Category Archives: Bellingham Defense Attorney

Attorney Alexander F. Ransom Awarded Client Distinction Award From Martindale-Hubbell

Bellingham Defense Attorney, , ,

Good news! Attorney Alexander F. Ransom has received the Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award. Martindale-Hubbell is the premier lawyer rating service in the country. Martindale-Hubbell gives the Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award to those lawyers whose clients give the lawyer a 4.5 average rating (out of 5.0) in the following areas: (1) Communications Ability; (2) Responsiveness; (3) Quality of Service; and (4) Value for Money.

Less than one percent (1%) of the more than 900,000 attorneys listed by Martindale-Hubbell on its martindale.com and lawyers.com websites receive the Martindale-Hubbell Client Distinction Award.

Congratulations, Alexander!

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.

Attorney Alexander Ransom Accepted Into National College of DUI Defense

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Boating Under the Influence, Drug Offenses, Drug Recognition Expert, DUI, Terry Stop, , ,

Attorney Alexander Ransom became a General Member of the National College for DUI Defense, Inc.

The National College for DUI Defense (NCDD) is a professional, non-profit corporation dedicated to the improvement of the criminal defense bar, and to the dissemination of information to the public about DUI Defense Law as a specialty area of law practice. The National College is headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. It consists of a governing Board of Regents, a Founding Membership, a Sustaining Membership and a General Membership.

College members represent the most experienced DUI defense attorneys in the country. Members are among the top DUI practitioners in the United States. The NCDD recognizes defense lawyers who have demonstrated the skill and experience of the original Founding Members, as well as the generosity to financially sustain the growth of the NCDD. General Members are the backbone of the college—capable, experienced attorneys who dedicate a portion of their practice to the defense of DUI cases throughout the country.

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.

Attorney Alexander F. Ransom Makes “Top 100” List National Black Lawyers

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Good news.

Bellingham Criminal Defense attorney Alexander Ransom was selected for membership within the prestigious National Black Lawyers organization.

The National Black Lawyers- “Top 100” is an invitation-only professional honorary organization composed of the Top 100 Black Lawyers from each state who serve individuals, families and businesses needing attorneys to represent them in the American legal system. Members of The National Black Lawyers- Top 100 exemplify superior qualifications of leadership, reputation, influence and performance in their area of legal practice. This exclusive organization provides superior networking opportunities, continuing legal education and the highest quality advocacy training for lawyers across the nation. This organization is focused on highlighting & elevating the accomplished black attorney to provide the best way for the public & other attorneys to find theTop Black Attorneys for their legal needs & source for case referrals.

“I’m extremely pleased to practice criminal defense here in Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham,” says Alex. “What motivates me is my passion for justice and making sure my clients get a fair shake in the legal system. I’ll continue to fight hard for my clients. I wouldn’t be here without them.”

State v. Davis: Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Rendering Criminal Assistance and Exceptional Sentences.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Due Process, Evidence, Exceptional Sentencing, felony, Firearm, Homicide & Manslaughter, Jury Trial, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Probable Cause, Rendering Criminal Assistance, Sentencing, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Violent Crime, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

WA Supremes gave an interesting opinion touching upon the defendants who were allegedly involved in the Lakewood police officer shootings from last year. In short, the Supreme Court could not reach a 5-4 majority opinion on the issue of whether the State lacked evidence to support the defendant’s convictions for Possession of a Stolen Firearm. However, the State reached a majority “No” decision on the issue of whether Exceptional Sentence applied to this case. 

The underlying facts of State v. Davis are notorious and undisputed. On Sunday, November 29, 2009, Clemmons entered a coffee shop just before 8:00 a.m. with two handguns and began shooting at four Lakewood police officers, fatally wounding three. The fourth officer struggled with Clemmons and shot Clemmons once in the side, but Clemmons wrested the fourth officer’s gun from him, fatally shot him, and left with the stolen gun.

While on the run, Clemmons contacted defendants Eddie Lee Davis and Letrecia Nelson shortly after the murders. Clemmons went to Davis’ home, requested a ride to a house in Auburn, and said he had been shot while killing four police officers. Davis drove Clemmons to Nelson’s home. Nelson let Clemmons and Davis inside. Clemmons told Nelson he had killed four police officers, been shot in the process, and stolen one officer’s gun.

