September 2006 - Washington Association of Prosecuting

September 2006
T
O
M’
S
In several recent news articles, commentators have asked the question as to what standards control
the filing of criminal charges for prosecutors. The checks and balances of charging decisions are
so tightly woven into the structure of the criminal justice system that apparently they have been
overlooked by these casual observers. A filing decision in a criminal case is the one truly
accountable decision made in the criminal justice system for every state of this country.
˜
The discretion to charge criminal cases is subject to the requirements of state statutes, court rules,
evidence rules, resources, and the appellate courts, specifically:
T
H
O
U
G
H
T
S
1.
There must be a statute defining certain behavior as criminal. These statutes contain the
specific facts that must be proven to constitute a crime.
2.
Charging must cover all elements of the crime created by statute or added by the courts.
If this notice is not provided to the defendant and his or her attorney, the charges will fail.
3.
Charging must address any defenses available to the particular criminal behavior. Self
defense, insanity, unwitting possession, or duress are examples of defenses that the state
may have to address.
4.
The evidence used to support the charges must be admissible in court according to
Evidence Rules, usually a combination of court rules and statutes. Confessions or
statements may be suppressed because of Miranda rule violations. Evidence may be
suppressed because of flawed search warrants.
5.
The evidence supporting the state’s case must be given in discovery to the defendant,
including any exculpatory evidence.
6.
T
O 7.
M’
S 8.
˜
T
H
O
U
G
H
T
S
Many states require charging to be consistent with statutory charging standards. Also, the
courts may create rules concerning the units of prosecution, for example how many times
can you charge a defendant for using a stolen credit card.
Resources available to prosecute cases must be considered (number of courts, attorneys, jail
space, etc). Violent crime will often take precedence over property crime.
Every charged defendant is provided an attorney, who has a responsibility to protect the
defendant’s rights and contest the state’s case.
9.
Every charge filed must be supported by a Grand Jury or Judge’s determination of probable
cause to support the charges.
10.
Every defendant has a right to force the case to trial within 60 or 90 days of the charges
being filed.
Charges filed must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury or judge. This is the highest
standard of proof in the law.
Every successful conviction is subject to review by Appellate Courts, conversely Prosecutors are
not allowed to appeal acquittals.
Prosecutors cannot file cases where they have a personal interest. They are subject to rules and
case law concerning vindictive or selective prosecution.
Finally, prosecutors are elected. They swear an oath to seek justice and thus owe a duty to
victims, the public and the accused. Elections often turn on the decision to file or not file criminal
charges. The public holds us accountable. Contrary to the casual observations I referenced at the
start of this article, the entire criminal justice system is designed to scrutinize prosecutor filing
decisions. It works and so do we.
Pam's Patter
The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) remains connected to prosecutors in every
state through e-mail lists. Recently, those lists have been utilized to develop information about experts.
The WAPA e-mail lists have also been utilized for this purpose.
To reduce repetitive requests, I attempt to save every e-mail response related to a certain expert.
When you respond to a request for information about an expert, please send me a copy of the response
so I can add it to my “archives.”
Soon, my informal archives will be supplemented with a national expert bank that is being
assembled by NDAA and the Association of Government Attorneys in Capital Litigation. WAPA is just
beginning the process of gaining access to this resource and to its accompanying brief bank. The next
newsletter should include information on how briefs can be submitted to the national brief bank and how
to gain access to its contents.
2
BURNING QUESTIONS
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
The United State's Supreme Court opens its term this year on Monday, October 2nd. To date, the Court has
accepted review of the following cases which may be of interest to Washington prosecutors:
Buttons and Badges. Whether the 9th Circuit, exercising federal habeas corpus jurisdiction, properly
overturned the murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial in California state court
because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them will be addressed
in Carey v. Musladin, No. 05-0785. Judge Reinhardt’s decision may be found at 427 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2005).
Blakely. Whether Blakely v. Washington applies retroactively to cases that were already final when Blakely
was issued. Burton v. Waddington, No. 05-9222. The 9th Circuit opinion in this case, which was favorable to the
government, was unpublished.
Crawford. Whether Crawford v. Washington applies retroactively to cases that were already final when
Crawford was issued. Whorton v. Bocking, No. 05-595. The 9th Circuit plurality opinion which held that Crawford
did apply retroactively may be found at 399 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005).
