Category Archives: Constitutional Rights

State v. Barry: Whether a Defendant’s Demeanor Spells Trouble During Trial

Constitutional Rights, felony, Self-Incrimination, Sex Crimes, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Demeanor, Demeanor, Demeanor - Trial Practice Tips

In State v. Barry, the WA Court of Appeals decided it does NOT violate a defendant’s Constitutional rights to allow a jury to consider the defendant’s in-court demeanor during trial.

The State charged Barry with first degree child molestation (DV). The case proceeded to trial. Important to note, Barry chose not to testify. During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking the court, “Can we use as ‘evidence for deliberation,’ our observations of the defendants actions and demeanor during the court case?” The trial court instructed the jury, “Evidence is what you witness in the courtroom.” Barry objected to the jury instruction. The jury found Barry guilty as charged. Barry appealed.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial judge misstated the law in giving that instruction because the defendant did not testify; and therefore, his demeanor was not evidence presented during trial.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals rejected arguments that Barry’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated. It stated, “Here, neither the State nor the trial court forced Barry to do anything with regards to his demeanor. He had full control over how he acted in the courtroom. Other than citing the Fifth Amendment, Barry does not explain how he was compelled to give evidence against himself. We hold that allowing the jury to consider the defendant’s demeanor as evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment.”

Finally, the Court of Appeals discussed the absence of any discussion on the record regarding Barry’s demeanor. In other words, there was a lack of record on how Barry behaved. The Court said the following:

“Without any information identifying what demeanor the jury may have considered, it is impossible to know whether that consideration was favorable or unfavorable to Barry. In the abstract, a defendant’s behavior is neutral. Depending on the demeanor, a jury could draw a negative inference or a positive inference from how the defendant acts during trial. As a result, merely stating that a jury may have considered a defendant’s demeanor without any information about that demeanor cannot establish prejudice because that consideration may have favored the defendant.”

My opinion? This case is tough. I’ll agree with the Court of Appeals in saying that what we don’t know is the pink elephant in this room. I’ve had many jury trials. During preparations, I thoroughly inform defendants how to properly behave in court. And yes, it’s extremely difficult for many defendants to stay calm and stoic during trial. Most defendants are very emotional about the case, especially if they believe the State’s witnesses are lying and/or exaggerating  during testimony.

Consequently, the decision on whether to testify is a strategic one. And this decision – whatever it may be – can backfire for many reasons. Typically, jurors want to hear defendants testify. However, if a defendant does not testify, then human nature dictates that juries perceive how the defendants acts during trial.

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. Ollivier: What Happens When the Defense Attorney Wants a Continuance and the Defendant Doesn’t?

Constitutional Rights, Discovery, Pretrial Investigations, Speedy Trial & Continuances, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

How to Write a Letter for Not Being Able to Attend Court

In State v. Ollivier, the WA Supremes held that a defendant’s speedy trial rights were NOT violated when a defendant’s attorney requested the continuance over the objection of his client. The facts were such that the defendant, Ollivier, was charged with Possession of Depictions of Minors Engaged in Sexual Activity. The depictions involved the use of the defendant’s computer. Ollivier was arraigned on April 18, 2007. His case went pending for 5 years before finally going to trial.

There were, in total, 22 continuances. The reasons for the continuances varied: defense counsel sought most of the continuances to allow time for investigation, obtain expert review of computer content, obtain discovery material from the Washington State Department of Corrections and the King County Sheriff’s Office, and because of a new investigator on the case.

Some of the requested continuances mentioned circumstances involving the State and some motions were joined by the State. At one point, an arresting officer resigned. Consequently, a continuance was requested to allow time to investigate her misconducts.

The Court reasoned that, in order to establish that multiple continuances of Ollivier’s trial dates violated his constitutional right to trial, a defendant must establish actual prejudice to the ability to prepare a defense. Further, prejudice will only be presumed in extremely unusual cases in which the post-indictment delay lasted at least five years or the government was responsible for the delay by virtue of something beyond simple negligence.

Finally, the Court stated the following: “Nearly all of the continuances were sought so that defense counsel could be prepared to defend. This is an extremely important aspect of the balancing and leads us to conclude that the length of delay was reasonably necessary for defense preparation and weighs against the defendant.”

My opinion? I agree with the WA Supremes. I’ve conducted MANY jury trials in my career, and shall probably conduct many more. Although few, my trial losses typically happen when clients insist on going to trial too early, and usually against my advice.

