentioned to the defendant's defense attorney, outside the courthouse, that court staff were discussing rumors. The rumors alleged that members of New Hope, a local victim and witness advocacy group, had been in the courtroom signaling to the children as they testified.
When the defense attorney began investigating the matter, a jury administrator confirmed the account. The administrator reported witnessing a New Hope member walking up the stairs with the child victims, pulling on her ear while instructing them to "remember this signal." The administrator also confirmed she had reported this interaction directly to the trial judge during the proceedings.
The trial court took no action regarding this information. Despite receiving the ex parte communication, which bore directly on the credibility of the witnesses, the judge did not inform the defense or the prosecution prior to issuing his verdict.
The issue was eventually raised at a subsequent sentencing hearing. During that proceeding, the trial judge admitted he had been informed about the signaling allegation. The appellate court’s summary indicates the judge stated he decided to "keep a watchful eye" but "completely forgot about it" after he did not observe any overt signaling during the testimony. The judge further reasoned that he could not imagine the advocacy group would ever provide a sign regarding how to answer a specific question, suggesting the signal might have been a way for the children to indicate they needed a break.
In an opinion authored by Judge David Mann, the Court of Appeals ruled that this inaction fatally compromised the trial. Under the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge who receives unauthorized ex parte information must promptly notify the parties involved.
The appellate court found that withholding this information from the defense deprived the accused of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses regarding potential coaching, request curative measures, or investigate the advocacy group's involvement while the trial was ongoing.
Judge Mann wrote, "An objective observer could conclude that the trial court received ex parte information bearing on witness testimony, assumed New Hope’s neutrality, and then kept the allegation to itself while serving as the fact finder." Additionally, the appellate court noted that the judge’s assumption regarding the neutral intent of the advocacy group could be interpreted as a bias toward the State.
Appellate judges emphasized that informal, unofficial resolutions to significant courtroom disruptions should not be permitted when they involve serious procedural concerns.
The ruling specifically directs that the convictions be overturned and the matter sent back to Grant County Superior Court for a fresh trial before a new presiding judge.
This next phase will not include a determination on the merits of the abuse allegations against Lester, nor will it assess the strength of the evidence presented during the original proceedings.
Instead, the focus will remain on correcting procedural shortcomings identified by the appeals panel, with the new trial intended to proceed under fresh judicial oversight.
Earlier reporting had outlined how irregularities in the original trial—including unscheduled hearings and unrecorded discussions—sparked concerns about transparency and due process.
Those procedural flaws formed the backbone of the appellate court’s reasoning, with the opinion noting that such departures from standard practice risked undermining public confidence in the fairness of the outcome.
The court’s directive sets the stage for a new chapter in the case, giving both sides an opportunity to reframe their positions before a different judge and jury.