in this case the prosecutors office wouldn't bring in the officer that supposedly wrote the POS, there were several problems with it, ineligible, not filled out correctly and nobody had the original or knew where this copy came from, it was a copy of a scan of a fax that had been bounced around sheriffs/prosecutors offices and claimed it was forwarded because it was sent to the wrong office a few times and no one could say exactly where it originated. The defense relied on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009), and the prosecutor brought some case from CA that was not as new and had less in common. The judge went with the prosecutors call, again in direct appeals the prosecution admitted they were wrong and the POS should have been left out. So in the future anytime the prosecutors of Thurston County district courts bring in a POS they must also bring in the person that served it
The defendant didn't know about what the court was for or even where in WA but just that there was a court date in WA.
I do think this is beside the point on a legal point of view, the Appeals court erred in calling the admission proof of service Harmless error stating that the defendant knew about the court date so he must of been served. Like I stated earlier, the defendant had to know about the rules in the package in order to violate them, just because he knew about the court date doesn't mean he knew about the rules and there is no proof that he did.
this is now going to appeals II
I'm just doing research on this case, I am looking for cases that have been given a reversible error on appeal because the court error drastically changed the defense strategy. I will find them if they are out there, just hoping someone has a short cut to one
Thanks again.

