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 1952–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen1 sentence2018The Court explained that constitutional error essentially falls within two different categories: 1) trial errors “which [occur] during the presentation of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether [their] admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”; and 2) structural defects that affect “the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself” and thus are so inherently unfair that they are not subject to harmless error analysis. 499 U.S. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mullin-Costongreen1 sentence2018"Jurors must be expected to know that a person awaiting trial will often do so in custody." Mullin-Coston, 115 Wn. | 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. Brady
green
2 sentences2010The trial court dismissed the indictment against Brady with prejudice because "the risk of federal prosecution of his expert deprived Brady of effective assistance of an expert witness and effective assistance of counsel" and, therefore, he "could not receive a fair trial." Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d at 376 , 894 N.E.2d 671 . ¶ 62 The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant could receive a fair trial because a defense expert could still examine the State's evidence at the prosecutor's office. 2010The trial court dismissed the indictment against Brady with prejudice because "the risk of federal prosecution of his expert deprived Brady of effective assistance of an expert witness and effective assistance of counsel" and, therefore, he "could not receive a fair trial." Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d at 376 , 894 N.E.2d 671 . ¶ 62 The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendant could receive a fair trial because a defense expert could still examine the State's evidence at the prosecutor's office. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Tully
green
2 sentences1970This contention has been ruled on in Pettus v. Cranor, 41 Wn.2d 567 , 250 P.2d 542 (1952) and State v. Tully, 198 Wash. 605 , 89 P.2d 517 (1939). 1970This contention has been ruled on in Pettus v. Cranor, 41 Wn.2d 567 , 250 P.2d 542 (1952) and State v. Tully, 198 Wash. 605 , 89 P.2d 517 (1939). | 2 | 1952–1970 |
State v. Mullin-Coston
green
1 sentence2018App. 679, 692 , 64 P.3d 40 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 107 , 95 P.3d 321 (2004), references to the defendant's pretrial custodial status do not automatically violate the right to a fair trial or the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Mullin-Coston
green
1 sentence2018App. 679, 692 , 64 P.3d 40 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 107 , 95 P.3d 321 (2004), references to the defendant's pretrial custodial status do not automatically violate the right to a fair trial or the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Mullin-Coston
green
1 sentence2018App. 679, 692 , 64 P.3d 40 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wn.2d 107 , 95 P.3d 321 (2004), references to the defendant's pretrial custodial status do not automatically violate the right to a fair trial or the presumption of innocence. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Moreno
green
1 sentence2017E.g., State v. Moreno, 147 Wn.2d 500, 506-512 , 58 P.3d 265 (2002) (statute permitting judges to call and question witnesses in traffic infraction proceedings). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Moreno
green
1 sentence2017E.g., State v. Moreno, 147 Wn.2d 500, 506-512 , 58 P.3d 265 (2002) (statute permitting judges to call and question witnesses in traffic infraction proceedings). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ingle
green
2 sentences2017State v. Ingle, 64 Wn.2d 491,499 , 392 P.2d 442 (1964). 2017State v. Ingle, 64 Wn.2d 491,499 , 392 P.2d 442 (1964). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1981He filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that the prosecution had suppressed material evidence and thereby deprived his client of a fair trial under the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 10 L. 1981He filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that the prosecution had suppressed material evidence and thereby deprived his client of a fair trial under the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 10 L. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
In RE PETTUS v. Cranor
green
2 sentences1970This contention has been ruled on in Pettus v. Cranor, 41 Wn.2d 567 , 250 P.2d 542 (1952) and State v. Tully, 198 Wash. 605 , 89 P.2d 517 (1939). 1970This contention has been ruled on in Pettus v. Cranor, 41 Wn.2d 567 , 250 P.2d 542 (1952) and State v. Tully, 198 Wash. 605 , 89 P.2d 517 (1939). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.