U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Voter Disenfranchisement Case

Red background of someone standing behind bars and some of the background ripped away with a blue-toned ballot underneath.

Last month, the United States Supreme Court said it will not consider whether a Mississippi law banning people convicted of certain felonies from voting should be overturned. Mississippi’s law stands as one of the toughest such restrictions in the nation.

The Jim Crow-era practice extends to people convicted of nonviolent crimes, including perjury and forgery. A group of disenfranchised Mississippians asked the justices to determine whether it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is barred under federal law.

SECTION 241 MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION

The case centers on Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution, which denies people who have been convicted of a range of felonies the right to vote for life. The range of crimes include murder, rape, bribery, theft, forgery and arson.
The practice was codified in the state’s 1890 constitution as part of early Jim Crow provisions attempting to limit the rights of Black residents. The disenfranchised plaintiffs’ attorneys said about 58 percent of those convicted of disenfranchising offenses between 1994 and 2017, who have completed their sentences, are Black. Mississippi and Virginia are the only two states that continue to permanently disenfranchise first-time offenders who were convicted of non-violent and non-voting-related felonies. Black people make up 38% of the state’s population, according to U.S. census statistics, opens new tab.
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
The class action suit was brought in 2018 by six Mississippi men – including white and Black plaintiffs – who lost the right to vote even though they have completed their sentences for various felonies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said it applies regardless of the seriousness of the felony, even “writing a bad check for $100 or stealing $250 worth of timber.” Attorneys for the disenfranchised voters called the state’s “harsh and unforgiving” practice, which is enshrined in its constitution, a “national outlier.”

The 2023 appeal, which the Supreme Court rejected, contended that those who authored Mississippi’s constitution showed racist intent when selecting the felonies that would cause people to lose the right to vote. A lower court found Mississippi remedied the underlying discrimination by later altering which crimes are disenfranchising.

In the latest appeal, the justices were asked to reverse the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel on the appeals court deemed the provision illegal, but the full court reinstated it.

Last term, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Mississippi, in 2023 ruled 2-1 in favor of the claim by the plaintiffs that the ban violates the Eighth Amendment.

My opinion? Being convicted of a felony is obviously a terrible thing. Fortunately, your right to vote can be restored as long as you are not currently serving a DOC sentence of total confinement in prison.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

A Person May Harass Someone by Threatening to Injure Another

Man pointing threatening finger

In State v. Johal No. 58980-0-II, the WA Court of Appeals held that a person may harass someone by threatening to injure another.  Therefore, the victim of Harassment need not be the person who was threatened.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Defendant Mr. Johal and his former partner Ms. Rivera dropped off their six-week-old child, SJ, with a friend. Later that night, after an apparent dispute, Rivera walked into a convenience store. Johal later entered the store and dragged Rivera out. Around 2:00 AM, Johal arrived at the friend’s house and insisted on taking SJ home. Johal took the baby to his apartment.

Vancouver police were dispatched to Johal’s apartment. When officers arrived, Rivera exited and they escorted her away. The officers believed that SJ still was inside the apartment. Several officers entered the apartment. Johal was holding SJ, and using profanity he yelled for the officers to leave his apartment. Johal then picked up a hammer, drew his arm back, and said that he was going to kill SJ. Johal eventually put down the hammer, but he then started walking toward the balcony and yelled that he was going to throw SJ off the balcony.

Officers stopped him from getting to the balcony and eventually removed SJ from Johal’s arms. The State charged Johal with Felony Harassment – Death Threats, Felony Violation of a DV No-Contact Order, First Degree Kidnapping, Third Degree Assault, and Attempted First Degree Assault.

At trial, the officers who witnessed the defendant threaten to kill the infant in his arms testified they the victims of Felony Harassment. That is because the defendant’s threats were to coerce or intimidate the officers into leaving the scene.

The trial court found Johal guilty of multiple felonies, including Felony Harassment-death threats. Regarding the Felony Harassment-death threats charge, the court orally found that Johal threatened to kill SJ and that the officers heard the threat and reasonably believed that Johal would use the hammer to kill SJ.

