ATTORNEYS GIVE FINAL ARGUMENTS IN MURPHY TRIAL

Defense claims the state's inquiry ruined his reputation; prosecution
says safety was at issue

It was a monstrous lie by a state agency that directly led to the
downfall and ruined reputation of former Snohomish County Sheriff
Patrick Murphy in 1995.

Or perhaps it was the fact that Murphy refused to take personal
responsibility for his reporting and use of narcotic prescription
painkillers.

Those were the two poles- apart positions lawyers laid down Thursday
before a jury that today will begin deciding which side is correct.

The positions were aired in closing arguments of Murphy=EDs four-week
civil lawsuit against the state Board of Pharmacy.

He claims the board damaged him by negligently disclosing his
confidential prescription information to county officials, in-cluding
chief criminal deputy prosecutor Jim Townsend and Bob Drewel, the
county execu-tive.

A second charge is that the board engaged in civil conspiracy in June
1995 by agreeing with Townsend to continue the inves-tigation,
including interviewing some of Murphy=EDs doctors.

The prosecutor later initiated a criminal investigation, including the
hiring of a special prosecutor. Murphy, who had been appoint-ed
sheriff in early 1995, lost his bid to be elected to that post just
days after he was charged with fraudulently seeking prescription drugs.

The charges later were dropped after a judge ruled health information
abr=EEt Murphy had been gathered with-out first obtain-ing a search warrant.

Murphy=EDs lawyer, Mark Northcraft of Seattle, put the blame on the
PharmacyBoard investiga-tor assigned to the case, Phyllis Wene, whom
he described as be-ing out to get Murphy. Northcraft accused her of
lying to her boss and then jumping into a survey of pharmacies in
Snohomish County.

The survey turned up 260 or so prescriptions over 17 months. She and
the board now say they were interested in Murphy=EDs health and in
assuring public safety by a law officer who could be impaired by
drugs. But Northcraft said he doesn=EDt believe that.

=ECThey were going to disclose this information from the get-go,=EE he
said =ECYou can destroy someone=EDs life by disclosing health-care
information. That=EDs what happened in this case.=EE

Instead of going to the county, the board should have gone to Murphy=EDs
doctors to find out that he suffered severe pain from a chronic jaw
injury as well as a number of other injuries suffered in accidents.

Northcraft blamed the failure of jaw surgery on Murphy=EDs battle to
defend himself from the crim-inal charges in 1996, and said the stigma
of the charges have pre-vented him from working and caused other
damages. He com-pared the loss of reputation to burning a $1 million
house.

=ECHe had a million-dollar repu-tation, and they burned it down to the
ground,=EE Northcraft said. =ECThey tarred and feathered him with the
broad brush of a street addict, and all he had was pain.=EE

That's not so, said Paul Triesch, assistant attorney
general.

=ECThis case is about personal re-sponsibility,=EE Thesch told the
ju-rors.

Murphy=EDs doctors tried to get him to be responsible for disclos-ing
his prescription drug use to other doctors. Snohomish Coun-ty
officials wanted to help him, and so did the Pharmacy Board, Triesch
told jurors.

The only person who didn=EDt do all he could for Murphy was Mur-phy
himself, Thesch said.

He asked jurors not to let emotions play a role in the decision,
reminding them that Murphy never disclosed his heavy pain medication
regimen to anyone at Snohomish County, despite a county charter and
sheriff rules.

When they found out, even doctors who like Murphy and treated him for
a long time say the volume of medication he got troubled them, Triesch
said.

The board shouldn't be blamed.