Category Archives: Whatcom County Criminal Defense

Bellingham City Council Rejects Proposal to Ban Public Drug Use

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

In NYC's overdose crisis, public health approach focuses on correcting pandemic-related disruptions – Bronx Times

The Bellingham City Council has rejected a proposal that would make public drug use a crime. The ordinance would have made the use of a controlled substance in a public place a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are punishable by a maximum sentence of 90 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000.

By state law, drug possession is only a misdemeanor on an offender’s third arrest for the crime. On the first two arrests, police are required to refer offenders to drug treatment programs.

The City of Marysville was able to pass two similar city ordinances preventing public drug use late last year. The first ordinance prohibits the use of controlled substances in public without a prescription. The second ordinance will further prohibit inappropriate behavior aboard transit, at park-and-ride lots, or at bus stops.

The city has been grappling with open drug use of fentanyl and other narcotics. Businesses have complained about the impact.

Mayor Seth Fleetwood hoped that his proposals would be the start of improving conditions downtown:

“These actions are the next step in a multi-year focus on downtown, where public health and safety concerns continue despite nearly one million dollars in investments in security personnel, downtown ambassadors, graffiti abatement, sanitation and other services last year and continuing this year.” ~City of Bellingham Mayor Seth Fleetwood.

Apparently, Bellingham police responded to 87 overdose calls this year. That compares to 70 overdose calls in all of 2022. Council members argued that it wasn’t so much they were against the proposal, it was that they did not see an adequate plan to deal with people after they were arrested. Councilmember Hannah Stone was among those who voted against the ordinance.

“If we don’t have a therapeutic court and other options in place at this time, then further criminalizing or trying to arrest our way out of addiction is just insane.” ~Hannah Stone, City of Bellingham Councilmember.

Currently, police can not even tell drug users that using drugs in public is illegal.

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.

WA Senate Passes Bill to Change Police Pursuit Law

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Mayors and police across WA push to change 'police pursuit' law | KNKX Public Radio

Last week, the WA Senate passed Senate Bill 5352. This bill allows a law enforcement officer to initiate a chase if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person in a vehicle has committed or is committing a crime. Current law sets a higher threshold of probable cause in order to engage in a chase.

Under the measure, crimes for which a pursuit can be undertaken include a violent offense, a sex offense, domestic violence-related offenses, DUI, or Eluding. It limits vehicular pursuits to situations where the subject of the vehicular pursuit poses a serious risk of harm to others.

Additional requirements of the bill include:

  • Other law enforcement agencies or surrounding jurisdictions impacted by the pursuit are notified.
  • The pursuing officer must be able to communicate with others and the dispatch agency.
  • There must be a plan to end the pursuit as soon as it’s practical.
  • The officer must have completed an emergency vehicle operator’s course, updated emergency vehicle operator training in the past two years and be certified in at least one pursuit intervention technique, such as spike strips or other deflation devices.

The bill passed 26-23 with 16 Democrats and 10 Republicans in support. Thirteen Democrats and 10 Republicans voted against it. The bill heads next to the House for consideration.

The bill follows an element of policing reform passed in 2021 in response to the 2020 police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis and other police killings. The goal of the reforms was to reduce the potential for violence and death in police responses.

The 2021 measure toughened the requirements for officer pursuit. Officers now need probable cause to arrest someone before initiating a pursuit rather than reasonable suspicion. Some law enforcement officials and city leaders say the revision emboldened suspected criminals to flee crime scenes before authorities could question them.

Those seeking greater police accountability contend communities are safer as fewer innocent bystanders have been injured or killed with the decline in high-speed chases.

Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, a former state trooper and Snohomish County sheriff, sponsored the bill.

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 Trial Court’s COVID-19 Protocols Are “Trial Management Decisions.”

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Courts Making Juror Safety a Top Priority | United States Courts

In State v. Ferguson, the WA Court of Appeals held that imposing COVID-19 protocols are “trial management decisions.” The use of masks, a transparent partition between counsel and client, and some jurors being seated behind counsel table during trial to allow for social distancing did not violate the defendant’s rights at trial.

