Criminal Procedure Commons^™

Deaf In Prison: The Courts' Failure To Remedy Ada Violations In Prisons, Ruby Grossman

Washington Law Review

The carceral system is one of the many institutions that fails to adequately accommodate individuals with disabilities. D/deaf individuals specifically face a severe lack of resources and accommodations, pervasive mistreatment, and inadequate services while incarcerated. While the Supreme Court has recognized that individuals necessarily do not retain all their constitutional rights while incarcerated, there are constitutional rights and statutory protections with which prisons are required to comply. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one such statute. When it comes to D/deaf incarcerated individuals, the ADA requires that prisons provide reasonable accommodations so those individuals are not deprived of programs, …

Shielding Freedoms: State Noncooperation In Hunts For Evidence And People, Mary D. Fan

Washington Law Review

The nation is fracturing into a patchwork of rights and punishment. What some states and localities safeguard as rights, other jurisdictions are criminalizing and punishing. As the divides in rights and punishment deepen, some states are becoming sanctuaries for freedoms penalized elsewhere and enacting shield laws prohibiting cooperation with criminalization and punishment states. A prime example is shield laws protecting people seeking to exercise reproductive rights or obtain gender-affirming care. Major jurisdictions for healthcare and technology-related businesses, such as Washington, California, New York, and Massachusetts, have enacted shield laws that prohibit law enforcement and companies from complying with subpoenas seeking …

Another Broken Promise: The Mmiwg2s Crisis And The Violation Of The Federal Indian Trust Obligation, Marley Forest

Washington Law Review

Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit people go missing and are murdered at rates nearly ten times the national average in the United States. This disproportionate epidemic of violence has been labeled the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two-Spirit (MMIWG2S) crisis. Several factors exacerbate this crisis. First, European colonizers used violence against Native people, especially women and Two-Spirit people, as a tactic of control and domination since first contact in the 1600s. Second, nearly two hundred years of legislative actions and case law have effectively stripped Native Nations of all criminal jurisdictional power over crimes committed on their land …

The Objective Observer: The Washington State Supreme Court's Remedial Aspirations And Experience On The Ground, David B. Owens

Washington Law Review

The Washington State Supreme Court has adopted an “objective observer rule” for addressing whether race impacted jury selection and extended this rule to evaluating all aspects of Washington courts, including jury trials. The objective observer rule allows courts to evaluate whether decisions in those courtrooms could be viewed as the result of racial bias, even where there is no evidence of specific racial animus and in the absence of racial slurs. The rule, which covers a form of disparate impact, has now existed for over half a decade. This Article outlines the Washington State Supreme Court’s development of the objective …

"A Man’S Home Is His Castle"? Intimate Partner Violence, Firearm Surrender, And Home Searches Under Article I, Section 7 Of The Washington Constitution, Dana Raigrodski

Washington Law Review

Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a vexing problem in Washington. Firearms make intimate partner violence much more dangerous and, frequently, deadly. To protect victims of IPV and to reduce its severity when guns are present, the State of Washington put in place a comprehensive statutory scheme to disarm perpetrators of IPV. In 2022, however, the Washington Court of Appeals for Division II held, in State v. Flannery, that the statutory firearm surrender scheme violates article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, which prohibits disturbing a person’s private affairs or invading their home without authority of law. This Article …

Growing Pains: The Evolution Of Jlwop Sentences In Washington, Selena M. Galvan

Washington Law Review

In 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court abolished de facto life sentences— those that amount to a life sentence despite not carrying the life without parole label—for juvenile offenders, finding them unconstitutional under article 1, section 14 of the Washington Constitution. In 2022, less than a year later, the Court reversed course in the case of State v. Anderson by upholding a sixty-one-year sentence for crimes a juvenile offender committed at age seventeen. The Washington State Supreme Court’s decision in Anderson runs contrary to what modern science demonstrates about the diminished culpability of juvenile offenders, and it runs contrary to …

Rethinking Article I, Section 9: State Protections Against Self-Incrimination In The Wake Of Gr 37, Zachary L. Hentzel

Washington Law Review

When adopted by Washington courts in 2018, General Rule 37 marked a significant advance in the fight against racial discrimination. Modifying the third step of Batson v. Kentucky, GR 37 requires that peremptory challenges must be denied if an “objective observer” could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the strike. Applying the objective observer standard to contexts beyond jury selection—such as evaluation of jury verdicts, seizures of persons, and prosecutorial misconduct—has led to major statewide victories toward establishing a more equitable justice system. However, courts have not granted all requests to extend the objective observer standard to …

