Seattle Criminal Defense Attorney

Ph# (206) 459-1310

Posts made in October, 2015

By on Oct 30, 2015 in Civil Rights, Criminal, Podcast, Police | 0 comments

This week I’m joined by Seattle Police Officer Eric Michl. We had to jump through some hoops to make this happen, but the results were worth it. We had a great conversation on the culture of policing, use of force, traffic stops, and lots more. We talked for so long I broke it into two parts, come back next week for part two!     You can download the entire episode here. If you’re a fan of the podcast, please rate and subscribe on...

Read More

By on Oct 16, 2015 in Communication, DUI, Judges, Podcast | 0 comments

In today’s episode I’m joined by local attorney David Greenspan. David talks about his time in a prosecutor as a tiny county, being the local coroner. We also talk about his being a part-time judge and the issue of mandatory sentencing. Check it out!   You can download the entire episode...

Read More

By on Oct 9, 2015 in Communication, Court, Criminal, Podcast, Sentencing/Penalties | 0 comments

New episode today, all about sentencing. It’s an important of criminal defense and I share techniques I use, hurdles, and an anecdote about losing at trial and still winning at sentencing.   You can download the episode here. And don’t forget to subscribe for new episodes at...

Read More

By on Oct 2, 2015 in Civil Rights, Communication, Constitution, Court | 0 comments

In 2005, Terrance Irby was charged with murder in the death of an associate, James Rock. At his first trial in 2007 he was convicted of the murder. But the Washington Supreme Court reversed his conviction, saying there was a violation of his right to a public trial when attorneys had emailed with the judge about the composition of the jury. The Washington Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Mr. Irby. He got it, but then things got a little weird. Mr. Irby first decided he didn’t want a lawyer representing him on the charges. He fired his first three attorneys and told the court he wanted to proceed while representing himself, known as proceeding pro se. (Author’s note: don’t do this).  Then Mr. Irby determined he could not get a fair trial and decided not to be involved in the process at all. This didn’t just mean he sat there without saying anything; he determined he would not need to go to the courtroom at all. This is called a trial in absentia. While rare, if the defendant makes the choice to voluntarily absent themselves from the proceedings, it is permissible. (Author’s note: don’t do this either). But this case was much stranger than just a trial in absentia. It was a pro se trial in absentia, which means the entire defense was literally an empty chair. No lawyer and no defendant to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or argue to a jury. That means a jury was empaneled, the prosecution put on their case with no opposition whatsoever, and then the jury rendered a verdict. Easy win right? Well, yes and no. The jury did come back guilty. But the conviction was once again reversed.  Here’s the deal. Every trial, every aspect of criminal justice, requires due process of law. The government gets the extraordinary power of locking citizens up, sometimes even taking their life away. In exchange for wielding that enormous power, they must follow the constitutional strictures of due process. Due process has a lot of components but as the name implies, it’s about a fair system. Everyone, regardless of the individual facts of the case, is entitled to be treated uniformly fairly.   So what happened in this case? As...

Read More
The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and testimonials have been provided. Every case is different, and each client’s case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.