BACKGROUND FACTS

On April 16, 2019,  a man and his son went for a walk. When they returned home, they noticed a man inside the garage. They recognized the man as Mr. Ferguson. An altercation occurred. Afterward, Ferguson fled the scene by running through a nearby field to a neighbor’s home. The police responded and ultimately found Ferguson at the neighbor’s house. Ferguson was arrested.

Ferguson was initially charged with first degree burglary. His charges were later amended to also include felony harassment, third degree malicious mischief, second degree criminal trespass of the neighbor’s house, bail jumping, and witness tampering.

TRIAL COURT’S COVID-19 PROTOCOLS

Following delay and multiple continuances partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ferguson’s case proceeded to trial. Ferguson’s jury trial was the first to take place in the county since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the trial court implemented a variety of COVID-19 protocols for the trial.

Some members of the jury were seated behind the counsel tables in the courtroom gallery. This was done in order to socially distance the jurors and the participants. And everyone in the court room was instructed to wear face masks. The trial court also instructed the jurors to raise their hands if they could not hear something during the trial.

Plexiglass partitions were also placed between participants, including between Ferguson and his counsel at their table. Throughout the trial, Ferguson and his counsel would lean or move back behind the partition to speak to each other and would pass notes to each other.

After all witnesses had testified, Ferguson’s counsel requested a mistrial based on the COVID-19 protocols. Specifically, counsel argued the plexiglass partition between counsel and Ferguson, coupled with the seating arrangement for the jurors, compromised their ability to have necessary attorney-client communications. Ferguson’s counsel contended that because they could not hear each other through the plexiglass partition, the jurors were possibly able to overhear private communications. The trial court denied the motion for a mistrial.

The jury found Ferguson guilty of first degree burglary, third degree malicious mischief, second degree criminal trespass, bail jumping on a class A felony, and tampering with a witness.

Ferguson appealled his conviction on numerous arguments challenging the COVID-19 protocols used for his trial. Ferguson argued that the plexiglass between him and his counsel forced them to lean back to communicate with each other and may have allowed the jurors to overhear them. Ferguson also argued that the masks required him and his counsel to speak louder than they typically would, potentially disclosing their confidential attorney-client communications to the jurors and the State. Finally, he argued the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a mistrial due to these protocols.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Ferguson’s trial was the first in the county since the beginning of the pandemic and the suspension of all jury trials. The trial court implemented these protocols to ensure that the trial could safely proceed, as it was required to do by our Supreme Court.

“Plexiglass partitions, mandatory masking, and social distancing that forced jurors to be located throughout the gallery were all modifications to the trial court’s typical courtroom arrangement and procedures that fall within the court’s discretion and were based on the Supreme Court’s multiple orders.” ~WA Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals further reasoned that the impact on Ferguson’s rights, while not negligible, was not onerous. Although Ferguson and his counsel were not able to communicate as easily as they would have been without the COVID-19 protections in place, the video record of the trial shows that he and his counsel were able to lean back minimally to speak around the plexiglass partition and write notes to each other. And the record shows that Ferguson and his counsel communicated in those ways frequently. Ferguson claims that he spoke louder than normal because of the masks, but private communication with his counsel would have been more likely because of the same social distancing requirements about which Ferguson now complains.

“No reasonable juror would draw any inference personally against Ferguson because of the implementation of plexiglass partitions, masks, and social distancing. COVID-19 protocols are simply not comparable to other inherently prejudicial decisions, like requiring the defendant to wear prison clothes or restraints that could signal dangerousness. See Caver, 195 Wn. App. at 780-81. Because impermissible factors were not brought into play and the changes furthered essential state interests, the COVID-19 protocols satisfy the closer scrutiny required for inherently prejudicial trial management decisions.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the Court of Appeals held that the COVID-19 protocols implemented in Ferguson’s trial were permissive trial management decisions. Also, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ferguson’s motion for a mistrial.

