GR 9 Cover Sheet

A)  Proponent: King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.

B)  Spokesperson: Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Gavriel Jacobs (gavriel.jacobs@kingcounty.gov).

C)  Purpose: Unlike most superior court documents, appellate briefs and opinions are easily accessible and may be indexed by popular Internet search engines like Google. While RAP 3.4 currently mandates the use of initials when referring to juvenile defendants, this requirement does not extend to either juvenile or adult victims. This proposed rule will protect the privacy and psychological wellbeing of both minors and victims of sexual abuse by limiting the online exposure of these vulnerable populations.

This rule will also promote uniformity in Washington’s appellate courts.1 The use of initials is currently governed by a patchwork of general orders, potentially leading to confusion and disparate outcomes between jurisdictions. For example, Division Two requires that initials be used for all juvenile witnesses “in sex crime cases.” Division II General Order No. 2011-

1 The proposed rule will also conform court practice with the intent of the legislature as stated in RCW 10.52.100 (“Identify of child victims of sexual assault not to be disclosed”).

1.  Division Three requires the use of initials for “all child witnesses or any victims,” regardless of the underlying offense. Division III General Order In

RE the Use of Initials or Pseudonyms for Child Victims or Child Witnesses.

Division One has not issued any orders regarding the use of initials. Thus, all three divisions have taken different approaches to this issue, and none of the existing orders contemplates adult victims of sexual abuse.

The proposed rule also comports with article I, section 12, of the Washington constitution. The rule does not permit any person to testify anonymously, and anyone who wishes to know the name of a witness can do so by attending the trial or reviewing the superior court record. Based on this reasoning, the Court of Appeals has correctly held on numerous occasions that using initials in filed documents is constitutionally permissible. State v.

Mansour, 14 Wn. App. 2d 323, 332, 470 P.3d 543 (2020); State v. Williams,

No. 53518-1, 2021 WL 1382609 (2021 Unpublished); State v. Streiff, No.

54170-0, 2021 WL 872691 (2021 Unpublished); State v. De Los Santos-

Matuz, No. 79849-9, 2020 WL 5759769 (2020 Unpublished); State v.

Ventar, No. 79178-8, 2020 WL 5759773 (2020 Unpublished); State v.

Airhart-Bryon, No. 78805-1, 2020 WL 1853477 (2020 Unpublished); State

v. Staples, 78460-9, 2019 WL 7373500 (2019 Unpublished).

Finally, Washington courts routinely use initials when referring to minors and adult victims of sexual abuse, and thus the proposed rule is largely codifying existing practice. See, e.g., State v. Tesfasilasye, 200

Wn.2d 345, 518 P.3d 193, 194 (2022) (referring to rape victim by initials);

Haley v. Medical Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 722, n.1, 818 P.2d 1062

(1991) (referring to minor by initials in disciplinary review matter); State v.

Corey, 181 Wn. App. 272, 273, n.1, 325 P.3d 250 (2014) (referring to

juvenile witness using initials).

D)  Hearing: The proponent does not request a public hearing.

E)   Expedited Consideration: The proponent is not requesting expedited consideration.