Seattle Attorneys Blog

Application of Confrontation Clause to Forensic Tests in Washington Criminal Cases

June 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the Washington Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution give a criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses against them. Testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial are only permitted if the witness was unavailable and the defendant had previously had the opportunity to cross-examine them. The Washington Supreme Court recently reconsidered whether the testimony of a supervisor instead of the lab technician who actually performed testing implicated the protections of the confrontation clause.

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant was involved in an accident that resulted in drug paraphernalia spilling onto the road from her trunk. The defendant was taken to the hospital, so no field sobriety tests were performed. A state trooper went to the hospital and saw that the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, with dilated pupils. He obtained a search warrant for a blood test.

The blood test showed 1.5±0.40 nanograms per milliliter of TCH in the defendant’s blood.

Court Allows Accused Student to Proceed Under Pseudonym in Title IX Case

May 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Students who file suit against their school based on a Title IX investigation and disciplinary proceedings may wish to protect their identity to try to prevent additional reputational harm. A federal court in Nebraska recently allowed an accused student to proceed with his lawsuit under the pseudonym “John Doe.”

The plaintiff moved to proceed under a pseudonym in a case in which he alleged Title IX violations, in addition to violations of his due process and equal protection rights. According to the court’s order, the plaintiff alleged a false accusation of sexual assault by a former romantic partner had been unfairly and inadequately investigated by the public university they both attended in Nebraska.

The court acknowledged that courts generally disfavor the use of pseudonyms, but they may be used in the Eighth Circuit when “the party’s need for anonymity outweighs countervailing interest in full disclosure. Cajune v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 194. The Eighth Circuit identified a number of factors weighing in favor of and against allowing anonymity. Factors favoring anonymity include whether the party is challenging government activity, whether the information is of a “sensitive and highly personal nature,” whether the party would be required to incriminate themselves at risk of criminal prosecution if not allowed to proceed anonymously, and whether there is a “danger of retaliation.” Factors against allowing anonymity include “fundamental unfairness to the defendant, whether requiring disclosure of the party’s identity would further public interest, and whether there are other ways to protect the party’s confidentiality. Cajune v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 194.

Full Time Not Necessarily 40 Hours When Calculating Washington Child Support

May 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

When a court orders Washington child support, it must follow the statutes and make the required findings. In a recent unpublished case, a father challenged a child support modification order that imputed income to him and required him to share in expenses related to the child’s gymnastics activities.

The mother petitioned to modify the original child support order based on changes in income and asked the court to order the father to share expenses related to the child’s gymnastics.

The father asked for a deviation, claiming he supported his wife and her two children. He also asked for a deduction because the child was on his insurance. His documentation showed that he paid a flat “Employee + Family” rate that was not based on the number of family members.

Washington Appeals Court Upholds Court’s Decision Not to Realign Parties in DVPO Case

May 19, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

RCW 7.105.225(1)(a) requires a court to issue a Washington domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) if the petitioner proves, by the preponderance of the evidence, they have been the subject of domestic violence committed by the respondent. “Domestic violence” includes “[p]hysical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear” thereof. RCW 7.105.010(9). RCW 7.105.210 allows the court to “realign the designation of the parties” in a proceeding involving a DVPO or antiharassment protection order if it finds the original petitioner was the abuser or harasser and the original respondent was the victim. The court may then issue a temporary protection order to allow the victim an opportunity to file their own petition.

In a recent unpublished case, the trial court declined to realign the parties and issue a DVPO protecting the husband, and he appealed. According to the opinion, the wife had petitioned for legal separation in 2023 after about ten years of marriage. She subsequently petitioned for a DVPO to restrain the husband from contacting her and the children. She alleged she was concerned about his alcohol and drug use and that she was “very much afraid” of him when he was under the influence.

She also alleged that he had thrown her into a door in January 2020. She also said that he struck her in the face and pushed her down when she confronted him about his substance use in May 2022, while the children were in the adjoining room. She submitted photographs of her injuries. She also described an incident in which the husband yelled at one of the children and blamed him for a college football team’s loss.

Washington Appeals Court Determines Deferred Prosecution Not Limited to 5 Years

May 9, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In some circumstances, a person charged with a Washington misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor may petition for deferred prosecution. Deferred prosecution can be an alternative to punishment for individuals who would benefit from treatment. The individual generally must cooperate with and complete the treatment program. A Washington appeals court recently considered whether a trial court could “extend” a deferred prosecution order.