Fortunately, I’ve held numerous jury trials in the era of COVID-19. Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten an easier. How do you question a prospective juror when the juror is wearing a mask? Watch the eyes. After all, that is about all you can see of the juror’s face.  Body language plays a role.  Jury questionnaires are enormously helpful, as are the use of electronic exhibits. And making sure everyone—you, the judge, and jury—can hear what is being said is always important. It takes patience and care.

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.

Justice Department Announces Application Form for Marijuana Pardon Certificates

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

NORML Op-ed: President Biden: What Happened to Those Marijuana Pardons You Promised? - NORML

The DOJ is launching an application for eligible individuals to receive certificate of proof that they were pardoned by President Biden.

On October 6, President Biden announced a full, unconditional and categorical pardon for prior federal and D.C. offenses of simple possession of marijuana. President Biden’s pardon lifts barriers to housing, employment and educational opportunities for thousands of people with those prior convictions.

President Biden directed the Justice Department to develop a process for individuals to receive their certificate of pardon.

The online application will be available on the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s website: Application for Certificate of Pardon. The web form allows eligible persons to submit documentation to the Office of the Pardon Attorney and receive a certificate indicating the person was pardoned on Oct. 6, 2022, for simple possession of marijuana.

The President’s pardon may assist pardoned persons by removing civil or legal disabilities that are imposed because of the pardoned conviction. These included restrictions on the right to vote, to hold office or to sit on a jury. The application released today may also be helpful as proof of pardon for those who seek to obtain licenses, bonding or employment. As President Biden said at the time of the proclamation, his action intends to “help relieve the consequences arising from these convictions.”

Those who were pardoned on Oct. 6, 2022, are eligible for a certificate of pardon. Consistent with the proclamation, to be eligible for a certificate, an applicant must have been charged or convicted of simple possession of marijuana in either a federal court or D.C. Superior Court, and the applicant must have been lawfully within the United States at the time of the offense. Similarly, an individual must have been a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident on Oct. 6, 2022.

Those who were convicted of state marijuana offenses do not qualify for the pardon.

The department is committed to carefully and expeditiously reviewing the applications and issuing certificates to those pardoned under the proclamation. For more information regarding eligibility and answers to frequently asked questions, please visit Presidential Proclamation on Marijuana Possession.

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.

Drug Abuse, Mental Health and Arrests

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Substance abuse and mental health: the aftereffects of a habit of a lifetime | British GQ

A Pew Analysis found that adults reporting co-occurring serious or moderate mental illness and substance use disorders in the past year were far more likely to be arrested.

Roughly, the data shows that adults with past-year co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorder represented about 2% of the population. However, they made up 15% of all adults who reported being arrested in the past year. Those with a mental illness alone made up a similar share of the adult population in general and of those arrested (8% and 9%, respectively). Most adults with a mental illness who were arrested had a co-occurring disorder (60%). The Pew analysis also revealed that adults with co-occurring disorders made up an even larger share (18%) of all those arrested twice or more in a year.

Here’s more data:

  • Adults with co-occurring disorders made up 2% of the U.S. population but 15% (1 in 7) of all people arrested from 2017 to 2019. Almost half of these individuals had a substance-related arrest, such as drug possession, as the most serious charge.
  • More than 1 in 9 adults with co-occurring disorders were arrested annually, 12 times more often than adults with neither a substance use disorder nor a mental illness, and six times more likely than those with a mental illness alone.
  • Women with co-occurring disorders were arrested 19 times more often than women with neither a substance use disorder nor a mental illness and accounted for more than 1 in 5 of all women arrested.
  • Black adults with co-occurring disorders were arrested 1.5 times more often than their White counterparts.
  • Only 1 in 10 adults with co-occurring disorders (10%) received treatment for both of their conditions.
  • About 2 in 5 adults with co-occurring disorders (42%) did not receive either substance use or mental health treatment of any kind in the prior year.
  • Black and Hispanic adults with co-occurring disorders were less likely to receive mental health or substance use treatmentthan White adults.