It’s important for clients and attorneys to have frank discussions of how long it will take to resolve the case. This decision usually depends on whether the client wants to resolve the case or go to trial. And THAT decision usually rests on the evidence contained within witnesses, police reports, forensics, etc. These decisions are not easy. It takes an exorbitant amount of time, preparation and patience for all parties to fashion and execute a successful trial defense. But as the old saying goes, “Cooler heads will prevail.”

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. Green: When Inventory Searches Become Overbroad

Constitutional Rights, DUI, felony, law enforcement, police, Pretrial Investigations, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Theft, Washington Court of Appeals, Washington State Patrol, , ,

Vehicle Inventory Search - Daigle Law Group

In State v. Green, the WA Court of Appeals decided that evidence of Identity Theft  was not admissible when the officer obtained the evidence after searching the defendant’s car during a DUI and Hit & Run investigation.

Mr. Green was arrested for DUI after his vehicle struck a pedestrian who later died. After arrest, police searched Mr. Green’s car. They found a paper bag containing numerous receipts. After more investigating,  it was later determined the receipts were evidence of purchases using stolen credit cards. The car was later towed to a police impound lot. The officer began investigating the defendant for theft/fraud charges in addition to the Vehicular Homicide charge. However, the officer’s search warrant was only specific to the Vehicular Homicide charge.

A few days later, the officer obtained a second search warrant to search the car for evidence of fraud and identity theft. Mr. Green moved to suppress the receipts. The state argued the receipts were properly seized pursuant to an inventory search and were admissible pursuant to the independent source doctrine.

Some background is necessary. Under the 4th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and article I section 7 of the Washington Constitution, warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional. However one exception to the warrant requirement are Inventory Searches accompanying a lawful vehicle impound. The purpose of an inventory search is to (1) protect the vehicle owner’s property; (2) protect the police against false claims of theft by the owner, and (3) protect the police from potential danger.

The direction and scope of an inventory search must be limited to the purpose of justifying the exception. Under the Independent Source Exception, evidence obtained by unlawful governmental action is not suppressed under the exclusionary rule if the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant or other lawful means independent of the unlawful action.

In this case, the officer did not find the receipts as part of an inventory search. Stated different, the officer looked in the paper bag but did not consider the receipts to be relevant to the inventory search. Therefore, there was no evidence that he inventoried them. The officer seized the receipts for investigatory purposes on a different matter altogether, namely, the soon-to-be-pending Identity Theft charges.

 

The Court further reasoned the receipts were not admissible under the Independent Source doctrine because the officer neither found the receipts nor had knowledge of them through an independent source.

My opinion? This was a reasonable, practical approach. In this case, it makes no sense to allow the police to conduct investigations of different crimes other than the one they are already working on, especially if they lack independent evidence to begin with.

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. Quaale: Mistrials Happen When Police Officers Offer Opinion Testimony

Constitutional Rights, DUI, law enforcement, misdemeanor, police, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

Pushback on Capitol Police chief testimony continues - Roll Call

In State v. Quaale, the WA Court of Appeals wrote an excellent opinion on the issue of whether a defendant’s right to a fair trial was violated when the Prosecutor invited objectionable testimony from the officer.

The defendant was charged with Eluding Police and DUI. At trial, the Trooper  was asked to describe the extent of his experience, explain the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and the procedure for testing it, and tell the jury about his administration of the test to the defendant. The prosecutor also asked, “In this case, based on the HGN test alone, did you form an opinion based on your training and experience as to whether or not the defendant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired?”

Rightfully, the defendant’s lawyer immediately objected that the Trooper was being asked to provide an opinion on the ultimate issue determining guilt. The objection was overruled. The Trooper answered, “Absolutely. There was no doubt he was impaired.”

The Court of Appeals reasoned that impermissible testimony regarding the defendant’s guilt may be reversible error because such evidence violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury trial, which includes independent determination of the facts by the jury. Here, and even where expert testimony is helpful to the jury, it is unnecessary for a witness to express belief that certain facts or findings lead to a conclusion of guilt. Opinion testimony should be avoided if the information can be presented in such a way that the jury can draw its own conclusions.

 My opinion? The defense attorney was very smart to object to the Officer’s opinion testimony and preserve the issue for appeal. Opinion testimony should NEVER be allowed at trial. The State’s witnesses – including officers – may only testify to their observations. They are not expert witnesses who can offer opinions.

