So there’s really not much going on at the Court. We have Snohomish County Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. FirstGroup Am., Inc., which is really just about an indemnity clause (*yawn*).
We have State v. Johnson, which makes me chuckle because of the euphamism for male genitalia (my sense of humor never progressed much beyond a sixth grade level). Anyhow, that case simply stated the obvious. Chris Hansen can get people to pose as little girls, and when you try to have sex with them thinking they’re little girls, you can be found guilty of a crime. Substitute a police sergeant for Chris Hansen, and substitute undercover detectives for the actors on To Catch a Predator, and you see where this is going.
There were, however, two interesting cases, both criminal.
State v. Thompson involved post-conviction DNA testing. Under the standard, you really have to show that you stand a more probable than not chance of a different result. Here, the guy is alleged to have beat and raped a girl, and there is a statement that said he had consensual sex with her. So DNA wouldn’t make a difference, right? Well, unfortunately, the prosecutor let slide the statement under a stipulation saying it would only be used if he testified. Had there been a hearing on the admissibility of the statement, could have used it in analyzing the post-conviction DNA request. So he gets his test, but my guess here is that it probably won’t make a lick of difference.
This is an interesting analysis of post-conviction dismissal under the sentencing reform act. I won’t bore you with the details, but if you have a 3 strikes case with a post-conviction dismissal under the SRA, you should definitely get to know this case. Maybe take it out for dinner. A couple nice glasses of wine. Definitely be sure to call this case the next day, but don’t wait the full three days, you don’t want to look like you’re playing games.