About 60% of people with a mental illness who were arrested had a co-occurring substance use disorder. NSDUH doesn’t explicitly ask respondents whether these arrests resulted in time spent in jail, so recent national level data on how many of these arrests led to incarceration is not available. Being arrested and jailed can negatively affect wages, employment, housing stability, physical and mental health, and public safety outcomes, including increasing the likelihood of recidivism.

Researchers have found that communities with more treatment availability may have lower crime and jail incarceration rates, and some jurisdictions are working to divert people with mental illness away from the criminal legal system and into a continuum of community-based care. However, an increased focus on the needs of people with co-occurring disorders—particularly on integrated treatment for both mental illness and substance use—could make an even larger impact on the number of people entering and cycling back through the justice system.

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.

Jury Selection & Face Masks

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Coronavirus, Jury Selection, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sixth Amendment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Can I Skip Jury Duty Because of Covid Fears? - The New York Times

In State v. Bell, the WA Court of Appeals held that it does not violate a defendant’s constitutional rights for jurors to wear face masks at jury selection.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Bell was charged with first degree assault and drive-by shooting for an attack on his coworker. During jury selection, the court denied Bell’s request that jurors wear clear face shields rather than non-transparent face masks covering their noses and mouths. At trial, Mr. Bell was found guilty as charged. He appealed on arguments that the judge’s decision to deny his request for face shields violated his right to select an impartial jury.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals reasoned that starting at the beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Washington courts adopted a variety of strategies to ensure that trial could continue safely. The Washington State Supreme Court, in an order issued June 18, 2020, required courts to conduct all jury trial proceedings consistent with the most protective applicable public health guidance in their jurisdiction. It also ordered courts to inform jurors of steps the court would take to combat spread of the virus, including “face masking.”

“Washington was not alone in taking these steps to ensure the safety of jurors, court staff, counsel, parties, and the general public during a global health emergency. Many other jurisdictions did the same. Some of those jurisdictions have seen challenges to their pandemic-induced jury selection procedures similar to the one Bell brings. Courts have uniformly rejected these challenges.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Bell’s motion. “It did not adopt procedures that no reasonable person could support,” it stated. “The trial court was responsive to Bell’s concerns throughout the selection process.” The Court of Appeals emphasized that Mr. Bell had the option to conduct voir dire online if he wished. This would have permitted access to the potential jurors’ faces, albeit at the cost of some of their body language. “He did not take advantage of this option, instead requesting that jurors wear face shields,”  stated the Court of Appeals.

“Here, the trial court’s decision to require potential jurors to wear face masks may have deprived Bell of some portion of his ability to assess their demeanor. But jurors’ discomfort at being forcibly unmasked in a crowded room around a group of strangers in the midst of a pandemic may have also affected their demeanor and impeded accurate determination of their mood and credibility. And their tone of voice, body language, eyes, and other aspects of their demeanor remained as accessible as they normally would have been.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when, during a pandemic, it required jurors to wear face masks during jury selection.

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.

“Tranq”: The Skin-Rotting Street Drug Infiltrating Big Cities

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Skin-rotting drug 'tranq' infiltrates big cities: 'Zombifying bodies'

Journalist Brooke Kato reports in the New York Post that Xylazineis wreaking havoc in major cities across the country with its devastating effects.  Otherwise known as “Tranq,” it can literally rot the user’s skin.

The substance, which seemed to first appear in Philadelphia before migrating west to San Francisco and Los Angeles, was used for cutting heroin. Most recently, it has been discovered in fentanyl and other illicit drugs. While approved by the Food and Drug Administration for veterinary use, Xylazine, a non-opioid, is not safe for humans. Those who overdose on the drug do not respond to naloxone, or Narcan, the most common overdose reversal treatment.

Xylazine causes sedative-like symptoms, such as excessive sleepiness and respiratory depression. It also causes and inflames raw wounds that can become severe and spread rapidly with repeated exposure. The crusty ulcerations, which can become dead skin called eschar, can result in amputation if left untreated. Because it is not listed as a controlled substance for animals or humans, “tranq” lands in a confusing and horrifying gray area — and hospitals rarely test for it with routine toxicology screenings.

