Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense

Federal Prisoners Punished for Using Their Prescribed Medications

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

Delaware inmate's overdose shows how easy it is to get drugs into prison

Intriguing article from journalist Beth Schwartzapfel discusses federal prisons punish prisoners for using addiction medication. The article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, who spoke to more than 20 people struggling with addictions in federal prison. They described the dire consequences of being unable to safely access a treatment that Congress has instructed prisons to provide.

Last year, the Bureau of Prisons disciplined more than 500 people for using Suboxone without a prescription. When prescribed, Suboxone typically comes as a strip of film that patients dissolve under the tongue. On the illegal market behind bars, a strip is cut into 16 or 32 pieces, each of which sells for $20.

Some prisoners have overdosed. Many have gotten involved in dangerous and illicit money-making schemes to pay for Suboxone. The medication costs about $20 for a small fraction of a daily dose on the illegal market, several prisoners said. Many have lost phone or visiting privileges or been sent to solitary confinement because they were caught taking the medication.

“Believe me, 100% I recognize the irony there,” said a bureau administrator familiar with the agency’s addiction treatment programs, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press. “It’s maddening.”

THE “FIRST STEP” ACT

Congress passed the First Step Act four years ago, requiring, among other things, that the Bureau of Prisons offer more prisoners addiction medications, the most common of which is Suboxone. The medications can quiet opioid cravings and reduce the risk of relapse and overdose.

Yet the federal prisons are treating only a fraction — less than 10% — of the roughly 15,000 prisoners who need it, according to the bureau’s estimates.

At the end of October, 21 prisons were not offering any prisoners addiction medication, and another 59 were treating 10 or fewer people — in many cases, just one person, according to bureau data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The rest of the 121 facilities nationwide were each treating a few dozen people at most.

THE CHALLENGES OF PRESCRIBING MEDICATIONS TO PRISONERS

According to the article, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is treating increasingly more people since it launched its opioid medication program. In 2019, 41 people were receiving addiction medications. As of October, that had risen to 1,035 people; more than 80% of them are receiving Suboxone. This is good progress.

However, the BOP has fought in court to prevent people entering the system from staying on the addiction medications they were prescribed by doctors in the community. That began to change in 2018, when the First Step Act was passed and prisons and jails across the country began losing lawsuits from prisoners who argued it was cruel and unusual to deny them the addiction medicine they’d been taking before they were incarcerated.

Presently, prisoners need to overcome several administrative hurdles before they can begin medication. They must also obtain clearance from psychological services, then health services, before seeing a prescriber. This process naturally involves extended wait times. Some say the issues stem from a culture at the BOP that is skeptical of addiction medication and pits staff against prisoners.

Federal law treats use of any narcotics without a prescription in federal prison — including Suboxone — as a “greatest severity level prohibited act.” This infraction allows officials to punish prisoners by delaying their release date, confiscating their property. It also allows officials to withdraw visiting or phone privileges and hold prisoners for up to six months in solitary confinement. Experts say even a few days in solitary can exacerbate the mental illness that is often the cause of, or closely linked to, drug addiction.

According to the article, the lack of Suboxone treatment comes amid a rise in drug-related deaths behind bars. A variety of substances are routinely smuggled into prisons and jails through mail, drone drops, visitors or corrections officers and other staff. In the last two decades, federal data shows that fatal overdoses increased by more than 600% inside prisons and more than 200% inside jails.

Forty-seven incarcerated people died of overdoses in federal prison from 2019 through 2021, according to internal bureau data released via a public records request. The data does not specify how many of these overdose deaths were caused by opioids and could have been prevented by medications like Suboxone. However, other BOP data offers some clue: During the same period, correctional staff administered Narcan — a drug that reverses opioid overdoses — almost 600 times in federal prisons.

Prison is an awful experience. Serving a prison sentence while needing a prescription medication is even more challenging. 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.