Before trial, I routinely draft and argue motions in limine expressly requesting the judge to instruct the Prosecutor to not ask questions instructing witnesses/officers to provide opinion testimony. These motions strengthen a standing objection and help preserve legal issues for appeal when they are violated. Great opinion.

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. Saintcalle: The WA Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on Race Discrimination in Our Criminal Justice System

Constitutional Rights, Homicide & Manslaughter, Race & Law, Washington Supreme Court, , ,

That a man was tried six times for the same crime is remarkable enough.

In State v. Saintcalle, the WA Supreme Court addressed an interesting case regarding peremptory strikes against potential black jurors.

The defendant Kirk Saintcalle, a black man, was charged with Felony Murder in the First Degree. At trial, the State’s prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike the only black person in the jury pool. He was found guilty by a jury. On appeal, Saintcalle claimed the strike was racially motivated in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

The WA Supreme Court disagreed and agreed with Saintcalle. They disagreed with Saintcalle to the extent that the Prosecutor’s peremptory striking of the only African-American juror in this case did not give rise to a Batson violation. However, the majority agreed that Washington’s Batson procedures were not strong enough to effectively combat race discrimination in the selection of juries.

Justice Wiggins also stated our Batson procedures must change so as to deal with unconscious, institutional, or unintentional racism, however, “[T]his is not the case in which to announce a new standard.” Saintcalle’s conviction was upheld.

Chief Justice Madsen’s concurrence, which was signed by Justice Jim Johnson, also expressed her concern about racial discrimination during jury selection. She would not adjust Batson or do away with peremptory challenges in an attempt to address nonpurposeful discrimination based on race during jury selection. Chief Justice Madsen also took issue with Justice Wiggins’ charts and graphs that compared the prosecutor’s questioning of the African-American juror to the prosecutor’s questioning of other jurors.

Justice Stephens’ concurrence, which was signed by Justices Fairhurst and Charles Johnson, “sound[s] a note of restraint amidst the enthusiasm to craft a new solution to the problem of the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.”

Justice González’s concurrence calls for the immediate abolishment of peremptory challenges.

Justice Chambers dissented.

My opinion? I’ve heard that getting attorneys to agree to something – and judges, for that matter – is akin to trying to herd cats. Clearly, State v. Saintcalle  captures the “herding cats” imagery. The smattering of different opinions by our justices captures the complexity of racism in our judicial system. Some see it.  Some don’t. Others call it something else.

Although I’m saddened the WA Supremes passed on an opportunity to capture a racist act and make an example of it, I’m happy they said Washington needs to have stronger procedures and standards in place to stop these situations from happening again. Perhaps jury pools should intentionally include more minority jurors. Who knows? The solution, it seems, is potentially as multi-layered as the problem itself.

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.

Are Washington’s New Proposed DUI Laws Unconstitutional?

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Firearm, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Washington State Patrol, , ,

9 Things You Should Know If You're a Repeat DUI Offender

Gov. Jay Inslee shall sign into law a measure to increase monitoring of motorists who repeatedly drive under the influence.

Under the revised bill to be signed this morning in Tacoma, drivers charged with a second impaired driving offense would face mandatory arrest AND booking in jail AND have an interlock device installed on their vehicles within five days of being charged. The state would also begin a pilot program to conduct daily alcohol monitoring on a person convicted twice under the DUI law.

Finally, the State will give counties and cities more money to prosecute and punish DUI offenders quicker. The law, sparked by tragic accidents earlier this year, is a scaled back version of an initial plan that would have increased minimum jail times for offenders.

My opinion? More and more, we are witnessing the erosion of our rights when it comes to DUI legislation and enforcement. There are four basic legal issues when it comes to DUI: (1) whether the stop conducted by the police was lawful, (2) whether the officer had enough evidence to arrest for DUI, (3) whether the defendant was informed of the Implied Consent law, and (4) whether the defendant’s breath test was over .08 and/or whether the defendant refused the test. These four basic issues bring LOTS of sub-issues; which is the stuff of good lawyering and effective pretrial motions to suppress and/or dismiss the case.

Most people don’t know that DUI charges bring separate actions from both the Department of Licensing (DOL) and the City/State Prosecutor. The DOL will try revoking or suspending your license. Following that, they’ll order defendants to obtain an Ignition Interlock Device (IID) and an Ignition Interlock Device License (IIDL) if the defendant wants to continue driving.

To combat this, defendants are entitled to a DOL hearing if they want to stop the DOL from suspending/revoking the license. The hearing costs $375.00. A good attorney will brief the legal issues and request a hearing before the DOL’s Hearing Examiner in order to persuade the Hearing Examiner to NOT suspend/revoke the defendant’s license.