The Obvious Violation Exception To Qualified Immunity: An Empirical Study, Bailey D. Barnes

Washington Law Review

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for discretionary actions, as long as the violated right is not clearly established. A right is deemed established when every reasonable official would understand it based on precedent, placing it beyond debate, such that only the plainly incompetent may be held liable. Consequently, even when an act infringes on one’s civil rights, a court may deny relief owing to a lack of factually comparable precedent. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court indicated its distrust for overreliance on precedent in certain contexts. In Taylor v. Riojas, the Court held that prison officials …

After The Criminal Justice System, Benjamin Levin

Washington Law Review

Since the 1960s, the “criminal justice system” has operated as the common label for a vast web of actors and institutions. But as critiques of mass incarceration have entered the mainstream, academics, activists, and advocates increasingly have stopped referring to the “criminal justice system.” Instead, they have opted for critical labels—the “criminal legal system,” the “criminal punishment system,” the “prison industrial complex,” and so on. What does this re-labeling accomplish? Does this change in language matter to broader efforts at criminal justice reform or abolition? Or does an emphasis on labels and language distract from substantive engagement with the injustices …

No Sense Of Decency, Kathryn E. Miller

Washington Law Review

For nearly seventy years, the Court has assessed Eighth Amendment claims by evaluating “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” In this Article, I examine the evolving standards of decency test, which has long been a punching bag for critics on both the right and the left. Criticism of the doctrine has been fierce but largely academic until recent years. Some fault the test for being too majoritarian, while others argue that it provides few constraints on the Justices’ discretion, permitting their personal predilections to rule the day. For many, the test is seen …

The Dignitary Confrontation Clause, Erin Sheley

Washington Law Review

For seventeen years, the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause jurisprudence has been confused and confusing. In Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Court overruled prior precedent and held that “testimonial” out-of-court statements could not be admitted at trial unless the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, even when the statement would be otherwise admissible as particularly reliable under an exception to the rule against hearsay. In a series of contradictory opinions over the next several years, the Court proceeded to expand and then seemingly roll back this holding, leading to widespread chaos in common types of cases, particularly those involving …

Race And Washington’S Criminal Justice System: 2021 Report To The Washington Supreme Court, Task Force 2.0

Washington Law Review

RACE & WASHINGTON’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

EDITOR’S NOTE

As Editors-in-Chief of the Washington Law Review, Gonzaga Law Review, and Seattle University Law Review, we represent the flagship legal academic publications of each law school in Washington State. Our publications last joined together to publish the findings of the first Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System in 2011/12. A decade later, we are honored to join once again to present the findings of Task Force 2.0. Law journals have enabled generations of legal professionals to introduce, vet, and distribute new ideas, critiques of existing legal structures, and reflections …

Due Process In Prison Disciplinary Hearings: How The “Some Evidence” Standard Of Proof Violates The Constitution, Emily Parker

Washington Law Review

Prison disciplinary hearings have wide-reaching impacts on an incarcerated individual’s liberty. A sanction following a guilty finding is a consequence that stems from hearings and goes beyond mere punishment. Guilty findings for serious infractions, like a positive result on a drug test, can often result in a substantial increase in prison time. Before the government deprives an incarcerated individual of their liberty interest in a shorter sentence, it must provide minimum due process. However, an individual can be found guilty of serious infractions in Washington State prison disciplinary hearings under the “some evidence” standard of proof—a standard that allows for …

Revocation And Retribution, Jacob Schuman

Washington Law Review

Revocation of community supervision is a defining feature of American criminal law. Nearly 4.5 million people in the United States are on parole, probation, or supervised release, and 1/3 eventually have their supervision revoked, sending 350,000 to prison each year. Academics, activists, and attorneys warn that “mass supervision” has become a powerful engine of mass incarceration.