2023 Legislation Aimed at Restricting Firearms

Uncategorized, , , , ,

US Senators Reach Agreement to Tighten Gun Laws

Great article by Shauna Sowersby discusses how state lawmakers will again be considering legislation to place restrictions on guns in Washington. The Alliance for Gun Responsibility announced proposed legislation for the upcoming 2023 session:

“Amid record levels of gun violence in Washington and across the US, it is essential to protect and build on the progress we’ve made to keep our communities safe. Our 2023 Legislative Agenda reflects the urgent need for Washington to continue leading the way in adopting innovative policies to prevent gun violence.” ~Alliance for Gun Responsibility

RESTRICTIONS ON ASSAULT RIFLES

Proposed legislation includes a measure that would put restrictions on semi-automatic assault weapons. The bill will target the supply of assault-style weapons by “prohibiting the manufacture, possession, distribution, importation, transfer, sale, offer for sale, and purchase of any assault weapon.”

Law enforcement and military officials would be exempt from the law. Washington state law defines a semi-automatic assault rifle as “any rifle which uses a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”

The proposed legislation also says, “a semi-automatic assault rifle does not include antique firearms, any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable, or any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

HOLDING GUN MANUFACTURERS ACCOUNTABLE

The Alliance for Gun Responsibility is also seeking legislation to establish a pathway for victims of gun violence to hold manufacturers and dealers accountable. Also, they’re proposing legislation to require a permit for those who wish to purchase a gun in the state. Currently, gun manufacturers and gun dealers are protected by a 2005 federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This gives them immunity from lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence. Permits also are not currently required in Washington, although buyers must submit to a background check and a waiting period before obtaining a gun.

THE MOMENTUM SHIFT TOWARD REGULATING FIREARMS

A ban on high-capacity magazines went into effect in July. As a result, Washingtonians can no longer purchase or sell magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Regulations on untraceable firearms, also known as ghost guns, went into effect this year as well, and in March 2023 possession of an untraceable firearm will be illegal in the state.

Legislation that banned the open carry of weapons at government facilities and where government meetings occur also passed the Legislature and went into effect in June of this year. Possession of weapons is now prohibited at school board meetings and election-related offices.

WASHINGTON’S CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE TOWARD GUN MEASURES

WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has already signaled that he will not tolerate violations of the bans passed by state Democratic leaders. On Wednesday, he filed a lawsuit and is seeking an injunction against a gun store in Federal Way for selling high-capacity magazines. Federal Way Discount Guns was caught during a sweep of 25 firearms retailers, according to a press release from the Attorney General’s office.

As with previous gun control proposals, Republicans are not happy about the announcement Wednesday from the Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen, said in a press release that it’s unfortunate that legislators must use time and resources to continue debating the gun control issue. He called the proposed assault weapon ban pointless and said he doesn’t believe it will have any impact on the safety of Washingtonians:

“The people of Washington are tired of political grandstanding and unproductive — or counterproductive — legislation. They have said repeatedly they want bipartisan solutions to problems like crime, homelessness, struggling schools, and the rising cost of living. Constitutionally dubious gun-control schemes don’t address any of those real-world problems.” ~Rep. Jim Walsh, R-Aberdeen

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.

Hands Are Not An “Instrument or Thing” Used to Prove Assault Third Degree

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Fold Your Hands — Coffee + Crumbs

In State v. Altman, the WA Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant’s conviction for Assault Third Degree because there was no evidence that the defendant used anything other than his hands to assault the victim.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The victim A.W. alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Mr. Altman. The State charged Altman with second degree assault with sexual motivation, alleging he intentionally assaulted A.W. by strangulation or suffocation. Alternatively, the State charged Altman with third degree assault with sexual motivation for causing bodily harm to A.W. by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm. The State also charged Altman with second degree rape and unlawful imprisonment with sexual motivation

During closing arguments, the State argued that Altman’s hands were a “thing” used to
support a lesser alternative charge of third degree assault:

“I submit to you the State is not saying that there was a weapon used in this case. I submit to you that we’re not saying there was an instrument that was used in this case. However, it also says it can be from a thing likely to produce bodily harm. And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, a thing can be anything.” State Prosecutor.

The jury found Altman not guilty of second degree rape, second degree assault by
strangulation with sexual motivation, and unlawful imprisonment with sexual motivation.
However, the jury found Altman guilty of a lesser alternative charge of third degree assault. Mr. Altman appealed on arguments that the evidence was insufficient to show that he assaulted A.W. with an “instrument or thing.”