Problematically, it appears Inslee’s new DUI legislation circumvents the DOL process altogether. It appears a defendant’s car will be automatically installed with an IID 5 days after arrest. Defendants will be closely monitored while their case is pending. In all likelihood, they’ll be forced to take time out of their day to appear before their probation officer and succumb to UA and/or portable breath testing. All of these actions assume the defendant is guilty. They violate the “innocent until proven guilty” standard.

Also, the bill’s enforcement of pretrial orders for IIDs violates State v. Rose, 146 Wn.App. 439 (2008). That case held government programs which require the defendant to pay fees/costs before conviction are unconstitutional. Additionally, these provisions may violate Art. 1 Section 22 of the WA Constitution by requiring advancement of money before conviction.

Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to find a competent defense attorney to help maneuver the pitfalls of our increasing anti-DUI legislation.

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.

Proposed Changes in DUI Laws: Draconian or Timely?

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, , ,

New Bill to Toughen Pennsylvania Repeat Offender DUI Laws | Worgul, Sarna & Ness, Criminal Defense Attorneys, LLC

The state Legislature shall consider strengthening DUI consequences in Washington.

It makes sense, in a way. News reports indicate that DUI accidents have increased, or at least, a recent string of crashes in Washington leads us to believe so. While these tragedies are awful, it is important to remember that these results are not typical.

It’s no secret that DUI penalties are already harsh. Mandatory minimum penalties start at 24 consecutive hours in jail (convertible to 15 days of electronic home monitoring); $941 fine/court assessment; a 90-day license suspension; court-ordered alcohol evaluation, treatment, and victim impact panel; a one-year ignition interlock device (IID) requirement; five years of probation; and mandatory 12- hour impoundment of the vehicle immediately following arrest.

The mandatory minimum penalties get stiffer with subsequent convictions within seven years or higher BAC levels. Even worse, defendants convicted of DUI cannot vacate or expunge their conviction. The DUI remains on their criminal history forever.

The Legislature has amended DUI penalties 11 times in the past 10 years. It’s a subject of intense debate among lawmakers. Nowadays, legislatures are looking at different ways to, once again, enhance the penalties of DUI drivers.

The proposals could be seen as Draconian. They include making someone’s third DUI a felony; requiring impounded vehicles have Ignition Interlock Devices be installed before releasing the vehicle; random sobriety checkpoints; increasing jail sentences;  a 10- year prohibition on the consumption or purchase of alcohol following the third DUI conviction; faster filing of charges and mandatory jail booking following arrest.

My opinion? The proposals are Draconian. Requiring installation of IID devices on impounded vehicles is potentially unconstitutional. What if the defendant borrowed the vehicle from a family member or friend? Additionally, the Washington Supreme Court has already ruled random sobriety checkpoints unconstitutional. Finally, mandatory incarceration following arrest will cause a massive need for more jail space and money to pay for it.

Yes, increasing DUI penalties to stop repeat offenders – or even first-time offenders – is a worthwhile goal. However, careful measures must be taken by our lawmakers to draft laws and policies that address the problem while keeping in mind that everyone is entitled to make mistakes.

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.

Toxicologist Says, “No Spike YET In Marijuana DUI Arrests”

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Jail, law enforcement, Legislation, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Terry Stop, Uncategorized, Washington State Patrol, , ,

A Marijuana DUI is Tough to Prove | DUI Lawyer

The state toxicologist hasn’t seen a spike in positive blood tests for marijuana since pot became legal under Washington law.

Voters last fall passed Initiative 502, allowing adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. The measure, which took effect Dec. 6, set a DUI limit designed to be similar to the .08 blood-alcohol content for drunken driving – 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood.

State toxicologist Fiona Couper told a legislative hearing in Olympia on Wednesday that the Washington State Patrol’s toxicology lab has completed tests on all blood samples taken from drivers in December, and has started on samples from last month. She says there’s no spike, but notes the law has only just taken effect.

Couper says that every year, about 6,000 blood samples from drivers are submitted to the lab. About 1,000 to 1,100 of those come back positive for active THC, with the average being about 6 nanograms.

My opinion? This could be the proverbial calm before the storm. Who knows, perhaps law enforcement officers are being trained and retrained on becoming Drug Recognition Experts on marijuana DUI detection. Progressive laws are slow to get enacted, and the government’s response to progressive legislation even slower; especially if it costs money to train/retrain officers. Yes, there’s no spike yet. But don’t get too comfy . . .