The city of Philadelphia reported that 90% of lab-tested dope samples from 2021 contained xylazine, which can increase the risk of overdose when combined with other illicit substances.

But the lethal combination of substances is what gives xylazine its appeal — the high of the opioid, such as fentanyl, is extended with the help of “tranq.” People with substance use disorders who get hooked on the zombifying drug believe the emerging substance killed “any kind of joy” that came with getting high. The worrying “tranq” trend comes as the New York City Department of Health reported that 2,668 New Yorkers died of overdoses in 2021. Experts warn that xylazine could worsen the ongoing drug epidemic.

According to a 2022 report, xylazine has been discovered in 36 states. In New York City alone, the drug was found in 25% of samples, per the Times. Earlier this month, the San Francisco Department of Health announced that low levels of xylazine were found in the systems of four people who overdosed, suggesting that the substance can be hidden in drugs unbeknownst to the users.

The pressures from life are real. Building careers, buying homes, getting married, having kids, and trying to do it all well comes with lots of pressure. COVID-19 has magnified the stress. Some turn to drugs to cope. However, just because some drugs are legal to possess doesn’t mean they are less dangerous.

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.

SB 5467 Proposes Drug Possession Charges As Dismissable Misdemeanors

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Drug possession would be reclassified as felony under Senate bill | king5.com

This legislative session, lawmakers are split over how to respond to the state Supreme Court’s Blake decision. That ruling struck down the state’s felony drug possession law. It essentially invalidating decades of criminal convictions and related penalties, like orders to pay restitution for such violations.

SB 5467 would make possession a misdemeanor and order completion of treatment to overturn the conviction and dismiss charges. If the person willfully abandons or rejects treatment, then a 45-day jail sentence would be imposed.

SB 5467, recently heard in committee, would provide an effective solution to the rampant problem of public drug use. This is an outside-the-box policy idea that is treatment-forward but with accountability for failure to undergo treatment. Many mayors, community members and police officers have personally expressed that the current system of essentially recommending to users that they go to treatment, without any charges filed or accountability applied, is not working. This bill provides a better path.

Under this bill, a person could be charged with a gross misdemeanor if they possess illegal drugs. If the person completes the substance use disorder treatment prior to their conviction being entered, the court would be required to dismiss the charge. If a conviction is entered, the court could not sentence to jail but would order the person to undergo treatment based on their treatment needs. If the person completes the treatment, the conviction would be overturned and dismissed.

If the person willfully abandons treatment or demonstrates a consistent failure to engage in treatment, however, the court would be required to impose at least 45 days of jail.

The requirement for treatment would be subject to the availability of treatment and the availability of funding for it. If treatment or funding were not available, the court would not be allowed to sanction the person with jail time for noncompliance.

This bipartisan bill has been co-sponsored by twelve Democratic and four Republican senators.

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.

Self-Harming Juror Removed From Deliberations

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Burglary, Jury Trial, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Why Do People Self-Harm? | Lifeskills South Florida

In State v. Norman, the WA Supreme Court held that it was proper for a trial judge to dismiss a frustrated juror who engaged in self-harm during deliberations. The juror’s punching himself in the face raised legitimate concerns about his ability to deliberate.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Norman was tried before a jury on first degree burglary and second degree assault. The jury began deliberating at lunchtime. After only a few hours of deliberation, the jury pounded on the door and told court staff they were breaking for the evening. Over half of the jurors left the room before the court clerk arrived. The clerk discovered that during deliberations, juror 9 became overwhelmed and punched himself in the face. After several jurors expressed concern, the trial court questioned juror 9, who answered as follows:

“So yesterday, discussions became very heated, and . . . there were a number of people who had disagreements with me. This caused raising of voices, and I became . . . somewhat overwhelmed. I felt somewhat like—a little bit attacked, and I reacted with an emotional outburst of punching myself in the face. That has happened in the past when I get into high-stress situations. I have self-harmed in the past, but it hasn’t happened in a number of years. That being said, I still consider myself of sound mind and ability to continue going forward with this case.” ~Juror 9

The trial judge spoke to two other juros. They expressed concern over whether they could reach a verdict with juror 9. For example, juror 2 said she felt intimidated by juror 9’s actions. And according to juror 8, juror 9 was “in control of himself” for “80 percent of the day,.” Unfortunately, in the remaining time he “punched himself in the face a couple times and grabbed his hair” in reaction to contentious discussions.

