Washington State Ticket Discovery Responses

[kyle99]

It seemed unfair to file motions in advance, especially considering discovery wasn't provided until 6 days before trial and I wasn't given a pre trial hearing to make my motions. What's my move here? I'm assuming Barry has some apt advice here, he seems to be good at procedural issues. Spokane County District Court is weird, but I don't know what I can do here...

[blewis]

Take a look at this thread. Deweyusa, unfortunately, has never returned to let us know the outcome.

Barry

[kyle99]

Take a look at this thread. Deweyusa, unfortunately, has never returned to let us know the outcome.

Barry

Ok, so I read his thread and messaged him (yet to hear a response, doubtful that I will), but it sounds like form 1503 is used to file motions. I didn't know what to put for authorities, so I just checked motion's on the top, put my name and case number, and checked motion to suppress evidence and wrote in motion to dismiss. I'm gonna head down to the prosecuting attorney's later today and see what they say. It sounds like I might have a separate hearing to make my motions, and that they're not able to be heard at a contested hearing in Washington. I'll keep you all updated. Thanks for the help, you all rock!

[blewis]

The "authorities" for your motion to suppress the officer's statement are: IRLJ 3.3 (c) and RCW 9A.72.085.

Barry

[kyle99]

Ok, I filed Form 1503 with the clerk and prosecuter, similiar to filing a discovery motion, and I will get a trial before my actual contested hearing date for a judge to hear my motions. The good thing about this, I believe, is that if my motions aren't granted for some reason, I'll still be able to use a deferral at my contested hearing.

[kyle99]

Ok, so I got a motion hearing/contested hearing date of July 9th in the mail. I was planning on going with the unsigned argument, but considering the vastly incomplete infraction info, would making a case with this be easier:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules...eid=cljirlj2.1
Gracias!

[kyle99]

Sorry for bringing this thread up again, but my traffic court date is tomorrow and I just realized something. My admission was that I went 35, but the infraction is for going 36-40 (11-15 over in a 25). Even if I admitted to speeding, I didn't actually admit to breaking the law I was cited for. Can a prosecutor change the charge at my motions trial, from 11-15 over to something less?

[BrendanjKeegan]

The officer's statement (which contains your admission of guilt) cannot be entered into evidence unless it complies with RCW 9A.72.085. It does not. We've been over this.

It doesn't matter if you stated you killed a man on the tuesday before last. The prosecutor cannot enter your statement(s) into evidence unless the witness is there to give live testimony, or the affidavit containing your "admissions against party interests" complies with RCW 9A.72.085.

Sure, they can get another continuance, but you've already been to court twice now. My argument would be that the prosecution should have known what their case was - EXACTLY - before appearing in front of a jurist. The first rule of criminal procedure: a municipality should NOT charge a case unless they have enough evidence to convict. Here... they clearly do not. The prosecutor is mocking the court system by continually being unprepared for the hearing. The second a prosecutor asks for a continuance: object and request dismissal.

Oh, and get this: IT'S A TRAFFIC INFRACTION!!! Sometimes it amazes me how ridiculous prosecutors can be over a few hundred bucks... *shakes head*

[kyle99]

The officer's statement (which contains your admission of guilt) cannot be entered into evidence unless it complies with RCW 9A.72.085. It does not. We've been over this.

It doesn't matter if you stated you killed a man on the tuesday before last. The prosecutor cannot enter your statement(s) into evidence unless the witness is there to give live testimony, or the affidavit containing your "admissions against party interests" complies with RCW 9A.72.085.

Sure, they can get another continuance, but you've already been to court twice now. My argument would be that the prosecution should have known what their case was - EXACTLY - before appearing in front of a jurist. The first rule of criminal procedure: a municipality should NOT charge a case unless they have enough evidence to convict. Here... they clearly do not. The prosecutor is mocking the court system by continually being unprepared for the hearing. The second a prosecutor asks for a continuance: object and request dismissal.

Oh, and get this: IT'S A TRAFFIC INFRACTION!!! Sometimes it amazes me how ridiculous prosecutors can be over a few hundred bucks... *shakes head*

Yeah, I know I'm probably being paranoid, but if the infraction does indeed have a signature that was cut off on the discovery request (which I suspect it does), then I might not be successful in getting the statement suppressed, in which a backup plan would be needed. Just trying to cover all my bases, I suppose.

[blewis]

All right -- one more time -- if you don't believe us, just PAY THE TICKET!!! We don't care!

IRLJ 3.1 (b) states:

If the prosecuting authority, without reasonable excuse or justification, fails to provide any portion of the discovery prior to the day of the hearing, the portion of discovery not provided shall be suppressed.

So, even if the original DOES have a signature, the court rule REQUIRES that ANY PORTION not given to you, MUST be SUPPRESSED! There is NO DISCRETION! If the portion you received does NOT contain a signature, the signature MUST be suppressed. If the signature is missing (which it IS if it's suppressed), then the "sworn statement" does NOT comply with RCW 9A.72.085. In that case, it is NOT admissible!

You're making this MUCH more complicated than it has to be.

If you present this even halfway decently, you'll win -- OR you can go off on some other tangent (like "the vastly incomplete infraction info) argument -- ANY LOSE!!!!!

Your choice -- I'm done either way.

Barry