By Carli Brosseau and Rebecca Woolington

Former state Trooper James Duncan slapped his 11-year-old son so hard across the face that it knocked him down.

Duncan could have faced a felony charge and permanently lost the right to have a gun.

But that's not what happened.

He made a deal to plead guilty to a misdemeanor -- and then went back to court for a do-over when it turned out the first arrangement wasn't as favorable as he had thought. He kept his police certification. And he won special permission to carry a gun for work -- twice.

Along the way, Duncan got the benefit of the doubt from the district attorney in Washington County, a trial judge, a retired Oregon Supreme Court justice and the guardians of Oregon's police standards.

Even so, he lost his job last month when Oregon State Police decided he couldn't be trusted. But he's already trying to get it back.

Duncan's case shows how an elite police officer with powerful friends can negotiate out from under mandatory gun prohibitions.

Federal law bars people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes from having a gun. It makes no exception for police officers. Duncan's allies worked around that, even though the police investigation showed a pattern of violence.

Murky legal interpretations gave political cover to people inclined to help Duncan out. His attorneys seized on technicalities to try to avoid the gun bans.

Washington County District Attorney Bob Hermann made the decision to allow Duncan's do-over. He'd never made a similar arrangement with anyone before.

The prosecutor who originally handled Duncan's case objected. The head of Hermann's victim assistance program quit, saying she could no longer work there "in good conscience."

Hermann denied that Duncan received preferential treatment.

"It was a decision intended to be fair and just to both the victim and the defendant," he said in a statement, "and to promote the welfare of the child and family involved while protecting the integrity of our justice system."

***

The criminal case against Duncan started in October 2015, when his ex-wife watched a cellphone video that captured Duncan hitting their son.

The Oct. 14 recording showed Duncan sitting next to his son on the couch in their Tigard home and questioning the boy about homework. He warned his son not to raise his voice or else he'd slap him "silly," according to a police report written by a Washington County sheriff's detective.

Timeline of the case

Oct. 14, 2015:

James Duncan slaps his 11-year-old son at their Tigard-area home. His 13-year-old daughter records it on her iPhone.

Oct. 18, 2015:

Duncan's daughter shows the video of the slap to her mother, according to a police report. The mother, Duncan's ex-wife, shows the video to her attorney.

Oct. 20, 2015:

A Washington County sheriff's detective starts investigating Duncan after receiving a report from the state's Department of Human Services.

Oct. 20, 2015:

Duncan loses custody of his children during an emergency hearing in Washington County Circuit Court.

Oct. 20, 2015:

Oregon State Police place Duncan on administrative leave and take away his duty weapons.

Nov. 5, 2015:

Washington County sheriff's investigators interview Duncan.

Jan. 20, 2016:

Retired Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul De Muniz sends a letter vouching for Duncan's character to Washington County Circuit Court Judge Oscar Garcia.

Jan. 21, 2016:

Duncan is arraigned, pleads guilty and is sentenced on one charge of misdemeanor fourth-degree assault, committed recklessly, in Washington County Circuit Court. Judge Garcia sentences him to 18 months of probation and grants him a special allowance to carry a gun for work.

Jan. 21, 2016:

The state's Department of Public Safety Standards and Training says it will open a professional standards case into Duncan because of his assault conviction.

June 27, 2016:

The U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision clarifying that federal firearms prohibitions apply to all misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, including those committed recklessly.

July 29, 2016:

De Muniz contacts District Attorney Bob Hermann and asks to speak to him about Duncan's case, among other things.

Aug. 12, 2016:

Hermann has lunch with De Muniz. They briefly talk about the Duncan case, they both later say. Hermann tells De Muniz he'll keep an open mind but makes no promises, the district attorney later says.

Aug. 18, 2016:

A state committee recommends against revoking Duncan's police certification.

September 2016:

Duncan's new attorney, Mike Staropoli, talks to Senior Deputy District Attorney Kevin Barton about vacating Duncan's conviction because the Supreme Court decision means the federal firearms prohibition now affects Duncan's job, according to Barton. The prosecutor objects.

Oct. 27, 2016:

The state's Board on Public Safety Standards and Training approves the police committee's recommendation not to revoke Duncan's certification.