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT
Crawford and Harmless Error. Whether the defendant was harmed by the erroneous admission at her
criminal trial of her nontestifying spouse’s statement to police and guilty plea statement is the question before the
Court in State v. Watt, No. 77281-9.
Crawford and DOL Records. In two consolidated cases, the Court will determine whether a records
custodian’s written certification that his agency has no records regarding a defendant amounts to a testimonial
statement triggering that defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine the custodian under Crawford v.
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), and whether .a records custodian’s written
certification, stating conclusions about a defendant’s legal status based on the absence of certain public records,
amounts to a testimonial statement triggering the defendant’s right to confront and cross-examine the custodian under
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). State v. Kirkpatrick, No. 77719-5
(COA opinion reported at 129 Wn. App. 155 (2005)); State v. Kronich, No. 78428-1 (COA opinion reported at 131
Wn. App. 537 (2006)).
Crawford and Murder Victims. In State v. Mason, No. 77507-9, the Court will decide whether the
admission in a murder prosecution of the victim’s prior statements to police describing an assault by the defendant
violated the defendant’s right of confrontation under. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158
L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). COA opinion is published, in part, at 127 Wn. App. 554 (2005).
Jury Unanimity. Whether the failure to give a jury unanimity instruction in this case was harmless, where
the State presented evidence of multiple incidents of molestation and did not elect one incident to rely upon, and
evidence of one incident is controverted will be addressed in State v. Coleman, No. 77706-3.
3
Blakely-Fix Retroactivity. Whether the State should be permitted on retrial to have a jury determine the
existence of aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes, pursuant to legislation enacted after the defendant’s
initial conviction. See Laws of 2005, ch. 68, §§ 1, 4, 7. State v. Coleman, No. 77706-3.
Andress and Double Jeopardy. In State v. Ervin, No. 78062-5, the Court will decide whether, following
vacation of the defendant’s conviction of second degree felony murder predicated on assault, see In re Hinton, 152
Wn.2d 853, 100 P.3d 801 (2004), the State is barred on double jeopardy grounds from retrying him on the original
charges of aggravated first degree murder and attempted first degree murder. See State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777,
132 P.3d 127 (2006).
Aggravated Murder. Whether a murder was committed “in the course of” or “in furtherance of” the crime
of first degree arson, thus constituting aggravated first degree murder, when the killing was accomplished before the
fire was started will be resolved in State v. Hacheney, No. 77767-5.
Not a Death Case. The Court will revisit its holding in State v. Townsend, 142 Wn.2d 838 (2001), that
prohibits trial courts from advising potential jurors during voir dire that the State is not seeking the death penalty in
State v. Mason, No. 77507-9. COA decision published, in part, at 127 Wn. App. 554 (2005).
Intimidating a Witness. In State v. Brown, No. 77885-0, the question before the Court is whether the
defendant’s conviction of intimidating a witness must be reversed because the information charged the defendant
with threatening a witness in an official proceeding but no such proceeding had begun.
Collateral Attacks. An issue that have kept the appellate attorneys talking for months, whether the one-year
time limit for collaterally challenging petitioner’s criminal conviction ran from the date of finality of petitioner’s first
appeal from the judgment and sentence or from the date of finality of a subsequent appeal after resentencing, will
finally be resolved by the Court in In re Personal Restraint of Skylstad, No. 78156-7.
Out-of-State Convictions. Whether, in proceedings culminating in the defendant’s sentence as a persistent
offender, defense counsel’s failure to challenge the comparability of the defendant’s prior out-of-state conviction
constituted ineffective assistance, is the issue before the Court in State v. Thiefault, No. 77753-5.
Name Please. Whether a police officer’s request for identification from a car’s occupant in the course of
investigating a reckless driving complaint violated the occupant’s state constitutional right to privacy will be
answered in State v. Kirkpatrick, No. 77719-5. COA opinion reported at 129 Wn. App. 155 (2005).
Administrative Subpoenas. Whether, under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, evidence
gained from a person’s banking records, obtained by a subpoena issued to the bank by the securities division of the
state Department of Financial Institutions, should be suppressed in a subsequent criminal prosecution is the question
before the Court in State v. Miles, No. 78656-9.
