Zuanich Law Newsletter
Episode #34: The Jerry Springer Episode
March 17, 2020
Who can forgot this show? Family law at its finest. Incisive social commentary punctuated by occasional profanity and more than occasional brawl.
At the very least, you finished watching and thought to yourself: “wow, and I thought my life sucked today.”
Which (of course) brings us to today. We are officially living in challenging times, but they could always be worse.
The civil and criminal justice system needs us and will be relying on us more than ever in the coming weeks and months. It’s going to be hard and it’s going to be stressful but we will preserve and we will succeed … just keep in minds the words of Jerry Springer:
“Take care of yourself … and each other.”
And with that, the show must go on. And to quote another famous celebrity, Mel Gibson in Braveheart:
“They may take away our toilet paper and our Clorox wipes and institute social distancing, but they will never take … OUR NEWSLETTER”
City v. Levesque
Court of Appeals (Division One)
March 16, 2020
Opinion Testimony / Expert Testimony
Facts: Seattle police respond to car crash. Levesque out of it. Clearly high on drugs. Officer Hinson is not DRE and did not conduct FST but testifies at trial that Levesque “definitely impaired” by a CNS stimulant. Defense theory that prescribed medication for injuries was factor. Jury convicts of DUI.
Holding: Conviction overturned. City of Seattle couldn’t qualify Hinson as expert, because not DRE and did no specialized tests. And his testimony was also improper lay testimony because lay person can’t testify that someone was impaired by a particular type of drug.
Basically, the City flunked the Frye test and couldn’t overcome the Quaale hurdle, because Hinson’s testimony clearly was an impermissible opinion on guilt. And Heatley was out the window because this case didn’t involve alcohol and because Hinson didn’t have a ton of DUI experience (certainly not drug experience) to make an intelligent opinion.
My take: Big win for defense but really a big win for practitioners because this is a very well written opinion that contains an excellent primer on ER 702, ER 703 and DRE, all wrapped in one. It’s like a Jerry Springer episode with multiple fights that go on just long enough to be really entertaining.
HB 2231 (aka the Kris Kross Bill)
If you’re a criminal defendant who’s missed court, this bill will make ya JUMP JUMP
This bill’ll make ya JUMP JUMP … possibly out of your conviction
On March 11, this legislation is awaiting Governor Inslee’s signature.
Basically, it will be much harder to secure a bail jumping conviction. Key changes:
Old: you can be convicted if you have “knowledge” of a subsequent personal appearance for trial
New: you must have received “written notice” of subsequent court date
Old: bail jumping conviction could be based on missing ANY court date
New: bail jumping conviction can be only based on not appearing for “trial as required”
New requirement: No bail jumping conviction can lie if D who missed court “files a motion to quash” within 30 days of missing court
Old: affirmative defense to bail jumping conviction if “uncontrollable circumstances” prevented a person from appearing and person did not create these circumstances “in reckless disregard” of the requirement to surrender
New: … person did not create these circumstances by “negligently disregarding” the requirement to surrender (this portion of the bill arguably heightens the burden for the affirmative defense, but we’ll have to see how this plays out in practice”
About Us: Zuanich Law focuses on criminal appeals, DOL appeals, and post-conviction relief, including expunging / vacating / sealing criminal records.
We also handle civil appeals, family law appeals, personal injury law, business litigation, and general civil litigation, including contract disputes, probate, and a lot of other civil stuff that may be dangerous and boring to hear while operating heavy machinery.
|
|
|
|
