An idea to help fix our legal system

[RandomPoster]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Too cumbersome. You want to assemble a jury before charges are brought. That is costly a burdensome to the citizens who ate called.

I appreciate your goal, but that isn’t the solution.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

They already have something like that but it's not something that I consider a "fix":

Secret Hearings: Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff' | Seattle Times Newspaper

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - Page updated at 10:00 p.m.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press
A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed he had already seen the defendant's bank records.

That's odd, thought the lawyer, Robert Thompson of Pasco. There's no search warrant for the bank records. How'd he get them?

The answer: with a subpoena secretly issued by a judge. The case provides a window into the little-known "special inquiry judge proceedings." They are used in many Washington counties — in one notable recent use, Snohomish County prosecutors compelled testimony from the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer later charged with manslaughter.

Prosecutors who use them say the proceedings are authorized by state law, make for more efficient investigations and have plenty of judicial oversight.

But Thompson and other defense attorneys say they raise questions about privacy, accountability and open administration of justice.

"The public has a right to know that the government is doing all this sneak-and-peek stuff," said Thompson's co-counsel, Lenell Nussbaum of Seattle. "These special inquiry files are not public. How does the public know this is happening? What happens to the evidence that was taken?"

How it works

The proceedings, created by the Legislature in 1971, function as grand juries without the grand jury: At the request of a prosecutor, a judge can secretly hear from witnesses, review evidence or issue subpoenas based on a reasonable belief that someone "may be able" to provide testimony or evidence.

The proceedings are used as investigators try to develop probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but are immune from prosecution for what they say — important in complex public corruption or organized crime investigations.

If no charges are ever filed, no one aside from those involved ever learns the proceedings occurred.

The special inquiry law doesn't require sworn statements or a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed, as issuance of a search warrant would.

The Benton County Prosecutor's Office, which is prosecuting Thompson's client's case, says its attorneys are typically under oath when they appear before special inquiry judges.

However, the subpoena issued by the judge in Alfredo Ahumada Ozuna Jr.'s case was not based on any sworn statements, nor did the judge make any findings about why the subpoena for his bank records was necessary, according to an unsealed transcript of the special inquiry proceeding.

That raises state and federal privacy concerns, Nussbaum and Thompson said. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

Continued at the hyperlink above​

 

[RandomPoster]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

They already have something like that but it's not something that I consider a "fix":

Secret Hearings: Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff' | Seattle Times Newspaper

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - Page updated at 10:00 p.m.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press
A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed he had already seen the defendant's bank records.

That's odd, thought the lawyer, Robert Thompson of Pasco. There's no search warrant for the bank records. How'd he get them?

The answer: with a subpoena secretly issued by a judge. The case provides a window into the little-known "special inquiry judge proceedings." They are used in many Washington counties — in one notable recent use, Snohomish County prosecutors compelled testimony from the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer later charged with manslaughter.

Prosecutors who use them say the proceedings are authorized by state law, make for more efficient investigations and have plenty of judicial oversight.

But Thompson and other defense attorneys say they raise questions about privacy, accountability and open administration of justice.

"The public has a right to know that the government is doing all this sneak-and-peek stuff," said Thompson's co-counsel, Lenell Nussbaum of Seattle. "These special inquiry files are not public. How does the public know this is happening? What happens to the evidence that was taken?"

How it works

The proceedings, created by the Legislature in 1971, function as grand juries without the grand jury: At the request of a prosecutor, a judge can secretly hear from witnesses, review evidence or issue subpoenas based on a reasonable belief that someone "may be able" to provide testimony or evidence.

The proceedings are used as investigators try to develop probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but are immune from prosecution for what they say — important in complex public corruption or organized crime investigations.

If no charges are ever filed, no one aside from those involved ever learns the proceedings occurred.

The special inquiry law doesn't require sworn statements or a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed, as issuance of a search warrant would.

The Benton County Prosecutor's Office, which is prosecuting Thompson's client's case, says its attorneys are typically under oath when they appear before special inquiry judges.

However, the subpoena issued by the judge in Alfredo Ahumada Ozuna Jr.'s case was not based on any sworn statements, nor did the judge make any findings about why the subpoena for his bank records was necessary, according to an unsealed transcript of the special inquiry proceeding.