Johal appealed his conviction of Felony Harassment-death threats. He argued that the victim of the harassment must be the person the defendant threatens to injure or kill, and that third parties who are not threatened with injury or death cannot be victims of harassment. He claimed that the person threatened with injury or death – here, SJ – must be placed in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out to support a Harassment conviction.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The WA Court of Appeals began by saying that to sustain a conviction for Felony Harassment, the statute requires that the State prove that the person threatened was placed in reasonable fear that the threat to kill would be carried out. The only question here is who constitutes the “victim” of harassment.

Next, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the Harassment statute states that a person is guilty of harassment if they threaten to cause bodily injury to “the person threatened or to any other person.” (Emphasis added.)

“This language establishes that the harassment victim and the person threatened with bodily injury need not be the same person,” said the Court of Appeals. “In other words, a defendant may harass one person by threatening to injure another person.”

Next, the Court of Appeals stated that here, a rational trier of fact could determine that Johal’s threats to kill SJ were both directed at and an attempt to coerce or intimidate the officers on the scene. He wanted the officers to leave his apartment and to abandon their attempt to arrest him, and threatening to kill SJ was his way of accomplishing that end. Therefore, the officers were the “persons threatened” under the statute.

“We hold that based on the offense as charged, the officers in this case could be victims of harassment under RCW 9A.46.020(1)(b) even though Johal threatened to kill SJ. As a result, the trial court properly addressed under RCW 9A.46.020(1)(b) whether the officers were placed in reasonable feared that the threat to kill SJ would be carried out.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals affirmed Johal’s conviction for Felony Harassment – Death Threats.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Felony Harassment or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

A Terry Stop Is Not Improper Just Because Police Officers Handcuff a Defendant

In United States v. In, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Terry stop  does not escalate into an improper arrest just because the officers handcuffed the defendant.  Handcuffing was a reasonable safety precaution, given the totality of the circumstances. Here, bicycle officers spotting a firearm in the back seat of the defendant’s vehicle during a parking enforcement stop.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Seng In (“Mr. In”) was charged in a federal indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm after a gun was found in his car during a traffic stop. Mr. In moved to suppress the gun in district court, contending that it was obtained as a result of an unlawful de facto arrest. He did not challenge the officers’ initial traffic stop as an unlawful Terry stop. Instead, Mr. In argued that the officers’ actions, in particular their decision to handcuff him, escalated a valid Terry stop into an unlawful de facto arrest because the officers handcuffed him before they had probable cause to believe that he was prohibited from possessing the gun.

WHAT IS A TERRY STOP?

Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Ninth Circuit explained that in order to determine whether a Terry stop becomes an arrest, one must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the intrusion, the aggressiveness of the officer’s actions, and the reasonableness of the officer’s methods under the circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit further elaborated that when considering the reasonableness of the officer’s methods under the circumstances, “We consider whether the officer had sufficient basis to fear for their safety to warrant the intrusiveness of the action taken.” This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective of law enforcement, while bearing in mind that the purpose of a Terry stop is to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence.

“In this case, the officers’ decision to handcuff Mr. In made the traffic stop more intrusive than a typical Terry stop, but the use of handcuffs was reasonable under the circumstances and did not convert the stop into an arrest.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here, the police officer saw an unsecured gun on the floor of the backseat of Mr. In’s car seconds into the traffic stop. When Mr. In was asked whether he had a gun in his car, Mr. In lied to police and said “No.” Although Mr. In was physically cooperative with the officers up until this point, he became uncooperative when he answered untruthfully the officer’s question about having a gun in his car. Therefore, Mr. In’s response reasonably raised the possibility that the stop could turn extremely dangerous due to the information gap that existed between the officers and Mr. In. The safety risks posed by the stop were amplified because the stop occurred about fifty feet from the Strip, a densely populated tourist area, and the officers were patrolling on bicycles without the protection of a patrol car if the traffic stop turned dangerous.

The Ninth Circuit further reasoned that because the officers were patrolling on bicycles, they could not place Mr. In inside a patrol car while conducting their investigation. If the officers had not handcuffed Mr. In, they would have had to rely on their ability to physically overpower him if he attempted to reach for the gun.