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.

Supreme Court Wary of Warrantless Blood Tests in DUI Cases

Blood Test, Constitutional Rights, Department of Licensing, Drug Offenses, DUI, felony, Ignition Interlock Device, law enforcement, marijuana, misdemeanor, police, Search Warrant, Terry Stop, United States Supreme Court, , ,

Miami Police Usually Need a Search Warrant to Draw Your Blood for a DUI

Good stuff. The Supreme Court is considering requiring police to get a search warrant before forcing drunken-driving suspects to have blood draws.

In State of Missouri v. McNeely, the defendant was pulled over for speeding. He failed field sobriety tests and refused to take a breath test. The officer then took McNeely to a nearby hospital, where a technician drew blood over the handcuffed suspect’s objection. The legal issue is whether blood draws taken under these circumstances violate a defendant’s Constitutional rights. If so, the blood test  is suppressed and inadmissible to a jury if the case proceeds to jury trial.

The prosecution argues that getting a nighttime warrant takes an average of two hours, by which point a person’s blood-alcohol level may have dropped below the legal limit.  Alcohol typically dissipates in the bloodstream at a rate of 0.015 to 0.020 percentage points an hour. The limit in Missouri is 0.08 percent.

McNeely’s defense attorney argues that Missouri’s Implied Consent law allows drivers the right to refuse a blood test. All 50 states have implied-consent laws in some form. In short, Implied Consent law says drivers who refuse a blood or breath test automatically lose their license for a year.

My opinion? Police should get warrants. Period. Getting a warrant is the proper remedy when defendants exercise their Constitutional rights. Also, it doesn’t take long to get one. Police can call a judge while driving a defendant to the jail. Judges typically issue warrants over the phone.

Due to the passage of I-502, this issue is especially relevant in WA. I-502 allows for citizens to possess small amounts of marijuana. Unfortunately, when it comes to DUI arrests, I-502 set the legal limit for THC is the bloodstream at only 5 nanograms. This is a very low amount, especially for citizens who are licensed to smoke marijuana.

In other blogs I predicted that the passage of I-502 would probably convince law enforcement to immediately transport citizens investigated for DUI straight to the hospital to undergo blood tests. Blood draws are necessary to determine nanogram levels (they also detect alcohol levels). I also predicted that unlawfully obtained blood tests would soon become the subject matter of intense pretrial litigation.

Was the officer trained in drug DUI detection? Was the blood draw performed by someone who is medically licensed? Was it performed within 2 hours of the defendant being pulled over? Was the blood test tampered with? Can the prosecution properly establish the chain of custody of all persons who handled the blood sample? And now, according to the above case, can law enforcement simply circumvent the warrant requirement and obtain blood draws if the defendant refuses?

All of these issues are the subject matter of intense legal arguments. A good trial attorney will argue pretrial motions to suppress unlawfully obtained and/or tainted evidence. Yes, this pending case is a big deal.

We’ll see what happens. . .

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.

State v. Guevara: Stopping Schoolboys and Searching Them for Marijuana is Unlawful Without Probabale Cause.

Constitutional Rights, Drug Offenses, law enforcement, marijuana, Privacy, Search and Seizure, Terry Stop, Washington Court of Appeals, , ,

With Police in Schools, More Children in Court - The New York Times

In State v. Guevara, the WA Court of Appeals held that a Interesting search involving a “school resource officer” who stopped the defendant and his friends for suspected drug use was NOT a social contact and NOT a community caretaking function.

Guevara and his friends were walking near school one morning before class. A uniformed school resource officer stopped the group and inquired what they were doing. He told them he suspected they were skipping class to smoke marijuana. The officer found drugs on Mr. Guevara. At trial, the judge denied Guevara’s motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the stop was a social contact within the scope of the officer’s authority.

In suppressing the evidence, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the stop became a seizure when the officer told the boys he believed they were using drugs and sought their consent to search them. This, ruled the court, was neither a social contact nor a community caretaking function.

My opinion? Good decision. Although they may have skipped school, the boys were otherwise behaving in a lawful manner. They were not under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any other illegal drugs. They weren’t operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, drugs or marijuana. Consequently, the officer appeared to lack probable cause to search them for possessing marijuana or any other drugs.  At worst, the officer should have merely escorted them back to school. Good decision.

Please review my Search and Seizure Legal Guide and 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.