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals began with a discussion of the elements required to prove Assault Third Degree. In short, a person is guilty if he “causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm.”

“The issue here is whether a hand meets the statutory requirement of “other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm,” said the Court. The Court reviewed State v. Marohl, as reliable caselaw precedent. In Marohl, the court suggested that a casino floor could fall within the statute if it was used to smash someone’s head. Also, the Marohl court applied the dictionary definition to “instrument” and “thing,” describing both as:

“Here, in light of Marohl’s definition of “instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm, hands do not qualify. The State relied solely on Altman’s hands to support the lesser alternative charge of third degree assault. Hands are not a “utensil” or “implement.” Nor are hands “an inanimate object.” Instead, hands are an extension of a person.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

The Court further reasoned that there is no other evidence that Altman used anything other than his hands when grabbing and squeezing A.W.’s neck. Therefore, the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the essential element of “a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm” for third degree assault.

With that, the Court of Appeals reversed and vacated Altman’s conviction for third degree assault with prejudice.

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

Locked Out 2022: Estimates of People Denied Voting Rights

Bellingham Defense Attorney, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Race & Law, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Voting Rights, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

The state of ex-felons' voting rights, explained - Vox

An insightful report from The Sentencing Project describes how an estimated 4.6 million Americans are barred from voting due to a felony conviction.

Laws in 48 states ban people with felony convictions from voting. In 2022, an estimated 4.6 million Americans, representing 2 percent of the voting-age population, will be ineligible to vote due to these laws or policies, many of which date back to the post-Reconstruction era. In this election year, as the United States confronts questions about the stability of its democracy and the fairness of its elections, particularly within marginalized communities, the impact of voting bans on people with felony convictions should be front and center in the debate.

This 2022 report updates and expands upon 20 years of work chronicling the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States (see Uggen, Larson, Shannon, and Pulido-Nava 2020; Uggen, Larson, and Shannon 2016; Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012; Manza and Uggen 2006; Uggen and Manza 2002). As in 2020, we present national and state estimates of the number and percentage of people disenfranchised due to felony convictions, as well as the number and percentage of the Black and Latinx populations impacted. Although these and other estimates must be interpreted with caution, the numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2022 election.

AMONG THE REPORT’S KEY FINDINGS:

  • An estimated 4.6 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has declined by 24 percent since 2016, as more states enacted policies to curtail this practice and state prison populations declined modestly. Previous research finds there were an estimated 1.2 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.3 million in 1996, 4.7 million in 2000, 5.4 million in 2004, 5.9 million in 2010, 6.1 million in 2016, and 5.2 million in 2020.
  • One out of 50 adult citizens – 2 percent of the total U.S. voting eligible population – is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction.
  • Three out of four people disenfranchised are living in their communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole.
  • In three states – Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee – more than 8 percent of the adult population, one of every 13 adults, is disenfranchised.
  • Florida remains the nation’s disenfranchisement leader in absolute numbers, with over 1.1 million people currently banned from voting, often because they cannot afford to pay court-ordered monetary sanctions. An estimated 934,500 Floridians who have completed their sentences remain disenfranchised, despite a 2018 ballot referendum that promised to restore their voting rights.
  • One in 19 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate 3.5 times that of non-African Americans. Among the adult African American population, 5.3 percent is disenfranchised compared to 1.5 percent of the adult non-African American population.
  • More than one in 10 African American adults is disenfranchised in eight states – Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
  • Although data on ethnicity in correctional populations are unevenly reported and undercounted in some states, a conservative estimate is that at least 506,000 Latinx Americans or 1.7 percent of the voting eligible population are disenfranchised.
  • Approximately 1 million women are disenfranchised, comprising over one-fifth of the total disenfranchised population.

My opinion? Many states restore voting rights to individuals automatically after they exit jail or prison. Others continue the bar on voting even while on probation or parole. A few permanently disenfranchise people with a past conviction or require they petition the government to have their voting right restored. Fortunately, In 2021, Governor Inslee signed legislation restoring voting rights to people convicted of felonies automatically after release from prison.

Losing your right to vote is a terrible consequence of a criminal 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.

