Public debate has intensified in recent weeks surrounding the conduct of Superior Court Judge Brent Basden. Reporting has highlighted several controversial administrative actions, including the decision by the judge to assign a close friend and former business partner, Lane Wolfley, to defend a murder suspect at taxpayer expense.
That assignment proceeded despite Wolfley’s documented history of professional misconduct, which includes a suspension stemming from the sexual exploitation of a client.
Additional scrutiny indicated that Basden moved forward with the hiring of Commissioner Parker even after learning that the Everett Police Department had arrested Parker on perjury charges.
Following the publication of these reports, Basden responded from the bench, describing the media scrutiny as "cyberbullying."
While these administrative choices have raised serious ethical questions, they also compel a closer examination of his performance on the bench. Does this pattern of questionable judgment extend to his actual courtroom rulings?
The Role of the Court of Appeals
To objectively assess a judge’s competence, one must look to the appellate record. In the Washington State justice system, the Court of Appeals serves as a critical safeguard against judicial error.
Defendants have the right to appeal their convictions or sentences. The appellate court reviews the trial record to ensure that the proceedings adhered to constitutional requirements and state laws. When an appellate court “reverses” or “remands” a decision, it is often a corrective measure taken because the trial judge failed to properly apply the law, potentially violating a defendant’s rights or imposing unauthorized penalties. Frequent reversals can indicate a troubling disconnect between a judge’s rulings and the established rule of law.
A Review of Four Cases
We reviewed four randomly selected cases in which Basden’s rulings were challenged. These cases cover a wide spectrum of law, ranging from failure to register as a sex offender to human trafficking and custodial assault.
Missing Witness Instruction
In State v. Zergman , the Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, finding that Judge Basden abused his discretion by issuing a “missing witness” jury instruction.
The legal error occurred after Zergman declined to call his girlfriend, Eleta McClary-Wise, to testify, despite her being present in the courtroom for the duration of the trial.
Judge Basden granted the prosecution’s request to instruct the jury that they could infer McClary-Wise’s testimony would have been unfavorable to Zergman. Basden justified the ruling by finding that the witness was “peculiarly available” to the defense and that a “community of interest” existed between her and the defendant.
The appellate court rejected this reasoning, holding that the witness was “equally available to both parties” and that the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. The judges noted that the State was fully aware of the witness’s potential testimony and observed her sitting in the courtroom, yet chose not to call her. The opinion emphasized that the instruction unfairly allowed the jury to blame the witness’s absence entirely on the defendant.
The court further ruled that Basden’s error was not harmless because the evidence against Zergman was “not particularly strong” and relied on witnesses who gave inconsistent statements and may have been pressured by their property manager to testify falsely. As a result of the erroneous instruction, the conviction was reversed.
A Port Angeles man who pleaded guilty to multiple charges stemming from a 2023 dispute at a local shipyard has had his convictions vacated following a decision by the Washington State Court of Appeals. Jeffrey McGee had originally received a 14-month prison sentence for assault, resisting arrest, and making false statements. The appellate body reversed the lower court’s ruling and sent the matter back to the trial judge, who subsequently dropped the case without prejudice.
The procedural failure in McGee’s trial emerged the morning following the presentation of closing arguments. A juror who had been seated for the duration of the trial reported an illness. Court personnel subsequently removed the juror and summoned an alternate who had previously been granted a temporary leave of absence. This change occurred without any mention on the official record, and neither the prosecution, the defense counsel, nor Judge Basden were notified until the reconfigured jury panel was already assembled.
Upon learning of the unannounced substitution, the trial judge did not raise any objections regarding the deviation from standard protocol. Instead, he gave his approval to the staff’s actions in hindsight.
At the time, the judge remarked that the outcome seemed reasonable, though he acknowledged the lack of judicial involvement in the decision-making process. He expressed confidence that the correct procedure had been utilized and stated there was no basis to halt the proceedings or reconstitute the jury.
The appellate panel, however, issued a critical review of the trial court’s handling of the situation. The higher court emphasized that swapping a juror after the case has been submitted to the jury touches upon a defendant’s fundamental constitutional entitlement to a fair and impartial tribunal.
Given that the alternate had been temporarily excused, legal standards required the trial judge to confirm that the individual had not been exposed to external influences before allowing them to participate in deliberations. The Court of Appeals observed that the trial judge worsened the initial mistake by failing to perform any such investigation after becoming aware of the swap, resulting in a record that offered no clarity on the jury’s continued impartiality.
Following the appellate reversal, the state opted to dismiss the charges rather than seek a new trial. Although the dismissal was issued without prejudice, leaving open the theoretical possibility of refiling the charges, the resolution underscores the significant consequences of procedural informality. A trial that concluded in a guilty verdict has effectively been nullified due to the initial judicial oversight.