Expectation of Privacy. In State v. Evans, No. 77700-4, standing may be further expanded as the Court
considers whether a defendant who disclaimed ownership of a briefcase but not the truck it was found in could
challenge the seizure and search of the briefcase. COA opinion reported at 129 Wn. App. 211 (2005).
4
Franks. Whether the omission of material facts from search warrant affidavits was reckless, thereby
invalidating the warrants, and if not, whether a negligence standard should apply to such omissions under the
Washington Constitution will be addressed in State v. Chenoweth, No. 77615-6. COA opinion reported at 127 Wn.
App. 444 (2005).
Buttons and Badges. Whether the defendant in this murder trial was denied a fair trial because, during the
first few days of trial, courtroom spectators were allowed to wear buttons picturing the victim will be considered by
the Washington Supreme Court at the same time the issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court. State v. Lord, No.
77472-2. COA opinion is published, in part, at 128 Wn. App. 216 (2005).
Armed? Whether evidence that burglars found a firearm in a closet but left it on a bed when they aborted
the burglary is sufficient to support a finding that the burglars were armed when they committed the crime. See State
v. Brown, No. 77885-0.
Depositions in Criminal Cases. In State v. Hacheney, No. 77767-5, the Court will decide whether the trial
judge properly admitted the depositions of witnesses who were out of the country at the time of the criminal trial.
Exculpatory Evidence? Did the trial court err by refusing to allow a murder defendant to present the
testimony of a tracking-dog handler that the defendant claimed to be exculpatory? State v. Lord, No. 77472-2. COA
opinion is published, in part, at 128 Wn. App. 216 (2005).
Legal Financial Obligations. Whether the Department of Corrections may deduct a portion of certain funds
received by inmates sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to pay legal financial obligations will be
decided by Anderson v. DOC, No. 78715-8.
Unlawful Discharge. Whether discharge of an at-will employee “because she experienced domestic violence
and took actions to protect herself [and] her family and to hold her abuser accountable” contravenes a clear mandate
of public policy is a question that was certified to the Court from the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Washington. See Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc., No. 78421-3.
Mandatory Arbitration. Whether the 20-day period for requesting a trial de novo following an arbitrator’s
award (see MAR 7.1) commences when the arbitrator files the award and proof that the award has been mailed to
the parties, or when the arbitrator files the award and proof that copies have been served on (received) by the parties.
See MAR 6.2 (requiring filing of the award and “proof of service of a copy on each party”) will be resolved by Seto
v. American Elevator, Inc. No. 77751-9. COA opinion reported at 129 Wn. App. 146 (2005).
5
THE RULES OF THE GAME
The following amendments to various court rules have been adopted by the Washington Supreme Court. The
effective date of the amended rule is stated in the discussion of the changes.
Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to RPCs
On July 10, 2006, the Washington Supreme Court adopted wholesale amendments to the Rules of Professional
Responsibility. The effective date of these amendments is September 1, 2006. A complete set of the amended rules
is available on the Administrative Office of the Courts w e b s i te:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.adopted.
Many of the RPCs remain essentially the same, although official comments may have been added. The comments
are intended to explain and illustrate the meaning and purpose of the rules. As indicated in paragraph [21] of the
“Preamble and Scope,” though the comments are intended as guides to interpretation, the text of each rule is
authoritative.
Owing to the scope and magnitude of the revisions to the RPCs, it would be prudent for every Washington lawyer
to devote adequate time to the study of the amended rules and the comments. The changes that are of greatest
interest to prosecutors are briefly identified here:
Inclusion of new exceptions to RPC 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information),including an exception (identical to its
Model Rule counterpart) that permits disclosure “to prevent, mitigate, or rectify substantial injury to the financial
interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a
crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services.” RPC 1.6(b)(3).
‚
A new mandatory duty to disclose otherwise confidential information of a client “to prevent
reasonably certain death or substantial bodily injury.” RPC 1.6(b)(1).
‚
A substantial number of clarifications to the rules governing conflicts of interest. See RPC 1.7, 1.8,
1.9, 1.10, 1.11 & 1.12. Among these changes is
L
an expansion of the married lawyers disqualification to lawyers who have “any other close
familiar or intimate relationship with another lawyer.”