New Law Allows Police to Use Street Racing Videos to Track Down Violators

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Reckless Endangerment, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Street Racing, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Street racers are taking over roads with deadly consequences as laws struggle to keep up | KATU

Florida passed a new law allowing street racing videos to be used as evidence to track down violators. Florida House Bill 399, which Governor Ron DeSantis signed earlier this year, went into effect October 1. It bans everything from street takeovers to drag racing to doing donuts on public roads.

Under this law, police don’t have to physically see the incident take place to go after violators. They can simply track down violators based on the license plates, the cars and the people in the video. Violators can be charged with a  misdemeanor and face a possible fine between $500 and $1,000. If charged, they also risk losing their driver’s license up to one year.

There was essentially no opposition to the bill in Florida’s legislature. It passed unanimously.

For now, there is only a patchwork of laws across the country that criminalize the dangerous activity. Because there’s no federal legislation about the issue, individual municipalities are left to come up with their own solutions.

According to Insurify, just in the 10 states they examined, the penalties for street racing range from just a $20 fine to a year of jail time. Insurify also conducted studies which found the following:

  • National averages. Across the United States, 3.48 per 100,000 drivers have a street racing violation on record. Plain old speeding is much more common, as a whopping 9,175 drivers per 100,000 report a speeding ticket on their record — that’s nearly 1 in 10 drivers. The penalty for street racing differs widely by state, ranging from as little as $20 to as much as $2,500 among states with the most street racers. Jail time and temporary license revocation are also possible punishments.
  • Despite the attention, street racing is still rare. Road racing has been on the rise for the past couple of years in America, and its flashy nature tends to draw headlines. Overall, however, street racing is a rare occurrence. For perspective, police issue more than 2,600 speeding tickets for every 1 street racing citation. Despite racing’s outsized fame, plain and simple speeders are who pervade the roads.
  • Street racing is inversely related to population density. Researchers at Insurify found a significant negative correlation (R = −0.27, p < 0.05) between a state’s street racing rate and its population density. This means that states with fewer residents per square mile are more likely to have high rates of street racing and that states with a high number of residents per square mile are more likely to have low rates of street racing. Coupled with the knowledge that road racing levels increased during early COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders, this is further evidence that emptier roads are attractive to drivers with a penchant for racing.

My opinion? Expect similar laws to spread around the country. Street racing is an activity on the rise, from Baltimore and Portland to Seattle and Salt Lake City, and many more communities all across America. Chicago recently formed a task force to try to tackle the problem. Just this past month, Phoenix police said four people were killed as a result of street racing. The issue took root during the Coronavirus Pandemic, when roads normally clogged with commuters suddenly emptied, opening the door to a surge in illegal street racing.

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

“Focused Deterrence” – The New Approach to Reducing Crime

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Focused Deterrence

In-depth WSJ news article from journalist Thomas Abt introduces “Focused Deterrence” as an approach to reducing crime.

IN THE EARLY 2000’S, OUR POLITICAL CLIMATE TOWARD REDUCING CRIME WAS BI-PARTISAN AND SUCCESSFUL.

Abt begins by saying that during the 2000’s and 2010’s, many Republicans and Democrats agreed on a range of sensible reforms. The bi-partisan solutions were implemented to fight crime while reducing the impact of mass incarceration. At this time, hundreds of state and local reforms were passed to limit excessive confinement and promote the rehabilitation and re-entry of incarcerated people. At the federal level, the First Step Act of 2018 shortened sentences, gave defendants additional chances to avoid mandatory minimum penalties, and improved prison conditions.

These changes were modest individually, but by 2019 they had helped reduce the U.S. incarceration rate to 810 inmates for every 100,000 adults, the lowest level since 1995. The disparity between Black and white imprisonment rates declined 40% from 1990 to 2020. At the same time, crime rates remained at or near historical lows.

WHAT HAPPENED? 

The consensus behind such pragmatic policies came apart in 2020. When the Coronavirus Pandemic struck, George Floyd was murdered by a Minneapolis police officer, and firearm sales increased dramatically. Most important, violent gun crime surged in 2020, with murders rising 29% over the year before. This was the largest single-year percentage increase in decades. In 2021, homicides increased again, albeit by a more modest 4%, setting record highs in Philadelphia, Indianapolis and Portland, Ore., among other cities.