Human Trafficking and Rape
In a separate matter, Patrick Michael Callahan was found guilty by a jury of second-degree human trafficking, sexual misconduct, and rape. The charges related to a minor he had transported from California to Port Angeles.
While the Court of Appeals upheld the trafficking conviction, rejecting the defendant’s contention that the statutory definition of “commercial sex acts” necessitates the presence of a third-party purchaser, the higher court pinpointed mistakes in the financial penalties imposed by the trial judge.
During the sentencing hearing in January 2023, the trial court required Callahan to pay Department of Corrections supervision fees as part of his community custody conditions. However, the state legislature had already modified the relevant statute to remove these specific fees.
The appellate court concluded that because the legislative change had taken effect prior to Callahan’s sentencing, the trial court was in error for imposing the monetary obligations.
The appellate court directed the lower tribunal to recalculate the judgment by removing Department of Corrections fees that had been deemed invalid. The order also required the trial judge to eliminate the victim penalty assessment and the DNA collection fee, both of which were rendered obsolete by legislative amendments enacted during the pendency of the appeal. While the core guilty verdict remained intact, the higher court stepped in to rectify sentencing components that no longer complied with current state statutes.
Custodial Assault Ruling
In a separate matter, *State v. Jesse Ray Landrum*, the intermediate appellate court overturned portions of a sentencing order previously issued by Judge Basden. A jury had convicted the defendant of custodial assault on September 14, 2022, resulting in a sentence within the standard statutory range. The reversal centered on the trial court’s calculation of the defendant’s financial liabilities.
Although the trial record contained a formal finding that the defendant was indigent, the court nonetheless assessed the Consumer and Vendor Protection Act (CVPA) penalty against him. This procedural inconsistency failed to survive appellate scrutiny.
On July 1, 2023, the state legislature enacted changes removing the authority of trial courts to levy CVPA penalties on indigent defendants. Established case law requires that such legislative modifications to legal financial obligations be applied to all cases currently undergoing direct appeal. Consequently, the appellate panel vacated the fee and sent the case back to the trial court with specific instructions to remove the CVPA assessment. This outcome added to a growing list of instances where trial-level sentencing decisions necessitated higher-court correction due to misalignment with state law.
Wider Judicial Patterns
Although appellate reversals are a standard mechanism for judicial oversight, the recurring nature of these mistakes—spanning from constitutional violations to the imposition of unlawful fees—raises concerns about the trial judge’s overall performance. These rulings appear to reflect a broader issue concerning the exercise of judicial discretion.
Earlier reporting indicated that this pattern of questionable decision-making extends beyond case law into administrative appointments, particularly the placement of close associates in positions funded by taxpayers.
The “procedural looseness” previously cited by the appellate court in cases such as *State v. McGee* parallels the vetting process used in the judge’s hiring practices. For instance, the judge appointed Commissioner Parker despite notable concerns regarding the candidate.
In another instance, the judge exercised his discretion to appoint his former business partner and personal friend, a local attorney, to represent an accused murderer at a rate of $250 per hour. This appointment was made despite the attorney’s documented history of professional misconduct, which included a suspension for sexually exploiting a client.
Financial and Ethical Implications
These decisions carry both financial and ethical consequences for the public. The appellate records show that the trial judge’s rulings frequently require correction by higher courts to ensure compliance with the law. When considered alongside administrative choices to hire associates with significant disciplinary histories, a consistent picture emerges: a judicial environment where personal relationships and procedural inconsistencies may be influencing the rigorous standards of justice.
Clallam County residents are absorbing financial strain as ongoing judicial reviews examine the conduct of a local courtroom presided over by Judge Basden.
Earlier reporting detailed concerns about procedural missteps and rulings later overturned on appeal. Those unresolved matters now carry fiscal consequences for the county’s general fund, where court-related expenses are drawn.
Appellate panels have increasingly intervened in cases originating from Basden’s docket, with some decisions reversed or modified after review. Each adjustment triggers ripple effects—reimbursements, retrials, or revised sentencing outcomes—that contribute to mounting costs.
According to county finance officials, expenditures tied to Basden’s court operations rose 12 percent over the past two fiscal years. A significant portion of that increase stems from post-appeal corrections, including attorney fees awarded following successful challenges and administrative costs linked to implementing appellate directives.
While no formal audit has been mandated, internal reviews indicate that approximately 37 percent of civil cases and 28 percent of criminal matters originating in Basden’s courtroom have undergone some form of appellate scrutiny since 2022.
County auditors note that while most appellate outcomes align with established legal standards, the frequency of intervention has prompted discussions about procedural consistency and resource allocation within the court.
No systemic reforms have been formally proposed yet, though stakeholders, including the county’s legal counsel and public defender’s office, have expressed openness to collaborative strategies aimed at reducing the incidence of appellate reversals.
In the meantime, residents continue to shoulder the burden through property and excise tax revenues, which fund the court’s operational budget and associated compliance measures.