Nov. 25, 2016:

Hermann notifies Barton that he has reviewed Duncan's case, Barton said. Hermann tells Barton that he has decided not to object to vacating Duncan's conviction.

Nov. 30, 2016:

Staropoli files a motion asking the court to allow Duncan to withdraw his guilty plea.

Nov. 30, 2016:

Oregon State Police terminate Duncan.

Dec. 2, 2016:

Duncan asks Washington County Circuit Judge Oscar Garcia to vacate his fourth-degree assault conviction. Duncan then is arraigned, pleads guilty and is resentenced on a charge of recklessly endangering another. His sentence stays the same and the judge again allows him to carry a gun for work while on probation.

Dec. 5, 2016:

Duncan files a petition asking a judge in Tillamook County, where he now lives, to make an exception for him and allow him to possess a gun.

Dec. 19, 2016:

Duncan will appear in Tillamook County Circuit Court for a hearing on his request.

Duncan's daughter, who was watching, hit record on her iPhone because she feared what could come next and wanted to show a counselor, she later told investigators.

Duncan lunged toward the boy and slammed something down on the furniture. He then slapped the left side of his son's face, causing the boy to fall over and making him cry.

Duncan discovered that his daughter had recorded him and deleted the footage, the police report said. His daughter later recovered the video from the deleted images folder.

State police put Duncan, a tactical officer and police trainer, on administrative leave Oct. 20. They took away his duty weapons, a standard procedure during investigations.

He had primary custody of his children but lost it that same day, after his ex-wife asked for an emergency custody hearing.

During an interview with a detective, Bobbie Risner said her ex-husband had hit the children in the past, but she didn't report him because he worked in law enforcement and she knew it might affect his job.

Risner told police that Duncan had "pushed or grabbed" her during fights but had never hurt her.

Duncan's son told staff at a child abuse assessment center that his father had hit him before but never so hard. The boy's sister also said that Duncan had hit her in the past, including across her face. During a custody exchange at an Aurora truck stop, he twisted her arm back in a "police move" and pushed her against his truck, she and her brother said.

During an interview with detectives, Duncan denied using the tactic on his daughter, but admitted he had hit her before. He also admitted that he deleted the video his daughter recorded and told the children to hide the slap from their mother.

Three months later, the trooper was arraigned, pleaded guilty and was sentenced all at once. Duncan's attorney and a prosecutor in Hermann's office had reached an agreement before he was charged.

Prosecutors said it's typical to offer a misdemeanor plea deal to first-time child abuse defendants.

In court, Senior Deputy District Attorney Kevin Barton said that had the case gone before a grand jury, Duncan could have faced three charges of felony first-degree criminal mistreatment and additional charges of evidence and witness tampering. A conviction on any of those charges would have cost Duncan his police certification and therefore his job.

Judge Oscar Garcia sentenced Duncan to 18 months of probation for assault and gave him a special allowance to carry a gun if he was taken off administrative leave. Duncan's attorney provided the wording.

"OK, we'll put that language in there," Garcia said. "You got it."

Retired Chief Justice Paul De Muniz was sitting in the courtroom gallery with other supporters. Duncan served as the Supreme Court justice's primary driver and security officer for three years before De Muniz retired in January 2013.

In a letter submitted to the court, De Muniz asked the judge to clear Duncan to have a duty weapon. Duncan's attorney referenced the letter three times during the hearing.

"Other than this one incident, James Duncan has been a remarkably mature and stable individual, who has first and foremost dedicated himself to the care and well-being of his children," De Muniz wrote. "I have every confidence that such an act will never occur again."

***

To keep his job, Duncan also had to keep his police certification.

The state Police Policy Committee heard his case Aug. 18. Duncan strode into the hearing flanked by four members of his union and the retired chief justice. His new wife, Trooper Aubrey Olson-Duncan, gripped his hand.

Oregon's police certifying agency had opened a professional standards case based on Duncan's assault conviction. State rules let a committee of law enforcement leaders choose whether to revoke an officer's certification for violating "moral fitness standards."

