Background
Christopher Lester married Amy LaPlante in July 2012. LaPlante had two children from previous relationships, K.L.W. and J.M.K., and Lester served as a father figure to them. In January 2018, the children disclosed to LaPlante that Lester had molested them. LaPlante did not report him at that time due to fear, but in July 2019, after LaPlante began a relationship with Alan Zufall and disclosed the abuse to him, Zufall threatened to report Lester unless he turned himself in. Days later, Lester voluntarily went to a crisis responder and confessed to molesting both stepchildren.
Lester was charged with rape of a child in the first degree, child molestation in the first degree, and two counts of incest. Two days before his November 2023 bench trial, he waived his right to a jury trial. During the trial, members of New Hope, a victim/witness advocacy group, were present in the courtroom with the child witnesses while they testified. A court jury administrator later reported to another judge that she had heard New Hope members tell the children “remember this signal” while demonstrating it, suggesting potential witness coaching.
Critically, the jury administrator informed the trial judge of this allegation during the trial itself. However, the trial judge did not disclose this allegation to either party and simply decided to “keep a watchful eye” for signaling. The judge saw no signs and “completely forgot about it.” Only after the trial concluded and convictions were entered did Lester’s defense counsel learn of the allegation through an incidental conversation with another judge.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial before a different judge, finding that the trial court violated the appearance of fairness doctrine by failing to disclose the witness signaling allegation to the parties. The court emphasized that under the Code of Judicial Conduct 2.9(B), a judge who receives an ex parte communication bearing on the substance of a matter must “promptly notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.”
The court identified four independent bases for its holding. First, Lester’s inability to address the allegation at trial deprived him of the opportunity to inquire about New Hope’s involvement, request curative measures, or cross-examine witnesses about signaling or coaching. Second, an objective observer could view the trial court’s statements—particularly its assertion that it “could not imagine” New Hope would engage in signaling—as demonstrating bias toward the State and New Hope. Third, the trial court’s failure to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct directly impacted the criminal trial by going to witness credibility and proceeding integrity. Fourth, the trial court’s informal handling of a serious trial irregularity could undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
The appellate court clarified that Lester did not need to prove actual bias, only that a reasonably prudent and objective observer could conclude that he did not receive a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing—a standard he met here. The court noted that the post-trial evidentiary hearing, held weeks after the child witnesses testified, could not remedy the deprivation of Lester’s right to respond at trial when the coaching allegedly occurred.
Key Takeaways
- Trial judges must promptly disclose ex parte communications that bear on the substance of a case, not merely administrative matters, even if the judge believes the information is unreliable or immaterial.
- The appearance of fairness doctrine focuses on whether a reasonable observer could question impartiality, not whether actual bias existed—a subjective dismissal of serious allegations can itself create an appearance of partiality.
- Witness signaling or coaching allegations are substantive matters going to credibility that must be disclosed and addressed on the record during trial, not handled informally or post-hoc.
- A trial judge’s failure to inform defense counsel of potential witness manipulation deprives the defendant of the opportunity to cross-examine, request jury instructions, or seek other curative measures at the time the testimony occurs.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict procedural requirements for judicial transparency and candor when serious trial irregularities come to a judge’s attention. Even well-intentioned judicial decisions—here, the judge’s decision to monitor for signaling rather than disrupt trial—can violate the appearance of fairness doctrine if they occur outside the parties’ knowledge and participation. The holding makes clear that informal, off-the-record handling of witness credibility issues is incompatible with due process and public confidence in the judicial system.
The decision has significant implications for victim advocacy organizations and support persons in the courtroom. While their presence serves important functions, any communication with witnesses about testimony, even seemingly innocent encouragement, creates discoverable issues that must be addressed on the record. Trial courts cannot unilaterally decide to investigate such allegations privately; doing so shifts fundamental trial dynamics and may warrant reversal regardless of whether the signaling actually occurred.