“Although Mr. In did not actually reach for the exposed gun, the question is whether officers had a sufficient basis to fear for their safety to warrant the intrusiveness of the actions taken.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Ninth Circuit held that the officers had a sufficient and reasonable basis to fear for their safety. This justified their decision to handcuff Mr. In so that their safety was assured during their investigation.

“The officers had good reason to handcuff In to prevent him from being able to access the unsecured gun on the floor of the backseat. The officers were eliminating the possibility that In could gain access to the unsecured gun. That conduct properly protected both the officers and the general public. And this is true even though Nevada is an open carry state. Because the officers’ conduct was reasonable under the circumstances, the Terry stop did not escalate into a de facto arrest without probable cause.” ~Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower order granting Mr. In’s suppression motion and remanded the case for trial.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search and Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office to Host Gun Buyback Program

gun-buyback

Photo Courtesy of Associated Press – Mel Evans

The Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) recently announced it was awarded $125,000 from the Washington State Attorney General’s Office to support a gun buy-back program and firearm storage in Whatcom County.

WHAT IS A GUN BUYBACK PROGRAM?

Gun buyback programs compensate individuals who turn over firearms to a public agency or private organization. In the United States, nearly all buyback programs are implemented at the county or city level, and participation is always voluntary. The primary goal of gun buyback programs is to prevent firearm violence by reducing the stock of firearms in a community.

Gun buybacks can also serve as venues for raising awareness of the risks associated with firearms, educating participants about safer firearm storage, and connecting violence prevention organizations, all of which could potentially lead to reductions in firearm crimes, injuries, or deaths.

The WCSO is one of 12 law enforcement agencies statewide to receive funding as part of the Attorney General’s Office efforts to promote firearm safety, combat gun violence, and support victims of gun violence. Some of the funding will be used to purchase gift cards in exchange for surrendered firearms, to reduce the number of guns in circulation, and to promote community safety.

“As the Sheriff of Whatcom County, I want to emphasize that combating gun violence is extremely important to me, not only as a law enforcement officer but also on a deeply personal level . . . Having tragically lost several family members to gun violence, I understand the devastating impact it has on families, communities, and our entire society.” ~WCSO Sheriff Donnell “Tank” Tanskley.

The Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office will provide additional details about the gun buy-back program, including the date, time, location, and eligibility requirements this coming spring.

HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE GUN BUYBACK PROGRAMS?

Gun buyback programs remain popular despite limited evidence of their effectiveness as a violence prevention tool. A combination of consistently high public support, low cost, and local control contribute to the political and practical feasibility of implementing buyback programs. In contrast, many other violence prevention efforts face intractable political debates, are cost prohibitive, or are implemented at the state or federal level. Buybacks might also be appealing because the results—the guns that are surrendered—provide public officials with the opportunity to point to immediate and visible “success.”

My opinion? The empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of buyback programs is limited and mixed at best. Regardless, buyback programs continue to garner considerable public support and continue to be implemented in many communities. They’re a step in the right direction.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Firearm Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

New Law To Punish Those Who Injure or Kill Vulnerable Road Users

New state law to protect vulnerable road users takes effect January 1

The Washington traffic Safety Commission reported that on January 1, 2025, Washington State will implement a new law intended to enhance safety for “Vulnerable Road Users” such as pedestrians, cyclists, and individuals using personal mobility devices.

The law aims to reduce injuries and fatalities from crashes involving non-motorized road users by increasing penalties for negligent drivers. A negligent driver is generally considered to be a person who fails to exercise ordinary care, which then endangers another person.

In the past decade traffic fatalities of vulnerable road users have increased dramatically. Since 2014 annual deaths of vulnerable people on our roads more than doubled. These aren’t just numbers; they’re people in our communities – neighbors, friends, and family.

WHAT IS A VULNERABLE ROAD USER?

Vulnerable road users are people on our roads and sidewalks that don’t have the protection of a vehicle’s cage to keep them safe. This includes people walking, biking, riding scooters and skateboards, using mobility aids, riding motorcycles, traveling by horseback, and even driving a tractor without a protective shell.

