State of Washington

Ethics Advisory Committee

Question

May a judicial officer in open court consider the Judicial Information System screen of a defendant when setting conditions of release?

The prosecutor does not have the criminal history information in all cases and judicial officers are required to consider relevant factors, including criminal history and failures to appear (warrant information) in setting bail and other conditions of release.

Answer

CJC Canon 2(A) provides in part that judges should comply with the law. Canon 3(A)(1) also provides that judges should be faithful to the law. The terms for the release of the accused are set out in CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2. Section (a) of both rules provides in part that the court shall “on available information” consider relevant facts when setting conditions on the release of the accused. CrR 3.2(m) and CrRLJ 3.2(l) provide that evidence offered in connection with the release of the accused does not need to conform to the rules pertaining to the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.
CJC Canon 2(A) and 3(A)(1) provide that judicial officers are required to follow the law. CrR 3.2 and CrRLJ 3.2 provide that judicial officers must consider a variety of factors, including criminal history, when determining the release of the accused. Those factors shall be based on available information and that information does not need to conform to the rules for the admissibility of evidence in court. A judicial officer may, therefore, consider the Judicial Information System screen when setting the conditions of release. The judicial officer should advise the defendant that he or she is looking at the Judicial Information System screen and should recite the criminal history or other relevant information displayed on the screen so that the defendant can dispute that information if he or she indicates it is not correct.

Opinion 04-07

11/12/2004