L
Clarification that a defense attorney is not disqualified from cross-examining a former client
in a new case if the information the defense attorney learned about during the former
representation has now become generally known – i.e. criminal history.
‚
Adoption of RPC 1.13 (Organization as Client), clarifying the lawyer’s role when representing an
organization, and defining the lawyer’s obligation upon learning that an officer, employee, or other
constituent is violating or intends to violate the law.
‚
Addition of new RPC 2.4, governing a lawyer’s duties when serving as a third-party neutral. The rule
requires a lawyer serving as a third-party neutral, such as a mediator, arbitrator, or conciliator, to
explain the lawyer’s role in the matter to unrepresented parties.
6
‚
Addition of a new provision, RPC 3.5(c), which limits an attorney’s post-verdict communication with
a juror. The change, however, does not obviate the need for a juror protection order in most highprofile criminal cases.
‚
Amends RPC 3.7 to eliminate the wholesale disqualification of a law firm when any member of the
law firm is a witness at trial.
‚
Addition of a new provision in RPC 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor), which prohibits
a prosecutor from subpoenaing a lawyer in a criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or
present client, except in limited circumstances.
‚
Directs prosecutors to refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood
of heightening public condemnation of the accused. See RPC 3.8(f).
‚
Substantially rewrites RPC 3.6, replacing the bench-bar-press guidelines with limitations incorporated
into the rule itself. Includes an “out” for defense counsel.
‚
Addition of a new provision governing a lawyer’s duty to notify the sender upon receipt of a
document that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know was inadvertently sent. See RPC 4.4(b).
CHANGES TO THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
On July 10th, the Supreme Court adopted significant changes to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. These
changes will go into effect on September 1, 2006. A complete set of the amended rules is available on the
Administrative Office of the Courts website: http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.adopted. The
changes of greatest interest to prosecutors are as follows:
‚
Clerk’s papers must now include a copy of any order sealing documents when sealed documents have
been designated pursuant to RAP 9.6(b).
‚
RAP 10.3, content of brief, now indicates that an optional introduction section may proceed the
assignments of error in a brief of appellant. The rule also encourages a “concise statement of the
standard of review as to each issue” in the argument section.
‚
A party is directed to not file an answer to a motion to publish unless requested by the appellate court.
In exchange, the court promises that a motion to publish will not be granted without requesting an
answer. See RAP 12.3(e).
‚
RAP 13.7(d) is amended to clearly authorize supplemental briefs when the supreme court grants a
motion for discretionary review.
‚
Personal Restraint Petition changes of note:
1.
The petitioner must now include a statement of every collateral attack that he has filed in any
state or federal court. See RAP 16.7(a)(1).
2.
RAP 16.9 is amended to double the time the State has to respond to a PRP from 30 to 60 days.
7
‚
3.
Further review of a court of appeals’ decision in a PRP will be governed by RAP 13.5A,
which adopts the standards utilized for petitions for review, rather than the standard for
discretionary review.
4.
Motions and responses are now limited to 20 pages, not including supporting papers. See
RAP 17.4(g)(1).
5.
Inmates confined in an institution may file and serve papers in accordance with GR 3.1. GR
3.1 is amended to adopt a “mailbox rule”.
Court of appeal decisions in accelerated review of adult and juvenile dispositions, and on DOC postsentencing petitions will be governed by RAP 13.5A, which adopts the standards utilized for petitions
for review, rather than the standard for discretionary review.
MISCELLANEOUS RULE CHANGES
Additional rule changes of interest to prosecutors that will become effective on September 1, 2006 include
the following:
‚
GR 3.1 is adopted. This rule creates a mailbox rule for an inmate who is confined in an institution.
[Practice Tip: If the gap between the date specified on the inmate’s affidavit and receipt at the court
seems too large, check with the institution. All of the DOC facilities maintain legal mail logs. They
will be able to provide you with an affidavit indicating when the inmate actually gave the document
to staff for mailing.]
‚
The comments to the Rules of Evidence have been deleted.
