Landscaper Duc Huynh says that after more than 20 years in the United States, his English still isn’t great.
But he insists there was no misunderstanding on this point: The 100-plus trees he cut down in Seattle’s Colman Park last summer were the ones Judge Jerome Farris told him to cut.
Yesterday, Huynh, 47, squarely contradicted much of Farris’ explanation of the tree cutting, which provoked outrage among local residents, environmentalists and Seattle officials. Farris’ account %26#151; which prompted King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng to announce this week that he would not seek felony charges against the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals senior judge %26#151; essentially rests on two points:
First, he says he thought he had permission, based upon an earlier agreement with the city, to cut some trees along a fence between the park and a house he owns with a view of Lake Washington. Second, he says Huynh apparently misunderstood his directions on two occasions, cutting down more trees than the judge asked him to, then cutting still more after Farris pointed out the mistake.
But Huynh said Farris, 72, “wanted to cut all the trees that blocked the view” %26#151; mostly big-leaf maples and native cherries, some of them more than 40 years old. In statements to police and to prosecutors, Huynh said repeatedly that the judge walked side by side with him pointing to the trees he wanted cut.
Farris told him that his property extended 10 feet beyond the fence on the park side, Huynh recalled, and asked him in April to cut trees in an area beyond that %26#151; an instruction Huynh said he questioned.
“I asked him, ‘Is that OK?’ He said, ‘That’s OK.’ ”
The judge said he left town before Huynh did the work and returned to find that the gardener “exceeded the scope of the work I asked him to do.” Farris claims he didn’t tell Huynh to cut more trees, but rather asked him to finish other yardwork they had discussed. He said he then left town again and didn’t return until this week.
But Huynh said the judge was very clear: “He came home to look, and he said, ‘Cut more.’ ” Huynh cut more trees in July. Huynh said the judge told him “good job” afterward and has never criticized his work in the five years he has worked for him, according to statements made to police and prosecutors.
Farris, in his only public statement about the incident, called Huynh “an honorable man.” He claims a language barrier exacerbated the misunderstanding; Huynh’s first language is Vietnamese.
But “if he didn’t tell me to cut, why pay me?” Huynh asked. He says he charged $500 for the first cut and $650 for the second.
Farris’ lawyer, John Wolfe of Seattle, acknowledged that Huynh was paid. He also indicated he was aware that Huynh suggested to police that he cut down only the trees Farris asked him to cut. Farris, who has publicly apologized for the tree cutting, said he expects to pay for cleanup and restoration, which prosecutors estimate could exceed $100,000.
Wolfe said he could not discuss the situation in detail because he’s in negotiations with the Seattle City Attorney’s Office, which is considering misdemeanor charges for destruction of timber on public land, as well as a lawsuit against Farris. The city could sue Farris for up to three times the cost of reforesting %26#151; about $135,000 for the trees and $100,000 for labor.
Dan Donohoe, spokesman for the prosecutor’s office, acknowledged “that there may be some differing viewpoints (between Huynh and Farris) going on here.”
But Donohoe said prosecutors would still have to prove that Farris acted with malicious intent to charge him with malicious mischief, the only applicable felony charge.
While Maleng had been looking at whether to charge Farris under state law, the City Attorney’s Office would consider the case under city ordinances.
And Farris said he believed he could cut some trees by the fence, based on a letter he received from the city in 1981.
In it, the city permits him to prune up to 20 feet off the top of maple trees and willows in the park adjacent to his property. But the permit states that it was good only for up to 30 days from the date the work began. It also limited the trimming, stating “no more than a removal of one third of the total top growth is allowed.”
According to Wolfe and prosecutors, the judge had not looked at the letter in years and apparently believed it allowed future cutting. Still, the decision not to prosecute came down to more than just the judge’s word against the gardener’s, said the county’s chief criminal prosecutor, Mark Larson.
“Certainly, there are disparate viewpoints about what happened,” he said. “At the same time, you’ve got a statute that is pretty arcane in what it requires, and I would say it’s those factors that make it an impossible prosecution.”
In order to convict someone under malicious mischief %26#151; the only felony crime prosecutors could have sought in this case according to several legal experts %26#151; prosecutors would have had to prove the judge specifically intended to harm someone by cutting the trees.
Malice is defined in the law as “evil intent, wish or design to vex, annoy or injure another person.”
“This statute was never drafted with this sort of dispute in mind,” said Larson. “When I go and puncture my neighbor’s tires because he’s playing his music too loud, that’s really what it’s meant for.
“State law does make provisions for intentional destruction of timber, but it’s done on the civil side of the law, so it’s not like the Legislature never contemplated that,” Larson said.
Local officials say they’ve never seen a case quite like this one, although trees on public property have been recently trimmed, cut, vandalized and poisoned %26#151; apparently under cover of darkness to provide people with better views.
A notorious incident occurred in 1998, when two University of Washington students were charged with third-degree malicious mischief for cutting down a single tree from a traffic circle near Ravenna Park.
Both plead guilty to third-degree malicious mischief. One received a one-year suspended sentence and 240 hours community service; the other received a two-year deferred sentence and 240 hours of community service, according to court records.
In 2001, a valuable European silver fir was stolen from the Washington Park Arboretum. After news coverage of the theft, two people returned the cut tree and gave the Arboretum staff $500 to replace it.
Although a police report had been filed, the staff decided not to pursue the case further.
In 1993, landscaping that Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz had done near his home was found to be encroaching on parks property. Schultz had to move his driveway, which was “pretty expensive,” said parks spokeswoman Dewey Potter.
Bellevue officials are waiting to see what Maleng will decide with a case markedly similar to Farris’.
In June, 30 trees along a city-owned trail winding through an expensive hillside neighborhood in south Bellevue were cut down or trimmed. Police said a former CEO for a Bellevue-based technology company told them he hired people to cut down the trees. He said two years earlier he had spoken with a city official who told him the city couldn’t afford to cut down the trees, according to a police report.
“I had no malice intent when I cut the trees,” he said, according to the police. A city official, however, said she had spoken with the homeowner about trees he wanted to cut down because they blocked his view. That official said she didn’t give him permission to cut the trees, and explained that city trees can’t be cut to improve views, according to police.
If Maleng turns down the Bellevue case, the city could pursue a misdemeanor malicious-mischief case, said Jerome Roache, an assistant city attorney in Bellevue.
Times reporters Warren Cornwall and Bob Young contributed to this report.
Tags:
arboretum,
fence,
landscape,
landscaper,
Landscaping,
maple trees,
maples,
misdemeanor charges,
prosecutors,
rta
0
