WDPAC - PROGRAMS

June 29th, 2007

WDPAC PROGRAMS

WSBA CLE CREDIT:  The director will endeavor to enter your attendance at WDPAC’s programs very soon after the program IF you sign and provide your WSBA No.  Sometimes attendees forget to sign in, sometimes their writing is illegible, and sometimes the director makes a mistake and skips a name.  The WSBA allows WDPAC to submit attendance only once so if you discover that you have not been credited with attendance at a CLE program you know you attended, you can either submit your attendance on line yourself at the WSBA website or you can do it old school and simply list the program on your hard copy CLE declaration.

Completed:  December 5, 2007, Diminished Capacity, misnamed, misused, misunderstood.  3 WSBA credits, including 1 ethics credit.

Katie Ross, Director, WDPAC, will discuss RCW 10.77, Washington and federal case law on “diminished capacity,” and considerations for counsel as to whether to raise the issue in the guilt phase of a capital trial.

Wes Richards, Senior trial attorney, The Defender Association, and currently lead counsel in State v. Haq, pending aggravated murder trial, will discuss how local courts and prosecutors approach and receive mens rea evidence, and will address the pragmatics of obtaining approval and funding for appropriate experts in King County.

Bruce Gage, M.D., Supervising Psychiatrist, Center for Forensic Services, Western State Hospital, and Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research & Training Program, UW/WSH Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship, University of Washington School of Medicine.Dr. Gage will discuss the conflict of legal and medical definitions and expectations when it comes to “capacity” and mens rea; why use of the term “capacity” can by itself defeat a diminished mens rea argument; how counsel can enhance the accuracy and usefulness of evaluations by providing relevant information and history to the evaluators; the importance of the language of the order for mental evaluation and whether stock language can/should be modified either to focus or expand the scope of an examination and the expectations of the parties and the experts; whether you can avoid getting more than you ask for in an institutional evaluation (such as dangerousness assessments); mental conditions that may affect mens rea.Dr. Gage will also lead a panel, joined by Katie Ross and Wes Richards, on legal and psychiatric ethical considerations in a forensic examination, especially considering the court mandated forfeiture of a defendant’s medical privilege and confidentiality.

Completed:  October 20, 2007.   Spokane, Gonzaga School of Law.  Full day CLE, 7 WSBA CLE credits.

 2007 Eastern Washington Capital Training Conferencee

8:30 - 9: Sign in.9:00 - 10:30: Alan Cohen, PhD, Seattle jury consultant, Mark Vovos, Spokane attorney and many times successful death penalty defense counsel, and Rick Warner, of The Defender Association, trial counsel on State v. Dayva Cross, and with great experience in representing individuals of local subcultures and/or foreign ethnicity, Voir Dire: Drawing out bias in a politically correct climate (where all the jurors know what they should NOT admit).

10:45 - 12:15: Rob Owen: United States Supreme Court Decisions, 2006-2007 term and an evaluation of the Scalia wing of the Court. Rob is a Professor of Law at University of Texas and during this term successfully argued Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman and Brewer v. Quarterman, in which he won the reversal of two Texas death sentences. Rob is literally back by popular demand as his audience evaluations were so good at last years Spokane conference.1:00 - 5:15: Tim Ford: “Proficiency and Commitment to Quality Representation Appropriate to Capital Defense in 2007.” October 22 - 26:  POST-PONED to January, details coming.  WDPAC will be on the road throughout the state with the mini-CLE’s that have been offered in Seattle over the last year.  This will be a good opportunity for  counsel outside the I-5 corridor to let me know how WDPAC can be of assistance in premeditated, aggravated and capital murder cases.

Completed:  The June 16, 2007, ”Medicine and the Machinery of Death” was excellent.  Don’t miss next year’s UW Law School co-sponsored program.  6 WSBA credits granted.

Completed:  July 23, 2007:  A mini-CLE on “Law of the Case, What rulings govern on Remand and Re-trial,” Monday, July 23rd, at 4:00 p.m., at The Central Bldg., 810 Third Ave., Seattle, Wa.  Lobby conference room.   Suzanne Elliot, appellate attorney extraordinaire presented. 1.5 CLE credits granted

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Training - Not WDPAC

June 29th, 2007

For listings of national trainings check Habeas Assistance:

http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/shared_files/upcoming_seminars/upcoming.htm

March 8 - 11, 2008, NLAA  Life in the Balance, Atlanta, GA.