SUPREME COURT CANDIDATES FORUM
One vacancy was created on the Supreme Court with the announced retirement of Justice Ireland. All of the
candidates for this open seat and for the other two races were invited to provide brief statements. The statements
which follow are in the order in which the candidates appear on the Secretary of State’s website. To follow all
judicial races, visit to www.votingforjudges.org.
8
POSITION #2
Michael Johnson, attorney
Michael Johnson - Su prem e Co urt Po sition N o. 2
200 Maynard Building - 119 First Ave. S., Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 447-1560
Judges must be fair and impartial. Campaign contributions and endorsements are a
co
rrupting influence in elections. I will not accept money no r seek or use endorsem ents. Elections should not be influenced by familiar names.
I have great respect for the rule of law. C ourts apply the law to serve peop le. Pro perly d one , this process is remarkable. Judges are
acco untable to all Washingtonians, whether they are children, the disabled, the disadvantaged, the weak or strong. I will decide cases on
the merits, and not based o n the ide ntities of the p arties. I will wo rk diligently to earn and keep your trust.
I graduated from University of W ashington Law School and became a m ember of the Bar in 19 98. M y undergraduate degree
focused on real estate law. I have been licensed as a real estate salesperson and a title insurance agent. I am now a certified public guardian.
Much of my practice consists of assisting the poorest and most vulnerable people of the state. I have experience with appellate work. I have
extensively studied the history and development of the Washington Constitution, and the special role it plays in protecting and maintaining
individual rights.
Stephen Johnson, attorney, state senator
Stephen Johnson For Justice
PO Box 6576
Olympia, WA 98507
Phone: (206)-877-2101
Email: [email protected]
W eb: www.StephenJohnsonForJustice
Professional Q ualifications:
“Stephen Johnson has a fine legal mind and will be a great addition to the Supreme Court.”- James
And ersen, former Chief Justice, W ashington Supreme C ourt.
Exp erienced, Effective Lea dersh ip. In the State S enate from 1 995 -200 7, Stev e serve d on the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the Legislative Ethics Board. He was Washington State Bar Association’s “2005
Outstanding Elected Official” and Washington Council of Police & Sheriffs’ “Legislator of the Year” 2001
and 2003.
Statewide Bipartisan Support. King County Prosecutor No rm M aleng, Lieutenant Governor Brad
Owen, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris, Dino Rossi, State Auditor Brian Sonntag, Former Secretary of
State Ralph Munro, Former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn, Former Senator Slade Gorton, Washington
Farm Bureau, and the W ashington Realtors Asso ciation.
Personal Views:
An Independe nt Vo ice For Property Rights, O pen Go vernment & Judicial Restra int. Steve will
uphold the W ashington Constitution’s strong Property Rights provisions; protect against illegal government
takings; ensure your right to view public documents and promote expeditious consideration in criminal justice.
Personal Information & Education:
A Lifetime Of Service. A resident of Kent and former School Board member, Steve earned his B.A. from W hitman College
and his law degree from UW . He’s practiced law in Yakima, Kent and Seattle. Steve and Lynn have two grown children and five
grand childre n.
9
Susan Owens
Susan Owens
State S upreme C ourt, P os. 2
6963 Littlerock Rd SW
Tumwater, WA 98512
206-841-9715
[email protected]
www.JusticeSusanOwens.com
Education:
Graduate of Duke U niversity, law school at University of North Carolina
Occupation:
State Supreme Court Justice
Professional Q ualifications:
A judge for 25 years (Supreme Co urt for 6 years, after 19 years on the Clallam County District Court), Justice Susan Owens
has served with integrity, independence and a com mitment to your Constitutional rights. Justice Owens re spects the law and your rights
and privac y.
Persona l Information:
Known for balanced, com mon sense rulings, Justice Owens earned a national reputation teaching judges how to enforce tough
new do mestic violence laws.
Daughter of a small town general practitioner and retired law enforcement officer, mother of two.
Com munity Involvem ent:
Please see www.JusticeSusanOwens.com for detailed resum e with comm unity and judicial activities.
Perso nal V iews:
I bring a different persp ective to the Supreme C ourt. I’m a rural judge, mother and independent voice for comm on sense
rulings that respect our rights, our privac y— and our C onstitution.
I believe in leadership, not partisanship. I have never held partisan office. With 25 years as a judge, I have been an
independent voice dedicated to upholding the Constitution.
