Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 10.56.010 (2026)

Intent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The legislature recognizes that prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement, and society at large strive for a criminal justice system that minimizes the risk [that] actually innocent people will be convicted. The legislature further recognizes that mistaken identification by witnesses to crime and false testimony by informants who are given benefits in exchange for their testimony have contributed to the conviction of the innocent in Washington state. Through the development of best practices related to the collection of eyewitness evidence and the use of informant witnesses, and the adoption of model guidelines to implement those practices, the legislature aims to improve the quality of such evidence and reduce the risk of wrongful conviction related to these contributing factors.

[ 2019 c 359 s 1.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: Adamson v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adamson v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Wash. Rev. Code § 10.56.010 . As a result, Plaintiffs do 2 not fall within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute, and they lack 3 standing under the UDJA.”

Adamson v. Pierce Cnty. (W.D. Wash. 2024). “he identified constitutional and statutory-based problems, including failure to 24 provide the informant his constitutional rights in writing in his native language; sparse 1 documentation of the Miranda waiver; deficits in Darby’s documentation of his contact with the 2…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.