This is the first Article to study theories of punishment in revocation of community supervision, focusing on the federal system of supervised release. Federal courts apply a primarily retributive theory of revocation, aiming to sanction defendants for their “breach of trust.” However, the structure, …

"Send Freedom House!": A Study In Police Abolition, Tiffany Yang

Washington Law Review

Sparked by the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, the 2020 uprisings accelerated a momentum of abolitionist organizing that demands the defunding and dismantling of policing infrastructures. Although a growing body of legal scholarship recognizes abolitionist frameworks when examining conventional proposals for reform, critics mistakenly continue to disregard police abolition as an unrealistic solution. This Essay helps dispel this myth of “impracticality” and illustrates the pragmatism of abolition by identifying a community-driven effort that achieved a meaningful reduction in policing we now take for granted. I detail the history of the Freedom House Ambulance Service, a Black civilian …

Police Or Pirates? Reforming Washington's Civil Asset Forfeiture System, Jasmin Chigbrow

Washington Law Review

Civil asset forfeiture laws permit police officers to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity and sell or retain the property for the police department’s use. In many states, including Washington, civil forfeiture occurs independent of any criminal case—many property owners are never charged with the offense police allege occurred. Because the government is not required to file criminal charges, property owners facing civil forfeiture lack the constitutional safeguards normally guaranteed to defendants in the criminal justice system: the right to an attorney, the presumption of innocence, the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, …

Talking Back In Court, M. Eve Hanan

Washington Law Review

People charged with crimes often speak directly to the judge presiding over their case. Yet, what can be seen in courtrooms across the U.S. is that defendants rarely “talk back” in court, meaning that they rarely challenge authority’s view of the law, the crime, the defendant, the court’s procedure, or the fairness of the proposed sentence.

With few exceptions, legal scholars have treated the occasions when defendants speak directly to the court as a problem to be solved by appointing more lawyers and better lawyers. While effective representation is crucial, this Article starts from the premise that defendants have important …

Benevolent Exclusion, Anna Offit

Washington Law Review

The American jury system holds the promise of bringing common sense ideas about justice to the enforcement of the law. But its democratizing effect cannot be realized if a segment of the population faces systematic exclusion based on income or wealth. The problem of unequal access to jury service based on socio-economic disparities is a longstanding yet under-studied problem—and one which the uneven fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated. Like race- and sex-based jury discrimination during the peremptory challenge phase of jury selection, the routine dismissal of citizens who face economic hardship excludes not only people but also the …

Suspects, Cars & Police Dogs: A Complicated Relationship, Brian R. Gallini

Washington Law Review

Officers are searching and arresting vehicle occupants without a warrant with increasing regularity. For justification, this Article demonstrates, lower courts across the country unconstitutionally expand the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception—often in the context of a positive dog alert. But Supreme Court jurisprudence specifically limits the scope of the automobile exception to warrantless searches of cars and their containers. In other words, the probable cause underlying the automobile exception allows police to search a vehicle and its containers—nothing more.

Despite that clear guidance, this Article argues that a growing number of lower courts nationwide unconstitutionally rely on the …

Danger Ahead: Risk Assessment And The Future Of Bail Reform, John Logan Koepke, David G. Robinson

Washington Law Review

In the last five years, legislators in all fifty states have made changes to their pretrial justice systems. Reform efforts aim to shrink jails by incarcerating fewer people—particularly poor, low-risk defendants and racial minorities. Many jurisdictions are embracing pretrial risk assessment instruments—statistical tools that use historical data to forecast which defendants can safely be released—as a centerpiece of reform. Now, many are questioning the extent to which pretrial risk assessment instruments actually serve reform goals. Existing scholarship and debate centers on how the instruments themselves may reinforce racial disparities and on how their opaque algorithms may frustrate due process interests. …

Remaining Silent In Indian Country: Self-Incrimination And Grants Of Immunity For Tribal Court Defendants, Philipp C. Kunze

Washington Law Review

A defendant in state and federal courts is entitled to a constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The Fifth Amendment establishes this privilege, which can only be overcome through a voluntary waiver or by the granting of an appropriate level of immunity. Those grants of immunity were made mutually binding on the state and federal governments in Kastigar v. United States and Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. However, in Talton v. Mayes, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments do not limit the conduct of the more than 560 federally recognized Indian tribes …

Contesting Police Credibility, Rachel Moran

Washington Law Review

Criminal cases often amount to credibility contests between two actors: the complainant, testifying for the government, and the defendant. In theory, the defendant’s opportunity to attack the credibility of government witnesses should be equal to or greater than the government’s opportunity to attack the credibility of the defendant, given that the defendant has a constitutional right to a fair trial. But when the government’s witnesses are police officers, the converse occurs. Although the phenomenon of police officers lying at trial is so well documented that it has its own euphemism, “testilying,” the law imposes tremendous obstacles to defense counsel obtaining …