Being a Justice is about integrity, independence, and individual rights. With special interests spending big money to elect
activist po liticians to o ur court, we m ust retain strong, ind ependent voices on the State Supreme Court.
Richard Smith and Norman J. Ericson, who have both filed for this position, submitted no statements.
10
Position #8
John Groen
Candidate for W ashington Supreme Court, Position 8
Campaign telephone: 425/ 346-6402
Website: groenforjustice.com
Groen Stephens & Klinge
11100 NE 8th Street, Suite 750
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Candidate Statement
The court’s role is to apply the law as written by the legislature. But in recent decisions our
Court has altered laws, overstepping its authority. Fo r exam ple, in the “felony m urder” case, the Court ruled “any felony” meant only
some felonies, thereby overturning m ore than 25 0 murd er convictions!
In the Seattle M onorail case, the Co urt allowed go vernm ent to forcibly take mo re private prope rty than needed for the pub lic
projec t, and then sell the excess for its own profit, undermining constitutionally protected pro perty rights.
John Groen is highly qualified with nearly twenty years experience before the Washington Supreme Court. His national
reputation defending constitutional rights, particularly private property, and his commitment to the rule of law has gained him the
endorsement of prosecutors, farmers, small business and homeow ners throughout Washington.
Moreo ver, if John’s op ponent is elected, he will be unable to com plete the term o f office du e to mandatory retirement.
Please watch John’s video at groenforjustice.com. Learn why now is the time for change.
The son of a Dutch immigrant, John’s family eventually made their home in Kennewick. As a laborer, John worked his way
through college and law sc hool. Married fo r 22 years, Jo hn and Christine have three sons.
Gerry L. Alexander
Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court
Position 8, Justice, W ashington State Suprem e Co urt
Elected to the Sup reme Court in 19 94, C hief Justice Gerry Alexand er’s judicial exp erience is
unequalled. The only justice having served at three court levels, his judicial service includes 10 years on the
Court of Appeals and 11 years on the Superior Court of Thurston and M ason Counties. His opponent has no
service on the bench.
Chief Justice A lexand er is a leader in the judiciary. His acco mplishments include opening all
Supreme Court sessions to television, holding some court sessions in locations around the state for greater
public visibility, opening access to court records at all levels, successfully advocating for an increase in the fee paid to jurors and for
limits on campa ign contributions limits to judicial cand idates.
Endorsments include: W ashington D emoc ratic Party; Mainstream Re publicans; Association of W ashington B usiness;
W ashington Co nservation V oters, W ashington State La bor C ouncil; W ashington Education A ssociation; former G overno rs Dan E vans,
Bo oth G ardner, John Sp ellman and hundreds o f others. H e rece ived K ing Co unty Bar Associatio n’s highest rating of “Exceptionally
Well Qualified”. His opponent declined to be rated.
Prior to the bench, Chief Justice Alexander practiced law in Olympia. He earned his law and undergraduate degrees at the
University of W ashington and served as an infantry lieutenant in the U S Army.
11
Position #9
Jeanette Burrage
Friends of Jeanette Burrage,19245 33 rd Ave. S, Seatac, WA 98188
206 -824 -223 3, [email protected] web site: Burrageforsupremecourt.com
Education:
UW School of Law, 1989
Occupation:
Attorney
Professional Qualifications:
Jeanette Burrage served as a Superior Court Judge from 1995 to 2001, presiding over both civil and
criminal trials. She supervised six attorneys at the S noho mish C ounty P rosec utor’s office in the civil division.
Burrage served in the W ashington State Legislature from 1 981 to 19 82 and served on the Des Moines City Co uncil from 19 94 to 199 5.
Burrage was Executive Director of the Northwest Legal Foundation, a no n-pro fit organization, for five years. She has experience
balancing the rights of the acc used with pro tecting the public through conducting sentencing hearings for hundred s of offenders.
As an attorney Burrage has practiced before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court, and Washington State Courts. As
a judge she presided over a broad range of cases.
Personal Information:
Burrage is married and has two sons. She has been an acc ountant, school teacher, and legal guard ian.
Community Involvement:
Burrage served as a B oy Scout leader fo r eight years and attends Southminster Presbyterian Church.
