On January 27, 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the appeal of State of Kansas v. Chandler. During oral arguments the lead prosecutor in the case, Shawnee County Chief Deputy District Attorney Jacqie Spradling was questioned by justices of the Supreme Court about statements she made during the trial which were not backed up by evidence in the record.
On July 27, 2016, Keen Umbehr filed a formal ethics complaint against Jacqie Spradling, citing Disciplinary Rule 207(c): “It shall be the further duty of each member of the bar of this state to report to the Disciplinary Administrator any action, inaction, or conduct which in his or her opinion constitutes misconduct of an attorney under these rules.”.
Count I of the complaint has to do with Jacqie Spradling submitting a defective probable cause affidavit to a judge (Exhibit A below), in order to obtain an arrest warrant against Dana L. Chandler (Exhibit B). The 15-page probable cause affidavit was written by the lead detective in the case, Sgt. Richard Volle, and signed under penalty of perjury by Lt. Kipp Lowe of the Topeka Police Department.
During the trial of Dana Chandler, Judge Nancy Parrish expressed "grave concerns" after discovering that the affidavit was signed by someone other than the affiant(Exhibit C).
Count II of the complaint alleges that Jacqie Spradling lied to the jury when she told them that Mike Sisco had asked for - and received - a Protection from Abuse Order against the defendant, Dana L. Chandler, when in fact, there was no evidence that Michael Sisco had ever been granted a Protection from Abuse Order against the defendant, Dana Chandler. (Exhibit D.) This false information was highly prejudicial and may have led the jury to erroneously conclude that Mike Sisco felt that the defendant was a threat to him and he feared for his personal safety while he was alive.
Count III of the complaint alleges that Jacqie Spradling lied to members of the Kansas Supreme Court when they questioned her about the truthfulness of her claim that Mike Sisco had received a Protection from Abuse Order against the defendant, Dana Chandler (Exhibit E). Under questioning from Justice Dan Biles, Jacqie Spradling initially admitted that there was no Protection from Abuse Order. However, she later stated, "It is true". Justice Biles pointed out that the mutual order granted to both parties at the beginning of the divorce proceeding was "a whole lot different than a Protection from Abuse Order". Jacqie Spradling then replied, "Yes, but there were two orders in this case, Your Honor." When asked where they could find the order, Ms. Spradling replied, "If I'm limited to the record on appeal, I cannot point to it."
Justice Lee Johnson then pointed out that the State had filed a motion one month before the trial asking the Court to consider evidence that Mike Sisco had requested a restraining order during the divorce proceeding. Justice Johnson stated that he wondered why the State would not have asked that the Court to consider the actual Order, if in fact, one existed.
At that point, Jacqie Spradling made the following admission: "I don’t want to mislead this court. There is no document that I found in state’s Exhibit 969, which was the divorce file. There’s no document in that file that is either a Protection from Abuse or a Protective Order. So if I indicated that there was a document, I don’t want to mislead you. I do know, speaking with the victim’s family members, that the order existed. Um, and, that that was discovered by Detective Volle as the lead detective in this case."