| 9:30 A.M. |
SEATTLE UNIVERSITY |
October 18, 2011 |
| THREE CASES ONLY, TWO IN A.M. – ONE IN P.M. |
Case No. 1 - 84903-0
|
COUNSEL
|
D. EDSON CLARK
v.
SMITH BUNDAY BERMAN BRITTON, PS, et al
|
Michele Earl-Hubbard/Christopher Roslaniec
Michael Callan
Catherine Wright Smith/Valerie Villacin
Mary Eklund/Barbara Schmidt
|
| SYNOPSIS: Does the public have a constitutional right to view documents filed in court even if the judge never reviews them?
|
Case No. 2 - 85765-2
|
COUNSEL
|
STATE OF WASHINGTON
v.
ROOSEVELT RAFELO JOHNSON, JR.
|
Ann Summers
Thomas Kummerow
|
| SYNOPSIS: Johnson was convicted of attempted promotion of commercial sexual abuse of a minor (child prostitution). He appeals on the basis that the victims were adult undercover police officers, not minors. The court must decide whether the State must prove an actual minor victim to prove attempted promotion of child prostitution.
|
1:30 P.M.
| Case No. 3 – 85729-6 |
COUNSEL
|
In the Matter of the Dependency of MSR and TSR
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES
v.
NYAKAT LUAK |
Susan Llorens/Allyson Zipp & Peter Gonick
Mindy Carr
Jan Trasen/Marla Zink
|
| SYNOPSIS: A Washington statute authorizes, but does not require, trial judges to appoint attorneys to represent children when a dependency or termination action is filed against their parents. Does due process require an attorney be appointed in every case?
|
These summaries are not formulated by the Court and are provided only for the convenience of the public.
|