Personal Views:
Burrage believes the ro le of a Supreme C ourt Justice is to interpre t the constitution and laws as the drafters intended, not to rewrite them. She believes our legal system is based o n protection o f individual freedom s including prop erty rights.
Tom Chambers
Tom Chambers
State S upreme C ourt, P os. 9
P.O. BOX 21508 Seattle, WA 98111
360.705.1679
[email protected]
www.TomChambers.com
Educa tion:
W ashington State graduate, law degree from UW School of Law.
Occupation:
State Supreme Court Justice
Professional Q ualifications: Six years on the State Supreme C ourt, Justice Chambers is an honest,
principled, and ind ependent voice on yo ur Sup reme Court.
Past president of the Washington State Bar Association and 30 years of private practice representing people from all walks of
life, earned a reputation for being fair, honest, and absolutely grounded in common sense.
Tom has received the King County Bar Association’s highest rating, “Exceptionally Well Qualified.”
Persona l Information:
Married 39 years with three children and thre e grandchildren.
Com munity Involvem ent: 2006 O utstanding Judge of the Year Award by King County W ashington Wom en; 1999 Seattle Housing
Authority Neighborhood House Good N eighbor Award; United Way of King County Board Member, 1999 – 2001 ; Yakima Valley
Community College Distinguished Alumni Award; Trial Lawyer of the Year Awards, 1989 & 1996
Perso nal V iews:
Raised behind my parent's gas station in Eastern Washington, I learned my work ethic and core values. I have built a powerful
record on the Supreme C ourt protecting the rights of working people, property owners, and crime victims. I defend the constitution,
your individual liberties, and your property rights. Endorsed by the State Troopers Association and many more
(www.TomC hambers.com).
12
THE JOB EXCHANGE
ADAMS COUNTY is accepting applications for the position of Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. Duties
will include prosecution of District Court criminal matters, juvenile criminal matters, civil legal services to
county departments, occasional ex-officio coroner duties, and Superior Court felony practice, depending on
experience. Applicants must have graduated from an accredited law school, must be a member in good standing
of the Washington State Bar Association, and have a valid Washington State Driver's License. Prior criminal
and/or municipal experience is preferred but not required. Excellent oral and written communication skills are
essential. Salary range is $45,516.00 to $61,008.00 annually, plus a comprehensive benefit package. Send
letter of interest, resume, reference list, and writing sample to: Adams County Prosecutor, 210 West Broadway,
Ritzville, Washington 99169, Attention Personnel. Adams County is an Equal Opportunity Employer. This
position will remain open until filled.
BENTON COUNTY is seeking an attorney with experience to act as lead counsel for: (a) the Benton County
Sheriff’s Office and jail on civil matters and civil rights litigation; and (b) Benton-Franklin Human Services on
contract matters. This attorney will also provide legal advice to and litigation support for other county officials
as needed. Ideal candidate would have three or more years of litigation experience, preferably in federal court
regarding civil rights matters. Friendly and relaxed office welcomes candidates who are enthusiastic, adaptable
and interested in public sector work. Excellent benefits include predictable and reasonable work hours,
generous vacation, health insurance and County funded health care reimbursement account (3.5% of salary).
The starting salary range will be dependent on experience. Please send a cover letter and resume by September
29, 2006 to: Ryan Brown, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor, Benton County Prosecutor’s Office, 7122 West
Okanogan Place, Building. A, Kennewick, WA 99336 or by fax to 509/222-3705.
COLUMBIA COUNTY is seeking a new member for their four person team. Looking to get away from the big
city? Here’s your opportunity! Columbia County is a rural community of approximately 4,500 citizens, half of
which live in the City of Dayton. We are located within a half-hour of Walla Walla, an hour of the Tri-cities, and
2 ½ hours of Spokane, without the living costs of those areas. We need an energetic, enthusiastic and assertive
deputy prosecutor who can handle virtually any task, be it criminal (misdemeanor, felony and appellate), civil,
child support enforcement, deputy coroner, grant development or community involvement. This unique
opportunity is for an individual seeking a diverse workload. Applicants must have graduated from an accredited
law school and must be a member in good standing with the Washington State Bar Association. Salary will be
$41,026 per year. Submit resumes to Colleen G. Fenn, Columbia County Prosecutor, 116 North 3rd Street,
Dayton, WA 99328, or by email to [email protected]. This position will remain open until filled.