The defendant was charged with driving under the influence (“DUI”) in December 2013. She petitioned for a deferred prosecution and the court accepted the petition and approved the treatment plan for her alcohol use disorder.

Multiple probation officers notified the court the defendant violated the conditions of the order between 2015 and 2021.

Fourth Circuit Addresses Sovereign and Qualified Immunity and Cross-Examination in Title IX Discipline Case

April 29, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fourth Circuit recently considered sovereign and qualified immunity in a case arising from a university’s investigatory and disciplinary procedures of a complaint of sexual misconduct against a student.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a student at a North Carolina university when four female students submitted a joint complaint to the university alleging he committed sexual misconduct.

He was notified about the complaint in May 2021 and placed on interim suspension. His scholarship was suspended indefinitely. The plaintiff appealed, but the appeal was denied.

Washington Law Prohibiting Inclusion of Most Juvenile Adjudications in Offender Score Applies Prospectively

April 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington juvenile adjudication of guilt can have lifelong consequences. Current Washington law limits the types of adjudications that can be included in calculating an offender score for a subsequent sentencing, but until recently, other non-violent juvenile adjudications could also affect an offender score. In a recent case, the state challenged a trial court’s application of the 2023 statutory amendment limiting the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in an offender score because the amendment took effect after the offense occurred.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the defendant was charged with second degree robbery in April 2023. The legislature amended RCW 9.94A.525(1)(b) in July 2023, which was after the incident leading to the charges and before the defendant’s guilty plea and sentencing. The amended statute prohibits most juvenile adjudications from being included in a defendant’s offender score.

The defendant pleaded guilty in October. He had previously been adjudicated guilty of second degree assault with a deadly weapon as a juvenile. This adjudication would have been 2 points under RCW 9.94A.525 before the amendment. The trial court, however, applied the current version of the statute because it took effect before calculation of the defendant’s offender score and his sentencing. The trial court determined the defendant had an offender score of 0, resulting in a standard sentencing range of three to nine months. The court sentenced him to five months confinement.

Washington Court Denies Waste Claim and Spousal Maintenance after Long-Term Marriage

April 18, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The court in a Washington divorce case must make a just and equitable division of the marital estate, considering certain statutory factors. Those factors include the nature and extent of community property and separate property, the length of the marriage, and the economic circumstances of each party when the property division becomes effective. RCW 26.09.080. A former wife recently appealed the property division in her divorce.

According to the appeals court opinion, the parties married in 1978 and separated in 2014. The wife was a teacher, but became a stay-at-home parent after the parties’ children were born. She returned to work after 10 years. When the parties separated, she was working full-time as a school counselor, earning about $59,600 per year. By trial, she had voluntarily gone part-time.

The husband was also a teacher for most of the marriage, but had been a principal for the last four years. He earned $95,972 per year at the time of trial. He also earned money fishing in Alaska in the summers, averaging a net profit of $62,372.

Washington Appeals Court Addresses Mixed-Motive Traffic Stop

April 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A defendant recently challenged his convictions for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, use of drug paraphernalia, and unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree (“UPF”). The convictions arose from a traffic stop, which the defendant argued was pretextual. He also challenged his UPF conviction on constitutional grounds.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, a police officer on patrol saw a parked vehicle pull out without signaling. The bumper obscured the front plate and the rear plate light was not working. He stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as the defendant.

The officer saw drug paraphernalia in an open bag on the seat. The defendant consented to a search of the vehicle, but revoked that consent. The officer obtained a warrant and seized evidence from the vehicle, including a handgun, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia.

Federal Court Denies Use of Pseudonym by Accused Student in Title IX Case

March 31, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Title IX accusations can have a detrimental effect on a student’s education, job prospects, and future. Alleged victims who file suit against their schools for claims related to Title IX often litigate the case under a pseudonym. Accused students who file suit for claims arising from a Title IX complaint against them also often seek to proceed under a pseudonym. In a recent nonprecedential disposition, the Seventh Circuit has again denied an accused student the use of a pseudonym in litigation.

The plaintiff was a student at an Illinois university when another student, identified by the court as “Jane Roe,” filed a Title IX complaint against him. Following an investigation, the university found the plaintiff culpable and charged him with sexual assault and drug-related offenses. The plaintiff and Roe had both reportedly ingested “molly” before the incident. The plaintiff was ultimately dismissed from the university.

He filed suit against various university defendants, seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunctive relief, reinstatement of his status as a full-time student, and reversal of the findings. He alleged the university did not provide him with sufficient due process and had discriminated against him based on race, gender, and disability during the investigation.