At Clemmons’ request, he was given fresh clothing and help treating his gunshot wound. Nelson put some clothes and the stolen gun in a shopping bag that was left on a counter. Just before leaving, Clemmons asked where the gun was. Davis replied that it was in the bag on the counter and gave the bag to Clemmons. He left the home with the gun, and remained a fugitive from justice. On December 1, 2009, 2-3 days after the incident, Clemmons was gunned down by a Seattle Police Officer who pulled his car over.

Based on their actions following that contact, Davis and Nelson were charged by the Prosecutor and convicted at jury trial of Rendering Criminal Assistance and Possession of a Stolen Firearm. Davis was also convicted of Unlawful Possession of that self-same firearm. The conviction was appealed, and found its way to the WA Supreme Court.

The Court addressed the issues of whether (1) sufficient evidence supported Davis’ and Nelson’s convictions relating to possession of a firearm, and (2) whether the exceptional sentences for rendering criminal assistance factually were legally justified.

1. UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

The 4-person “majority” Court answered “Yes” to the question of whether sufficient evidence existed to support the convictions. The court reasoned there are two types of control: actual and constructive. A person actually possesses something that is in his or her physical custody, and constructively possesses something that is not in his or her physical custody but is still within his or her “dominion and control.”

For either type, to establish possession the prosecution must prove more than a passing control; it must prove actual control. The length of time in itself does not determine whether control is actual or passing, and whether one has actual control over the item at issue depends on the totality of the circumstances presented.

In light of the totality of the circumstances, the Court was convinced that the State presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that Clemmons temporarily relinquished control over the stolen gun to Davis and Nelson while his wound was treated and he changed clothes. There was no testimony that Clemmons made any specific requests or orders as to what should be done with the stolen gun while he was at Nelson’s home, and he did not even know where the gun was until he was ready to leave about 15 minutes later.

t is reasonable to infer that someone else decided what to do with the gun and that the decision-makers were Nelson and Davis because Nelson retrieved the shopping bag and put the gun inside it and Davis immediately responded when Clemmons asked where the gun was. Furthermore, both Nelson and Davis retained the ability to take further actions as to the gun until the time Davis gave it back to Clemmons because they knew where it was and Clemmons did not. Therefore, the court believed there was actual control sufficient to establish constructive possession.

2. EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES

The Court answered “No” to the issue of whether the defendants should receive an exceptional upward sentence for their convictions. The Court said Exceptional Sentences are intended to impose additional punishment where the particular offense at issue causes more damage than that contemplated by the statute defining the offense. In that situation, the standard penalty for the offense is insufficient and an exceptional sentence based on an “aggravating factor” found by the jury remedies that insufficiency.

Here, the Court reasoned that, as a matter of law, the “aggravating factor” at issue cannot apply to Rendering Criminal Assistance charges.  Here, the “victim” was the public at large. However, Exceptional Sentences apply where there is “a destructive and foreseeable impact on persons other than the victim.” Because Rendering Criminal Assistance victimizes the general public, every member of the public is part of the victim class. There is no “other.” Therefore, the exceptional sentences imposed on Davis and Nelson were not legally justified.

The WA Supreme Court was highly divided on this issue. Justice Wiggins appeared to be the swaying vote. He concurred with the dissenting opinion that the evidence was insufficient to sustain Davis’s and Nelson’s firearm possession convictions. However, Justice Wiggins concurred with the majority opinion as far as the decision that the Exceptional Sentences imposed for Eddie Davis’s and Letricia Nelson’s convictions for Rendering Criminal Assistance were not legally justified.

Ultimately, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remand for further proceedings.

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.

State v. Pinson: When Prosecutors Violate a Defendant’s 5th Amendment Right

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Domestic Violence, felony, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Search and Seizure, Self-Incrimination, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

In State v. Pinson, the WA Court of Appeals held that a Prosecutor violated a defendant’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination by arguing that the defendant was guilty because he chose to not talk to police when arrested.

Mason County Sheriff Deputy Nault responded to a reported domestic violence call. He contacted Stacey Campbell, who was in a parking lot across the street from her home. She said the defendant Jarad Pinson, her boyfriend, violently assaulted her. Deputy Nault saw red marks on her neck. Deputy Nault went into the home and arrested Mr. Pinson. During the arrest, Mr. Pinson was cooperative. He said he was drinking with his friends. When asked by officers if the situation became violent with Ms. Campbell, however, Mr. Pinson did not respond. he was arrested for Assault Second Degree Domestic Violence.