For general criminal defense CLE programs in Washington state check the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL) website:  http://www.wacdl.org/ and the Washington Defender Association website: http://wda.defensenet.org/home/calendar-of-events/wda-event-calendar/

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

WASHINGTON’S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE

January 24th, 2007

Washington’s death penalty law is codified at RCW 10.95. 

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/rcw%20%2010%20%20TITLE/rcw%20%2010%20%20%20TITLE/rcw%20%2010%20%20%20TITLE.htm

There is only one crime in Washington that is potentially punishable by death, premeditated murder, RCW 9A.32.030(1)(a)

 http://www.mrsc.org/mc/rcw/RCW%20%20%209A%20TITLE/RCW%20%20%209A.%2032%20%20CHAPTER/RCW%20%20%209A.%2032%20.030.htm

Even premeditated murder is not punishable by death unless the prosecution additionally charges and proves one or more of fourteen aggravating circumstances which are defined at RCW 10.95.020. 

When an aggravating circumstance is charged the crime is generally referred to as “aggravated murder” which means the charge is premeditated murder plus one or more of the listed aggravating factors.

Even when a defendant is charged with aggravated murder, the presumed sentence is life in prison without parole or release (”lwop”) the prosecutor may not seek the death penalty unless “there is reason to believe there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency.”  RCW 10.95.040(1).

The statute expressly allows  the prosecutor thirty days from the time a defendant is arraigned on the charge of aggravated murder.  RCW 10.95.04(2).  However, the thirty day limit is commonly expanded in order for both the prosecutor and the defense to investigate the existence of mitigating evidence.  Because a defendant generally has the best knowledge of his personal history it is common for the defense to conduct a thorough investigation and advise the prosecution of such information for consideration prior to a decision being made whether the state should seek the death penalty, under the restrictions of the statute.

If the prosecutor does file a notice of intent seek the death penalty there will be two stage trial.  The jury will first be asked to determine whether the defendant is guilty as charged of aggravated murder.  If the jury finds the defendant not guilty of aggravated murder (even if it finds the defendant guilty of a lesser degree of murder) the death penalty is no longer an issue, the trial is ended, and, if the defendant is convicted of any crimes,  the judge will sentence the defendant at a future hearing (without a jury).  If the jury finds the defendant guilty of aggravated murder a second “penalty phase” of the trial will be commenced “as soon as practicable” with the same jury. 

If a defendant pleads guilty to aggravated murder or for any reason it is not possible to have the same jury which decided guilt hear the penalty trial, a jury will be impaneled just to decide the penalty.  In such a case, in order that the sentencing jury may learn the facts and circumstances of the crime, both the prosecution and the defense may present evidence about the crime which either was admitted in the guilt phase or would have been admissible if there had been a guilt trial.  RCW 10.05.060.

At the penalty phase of trial the defendant is permitted to present any facts about his life or circumstances of the crime which supports an argument that he should not be sentenced to death.  To obtain a sentence of death the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt “there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency.”  “Leniency” in this context means a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or release.   In order for the jury to return an affirmative verdict that the prosecution has met its burden and the defendant shall be sentenced to death, the jury must be unanimous.  If the jury is not unanimous in favor of a death sentence, the sentence is life imprisonment without parole or release.  RCW 10.95.060.

If the defendant is sentenced to death he has the same right to appeal his conviction and sentence as anyone convicted of any crime.  However, in addition to the voluntary appeal the death sentence is required by law to be reviewed by the Washington Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is directed to determine “whether there was sufficient evidence” to justify the jury’s verdict that there were not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit a life without release sentence, whether the sentence of death is “excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases,” whether the “sentence of death was brought about through passion or prejudice,” and whether the defendant was mentally retarded.  RCW 10.95.130.  However, the Court has never reversed death sentence because of the mandatory review.

Posted in Death Penalty Statute | No Comments »