Many progressives, incensed by high-profile incidents of police violence, adopted “Defund the Police” as a rallying cry, even as it was rejected by mainstream Democratic leaders. Progressive prosecutors in some jurisdictions enacted policies that effectively decriminalized certain low-level, nonviolent offenses. Meanwhile, conservatives largely abandoned criminal-justice reform efforts and rallied behind President Trump’s law-and-order politics.

WORKABLE SOLUTIONS STILL EXIST.

Abt posits that in order to achieve genuine solutions to the problem of rising crime, the U.S. needs to return to pragmatism informed by evidence. He also discussed three important lessons learned during his research and studies. The first is that most gun violence takes place in relatively small clusters of tightly networked individuals and groups. Second, gun violence responds to both positive and negative incentives. Finally, Abt argues that police violence has caused homicide rates to surge across the country.

“FOCUSED DETERRENCE” IS THE KEY TO CONTROLLING GUN VIOLENCE.

In this approach, community residents, social workers and law-enforcement officers work together to identify the highest-risk individuals and groups. Next, they communicate the message that the shooting must stop. They follow up by offering life coaching, job training, educational opportunities and other forms of assistance. If these efforts fail, they use narrowly targeted investigations, arrests and prosecutions.

“Focused Deterrence works because it deals with those at the highest risk for violence,. It also offers them a balanced set of carrots and stick and communicates the choices they face in a direct but respectful manner.” ~WSJ Journalist Thomas Abt

For long-term declines in violence, cities need a collaborative effort that leverages several evidence-based strategies at once. In his article, Abt argues that funding alone isn’t enough to solve the problem.

“Reducing crime and violence also requires practical know-how that is hard to come by,” he says. “Local strategies to reduce community gun violence could be the first step toward tackling broader challenges like the ubiquity of guns and the durability of poverty in the U.S.” He says that for that to happen, we need our leaders to resist the usual talking points of our polarized political environment. “If they can embrace evidence over ideology, we have a chance to save many American lives.”

My opinion? Mr. Abt offers an excellent, well-written approach to this important issue. His solutions somewhat reflect the use and growth of Community Courts across the nation. A community court is an alternative problem-solving court. It differs from traditional court in that it seeks to identify and address the underlying challenges of court participants that may contribute to further criminal activity. Its goal is to build stronger and safer neighborhoods and reduce recidivism.

I’m a huge propopnent of Community Courts. And I’ve successfully gained dismissals for Clients who have successfully completed these programs.

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.

Conviction Reversed Because Prosecutor Failed to Give Race-Neutral Reasons for Striking Jurors.

Bellingham Defense Attorney, GR 37, Jury Selection, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Race & Law, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

The Evolving Debate Over Batson's Procedures for Peremptory Challenges - National Association of Attorneys General

In State v. Tesfasilasye, the WA Supreme Court reversed a sex offense conviction under GR 37 because the prosecutor failed to give race-neutral reasons for striking two minority jurors.

A brief explanation of GR 37 is necessary. When the WA Supreme Court adopted GR 37 in 2018, it became the first court in the nation to adopt a court rule aimed at eliminating both implicit and intentional racial bias in jury selection. The rule expanded the prohibition against using race based peremptory challenges during jury selection. Not only was intentional race discrimination outlawed, but also challenges based on “implicit, institutional, and unconscious” race and ethnic biases were rejected.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The defendant Mr. Tesfasilasye is a Black Eritrean immigrant whose primary language is Tigrigna. Tesfasilasye worked for Solid Ground as a driver for people with disabilities. C.R.R. used Solid Ground’s services. The alleged victim, C.R.R. is visually impaired. She sometimes uses a wheelchair due to balance issues.

The day after Tesfasilasye drove C.R.R. home, C.R.R. reported that Mr. Tesfasilasye assaulted her the day before. The State charged Tesfasilasye with third degree rape. During voir dire, the State brought peremptory challenges against Juror #25, an Asian woman, and Juror #3, a Latino.