At trial, the judge granted the defense attorney’s motion in limine to suppress the Prosecutor from asking whether the fight was physical. However, defense counsel asked that question during cross-examination. Because of this, the judge ruled that Pinson’s defense attorney “opened the door” and gave the Prosecutor opportunity to cross examine the defendant on whether the fight was physical.

In closing argument, the Prosecutor said Mr. Pinson’s silence during arrest was substantive evidence of guilt. Although Ms. Campbell recanted her earlier accusations of assault while testifying on the witness stand, the jury nevertheless returned a guilty verdict on the Assault Second Degree charges. The case went up on appeal.

The law on prosecutorial misconduct is straightforward. To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that “in the context of the records and the circumstances of trial, the prosecutor’s conduct was both improper and prejudicial. However, when the defendant fails to object to the challenged portions of the prosecutor’s argument, he is deemed to have waived any error unless the prosecutor’s conduct was so flagrant and ill intentioned that an instruction could not “cure” the resulting prejudice to the defendant.

The 5th Amendment in the U.S Constitution states, “no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Similarly, Article I, section 9 of the WA State Constitution follows this language. Both Constitutions guarantee a defendant the right to be free from self-incrimination, including the right silence. A defendant has the right to remain silent both prearrest and post-arrest; i.e., both before and after a defendant is given Miranda warnings.

 Here, the Court of Appeals held that the Prosecutor’s statement was improper because in violated Mr. Pinson’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. More specifically, it was improper for the State to make closing arguments that infer guilt from the defendant’s silence. Even though defense counsel did not object, his failure to object did not waive the claim of prosecutorial misconduct because the conduct was so flagrant and ill-intentioned that an instruction would not have cured the prejudice.

The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

My opinion? Great decision. It’s a long-standing, basic principle that Prosecutors cannot infer a defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. I’m pleased the Court acknowledged this basic principle.

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.

Winter DUI Emphasis Patrols to Begin Again

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Department of Licensing, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Be aware, all . . .

All along the I-5 corridor from Canada to Mexico, law enforcement agencies begin emphasis enforcement beginning on Wednesday November 27, 2013.

The goal is to prevent even a single death on I-5 during the Thanksgiving weekend.   To that end, Washington, Oregon, and California law enforcement are combining forces this week to keep the road safe from impaired drivers.  Spread the word!

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

Latest DUI Emphasis Patrol Nets 151 Whatcom County Drivers

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Blood Test, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Washington State Patrol, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

The latest “Drive Hammered, Get Nailed” campaign put more officers on patrol during the holiday season and resulted in 151 Whatcom County drivers being arrested on suspicion of drunken driving.

The campaign began Nov. 25 and ended Jan. 2. The Washington State Patrol, the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office and the Bellingham, Ferndale and Western Washington University police departments participated.

Statewide, more than 3,500 people were arrested for DUI during the campaign.

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.

Red Light Cameras Arrive in Spring 2011

Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, police, Police Misconduct, Red Light Cameras, , ,

Here they come.

Beginning April 1, motorists in Bellingham can expect to see traffic cameras at six locations that have been pinpointed as areas with high instances of speeding in school zones or vehicles running red lights. The first 30 days is an amnesty period where violators will receive warning tickets.

When the City Council voted on the camera ordinance on Nov. 23, Councilman Seth Fleetwood was the lone opposer saying it was a “tough decision.” Ultimately, Fleetwood voted against it saying, “Do we want to live in a place with cameras?”  Fleetwood also disagreed with the City Council’s decision to cancel a public hearing on the subject.  The City Council never rescheduled the meeting.  He called the cancellation “A bad move.”

Based on traffic studies in conjunction with the Bellingham Public Works Department, the Police Department came up with four locations for traffic cameras to detect red-light running: westbound on Holly Street at N. Forest Street; northbound on Ellis Street at Lakeway Drive; northbound on Meridian Street and Telegraph Road; and southbound on Samish Way at 36th Street, near Sehome Village.

Here’s how they work: when a vehicle runs a red light or is detected speeding at one of the intersections, the video equipment is triggered capturing about 12 seconds of footage including the vehicle’s license plate. State law stipulates that the camera may take pictures only from the rear of the vehicle and never the faces of the driver or passengers. Electronic images may not be used for any other purpose and must not be retained longer than necessary to enforce the violation.

