|
9:00 A.M.
|
Olympia
|
Thursday, October 26, 2006
|
THREE CASES - TWO A.M. - ONE P.M
Case No. 1 - 77507-9
|
COUNSEL
|
State of Washington
v.
Kim Heichel Mason
|
Andrea Vitalich
Nancy Collins
|
SYNOPSIS: In a murder trial, did the trial court admit statements of a victim in violation of the defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him? Can a defendant forfeit their right to confront a witness?
|
Case No. 2 - 77472-2
|
COUNSEL
|
State of Washington
v.
Brian Keith Lord
|
Randall Sutton
Catherine Glinski
|
SYNOPSIS: This case involves an appeal of a first degree murder charge. The court must determine whether Lord received a fair trial in light of the fact that: 1) spectators wore buttons depicting the victim during the first three days of a 31 day trial; 2) the State failed to disclose possible exculpatory evidence when it did not furnish defense counsel with a copy of a dog tracker’s findings; 3) the trial court refused to allow Lord to present the dog track evidence because it was deemed irrelevant.
|
1:30 P.M.
Case No. 3 - 78166-4
|
COUNSEL
|
State of Washington
v.
Brian Zane Womac
|
Michelle Luna-Green
Rebecca Bouchey
|
SYNOPSIS: Does double jeopardy require vacation of a defendant’s lesser convictions for a single offense? Under Washington v. Recuenco may a court automatically order remand due to a Blakely violation?
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided for the convenience of the public only. |