NEGLIGENT DRIVING

By statute, a person drives negligently when they fail to exercise ordinary care. To determine negligence, the law compares the action of a driver to a reasonably careful person. Did the driver do something a reasonably careful person wouldn’t do, or did the driver fail to do something a reasonably careful person would do? And did that driver endanger or likely endanger any person or property?

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES OF VIOLATING THIS NEW LAW?

Under the new law, penalties for a negligent driver who causes the death of a vulnerable road user include:

  • A fine of $5,000
  • Up to 364 days in jail
  • Suspension of driving privileges for 90 days

Penalties for a negligent driver who seriously injures a vulnerable road user may include:

  • A fine of $5,000
  • Suspension of driving privileges for 90 days
  • Traffic school
  • Up to 100 hours of community service

“This law is one part of Washington’s ongoing efforts to make our roads safer for everyone. By focusing on protecting our most vulnerable road users, we’re sending a clear message that when you’re the biggest and the fastest, you need to be the safest, too. Everyone has a right to safe passage on our roads, whether they’re in a car, on a bike, or on foot.” ~Shelly Baldwin, Director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC)

The WTSC will run an educational campaign through January to inform drivers and vulnerable road users about the new law and promote safe road-sharing practices.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Negligent Driving, Reckless Driving or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State Courts Lack Authority to Euthanize Dangerous Dogs

migrated image

In State v. Richards, the WA Supreme Court held that state district courts have no authority to force citizens to have their pets euthanized.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Richards’ dog, Thor, serves as an emotional support animal to Richards’s daughter, who suffers from health complications. In June 2018, Thor was declared a “potentially dangerous dog” after biting Richards’s neighbor’s dog. Thor bit the same dog again in April 2019 and was declared a “Dangerous Dog” under Wahkiakum County Code. Both the state and county codes require certain actions of the owner of a dangerous dog, such as registering the dog and having the dog restrained at all times, on a leash or in a fenced yard.

In September 2020, Richards left Thor on her porch while she ran to the pharmacy to get medication for her daughter. Thor was not enclosed and was not leashed, but he did not leave Richards’s property. Police were called to check on a loose dangerous dog. Thor barked at the officer who attempted to secure the animal but did not bite. The first officer called for backup, and they monitored Thor until Richards returned home and secured the dog. The officers informed Richards that the incident would be forwarded to the prosecutor’s office. Wahkiakum County (County) charged Richards with one count of having a dangerous dog at large.

The district court convicted Richards of a gross misdemeanor after a stipulated bench trial. At sentencing, the County recommended that Richards receive the maximum sentence and fine, but that the sentence be suspended once Thor was euthanized by the Humane Society. The parties have agreed that surrendering the dog would result in Thor’s death.

The judge also ordered that if Richards did not surrender the dog by the following day, she would remain in custody until she provided proof that the dog had been surrendered. Richards appealed to the superior court, which affirmed her conviction and sentence. Richards then appealed the conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeals, Division Two.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Richards’s gross misdemeanor conviction based on the county ordinance. However, the court remanded for resentencing, determining that the district court had gone beyond its authority. Specifically, the court found that the prerequisites for destruction of a dog provided in both the state law and county ordinance were not met, and thus Thor was not subject to destruction. The WA Supreme Court granted review and took the issue up on appeal.

LEGAL ISSUE

Did the district court act within its sentencing authority when it conditioned the suspension of Richards’s misdemeanor sentence on turning her dog over to the county animal control authority?

WA SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Charles Johnson wrote the majority opinion in this case. The Court began by saying a dog is nonfungible personal property, and the owner has a valid legal ownership interest unless some procedure disrupts that interest. Although the parties’ briefing addresses the sentence using terms like “surrender,” to forcibly deprive an owner of specific property generally constitutes a forfeiture.

Hence, reasoned Justice Johnson, Ms. Richards sentence requiring forfeiture of Thor constitutes criminal forfeiture. That is because the sentence deprived Richards of specific, nonfungible personal property. Consequently, criminal forfeiture such as this requires statutory authority. Justice Johnson described why statutory authority in this case was lacking:

“The county ordinance at issue has no plain language authorizing criminal forfeiture.  Also, the county ordinance does address civil or administrative forfeiture of a dangerous dog. Under the ordinance, civil forfeiture is a separate procedure from criminal forfeiture imposed on a defendant during sentencing, so this county ordinance does not apply to the criminal forfeiture order that occurred here.

