In re the Personal Restraint of Wilson
Jul 02, 2012OUTCOME: Relief granted
New trial granted because improper accomplice liability instruction was given.
Lila Jane Silverstein's Legal Cases (26)
Seattle, WA
Appeals Lawyer at Seattle, WA
Practice Areas: Appeals
State v. Snapp
Apr 05, 2012OUTCOME: reversed
Convictions reversed because police officers searched defendant's car without a warrant after arresting him, in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.
State v. Peters
Sep 19, 2011OUTCOME: reversed
Conviction reversed because jury instruction improperly lowered State's burden of proof
In re the Termination of S.J.
Aug 02, 2011OUTCOME: reversed
Termination of parental rights reversed where State failed to provide simultaneous treatment for co-occurring disorders and failed to provide services to address the resulting deterioration in the pare ... nt-child bond.
State v. Deer
Dec 13, 2010OUTCOME: reversed
Convictions reversed because trial court erroneously allowed State to amend the charging document after resting its case, and failed to instruct the jury that the State bore the burden of proving a vol ... itional act beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Vars
Aug 16, 2010OUTCOME: reversed
One of two indecent exposure convictions reversed for double jeopardy violation because unit of prosecution is the exposure, not the number of viewers.
State v. Combs
Jun 17, 2010OUTCOME: reversed
Exceptional sentence reversed because commission of crime more than 6 months after release from incarceration did not constitute "rapid recidivism."
State v. Madsen
Mar 25, 2010OUTCOME: Reversed.
Defendant's convictions reversed because he was denied the right to represent himself in violation of the state and federal constitutions
In re the Dependency of C.S.
Jan 21, 2010OUTCOME: Reversed.
Termination of parental rights reversed where State did not provide biological mother with any of the services it provided the foster mother to address child's special needs
Department of Corrections v. Madsen
Dec 14, 2009OUTCOME: Affirmed.
Application of a new statute to defendant who committed his crime before the statute went into effect violated his constitutional right to be free from ex post facto laws
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
