Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. 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 in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

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 Supreme Court: Prosecutors Can Flaunt Truthiness Clause in Testimony Contract

State v. Ish

This is a very bad morning comedically for me. I went on a run at 5:30. I came back. I went to work. I'd rather just take a nap. But here I am...handed a softball like "Ish", and I'm too tired to make a poop joke. I'm too tired to make a running gag where I just substitute "ish" for is. My brain has just given up.

Anyhow, I suppose we should talk about the case. Well, its a 4-4-1, so the only law made is where the 4 converge with the other 4. Let's see what they say. Turns out this is a murder case where the prosecutor entered into an agreement with a witness, which required he testify truthfully. During the testimony, the prosecutor whips out the contract and uses it to talk about how the witness will be truthful. Vouching, right? THe court agreed....or at least the lead opinion agreed. The concurrence says this really isn't misconduct, because an adept defense attorney sees that as a gold mine for impeachment of the witness.

I tend to agree with both. I think an objection can be made, but wouldn't you rather do the following:

A: Mr. Jones, you came here today to testify against my client?

W: Yes, I did.

A: And you were recommended leniency in exchange for your testimony?

W: Yes.

A: In fact, they made you sign a contract.

W: Yes.

A: They made you sign a contract that you would testify here.

W: Yes.

A: They made you sign a contract that you would testify here and that you would be truthful.

W: Yes.

A: And they wouldn't give you leniency unless you signed this contract

W: No, they wouldn't give it to me unless I signed.

A: They wouldn't give you leniency unless you signed a contract to be truthful.

W. No.

A: So they didn't trust you to testify truthfully unless they got it in writing?

The dissent by Sanders would have reversed. The law made here today is it was error, but the court of appeals is affirmed anyhow.


Subscribe in a reader

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