Even assuming the civil forfeiture ordinance applies in this context, the County did not meet the required prerequisites provided . . . In short, we agree with the Court of Appeals that a district court cannot impose forfeiture absent statutory authorization, and the State is unable to point to such authorization here.” ~Justice Charles Johnson, WA Supreme Court

With that, the WA Supreme held that while a district court may order a defendant to take certain actions, and may even be creative in its orders, it may not go beyond the scope of the statutory authority granted to it.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Substance Use: Health Issue Or Crime?

open pill bottle

New polling data from the Legal Action Center shows that more Americans than ever think substance use should be treated as a health issue, rather than a criminal justice issue. But many state and federal laws continue to criminalize substance use – more than half of states still treat drug possession as a felony.

THE POLL DATA

The Legal Action Center poll revealed that in 2024, 75% of Americans thought that substance use disorders (SUD) “should be treated more as a health problem than a criminal problem”, compared with 67% in 2019. The poll also showed rising support for increased spending and access for SUD treatment, including in jails and prisons.

ARE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL DRUG POLICIES WORKING?

The Biden administration dramatically expanded access to naloxone, an overdose-reversal medication, including by making it available over the counter. Some jurisdictionsincluding Chicago, have made naloxone and fentanyl test strips free to the public. And several states decriminalized drug-checking equipment, including fentanyl test strips in 2023, but some still forbid drug checking.

Some State and local drug policies intended to increase SUD treatment access have been around for a long time, but local and federal governments often fail to provide sufficient funding and attention to make the most of those policies. Even outside of SUD treatment, there is a shortage of behavioral health workers in the US.

HOW DO DRUG CRIMES GET INVESTIGATED AND PROSECUTED?

Drug crimes and charges generally come out of a warrant, a search, a seizure, an informant, a plain view or a tip.  This means that the “how and why” a was searching and seizing something, or, why and how they were engaging an informant or tipster, will raise constitutional issues.  State and Federal Agents must act within Washington State and Federal law.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Numerous affirmative defenses exist, including Unwitting Possession and Entrapment. In general, criminal drug cases can be guided towards a favorable resolution. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Warrant Quash Day Hosted At Whatcom District Court

Warrant Resolution Day Offers Chance To Quash Warrants Without Arrest

Whatcom County District Court will hold a Warrant Quash Day on Wednesday, December 4. The purpose of this action is to allow defendants to quash outstanding warrants for their arrest for failure to appear for a District Court hearing in Whatcom County. This is a voluntary event, and individuals are encouraged to take advantage of this opportunity to resolve their outstanding warrants.

Having an outstanding warrant means that a person could be arrested at any time they come in contact with law enforcement. The quash event offers two benefits: one to the person with the warrant and the other to the community at large.

A warrant quash day is an opportunity to for defendants with outstanding warrants for their arrest for failure to appear for a District Court hearing in Whatcom County and remove their warrant. Having an outstanding warrant means that person can be arrested at any time.

On the Warrant Quash Day, the defendant’s case will be called, the warrant will be quashed and a next court date to return will be given. By quashing a warrant, a defendant’s case can get back on track. They will not need to worry about further incarceration for the same warrant.

Those looking to quash their warrants should arrive at District Court Clerk’s Office on the fourth floor of the County Courthouse at 311 Grand Ave. between 10 a.m. and noon Wednesday, Dec. 4.

The quash day is only for warrants issued by the Whatcom County District Court. There has been one other warrant quash day this year. The amount of quash days in 2025 will depend on how many people get their warrants quashed this week.