The State sought to use a peremptory strike against Juror #25, an Asian woman. Tesfasilasye raised a GR 37 objection. The State denied it was striking Juror #25 because she was an Asian woman. The State called the court’s attention to the fact it was not seeking to strike the other Asian woman in the panel. Instead, the State contended it wanted to strike Juror# 25. The trial court overruled the GR 37 objection and granted the peremptory challenge.

Next, the State sought a peremptory challenge against Juror #3, the Latino. The court granted the peremptory challenge. However, the trial judge’s oral ruling was not based on
whether a reasonable juror could view race as a factor as required by GR 37.

The jury found Tesfasilasye guilty of third degree rape. Tesfasilasye appealed. He alleged that an objective observer could have viewed race as a factor for striking Juror #25 and Juror #3 as prohibited by GR 37. The Court of Appeals affirmed Tesfasilasye’s conviction. The WA Supreme Court granted review.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

“Our constitutions require a fair and impartial jury,” wrote Justice Gonzalez. “The parties and the jurors themselves have the right to a trial process free from discrimination.” Next, Justice Gonzalez discussed the nefarious use of peremptory challenges to strike qualified jurors without providing a reason. “These challenges however have a history of being used based largely or entirely on racial stereotypes or generalizations,” he said.

Justice Gonzalez explained how GR 37 was an attempt to address the shortcomings of Batson v. Kentucky. Batson was a landmark case prohibiting the use of peremptory challenges to automatically exclude potential members of the jury because of their race. “The protections under Batson were not robust enough to effectively combat racial discrimination during jury selection,” said Justice Gonzalez. In short, Batson failed to require a trial judge to make rulings without considering systemic and unconscious racial bias.

Justice Gonzalez explained that under GR 37, a peremptory challenge shall be denied if an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of a peremptory challenge. He described at great length why both Juror #25 and Juror #3 were wrongfully struck by the State and concluded as follows:

“We hold that under these facts, an objective observer could view race as a factor for striking both Juror #25 and Juror #3. Tesfasilasye asks this court to reverse his conviction. The State does not dispute that the remedy for a GR 37 violation is reversal. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial.” Chief Justice Steven Gonzalez, WA Supreme Court.

My opinion? Good decision. The State has another opportunity for trial. Next time, let’s  hope they avoids striking jurors for race-based reasons.

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.

 

Eliminate Unnecessary Traffic Stops

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Race & Law, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

New Report Details How Routine Traffic Stops Turn Deadly

Excellent article by Finesse Moreno-Rivera gives solutions to eliminating unnecessary traffic stops. Unfortunately, many of these impromptu occurrances become escalated and result in fatalities. To protect motorists and police, we need better protocols.

The Data

According to recent data from Mapping Police Violence, an unfortunate amount of civilian deaths occur during traffic stops.  In many cases, the police department responsible refused to provide details or justification. Purported traffic violations account for about 40% of these killings. And almost half of those involved individuals under the influence of drugs, alcohol or with mental illness.

In nearly 430 of these fatal traffic stops, the victim was suspected of carrying a weapon. But in 20% of the cases – that’s more than 80 deaths – the individual was unarmed. In about 350 deadly incidents, the officer initiated a traffic stop for unspecified circumstances.

To reduce police violence, states need to reform their policies:

Limit stops for minor traffic violations. Clearly, more states need to adopt policies to prevent police from pulling over nonthreatening vehicles. Cities such as Los Angles and Philadelphia have passed legislation to end unnecessary traffic stops. These reforms aim to decrease unnecessary exposures to danger and to mitigate police’s tendency toward racial bias. We must stop pulling vehicles over for minor traffic violations with intent to investigate for larger offenses. Instead, we must incentivize officers to determine whether a vehicle is involved in a serious crime before pulling them over.

Eliminate incentives for ticket revenue. The financial incentive for police to stop drivers has been an issue for a long time. This is because many communities rely heavily on ticket revenue. Many local and state governments are so dependent on officers’ traffic stops for revenue, they often evaluate officers based on ticket quotas. This system attaches monetary gain or promotions to the number of tickets issued. Making matters worse, the federal government awards municipalities money for the number of tickets issued. This negative financial incentive goes all the way to the top, establishing a system conducive to corruption. To date, more than 20 states have prohibited quotas. This is a step in the right direction.

