Read the latest issue of KCLL E-News for information on March and April classes, including sessions to be held at the Maleng Regional Justice Center in Kent! Other highlights include a new source for Washington state history research and recent updates to the Clerk’s Office website, as well as the Blog Post of the Month and New Books.
A United States Supreme Court ruling released today (February 24) provides an exception to the 1981 Edwards v. Arizona decision for a “break in custody” that permits the police to resume questioning a suspect who had previously asked for a lawyer. Seven of the nine justices agreed that if the break in custody lasts more than two weeks between interrogations that the confessions cannot be surpressed under the Edwards decision. The case is Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680).
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued another Miranda related ruling – this time overturning the decision of the Florida Supreme Court that had previously found the Miranda wording used in the case to be constitutionally insufficient. The case is Florida v. Powell (08-1175).
The SCOTUSblog.com has extensive commentary on both decisions.
It’s official. The courts have started getting involved with America’s “instant update” obsession. A February 10th article by David Kravets of Wired Magazine reports that, along with standard court procedures that inform jurors not to discuss cases outside the courtroom, jury instructions are being modified to warn jurors against using cell phones, conducting internet research, or updating social networks with information about cases during trial. I would have thought that the ban against e-gossip would be a no-brainer, but recent mistrials (and near mistrials) have proven me wrong. Oh well. I guess we still have semaphore.
Additional Links:
Proposed Model Jury Instructions: The Use of Electronic Technology…
Why Courts Need to Ban Jurors’ Electronic Communications Devices, by Anita Ramasastry
What exactly does it mean when a court record gets “sealed.” This is a question we get a lot at the Library. The sealing of court records is governed by General Rule 15 of the Washington Court Rules. GR 15 defines sealing as follows: “To seal means to protect from examination by the public and unauthorized court personnel a portion or portions or a specified court record.”
Generally, the effect of sealing a court record has one of two effects:
This does not mean that the court records are destroyed. They are merely “sealed,” or protected from public scrutiny. Tell-tale signs of the court record may still exist in public databases. For instance, the online database SCOMIS may still show the case type, especially if the charge involved domestic violence, but typically the computerized index will show the notation “case vacated” in place of the charge and the conviction after the order to seal is entered. If you commit another criminal offense, these cases may be re-opened and used against you in court.
For more information, please read the following guides from Washington LawHelp:
Sealing Juvenile Court Records in Washington State
Can I Clear My Criminal Record?
Criminal History Records: A Guide on Whenand How to Seal/Vacate…
Last week, we mentioned that the King County Superior Court Clerk’s Office now has a way for you to request court records online. If you have not yet had a chance to look at this new application, we have put together a quick overview of the system and how it looks. You can check it out by following this link and clicking on the Superior Court Online Records Requests guide.
SEATTLE - The King County Law Library Board has announced Rita Dermody as the Interim Librarian and Director of the King County Law Library, effective February 1, 2010. As Interim Director, Dermody will oversee operations and direct all activities of the Library.
“This is a welcome opportunity to serve the Library and the legal community,” said Dermody, “and I am honored by the encouragement I have received.”
“I am delighted with Rita’s appointment and confident that we’re in good hands. We’re fortunate to have someone with her strong experience and long history with the County in this leadership position. The Board of Trustees believes Rita is the right person to guide the Library through this transition,” said Judge Mary Yu, Chair of the King County Law Library Board.
Dermody joined the Law Library as branch librarian in 1998. Since 1999, she has served as Collection Access Services Librarian, managing the Technical Services Department budgets, acquisitions, and collection development. Ms. Dermody earned her Master’s Degree in Library Science from the University of Illinois. She is an active participant in the King County law library community as a committee and task force member in the Law Librarians of Puget Sound (LLOPS) and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), among others.
Dermody will be supported in her responsibilities by newly appointed Assistant Interim Director Richard Stroup. Former Patron Access Service Librarian for King County since 1988, Stroup is also an active member of AALL and past president of LLOPS, where he twice received the President’s Excellence Award.
The King County Law Library serves the legal and law related information needs of the county, including judges, county officials, members of the bar, and other residents. The Library is open to the public and has a knowledgeable staff available to assist with legal research needs.
A search for a permanent director will be undertaken in the next 12 months. For further information, contact Judge Mary Yu, President of the King County Law Library Board of Trustees at 206.296.9275.
Interviews with Rita Dermody may be arranged by calling her directly at 206.205.6101.
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 9, 2010 |
###
A frightening bit from Sherwood Forest:
News reports indicate that 45-year-old Colin Gunn was permitted by prison wardens to set up a Facebook account from which he had been threatening persons whom he intends to target upon his release. It seems that this gang boss from Nottingham, England, is serving a 35-year sentence in a maximum security prison for conspiracy to commit murder. His account had been open for two months and, in that time, he amassed 565 “friends”, threatened individuals for “disappointing” him, and continued to run his organization. His account was shut down on Friday, January 29, right before the Times published their article exposing his activity.
Unfortunately, this is a trend in social networking. Twitter, MySpace, and YouTube also are being used as cybercenters for criminal activity. “Cyberbanging”, as some call it, is now a means of recruiting, threatening and bragging about criminal exploits. However, MySpace is the site of choice since it has been around longer and is easier to search.
Seems Mr. Gunn is not the first to come up with this idea. And he likely won’t be the last.
The King County Superior Court Clerk’s Office recently introduced a new online application to request copies of court documents. The system requires that you set up an account before you can begin requesting superior court filings and you can pay for your request via credit card or electronic check.
In addition to being able to request court records online, the system also allows you to request certified copies, exemplified copies and expedited service. Users can request documents via case number from 1979 forward and it includes those cases that cannot be accessed using the Clerk’s Office ECR system.
For more information, you can contact the Clerk’s Office at 206-296-9300, or go to their website.
Firms and individuals who join KCLL’s annual Subscriber Program are entitled to check out materials from our Seattle and MRJC branches and receive discounts on additional library services. Each year during the first week of February, we close out accounts from the previous year that have not renewed for the current year. This process is happening right now so if you or your firm were members in 2009 and haven’t returned the 2010 renewal materials we mailed to you in early December, please do so immediately to prevent a lapse in your borrowing privileges. If you have any questions about the Subscriber Program or the status of your account, please contact us at (206) 296-0940.
On January 21, 2010, a divided United States Supreme Court ruled to overturn a century of legal precedent in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205.
Written by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that certain aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were unconstitutional. At issue was whether or not the limiting of independent corporate spending on political speech during campaigns, as outlined in the provisions of the BCRA, was a violation of the First Amendment. Up until now, corporations were allowed to spend money on campaigns via other avenues, such as Political Action Committees (PACs), but not from their own general treasury. Reversing prior rulings, the court ruled that these limitations to speech were in fact a violation of the First Amendment. Joining Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion were Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Justice Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts. A ninety-page dissent was issued by Justice Stevens, who was joined by Justice Sotomayor, Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg.
The Court’s ruling may not have that much effect here in Washington State, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission. Washington law does not prohibit contributions from corporations or unions from their general treasury as long as those expenditures are reported correctly. However, the Commission is still reviewing the portion of the decision that affects ads that run in the closing days of elections. For more information on how this ruling affects other states, the First Amendment Center has a breakdown on their website.
For full text of the decision, along with concurrence and dissents, you can go to the Supreme Court website and download a copy of the slip opinion. For individual links to the majority opinion, as well as the individual concurrences and dissents, you can check out the Cornell Website. Additional analysis has been provided by the folks over at SCOTUS blog.