The trial judge dismissed juror 9 for cause.

The reconstituted jury found Norman guilty of one of two counts. The Court of Appeals reversed Norman’s conviction, holding juror 9’s dismissal was improper under the heightened evidentiary standard set forth in State v. Elmore. On appeal, the WA Supreme Court decided the specific issue of whether the trial court abuse its discretion in dismissing juror 9.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Owens wrote the majority opinion. She began by saying trial judges have a continuous obligation to excuse a juror who has manifested unfitness. This can happen if a juror manifests bias, prejudice, indifference, inattention or any physical or mental defect or by reason of conduct or practices incompatible with proper and efficient jury service. This obligation implicates a defendant’s right to trial by an impartial jury and their right to a unanimous jury verdict.

Next, Justice Owens addressed how the Court of Appeals (COA) reversed Norman’s conviction.  In short, the COA held juror 9’s dismissal was improper under the evidentiary standard set forth in State v. Elmore. Justice Owens had some choice words:

“But the Elmore standard applies only where a juror is accused of nullification, refusing to follow the law, or refusing to deliberate. As there was no such accusation here, and the trial court found juror 9’s conduct likely affected the jury’s process of deliberating freely, it did not abuse its discretion in dismissing juror 9.” ~Justice Owens, WA Supreme Court

Consequently, the WA Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing juror 9. His conduct could have impacted the jury’s ability to reach a unanimous verdict. The heightened evidentiary standard does not apply to juror 9’s dismissal because he was not accused of nullification, refusing to deliberate, or refusing to follow the law. With that, the WA Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed Norman’s conviction.

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.

High Court Decides Barring People With DV Restraining Orders From Having Guns Is Unconstitutional

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Domestic Violence, Firearm, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

5th Circuit Overturns Law that Kept Guns Away from Domestic Abusers

CNN reports that a federal court held unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The ruling is the latest significant decision dismantling a gun restriction. Last year, the Supreme Court expanded Second Amendment rights in New York v. Bruen.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the federal law targeting those believed to pose a domestic violence threat could not stand under the Bruen test, which requires that gun laws have a historical analogy to the firearm regulations in place at the time of the Constitution’s framing.

The court’s opinion was written by Judge Cory Todd Wilson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. He was joined by Reagan-appointee Judge Edith Jones and Judge James Ho, another Trump appointee who also wrote a concurrence.

The 5th Circuit panel was not persuaded by the historical parallels put forward by the US Justice Department, which was defending the conviction of a person who possessed a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order that had been imposed after he was accused of assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

The Justice Department argued that the domestic violence law was analogous to 17th-and 18th century regulations that disarmed “dangerous” persons.

“The purpose of these ‘dangerousness’ laws was the preservation of political and social order, not the protection of an identified person from the specific threat posed by another,” the 5th Circuit opinion read. “Therefore, laws disarming ‘dangerous’ classes of people are not ‘relevantly similar'” to “serve as historical analogues.” ~5th Circuit Judge Cory Todd Wilson

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a CNN inquiry. If the 5th Circuit’s ruling is appealed, it could set up another showdown over gun rights at the Supreme Court.

The defendant challenging his conviction, Zackey Rahimi, had lost in an earlier round before the 5th Circuit, before the Supreme Court issued its Bruen ruling last year. The previous 5th Circuit opinion was withdrawn after the Bruen decision was handed down, and the appeals court did another round of briefing directed at the new test.

My opinion? I don’t see similar rulings coming from our 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit’s federal jurisdiction is fairly liberal, and includes the State of Washington.

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.