Create national campaign for traffic stop awareness. Police academies train recruits in basic traffic stop fundamentals. However, motorists in driving school do not get the run-down on police procedures. This unpreparedness increases the risk of danger for both motorists and officers. The lack of standardization in traffic stop conduct is a real problem.

Motorists can send mixed signals to officers or be wary of traffic stops, especially if they’re a person of color. Teaching drivers about police protocol and their rights and responsibilities would promote safe and effective roadside communication.

Some organizations already offer this kind of roadside safety education. The National Association of Black Law Enforcement hosts events in Black communities to teach people the risk of traffic stops, how to act when stopped by police given what police are trained to watch for, and what their actions will communicate to their officers.

Police reforms so far aren’t keeping people from dying. The only way to protect motorists and officers is to limit traffic stops and to promote clear communication between officers and citizens after the sirens have sounded.

My opinion? The challenges facing law enforcement are difficult. Perhaps a shift in protocols would ensure that everyone – officers included – are more safe in their day-to-day contacts with citizens. Let’s prevent Reckless Driving or DUI incidents from becoming lethal. And 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.

At Trial, Police Can’t Comment on a Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, felony, Fifth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Sex Crimes, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Van Dyke trial: Breaking down all 44 witnesses – Chicago Tribune

In State v. Palmer, the WA Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination was violated when the detective commented about the defendant’s post-arrest silence.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Palmer and his girlfriend, DD, moved in together in 2013. They lived together with DD’s two biological children from a prior marriage, her son AD, and her daughter PD. Palmer and DD also had a baby together, LP. Sometime in 2014, the family moved to Washington. Palmer served as caregiver to the children and in that role disciplined both PD and AD.

During a family car trip in 2016, Palmer grabbed AD by the neck, leaving a scratch. At
some point after the car trip incident, Palmer told DD that PD had touched his penis. Thereafter, PD disclosed to DD that Palmer had touched her vagina. Approximately four months after PD’s disclosure, DD contacted law enforcement. Law enforcement authorities interviewed the children on two separate occasions. Detective Ramirez participated in PD’s interview during which he learned of the accusations against Palmer.

Eventually, Detective Ramirez took Palmer into custody, read him Miranda rights, and questioned him. Ramirez ended the questioning after Palmer repeatedly refused to admit to any wrongdoing. Ramirez returned the next morning for additional questioning, but Palmer refused to talk. The State charged Palmer with one count of child molestation in the first degree and two counts of assault of a child in the second degree.

At trial, the Prosecutor questioned DSetective Ramirez and asked if he had spoken to Palmer after his initial interview. In the presence of the jury, Ramirez testified that he “went back the next morning, thinking that, you know, a day sitting in the county jail, you know, there’s some time to think, and maybe Mr. Palmer would want to do the right thing here.” Ramirez further testified that he told Palmer, “You’ve had some time to think. Do you want to talk?” and that Palmer responded that he did not want to talk.

The jury convicted Palmer of all charges.

On appeal, Palmer argued his right against self-incrimination was violated when Detective Ramirez discussed Palmer’s decision to remain silent.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court began with an engaging discussion of the Fifth Amendment. In short, a defendant’s right against self-incrimination prohibits the State from eliciting comments from witnesses about the defendant’s pre- or post-arrest silence. The State may also not suggest the defendant is guilty because they chose to remain silent, because the assurance of Miranda is that remaining silent will not be penalized.

Here, the State unequivocally elicited a comment from Ramirez about Palmer’s decision
to remain silent.

“Ramirez’s testimony was a comment on Palmer’s right to remain silent. More pointedly, contrary to State v. Easter, the State suggested that Palmer was guilty due to his silence. Indeed, Ramirez testified that Palmer remained silent after being given a chance to “do the right thing” by admitting criminal conduct. This statement presupposed Palmer’s guilt and created an impossible choice: Palmer could either do right by confessing to molesting a child or do wrong by remaining silent.”

