In the past
several years I have seen an increasing number of DUI cases proceed to jury
trial, even on a first offense.
Prosecuting attorneys across the state are becoming more stringent with
negotiating DUI cases, even more so than serious felony offenses such as rape,
assault, sex crimes, etc. Essentially
the government has taken the position that DUI defendants in Washington are
nearly equivalent to defendants having been charged with a serious sex crime! Does that seem like an exaggeration, well it
isn’t. For example, the King County
District Courts in Seattle are so backed up with DUI cases that have not been
resolved, that the judges are implementing a little know provision under the
speedy trial rule that other judges in the state have never even heard of, it
is called the cure period. The time for
trial is regulated by CrRLJ 3.3 and the very first provision of that rule
states:
(a) General Provisions.
(1) Responsibility of Court. It shall be the responsibility
of the court to ensure a trial in accordance with this rule
to
each person
charged with a crime.
CrRLJ 3.3
(a)(1).
Now when a
defendant cannot be brought to trial under the normal provisions of 3.3 then
the court may, notice I did not say shall, but may, in its discretion add up to
an extra 28 days of time. Here is what
the time for trial cure period provision says:
(g) Cure Period. The
court may continue the case beyond the
limits specified in section (b) on motion of the court or a
party
made within five days after the time for trial has
expired. Such
a continuance may be granted only once in the case upon a
finding
on the record or in writing that the defendant will not be
substantially prejudiced in the presentation of his or her
defense. The period
of delay shall be for no more than 14 days
for a defendant detained in jail, or 28 days for a defendant
not
detained in jail, from the date that the continuance is
granted.
The court may direct the parties to remain in attendance or
be on-
call for trial
assignment during the cure period.
CrRLJ 3.3 (g).
Now does the court adding time a
defendant’s time for trial happen often, the answer is a resounding yes! It happens every single day in King County
District Court Seattle. This addition of
time is now the norm, it is not really even utilized as a discretionary ruling
at this point it is being utilized by the court to accommodate the fact the
King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office has purposefully backlogged their
caseload to the point of overwhelming congestion. Defendants and their attorneys on a DUI will
normally appear about a dozen times even if they are simply trying to get out
to trial. The court is implementing this
portion of the time for trial rule in an abuse of discretion in my
opinion. CrRLJ 3.3 (g) clearly states
that the court “may” continue the case beyond the time periods for up to 28
days. The rule states further that the
continuance shall not be for more than 28 days (for those out of custody).
The court in Seattle is now
imposing an automatic 28 day period, it is not implementing the rule correctly,
that is, to place a case on standby and see if a courtroom opens up. The reason the rule is being implemented is
due to the backlog of cases, directly related to the prosecuting attorney’s
office’s policy of now not negotiating even the most minimal of DUI cases. For example a person charged with a DUI and
with a BAC of below .08 is now being forced to jury trial in an effort to
resolve their case. There are no more
first bites of the apple for a DUI defendant.
I’m a defense attorney and some
might assume I condone drunk driving, I clearly do not. But I also understand that not every single
DUI defendant deserves to have to go through a jury trial when the legislature
quite clearly created an avenue for the resolution of cases under RCW
46.61.5055. For example, a DUI case can
be amended to Reckless Driving or Negligent Driving in the First Degree. In both of those instances, there are
restrictions on a person’s liberty and they are under the jurisdiction of the
court for up to 24 months. The defendant
must also pay fines and fees to the court, obtain an alcohol/drug evaluation, at
a minimum attend an alcohol class or further treatment and a DUI victim’s
panel. A person convicted of a Reckless
Driving is also subject to a 30 day license suspension and requirement for
SR-22 (high-risk) insurance for three years.
In both cases, the State typically asks the defendant to complete at
least one day of jail which is either converted to a day of work crew or
community service. So, the DUI defendant
is not getting away scot-free. The
reductions are also considered prior offenses, meaning that if the individual is
again charged with a DUI in the next 7 years (from date of violation) and are
convicted they face increased penalties (at least 30 days in jail and 60 days
of electronic home detention).
The policy of the King County
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office doesn’t really make sense because clearly every
DUI case cannot be taken to trial, and believe it or not, some defendant’s
cases result in not guilty verdicts. The
KCPA is basically taking the position that if the jury finds the defendant not
guilty then it is on the jury and the office essentially washes it hands of any
“responsibility” for the end result. Is
that really the case, no it isn’t. With
a Not Guilty, the jury concludes that the KCPA had such a weak case that it
should never have been brought in the first place. Remember all six jurors must agree
unanimously. When six people unanimously
agree that a DUI didn’t occur, then quite clearly that case should have been
dealt or never even filed in the first place.
The point of this article is that
the Court, in collusion with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, is
improperly extending the time for trial of DUI Defendants due to the backlog of
cases created by the KCPA’s policy of not dealing any DUIs. The legislative history of the “cure period”
portion of the time for trial rule did not envision this particular use. I believe the Washington State Supreme Court
will be appalled at the court’s activities of extending speedy trial under
these conditions once it is finally addressed.
The rule was meant to be implemented when some extraordinary
circumstance caused a case to extend beyond speedy trial. It was not meant to be applied “just because”
there are no courtrooms to hear a case on the day speedy trial expires. When speedy trial expires, if there is no
good reason for that happening (more so that just court congestion due to an uncompromising
prosecuting attorneys’ office), the case must be dismissed under the rule. It is a shame when judges cave to the demands
of the KCPA. No one condones DUIs, but
in reality many criminal cases of all sorts are amended to reach a resolution,
that is reality.
I’ll leave you with this fact, a
defendant in Kirkland, WA was charged with First Degree Murder for sneaking
into a neighbor’s home and stabbing her to death. The KCPA charged that individual with First
Degree Murder but then amended it to Second Degree murder. The murder suspect got a deal, plain and
simple, but anyone charged with DUI (a misdemeanor by the way) will get no
reduction. Isn’t that a bit out of touch
with reality?
