Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Frank G. Prantilgreen2 sentences2022A prosecutor’s expression of personal opinion “violates the advocate-witness rule, which ‘prohibits an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 1985)). 2015Generally speaking, the advocate witness rule "'prohibits an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation.'" State v. Lindsay. 180 Wn.2d 423, 437 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 1985)). | 5 | 7 |
United States v. John Alugreen1 sentence2015United States v. Alu. 246 F.2d 29, 34 (2d Cir. 1957); see also Prantil. 764 F.2d at 553 . | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy Anthony EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellantgreen1 sentence2015In addition, "the rule prevents the prestige and prominence of the prosecutor's office from being attributed to testimony by a testifying prosecutor." Prantil, 764 F.2d at 553 ; see ajso United States v. Edwards. 154 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Essentially, the danger in having a prosecutor testify as a witness is that jurors will automatically presume the prosecutor to be credible and will not consider critically any evidence that may suggest otherwise."). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ted Johnstongreen2 sentences2015First, the 12 No. 70563-6-1/13 concern "'that a testifying prosecutor will not be a fully objective witness given his [or her] position as an advocate for the government.'" Prantil. 764 F.2d at 553 (quoting Johnston. 690 F.2d at 643 ). 2015For instance, by barring testimony from the participating prosecutor, the advocate witness rule "'eliminates the risk that a testifying prosecutor will not be a fully objective witness given his [or her] position as an advocate for the government.'" Prantil. 764 F.2d at 553 (quoting United States v. Johnston. 690 F.2d 638, 643 (7th Cir. 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lindsay
green
2 sentences2022A prosecutor’s expression of personal opinion “violates the advocate-witness rule, which ‘prohibits an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 1985)). 2015Generally speaking, the advocate witness rule "'prohibits an attorney from appearing as both a witness and an advocate in the same litigation.'" State v. Lindsay. 180 Wn.2d 423, 437 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014) (quoting United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 1985)). | 6 | 2015–2022 |
State v. Thorgerson
green
1 sentence2022“Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor expresses a personal belief in the veracity of a witness or indicates that evidence not presented at trial supports the testimony of a witness.” Thorgerson, 172 Wn.2d at 443 . “‘Prejudicial error does not occur until such time as it is clear and unmistakable that counsel is not arguing an inference from the evidence, but is expressing a 7 Heeren argues that the constitutional harmless error standard applies to his claims that the prosecutor testified at trial because the prosecutor’s statements violated Heeren’s due process rights. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In RE GUARDIANSHIP OF STAMM v. Crowley
neutral
1 sentence2017App. 830, 837 , 91 P.3d 126 (2004). 14 State v. Lindsay, 180 Wn.2d 423, 437 , 326 P.3d 125 (2014); United States v. Prantil, 764 F.2d 548, 552-53 (9th Cir. 1985). -6- No. 75065-8-1 (consol. w/Nos. 75066-6-1, 75067-4-1, 75068-2-1, 75069-1-1)/7 A trial court has the authority under RPC 3.7 to disqualify a lawyer representing a client in the case who is likely to be a necessary witness and refuses to withdraw from the case.15 Lee did not seek to discharge or disqualify the GAL. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stamm v. Crowley
green
1 sentence2017RPC 3.7, and its historical antecedent, the advocate-witness rule, prohibit a lawyer who is representing a client from acting as both an advocate and a witness in the same case.14 RPC 3.7 provides, (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (1)the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; (3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client; or (4) the lawyer has been called by the opposing party and the co | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Bland
green
1 sentence2015SeeState v. Bland, 90 Wn. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.