“Implicit in the ‘silence equals wrongfulness’ notion is that silence withholds the ‘truth’—that ‘truth’ being one’s criminal conduct, even if there was no criminal conduct. In this context, a defendant cannot maintain their presumption of innocence by remaining silent. A detective’s belief on this front may assist with their investigative duty, but established authority prohibits using a defendant’s right to remain silent to suggest guilt to the jury.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals concluded by saying that alone, this violation may warrant reversal and a new trial. “However, because we reverse on other grounds, we remind the State that it is forbidden from eliciting comments about Palmer’s silence during his new trial.” With that, the Court of Appeals reverse the convictions and remanded to the trial court for a new 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.

Trial Strategy: The Lesser-Included Jury Instruction

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Lesser Included Jury Instruction, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Some Thoughts About Trial Strategy - California Desert Trial Academy College of Law

At trial, criminal defendants have the right for the jury to be instructed on any applicable lower or lesser-included crimes. The evidence must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed instead of the greater offense.

However, should defendants always seek lesser-included jury instructions if the facts warrant this strategy? Isn’t it true that giving a jury too many alternatives to decide convict ultimately result in a conviction? A recent case captured the trickiness of deploying (or not) the lesser-included jury instruction at trial.

In State v. Conway (10/27/22), the WA Court of Appeals held that Defense Counsel’s “all-or-nothing” trial strategy was effective, even when counsel declined to seek a lesser included jury instruction. The Court found Counsel’s decision was deliberate and strategic, and did not prejudice the defendant at trial.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Mr. Conway allegedly attacked three different individuals at the Spokane Amtrak Station in a series of incidents. The State charged Conway with one count of second degree assault, one count of third degree assault, and one count of fourth degree assault. At trial, defense counsel admitted to the fourth degree assault. He also admitted that the other crimes amounted to fourth degree assault. However, counsel did not request an instruction for a lesser-included offense. The jury found Conway guilty of second and fourth degree assault but acquitted him of third degree assault.

On appeal, Conway argues ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to request an instruction for the lesser-included offense of fourth degree assault.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals began by saying that Criminal defendants have a constitutionally guaranteed right to effective assistance of counsel. A defendant bears the burden of showing (1) that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness based on consideration of all the circumstances and, if so, (2) that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s poor performance, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.

The Court further elaborated that In reviewing the record for deficiencies, there is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance was reasonable. The burden is on a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to show deficient representation.

“A decision by defense counsel to forgo an instruction on a lesser-included offense may be a legitimate trial tactic . . . Both the defendant and the State have the right to present an instruction for a lesser-included offense if all of the requirements have been met.” ~WA Court of Appeals, Division III.

Here, defense counsel’s decision to forgo an instruction on the lesser-included offense was not deficient. It was clearly strategic.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that there was strong evidence in support of the State’s assault charges. “The State presented the jury with undisputed video evidence of Conway assaulting the victims,” said the Court. “Because the State presented undisputed video evidence of the assaults, it was a legitimate trial tactic for defense counsel to admit that Conway had committed fourth degree assault.”

Moreover, even though an all-or-nothing strategy is legitimate regardless of success, in this case it worked. The jury acquitted Conway of third degree assault even though counsel acknowledged the assault.

With that, the Court of Appeals decided that Conway’s attorney was not constitutionally ineffective. “Defense counsel made a strategic decision to forego a lesser-included instruction on a felony assault charge,” said the Court. “The decision was not deficient and did not prejudice Conway at trial.” The Court upheld Conway’s conviction second and fourth degree assault.

My opinion? The above case captures the trickiness of allowing juries to convict a defendant of a lesser charge. In many cases, lesser included charges are important to defendants because jurors do not always exactly follow the law. For example, in an assault case, the jury might be so outraged at what they consider to be a brazen attack by the defendant that they don’t carefully consider whether the injuries were significant enough to rise to a felony or misdemeanor before returning a guilty verdict.

If the defense requests a lesser included charge of a lesser crime, the jury is more likely to carefully look at the evidence presented. Consequently, they may convict the defendant of the lesser crime if that is the only charge that they feel the evidence supported.

Requesting a lesser included charge is a double-edged sword, however. Some juries might have acquitted the defendant of assault if they didn’t believe that the prosecution proved that the incident was an upper-level felony. Ultimately, the key to deciding whether to request a lesser included charge is weighing the risks against the rewards.

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