Subscribe in a reader

ISSAQUAH LAW GROUP   PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION LAWYERS

Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup - Washington State Supreme Court

In re Detention of Moore

Moore is a bad bad man who does bad bad things. He claimed that his SVP hearing was fundamentally flawed because he was incompetent to stand trial. Moore was no stranger to competency hearings. He was found incompetent twice out of 10 evaluations over the years. When he was deemed incompetent, it involved his not taking his meds, drinking out of urinals, having doo doo butter in his hair, and completing shutting off as far as communication was concerned. During his SVP proceeding, he was cooperating with his counsel, and wasn't exhibiting his usual signs of being incompetent. He argues that the court shouldn't have allowed him to stipulate to certain facts because he was nutter butter, and that it was ineffective assistance for his attorney to allow it.

The trial court found him competent, I get that. There is one part that troubles me. Yes, SVP proceedings are civil, but as far as due process is concerned, the court equated it with just basic civil due process, rather than looking at the liberty interest on par with criminal due process requirements. The liberty interest is the same, non? As such, a heightened standard should be used, such that any waiver of right should be evaluating for knowing and voluntary (which would have probably been met here).

The dissent here took issue with the majority's view that the state need not prove that someone will reoffend in the foreseeable future, looking towards case law stating the danger must be current. I tend to agree with that notion. Again, one that wouldn't be at issue here, but should still be proven.

While I am generally an ardent supporter of our state's SVP laws, I still think we have to be ever vigilant not to trod on the constitution when utilizing them.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.