Subscribe in a reader


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 Supreme Court: Go Read the Coggins Case, We're Deciding Nothing New Here Re: Public Trial Rights

Personal Restraint of Speight

Seriously, you should read Coggins first. Okay, have you read it? Good, because I’m not going to recap how similar these two cases are.

Speight is a little different in that there was also the question as to whether Motions in Limine are subject to a public trial analysis. Here, Chief Justice Madsen would hold they are not. 

The other 8 justices skirt the issue, both on issues of justiciability. The lead opinion states that because their was a closure with the voir dire, it need not decide if a second closure happened with the motions in liming. If there was a closure, the appellant would still need to show actual and substantial prejudice, which he did not.

The dissent claims that any closure would be prejudicial, and since there was a closure with the voir dire, then there is no need to reach whether there was a second prejudicial closure. They’re both right, and the majority errs on the side of not reaching issues it need not address. 

So here’s the breakdown, we still don’t know if holding motions in limine in chambers amounts to a violation of a public trial right or not. Best to hold them in open court.

While Issaquah Legal Services does not yet have a criminal attorney, we plan on having one in the near future. Please feel free to call us for recommendations on a Criminal Law Attorney.

Subscribe in a reader

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