That raises state and federal privacy concerns, Nussbaum and Thompson said. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

Continued at the hyperlink above​

The article you linked is dealing with an entirely diferent matter altogether. It deals with how they obtained the information. I'm not talking about how they can obtain the information. I'm talking who they share it with and at what point in time. I'm saying that rules for obtaining evidence shouldn't change, simply that the prosecutor should be able to share it with the jury in private before the trial begins without the judge, the defendant, or the defendant's attorney ever hearing anything about it or even bing made aware what was presented to the jury before the trial.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Term Limits.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

They already have something like that but it's not something that I consider a "fix":

Secret Hearings: Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff' | Seattle Times Newspaper

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - Page updated at 10:00 p.m.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press
A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed he had already seen the defendant's bank records.

That's odd, thought the lawyer, Robert Thompson of Pasco. There's no search warrant for the bank records. How'd he get them?

The answer: with a subpoena secretly issued by a judge. The case provides a window into the little-known "special inquiry judge proceedings." They are used in many Washington counties — in one notable recent use, Snohomish County prosecutors compelled testimony from the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer later charged with manslaughter.

Prosecutors who use them say the proceedings are authorized by state law, make for more efficient investigations and have plenty of judicial oversight.

But Thompson and other defense attorneys say they raise questions about privacy, accountability and open administration of justice.

"The public has a right to know that the government is doing all this sneak-and-peek stuff," said Thompson's co-counsel, Lenell Nussbaum of Seattle. "These special inquiry files are not public. How does the public know this is happening? What happens to the evidence that was taken?"

How it works

The proceedings, created by the Legislature in 1971, function as grand juries without the grand jury: At the request of a prosecutor, a judge can secretly hear from witnesses, review evidence or issue subpoenas based on a reasonable belief that someone "may be able" to provide testimony or evidence.

The proceedings are used as investigators try to develop probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but are immune from prosecution for what they say — important in complex public corruption or organized crime investigations.

If no charges are ever filed, no one aside from those involved ever learns the proceedings occurred.

The special inquiry law doesn't require sworn statements or a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed, as issuance of a search warrant would.

The Benton County Prosecutor's Office, which is prosecuting Thompson's client's case, says its attorneys are typically under oath when they appear before special inquiry judges.

However, the subpoena issued by the judge in Alfredo Ahumada Ozuna Jr.'s case was not based on any sworn statements, nor did the judge make any findings about why the subpoena for his bank records was necessary, according to an unsealed transcript of the special inquiry proceeding.

That raises state and federal privacy concerns, Nussbaum and Thompson said. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

Continued at the hyperlink above​

The article you linked is dealing with an entirely diferent matter altogether. It deals with how they obtained the information. I'm not talking about how they can obtain the information. I'm talking who they share it with and at what point in time. I'm saying that rules for obtaining evidence shouldn't change, simply that the prosecutor should be able to share it with the jury in private before the trial begins without the judge, the defendant, or the defendant's attorney ever hearing anything about it or even bing made aware what was presented to the jury before the trial.

What would prevent the prosecutor from cherry picking jurors who support the prosecutor's position that the defendant is guilty? The whole point of allowing the defense to "cross-examine" prospective jurors is to attempt to detect bias, implicit or otherwise and prevent those individuals from serving as jurors on the case

In the United States, voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case
the point of voire dire - Google Search
​

It is inherently prejudicial to the defendant to allow only the prosecutor access to the potential jury pool. The prosecutor's entire job and motivation is to win the case on behalf of the government against the defendant by presenting evidence that will persuade the trier of fact (jury or judge) of his or her guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Your proposed method probably would be a violation of his/her contitutional/civil rights as well.

Many of the comments made here on U.S. Message Board and other areas of social media are generally sufficient to get someone eliminated from the prospective jury pool, as it should.

 

[Marion Morrison]

My suggestion:

Bring back speedy jury trial, none of this "waive speedy trial" crap.

As for the state, bring charges and support them within that time frame or forget it.

Hang all violent offenders. Violent robbers, rapists, and murderers 1-2 weeks after their sentence.