The cameras are always in operation but capturing footage only when they are triggered by a vehicle in violation.  Images and video are reviewed by ATS and then a Bellingham Police officer trained on the equipment affirms each violation. If you receive a notice, you can make the payment to ATS or appeal. If you were not the driver of the vehicle, you can contest it in writing.

A ticket generated by the traffic cameras is processed as a “civil infraction” similar to a parking ticket. This is different from a notice of infraction, which occurs when a police officer pulls over a driver accused of running a red light or speeding in a school zone. The notice of infraction is reported to the driver’s auto insurance; the civil infraction is not.

Studies conducted by ATS and other private companies show that camera installation creates safer streets. However, independent studies and those done by news organizations have shown an increase in accidents at intersections where cameras have been installed.

Meantime, at least seven states have banned red-light cameras, including Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin, according to Anne Teigen, a transportation specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures.

My opinion?  Bad idea.  I’ll tell you a secret: yellow lights are timed MUCH shorter at intersections with traffic cameras.  Quite literally, you must be already driving through the intersection when the light turns yellow.  Otherwise, you’ll be caught, pictured, and ticketed.  These traffic lights are not proven to decrease bad driving behavior.  They are, however, proven to increase revenue for municipalities.  THAT’S what this is about.

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.

Representing Veterans

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Good news.  The Louisiana Public Defender Board, in collaboration with the Louisiana Department of veterans Affairs, has developed a guide for public defense attorneys who represent veterans.

The guide provides information on substance abuse services, PTSD treatment, VA recovery services in mental health, transitional work experience (TWE) and Supported Employment (SE) and Depression Treatment.

My opinion? The guide is a great tool that could fairly easily be replicated in every state in the country.  Although it’s written for public defenders, the guide also helps private defense attorneys identify the resources available to assist their veteran clients.

I’m honored to represent veterans against criminal charges.  In my experience, their crimes can be traced back to an underlying PTSD issue from serving in the war.  They deserve the highest level of legal representation, and should be treated with dignity from the judges and prosecutors.  Our veterans fought for our country.

Attorneys representing veterans MUST KNOW their veteran clients may lose pension benefits if they plead to any convictions garnering 60 or more days of incarceration.  For more information, please click “Section A: General Information on Payment of Benefits After Incarceration after clicking the link below:

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/va_search.jsp?SQ=&TT=1&QT=incarceration

To the veterans, I salute you. 🙂

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.

Bellingham’s New Noise Ordinance: A Step In the Right Direction

Bellingham, Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Legislation, police, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

On December 6, at 7:00 p.m., Bellingham City Council members will vote on the creation of entertainment districts designed to simultaneously protect musicians/venues from noise complaints and downtown residents from excessive noise.

Under the ordinance, the council would officially create entertainment districts downtown and in Fairhaven.  It also would make a basic declaration recognizing that music venues “add to the vibrancy and economic vitality” of the city.  Then it directs police, in considering noise complaints, to assess the issue using various criteria like (1) time of day the complaint occurs; (2) duration and volume of sound; (3) the nature of the sound; and (4) the character of the business or industry from where the sound originates.

Members of the Bellingham Downtown Alliance for Music and Nightlife said the law contains some “very promising elements” and that it was exciting the council would be making an official declaration about the importance of music and nightlife to the city.  The group also wants the city to require landlords to disclose to potential tenants in the entertainment districts that they’d be living in an area with higher volumes of noise at later hours.

My opinion?  I live downtown.  There are three  noisy nightclubs/bars in my neighborhood.  They attract a noisy crowd, especially on the weekends.  However, I moved into this area knowing the noise existed.  Indeed, I welcomed it (if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em; if you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen, yadda yadda . . .).

The police and the City have cowed to the complaints of local citizens and businesses who can’t handle urban noise.  Indeed, mere months ago, Plan B Lounge closed down due to the excessive complaints of one neighbor (1!) who lived above the lounge and stated he couldn’t sleep because of the noise.  The City found in his favor and determined that Plan B must install soundproofing, and/or decrease the music.  The owners chose to leave.  Another local business bit the dust.  What a loss!  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I’m in favor of the ordinance.  Police must now apply specific criteria in determining whether the noise ordinance is violated.  They can no longer make arbitrary and capricious decisions (it’s more difficult, anyway).  Good.  Let’s make standards and apply them fairly.  Otherwise, musicians and venues will continue face Disorderly Conduct charges for merely expressing themselves.

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.