Incentivized Informants, Brady, Ruiz, And Wrongful Imprisonment: Requiring Pre-Plea Disclosure Of Material Exculpatory Evidence, Markus Surratt

Washington Law Review

An incentivized informant scandal recently hit Orange County, California where county officials were caught lying, hiding, and not providing information about their informants. Concerned citizens, attorneys, and scholars are beginning to ask more questions as these stories receive increased nationwide attention: what should we do about false incentivized informant testimony? What can we do? Under Brady, Giglio, Ruiz, and their progeny, in criminal cases the government must turn over any material exculpatory evidence that it possesses, or that is available, when the defendant decides to go to trial. However, if the government does not know—or purports not …

Third Party Consent And Container Searches In The Home, Harlan Thomas Mechling

Washington Law Review

Circuit courts disagree as to whether law enforcement officers have a duty to inquire about a resident’s actual authority to consent to searches of ambiguous containers in a common area. Two circuit courts use the ambiguity approach and two circuit courts use the obviousness approach. The ambiguity approach articulated by the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Peyton provides protection for individuals’ rights while placing a minimal burden on law enforcement officers. In Peyton, the D.C. Circuit held that law enforcement officers have a duty to ask clarifying questions if ownership over a container is ambiguous. The ambiguity approach …

The Bright Line's Dark Side: Pre-Charge Attachment Of The Sixth Amendment Right To Counsel, Steven J. Mulroy

Washington Law Review

In this Article, Professor Mulroy discusses a current circuit split over whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel can ever attach prior to a prosecutor filing a formal charge (i.e., an indictment or information). Relying on language in several Supreme Court opinions, some lower courts impose a bright-line rule stating that unless there has been such a formal charge (or unless the defendant has appeared before a judge), the right can never attach, in part because the Sixth Amendment’s text refers to a “criminal prosecution” and an “accused.” This rule can lead to harsh results—e.g., where a prosecutor takes advantage …

The Antidemocratic Sixth Amendment, Janet Moore

Washington Law Review

Criminal procedure experts often claim that poor people have no Sixth Amendment right to choose their criminal defense lawyers. These experts insist that the Supreme Court has reserved the Sixth Amendment right to choose for the small minority of defendants who can afford to hire counsel. This Article upends that conventional wisdom with new doctrinal, theoretical, and practical arguments supporting a Sixth Amendment right to choose for all defendants, including the overwhelming majority who are indigent. The Article’s fresh case analysis shows the Supreme Court’s “no-choice” statements are dicta, which the Court’s own reasoning and rulings refute. The Article’s new …

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Washington Law Review

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …

Gross Error, Eric Berger

Washington Law Review

Glossip v. Gross epitomizes judicial deference gone berserk. In rejecting an Eighth Amendment challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, the United States Supreme Court rested its holding on several forms of deference. Closer examination demonstrates that each of these unsupported deference determinations was, at best, contestable and, at worst, simply wrong. Far from being anomalous, such under-theorized deference reflects more generally the Court’s willingness to utilize various stealth determinations to manipulate outcomes in constitutional cases. The understandable concern that frivolous lethal injection challenges will clog courts and delay executions likely motivated the Court’s approach. Remarkably, though, the Court did not …

Constitutional Retroactivity In Criminal Procedure, Dov Fox, Alex Stein

Washington Law Review

The “watershed” doctrine gives prisoners a constitutional basis to reopen their cases based on a new due process protection that would have made a difference had it been announced before their appeals were exhausted. The Supreme Court has imposed nearly impossible conditions, however, for any new rule of criminal procedure to apply retroactively to a final conviction or sentence. No such rule can be backdated unless it enhances not only the accuracy of criminal verdicts, but also “our very understanding of the bedrock” tenets of fairness in criminal trials. The Court refers to rules that satisfy both these requirements as …

Constitutional Retroactivity In Criminal Procedure, Dov Fox, Alex Stein

Washington Law Review

The “watershed” doctrine gives prisoners a constitutional basis to reopen their cases based on a new due process protection that would have made a difference had it been announced before their appeals were exhausted. The Supreme Court has imposed nearly impossible conditions, however, for any new rule of criminal procedure to apply retroactively to a final conviction or sentence. No such rule can be backdated unless it enhances not only the accuracy of criminal verdicts, but also “our very understanding of the bedrock” tenets of fairness in criminal trials. The Court refers to rules that satisfy both these requirements as …