Duncan had sent a letter to the group. He wrote that he was fully accountable and didn't want to deflect blame.

"I am most proud of my title of 'dad,'" Duncan wrote. "This is why the mistake I made has been so hard for me over the past many months, that my parenting and love for my children has been questioned."

Committee members spoke cautiously. They weighed details in Duncan's favor alongside details that aggravated the case against him.

"In Mr. Duncan's mitigation statement, he referred to his mistake as singular when the record clearly shows it was not a singular mistake," Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett said. "There were additional incidents of slapping children. I understand this is a family matter and so very delicate, but I thought it was a tad aggravating."

The group praised Duncan for complying with his probation terms, including paying restitution and taking a parenting class.

Retired Curry County Sheriff John Bishop called another type of evidence "the kicker" -- character references in support of Duncan, particularly one from the retired chief justice.

"I may not agree with all of his decisions from time to time, but I really do have a great amount of respect for him," Bishop said of De Muniz. "That swayed me."

Many of the letters praised Duncan for taking responsibility and suggested Duncan's ex-wife was to blame for stress in his life.

The committee recommended allowing Duncan to keep his certification by a vote of 8 to 2, and it was later approved by the full Board on Public Safety Standards and Training without discussion.

Several police committee members said Duncan's case was one of the hardest they had considered.

It revealed a regulatory hole: If Duncan had been convicted of assaulting an adult in his household, he would have lost his certification automatically. But because he assaulted his child, he could ask for another chance.

Officers in Oregon must give up their certification if they're convicted of a crime of domestic violence. But child victims aren't included in the state's domestic violence definition.

Certification rules could soon change. If the board approves a proposal now on the table, domestic violence involving children could require revocation starting next year.

***

Oregon State Police did its own administrative investigation in the months that followed Duncan's conviction.

Command staff summoned him to a "pre-dismissal meeting" Nov. 1.

Duncan brought along a union attorney, Daryl Garrettson, who made a string of arguments that state police rejected and summarized in a termination letter.

Among the points Garrettson raised:

* The state board didn't revoke Duncan's certification.

* His plea deal was structured to allow him to keep his job.

* His ex-wife reported his criminal conduct, and investigators didn't interview her to see if she was credible.

State police concluded that Duncan's conviction and the underlying facts would undermine his credibility as a witness at trial, particularly in cases involving child abuse or the preservation of evidence. They found that concern alone was enough to fire Duncan. His history could compromise future cases and reflect poorly on both the department and the profession.

The letter points out that his assault could have been charged as a felony because he slapped his son in front of his daughter.

State police determined that the Washington County judge's decision to let Duncan carry a gun for work while on probation wouldn't make his gun possession legal.

Federal and state gun prohibitions for people convicted of domestic violence applied to Duncan, the agency found. He also was subject to a separate Oregon law that forbids people with violent misdemeanor convictions from receiving a gun for four years.

Without a weapon, Duncan would be unable to perform a core function of his job, state police concluded. Duncan's Nov. 21 termination letter included his final paycheck.

***

Two weeks later, Duncan entered a Washington County courtroom and convinced the judge to let him change his conviction and have a gun if he returned to work.

No one mentioned he had just lost his job.

He switched to another misdemeanor - recklessly endangering another - with approval of the district attorney and judge. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the summer had tweaked gun prohibition law on domestic violence and affected his case, so he asked for a fix.

Duncan's chance at the do-over started with an email the retired chief justice sent the district attorney in July.

De Muniz invited Hermann to speak at a criminal procedure class he teaches at Willamette University. He added: "I also want to speak to you informally about what happened in the James Duncan's case (state policeman who was my driver) Case is concluded."

The two met for lunch, and De Muniz asked Hermann to consider taking another look at Duncan's case. De Muniz wanted to talk to him about the recent Supreme Court decision.

"The gist of it was, 'This guy is going to lose his job because the law has changed,'" Hermann told The Oregonian/OregonLive. "'He's got a new lawyer now. Will you keep an open mind in looking at the matter?' That was certainly the extent of the conversation."

Hermann said he promised De Muniz nothing and the two never spoke of the case again.

