WA: Washington Prisoner’s Sentence Vacated After Attorney Calls and Visits Were Recorded

Source: prisonlegalnews.org 8/15/24

On January 23, 2024, the Washington Court of Appeals sent the case of a state prisoner back to the trial court that convicted him of second-­degree domestic violence rape and assault, finding the counts must be dismissed or retried because officials at the jail where he was detained pretrial eavesdropped on his privileged communications with his attorney. In its ruling, the Court reaffirmed that when a state actor violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by breaching the attorney-­client privilege, prejudice is presumed and the state must prove the absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt.

After Anthony Lynn Couch was detained at the Grays Harbor County Jail in October 2021 for the alleged assault of his former girlfriend, he learned that phone calls to his attorneys, Christopher Swaby and Ruth Rivas, were recorded. Moreover, his video conferences with the attorneys were recorded, too, and his legal mail from them had been opened in his absence. Couch ceased communicating with his attorneys, and they filed a motion to dismiss his charges based on government misconduct, pursuant to Criminal Rule 8.3(b).

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

At least in regard to the phone calls, to claim that they weren’t listened to should beg the question, then what the hell is the point of recording them?

And I don’t buy that they weren’t for one minute.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dustin

It’s an intrusion. PERIOD. Whether video, audio, or both recorded and watched/listened to or not, it’s an intrusion on his rights. There’s no exception for it when it comes to evidence. PERIOD. They knew what they were doing in that county and wanted to push to ensure a conviction with dirty means at play. The DA should resign, all county LE involved should resign, and so should the judge. This is one reason (outta how many?) why the legal system (not even close to justice) isn’t trusted.

Read the last section first, and see if it’s with your time to see how I got there. 😁

“….prejudice is presumed and the state must prove the absence of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Welcome to PFRdom Grays Harbor County Jail!

We should not only presume prejudice, we should also presume that they have done this before, possible hundreds of times, and they will always be a Frightening and High Risk of doing so again! In addition, we should not limit these presumptions just to the Grays Harbor County Jail, but in apply these presumptions to all jails that have ever engaged in anything remotely similar to this at any point in time. We should also be as all inclusive with the “remotely similar” idea as possible!

Yes, indeed, presume that all have and will continue to engage in this, and possibly more egregious behaviors, forever and that there is no possibility that this can ever change under any circumstances. Indeed, apply all presumptions universally and eternally with the further presumption that all applied presumptions are unquestionably accurate! Do this until….

…proven to be false beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt, by providing evidence to a Court that may, or may not, allow your to enter the evidence you wish to use as proof of an argument against these presumptions, that the court may or may not choose to listen to, based on Courts opinion as to whether it is, or is not, appropriate for them to entertain the notion that the presumptions could be false, when compared to the right of the State to speculate that they are fact without the interference of the Judiciary. Sooooooo, good luck with that.

Once again, welcome to PFRdom! If it’s fair to do this to PFRs, it’s fair to do to you! If it’s unfair to do this to you …😁