ISLAND COUNTY has an opening for a full-time Civil Deputy Prosecutor. Specialized training or experience
required in county or municipal civil practice, land use and growth management. Litigation experience is also
13
required. Current or pending membership in the Washington State Bar Association and a valid driver’s license
are required. The monthly salary will be $4,332.08 to $4,564.15 depending on experience with medical and
retirement benefits. Application, resume and legal writing sample required. Applications and information may
be obtained at www.islandcounty.net/hr or by calling 360/679-7372. Please mail packets to: Human Resources,
P O Box 5000, Coupeville, WA 98239. This position will remain open until filled. Island County is an Equal
Opportunity Employer.
KLICKITAT COUNTY is accepting applications for a Deputy Prosecuting I. Duties to include performing
prosecutorial duties mainly in the District Courts but also in the Superior Court for felony and juvenile cases as
assigned; appear in court for docket, motions and trials and will be responsible for a case load. A Juris Doctor
or equivalent degree and preference for experience with District Court criminal matters is required. Excellent
benefit package. Monthly Salary will be $3,456 to $3,724, depending on qualifications. Application packets are
available at the Klickitat County Personnel Department, 205 South Columbus Avenue, MS-CH 15, Goldendale,
WA 98620 or by calling 509/773-7171. For questions please contact [email protected] or see county
website www.klickitat.wa.us for more information. This position will remain open until filled. Klickitat County
is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
OKANOGAN COUNTY is seeking a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney to handle District Court matters. The salary
range will be $39,336 to $47,820 per year with medical & dental benefits. Responsibilities to include
prosecuting misdemeanor and gross-misdemeanor cases, screen referrals, advise and train law enforcement, act
as deputy coroner and cover preliminary appearances on felony arrests. Minimum requirements are graduation
from an accredited law school, must be licensed and in good standing with the Washington State Bar Association
and must possess a valid Washington State driver’s license. District Court experience preferred but not
required. An interest in criminal law is essential. Please send resumes to: Karl Sloan, Okanogan County
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, P. O. Box 1130, Okanogan, WA 98840. Resumes will be accepted until
September 15, 2006. Okanogan County offers a quality rural lifestyle with abundant outdoor recreational
opportunities. Okanogan County is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY seeks a land use attorney with at least five (5) years of experience advising clients and
engaging in litigation relating to land use and/or environmental regulation including zoning, State
Environmental Policy Act compliance, the Land Use Petition Act, and land use damages claims. Administrative
hearings board experience is desired, as well as excellent writing and oral communication skills. Experience in
computer-aided research and word processing is extremely desirable. The Salary Range is $68,964 to $88,008,
depending upon qualifications. Generous fringe benefits and leave package. To apply, please submit a letter of
interest, resume, two writing samples and a list of references to: Millie Judge, Assistant Chief Civil Deputy,
Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S 504, Everett, WA 98201; or by
e-mail to [email protected]. No phone calls please. This position will remain open until
filled. Snohomish County is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
14
WAHKIAKUM COUNTY has an opening for a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. Job Description: Prosecutes
criminal offenses in District Court and Juvenile Court. Prosecutes criminal offenses (felonies) in Superior Court
commensurate with experience and as assigned by the Prosecuting Attorney. Represents the State in matters
involving the establishment of paternity and the enforcement of child support obligations. Provides legal
opinions to county departments and represents the County in civil matters as assigned by the Prosecuting
Attorney. Responsible for preparation of grant applications relating to the funding of criminal justice activities
and allied programs. Performs duties of Deputy Coroner. Qualifications: Admission to the Washington State
Bar Association required; at least one year prior experience desired; some prosecutorial experience preferred.
A valid Washington State driver’s license is required. The salary range will be $60,501.00 to $78,522.00 per
year. Actual salary will depend on experience and qualifications. Excellent benefits. Please submit a cover
letter, resume, and references to: Fred A. Johnson, Wahkiakum County Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 397,
Cathlamet, WA 98612. This position will remain open until filled and will be available November 1, 2006.
Wahkiakum County is an Equal Opportunity Employer. (posted 08/29/06)
15