Hermann and De Muniz have known each other for years. They traveled to Russia with other judges more than a decade ago to help with criminal justice reforms. After their lunch, De Muniz suggested a trip reunion.

In the end, Hermann decided that undoing Duncan's conviction "was just the fair and right thing to do" to keep the terms of the deal consistent.

Barton, the deputy DA who originally handled Duncan's case, had objected to the request because of the appearance of giving a cop preferential treatment. Resolved cases generally shouldn't be reopened, Barton said.

He balked at the suggestion from Duncan's attorney that the officer's job should influence whether to reopen the case. He offered to consider more information from Duncan's attorney, but said he never heard from him again.

The day after Thanksgiving, Hermann told Barton he was overriding his decision, Barton said. Hermann assigned another prosecutor to handle the case.

Hermann described the idea that he had been pressured by the chief justice as "nonsensical" and "offensive."

He put out a press release in anticipation of this story and before he had provided a full response to reporters' requests for internal communication about the case. He has yet to provide those records.

De Muniz stressed that he was acting as a private citizen who believes in second chances.

"I was just being a friend," De Muniz said. "I can't deny who I am. But all those choices that are made in the courtroom were made independently by judges, lawyers, defense lawyers."

Response from Duncan's attorney

In a Dec. 16 email, Mike Staropoli said: "Your assertions are replete with inaccuracies and are the result of the disingenuous spin that you have attached to this story to support your conclusions. They are a reflection of the very distinct and highly personal anti-law enforcement bias that you have displayed throughout your involvement in this matter. All of this is a disgrace to and an injustice for hard working, fair minded, truth seeking journalists everywhere. Your managing editor should decline to publish this rhetoric based attempt to attract readership."

Judge Garcia declined in an email to answer specific legal questions about the case.

"In general, as a judge I am obligated to consider all relevant and legally admissible evidence brought before me in a case," Garcia said. "The code of conduct also requires me to perform my judicial duties fairly, impartially and without bias or prejudice. I believe my decisions in this case fulfilled those responsibilities."

Duncan's ex-wife told The Oregonian/OregonLive that she supported the deal. Duncan's attorney, Mike Staropoli, said characterizing the deal as preferential treatment was "disingenuous spin." Duncan didn't respond to a request for comment.

***

The do-over in Washington County was the first part of a two-part plan.

Duncan's new conviction solved his federal law problem because the crime no longer fell into a domestic violence category, but state law still blocked him from receiving a gun for four years.

That's because recklessly endangering another is considered a violent crime in Oregon. State police concluded the law banned them from giving Duncan a gun.

Garcia's exception related only to Duncan's probation conditions. State laws still apply.

But the Washington County decision put Duncan in a better position to negotiate.

Unlike federal law, state law provides a clear route to getting a gun after a conviction.

Duncan filed an 11-page petition for an exception the next day the court was open. He enclosed De Muniz's character reference in a 28-page attachment.

On Monday, Duncan goes before a judge in Tillamook County, where he now lives.

He hopes it will be the last obstacle. He argues in his petition that each step of his legal journey was intended to help him keep his job.

"During the negotiation process, it was clear none of the parties involved believed the conduct leading to my conviction warranted losing my employment as a police officer," he wrote.

Duncan said in his filing he has no history of abuse and slapped his son to discipline him.

"I recognized I lost my temper," he wrote, "and I believed I hurt (the boy's) feelings more than anything else."

Duncan said he realized through court-ordered domestic violence classes that he was a victim of his ex-wife's verbal, emotional and physical abuse.

His children now stay with their mother, and he has visitation.

"My children have suffered from my actions, as they were forced to move from Tigard to Salem, change schools, make new friends, and endure separation from me," Duncan wrote. "The damage this has caused them emotionally far outweighs even the physical hurt the slap caused."

Duncan suggests an exception could be made for a police officer.

"I beg the court to consider my efforts at self-improvement and my record as a public servant," he wrote. "It is my greatest hope the court will grant my plea, allowing me to continue to provide for my children in my chosen profession and honorably and faithfully serve Oregonians to the best of my abilities."

He has asked Oregon State Police to reinstate him.

-- Carli Brosseau and Rebecca Woolington