Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Default Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor

    In the State of WA, When I requested a Discovery, city clerk privided me discovery with a note that they are/prosecuter not obligated/required to provide discovery persuant to IRLJ 3.1(b), instead they are providing to me as a courtsey.

    On the other hand, they asked me/defendat to provide discovery to prosecter/plantiff persuant to IRLJ 3.1(b), including but not limited to the list and SUMMERY of the EXPECTED TESTIMONY of my/defence witnesses.

    My dillemma is, if I ignore their demand, they/prosecuter can object/exclude my defence witnesses testimony at hearing, and if I provide summary of myself/defence witnesses ,it can jeoperdize my deffence at hearing.

    please Help on this issue. your Help is appreciated. Thank You.

  2. #2

    Default Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to Prosecuter by IRLJ 3.1(B)

    In the State of WA. I received a discovery of my case from court clerk with a note that prosecuter/plantiff is not obligated/required to provide discovery to the defendant persuant to IRLJ 3.1(b), instead they are providing discovery as a courtsy.

    On the other hand prosecuter asked/demanded discovery+summary of expected testimony of my defence/witnesses from me(as a defendant) persuant to IRLJ 3.1(b).

    I am in dillemma/worry, if I ignore the demand, my defence/witnesses tetimony could be objected by the prosecuter at the hearing, and if I provide summary of my expected testimony of my defence/witnesses before hearing, it could jeoperdize/reveal my defence. My defence is based on their mistakes,if I reveal it to them(as they are demanding) they can fix/ammend that before hearing.

    I have reveiwed IRLJ 3.1(b) carefully, it doesn't say any thing to defendant to provide discovery to prosecuter.

    MY Q is. Is there any other law exist which provides authority to prosecuter to ask the defendant to provide discovery to the plantiff, if not ;

    I'l consider this as a harassment to defendant,I heed more advise on that issue. THANK YOU.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to Prosecuter by IRLJ 3.1(B)

    From the post by blewis at the top of this page:
    http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89115

    I think you don't have to provide anything to the prosecutor.

    Even if you do (like in California), I'm pretty certain that you don't have to provide your (defendant's) own testimony/defense, since it'll violate one important tenet of the law. (What exactly, I'm not sure, I just know that it does :-) If they insist, it'll be perfectly legal for you to send back a note saying "too bad, my mind is blank right now"

    As for the clerk's note, the fact they say it's a "courtesy" and not an "obligation" is a minor issue. The important thing is they did provide it to you.

    ps. One more thing, they asking you to put your testimony (i.e. your mind) on paper is not enforceable and it will be perfectly ok for you to ignore. But if you have something that exists at the time of the infraction (say, you videotaped the whole thing) and intend to use it at trial, then you're obligated to provide that to the prosecution.

    Once again, this is California-specific.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor

    trials are not like you see on TV where Perry Mason always had the aha moment. Discovery and within that, depositions, generally remove the aha moments.

    Once had heard a lawyer say: you never ask a question in court you do not already have the answer to.

    part of the prep is finding those answers before trial.

    with that said, it would appear IRLJ 3.1(b) states:

    (b) Discovery. Upon written demand of the defendant at least 14 days before
    a contested hearing, filed with the court and served on the office of the
    prosecuting authority assigned to the court in which the infraction is filed,
    the plaintiff's lawyer shall at least 7 days before the hearing provide the
    defendant or the defendant's lawyer with a copy of the citing officer's sworn
    statement and with the names of any witnesses not identified in the citing
    officer's sworn statement. If the prosecuting authority provides the citing
    officer's sworn statement less than 7 days before the hearing but not later
    than one day before the hearing, the citing officer's sworn statement shall be
    suppressed only upon a showing of prejudice in the presentation of the
    defendant's case. If the prosecuting authority, without reasonable excuse or
    justification, fails to provide the citing officer's sworn statement, the
    statement shall be suppressed. No other discovery shall be required. Neither
    party is precluded from investigating the case, and neither party shall impede
    another party's investigation. A request for discovery pursuant to this section
    shall be filed on a separate pleading
    .

    unless your request for discovery was late, I do not see the prosecution as having the right to refuse your request. Along with that, I do not see this section giving the prosecution any specific rights at all. It does limit what information can be sought under discovery based on this section though.
    what was their claim for not being required to act as this section directs?

    this is the only thing close to a right afforded the plaintiff by this section:

    Neither
    party is precluded from investigating the case, and neither party shall impede
    another party's investigation
    you shall not impede another party's investigation. That's it. I see nothing that directs the defendant to provide and information regarding their witnesses testimony.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,906

    Default Re: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor

    Note, you also need to check for local court rules - rules expanding upon the statewide rules that are applicable in the court where the litigation is pending.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    38,867

    Default Re: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor

    would they site the state rule though (such as OP states) for a local expansion of any given rule?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor

    The expansion local rules must, however, comply with the IRLJ's, since IRLJ 1.3 states:

    Quote Quoting IRLJ 1.3
    RULE 1.3 LOCAL COURT RULES

    (a) Adoption. Each court may adopt special infraction rules not inconsistent with these general rules.

    And IRLJ 3.1 (b) states (in part):

    Quote Quoting IRLJ 3.1 (b)
    No other discovery shall be required.

    Aaron is the attorney here, so I defer to his judgement, but the way I see it, ANY local rule which would REQUIRE discovery from a defendant would be "inconsistent" with "No other discovery shall be required."

  8. #8

    Default Re: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor

    jk,
    It took me a while to understand the wisdom behind that quote of yours: "you never ask a question in court you do not already have the answer to" Though it didn't come directly from you, thank you for the wisdom nevertheless.

    I'm slightly confused though. If one is to follow that to the letter, then one would need to, in the discovery request, ask for much more than the standard information. As many others have stated, in these traffic cases, there is little chance one would get anything other than the standard information from the officer, if at all. Assuming that the requested information is somehow relevant, either to establish the officer's credibility, or to ascertain facts around the case, then what would be our options? If discovery only returns some, but not all information one needs, then do you recommend tracking down the officer at his workplace and take his deposition? He's under no obligation to comply, right? And if he doesn't, then there's nothing to compel him to, right? So there will be cases where you'll be forced to ask question that you're not sure what the answer will be, right?

    Looking at it from another angle, let's say the discovery request returns just the copy of the back of the ticket, and none of the other things you requested. Is it possible to argue that the lack of discovery compliance jeopardizes your defense? Or will the judge always automatically rule that "you already got the ticket, as for other things, you can ask the officer right here, and that will be your discovery"?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Towing: Towing Laws and Failing to Provide Required Notification
    By Shavelieva in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 10:04 AM
  2. Job Benefits: Are Employer Required to Provide Benefits for Full-Time Employees
    By lamw in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 07:30 PM
  3. Trials: Does a Pro Se Defendant Have a Right to Cross Examine the Prosecutor
    By chaz2000 in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-30-2011, 12:23 PM
  4. Pretrial Procedure: What are the Limits on a Prosecutor's Questioning of a Pro Se Defendant
    By mattwillette in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 12:09 PM
  5. Bail, Bond and Pretrial Release: Prosecutor unilaterally revoked a stipulation with Defendant
    By mel in forum Criminal Procedure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-30-2006, 10:21 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources