Vancouver, WA
Domestic violence Lawyer at Vancouver, WA
Practice Areas: Domestic Violence, Violent Crime ... +4 more
OUTCOME: The judgment ousting the deputy coroner from his position and enjoining him from signing death certificates was affirmed.
The former county coroner could be ousted from serving as deputy coroner by quo warranto and enjoined from signing death certificates because his position was that of a "public office" that he was disq ... ualified from holding under Wash. Rev. Code § 9.92.120.
OUTCOME: The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals to deny the defendant's petition for relief.
The reviewing court held that the defendant's claim that trial counsel had a conflict of interest did not establish her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because there was no showing that coun ... sel actively represented conflicting interests or that he had an actual conflict that adversely affected his performance. The defendant also did not establish any of her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of U.S. Const. amend. VI because the record showed that counsel had sufficient experience, made appropriate use of interpreters, sufficiently investigated lay witnesses, sufficiently investigated expert witnesses, sufficiently prepared the defendant for trial, and sufficiently prepared an expert witness for trial.-Angus Lee serves as supervising attorney on this case.
OUTCOME: convicted
The defendant was charged with burglary and rape. After entering a plea of not guilty he was found guilty by jury trial on all counts. This case involved expert testimony and DNA evidence.
OUTCOME: Conviction and Sentence upheld
A jury found David Rice guilty of first degree assault with a deadly weapon enhancement. Mr. Rice appealed his sentence. He contended that the deadly weapon enhancement should be vacated because the ju ... ry was incorrectly instructed that a unanimous decision was needed to answer “no” on the special verdict form.
OUTCOME: Convictions
Two brothers were charged and convicted of second degree murder after a month long jury trial. This case involved expert testimony on the topics of DNA evidence, ballistic evidence, pathology, and cri ... minal street gang culture.
OUTCOME: Conviction and Sentence upheld
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed trial conviction of first and second degree murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, possession of marijuana, and attempting to elude police. OVERVIEW: Defend ... ant argued the trial court erred in declining to remove a juror and in denying a new trial based upon that alleged error. The court found no error in the trial court's judgment. Nothing in the record suggested that the accused juror had failed to discuss the case with his colleagues, listen to others' viewpoints, and formulate his own opinion prior to the time the trial court received a note from the presiding juror regarding the accused juror. This fact strongly suggested, as the trial court found, that the accused juror had engaged in the deliberation process and had simply come to his own honestly held conviction in advance of his colleagues. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the accused juror had participated in deliberations and was following the law as instructed. Since the trial court did not err in retaining the accused juror, it had a tenable basis for denying defendant's motion for new trial based upon its retention of the accused juror.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.
Defendant argued the trial court erred in declining to remove a juror and in denying a new trial based upon that alleged error. The court found no error in the trial court's judgment. Nothing in the re ... cord suggested that the accused juror had failed to discuss the case with his colleagues, listen to others' viewpoints, and formulate his own opinion prior to the time the trial court received a note from the presiding juror regarding the accused juror. This fact strongly suggested, as the trial court found, that the accused juror had engaged in the deliberation process and had simply come to his own honestly held conviction in advance of his colleagues. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the accused juror had participated in deliberations and was following the law as instructed. Since the trial court did not err in retaining the accused juror, it had a tenable basis for denying defendant's motion for new trial based upon its retention of the accused juror.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Defendant appealed his vehicular homicide exceptional sentencing based on egregious lack of remorse and rapid recidivism under Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535(3)(q), but the appellate court affirmed. Defen ... dant was smiling and laughing while talking to officers at the crime scene and later joked with an officer that the officer better not ride a Ninja motorcycle because he might get killed by him too. Additionally, the term, "shortly after" as referenced in § 9.94A.535(3)(t) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts. No reasonable person could have believed that the presented circumstances constituted anything other than the fact that defendant committed the current offense shortly after being released from incarceration.
OUTCOME: Conviction and Sentence upheld
Defendant appealed his vehicular homicide exceptional sentencing based on egregious lack of remorse and rapid recidivism under Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535(3)(q), but the appellate court affirmed. Defen ... dant was smiling and laughing while talking to officers at the crime scene and later joked with an officer that the officer better not ride a Ninja motorcycle because he might get killed by him too. Additionally, the term, "shortly after" as referenced in § 9.94A.535(3)(t) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts. No reasonable person could have believed that the presented circumstances constituted anything other than the fact that defendant committed the current offense shortly after being released from incarceration.
OUTCOME: judgment affirmed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff police officer appealed a judgment of the Kittitas Superior Court that dissolved an injunction precluding defendant prosecutor from disclosing past misconduct involving di ... shonesty to defense attorneys in criminal cases and that dismissed his claim. OVERVIEW: After discovering information regarding plaintiff police officer's resignation as a sheriff's deputy in California based upon allegations of improper conduct that partly involved dishonesty, defendant prosecutor decided he was required to notify defense counsel of the officer's past for impeachment purposes in cases in which the officer was a witness. The officer sought and was granted injunctive relief precluding such disclosure. Subsequently, however, the superior court summarily dismissed the officer's complaint and dissolved the injunction. On review, the court held that the superior court did not err in dissolving the injunction and dismissing the officer's complaint because, under the U.S. Supreme Court's Brady decision, the prosecutor was required to disclose exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, and that obligation included evidence regarding a police officer's dishonesty.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