Eligible warrants include misdemeanor and/or gross misdemeanor offenses. People with warrants connected to charges such as DUIs, trespassing and protection order violations can have the warrant quashed. The individual will be arraigned and have new court dates set. Ineligible offenses include felonies, which are typically charged from Whatcom Superior Court.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime and want to quash a bench warrant. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

State v Blake Does Not Open The Door To Untimely Challenges On Voluntary Guilty Pleas

florida courtroom motion to withdraw plea

In State v. Olsen, the WA Supreme Court held that a defendant’s knowing and validly entered guilty plea to a 2003 drug possession charge did not become unknowing and involuntary simply because the State v. Blake decision in 2021 declared Washington State’s drug possession statute unconstitutional.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2003, Olsen pled guilty to Forgery and Unlawful Possession of Controlled Substance in two separate matters at the same time. In 2005, Olsen pled guilty to unlawful possession of firearm second degree and unlawful possession of controlled substance from the same incident. He completed his sentences on both matters.

In 2021, Olsen filed CrR 7.8 motions to withdraw his guilty pleas as being involuntary pleas to nonexistent crimes and that the pleas were part of indivisible agreements, pursuant to State v. Blake. The superior court denied the motions and only vacated the drug possession convictions.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Supreme Court held that while Blake invalidated Olsen’s simple drug possession convictions, it did not open the door to untimely challenges to the voluntariness of guilty pleas.

“A motion to withdraw a plea after judgment has been entered is a collateral attack,” said the Court.  “Criminal defendants seeking to collaterally attack their judgment and sentence must do so within one year of the judgment and sentence becoming final.”

The Court acknowledged that RCW 10.73.100(7) provides an exception to the one-year time bar when there has been a significant, retroactively applicable change in the law that is material to the defendant’s conviction or sentence. However, the defendant must show the law changed in a way that entitles him to relief, such as by changing the process or result of their case. Here, Blake is not material to Olsen’s due process claim challenging the voluntariness of his drug possession pleas.

Olsen’s guilty pleas, knowingly and validly entered, did not become unknowing and involuntary simply because Blake declared the drug possession statute unconstitutional. The validity of the pleas turns on whether Olsen was inadequately informed of the law and the consequences at the time he pleaded. State v. Lamb, 175 Wn.2d 121, 129, 285 P.3d 27 (2012). Blake does not provide new legal grounds for determining whether he voluntarily and knowingly pleaded guilty to drug possession, a valid crime in 2003 and 2005. Olsen cannot use Blake to circumvent the time bar under RCW 10.73.100(6) and belatedly challenge his guilty pleas.

With that, the WA Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s rulings denial of Olsen’s motions to withdraw guilty pleas and upheld Olsen’s drug conviction.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Trump To Expand the Federal Death Penalty

Trump wants to expand the federal death penalty, setting up legal  challenges in second term

According to NBC News, President Trump will re-start the execution of federal inmates on Death Row. In doing so, he’ll undo a moratorium on executions entered under the outgoing Biden-Harris administration.

“These are terrible, terrible, horrible people who are responsible for death, carnage and crime all over the country . . . We’re going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts.” ~President Donal Trump

Additionally, the incoming president also says he wants to expand capital punishment for other crimes. He’s suggested executions for child rapists, human traffickers and illegal immigrants who kill Americans or police officers. These measures would require support from Congress and the Supreme Court.

WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF MORE EXECUTIONS?

Probabaly more favorable than his prior efforts. In 2008, the Supreme Court declared the death penalty for child rapists unconstitutional when the child survives, the American Bar Journal reported Monday. These day, however, proponents are hopeful for a reversal. Trump is now in the White House. There’s also a Republican majority in the Senate and conservatives hold a 6-3 advantage in the current Supreme Court.

The death penalty for drug and human trafficking would be unprecedented in the western world. Also, no president had overseen as many federal executions since Grover Cleveland in the late 1800s, and the U.S. government had not executed anyone for more than 15 years until Trump revived the practice.

There are currently 40 federal inmates on death row, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The list includes surviving Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Dylann Roof, who massacred nine parishioners in a South Carolina church.

Justice Department records show the federal government has executed 16 people since 2001. Thirteen of those executions came during Trump’s first term in office.

The individual states executed 1,542 condemned inmates between 1977 and 2022, according to federal data. Texas led the way with 587 executions, more than the next two states combined – Oklahoma with 119 and Virginia with 113. In almost that same time period – between 1973 and 2023 – 192 death row inmates were exonerated and set free, according to the ACLU. The individual states have their own system for capital punishment – or lack thereof – and would not be as impacted by Trump administration policy.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.