All trials must be by jury.

This is the way the Founding Fathers intended.

 

[RandomPoster]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

They already have something like that but it's not something that I consider a "fix":

Secret Hearings: Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff' | Seattle Times Newspaper

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - Page updated at 10:00 p.m.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press
A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed he had already seen the defendant's bank records.

That's odd, thought the lawyer, Robert Thompson of Pasco. There's no search warrant for the bank records. How'd he get them?

The answer: with a subpoena secretly issued by a judge. The case provides a window into the little-known "special inquiry judge proceedings." They are used in many Washington counties — in one notable recent use, Snohomish County prosecutors compelled testimony from the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer later charged with manslaughter.

Prosecutors who use them say the proceedings are authorized by state law, make for more efficient investigations and have plenty of judicial oversight.

But Thompson and other defense attorneys say they raise questions about privacy, accountability and open administration of justice.

"The public has a right to know that the government is doing all this sneak-and-peek stuff," said Thompson's co-counsel, Lenell Nussbaum of Seattle. "These special inquiry files are not public. How does the public know this is happening? What happens to the evidence that was taken?"

How it works

The proceedings, created by the Legislature in 1971, function as grand juries without the grand jury: At the request of a prosecutor, a judge can secretly hear from witnesses, review evidence or issue subpoenas based on a reasonable belief that someone "may be able" to provide testimony or evidence.

The proceedings are used as investigators try to develop probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but are immune from prosecution for what they say — important in complex public corruption or organized crime investigations.

If no charges are ever filed, no one aside from those involved ever learns the proceedings occurred.

The special inquiry law doesn't require sworn statements or a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed, as issuance of a search warrant would.

The Benton County Prosecutor's Office, which is prosecuting Thompson's client's case, says its attorneys are typically under oath when they appear before special inquiry judges.

However, the subpoena issued by the judge in Alfredo Ahumada Ozuna Jr.'s case was not based on any sworn statements, nor did the judge make any findings about why the subpoena for his bank records was necessary, according to an unsealed transcript of the special inquiry proceeding.

That raises state and federal privacy concerns, Nussbaum and Thompson said. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

Continued at the hyperlink above​

How about if instead of selecting the 12, the DA at least gets to spend a few days with the 12 jurors having a private conversation off the record where he presents evidence to them alone and attempts to harden them against the things the defense might try? This would reduce the shenanigans the defense might pull.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

They already have something like that but it's not something that I consider a "fix":

Secret Hearings: Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff' | Seattle Times Newspaper

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - Page updated at 10:00 p.m.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press
A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed he had already seen the defendant's bank records.

That's odd, thought the lawyer, Robert Thompson of Pasco. There's no search warrant for the bank records. How'd he get them?

The answer: with a subpoena secretly issued by a judge. The case provides a window into the little-known "special inquiry judge proceedings." They are used in many Washington counties — in one notable recent use, Snohomish County prosecutors compelled testimony from the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer later charged with manslaughter.

Prosecutors who use them say the proceedings are authorized by state law, make for more efficient investigations and have plenty of judicial oversight.

But Thompson and other defense attorneys say they raise questions about privacy, accountability and open administration of justice.

"The public has a right to know that the government is doing all this sneak-and-peek stuff," said Thompson's co-counsel, Lenell Nussbaum of Seattle. "These special inquiry files are not public. How does the public know this is happening? What happens to the evidence that was taken?"

How it works

The proceedings, created by the Legislature in 1971, function as grand juries without the grand jury: At the request of a prosecutor, a judge can secretly hear from witnesses, review evidence or issue subpoenas based on a reasonable belief that someone "may be able" to provide testimony or evidence.

The proceedings are used as investigators try to develop probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but are immune from prosecution for what they say — important in complex public corruption or organized crime investigations.

If no charges are ever filed, no one aside from those involved ever learns the proceedings occurred.

The special inquiry law doesn't require sworn statements or a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed, as issuance of a search warrant would.

The Benton County Prosecutor's Office, which is prosecuting Thompson's client's case, says its attorneys are typically under oath when they appear before special inquiry judges.

However, the subpoena issued by the judge in Alfredo Ahumada Ozuna Jr.'s case was not based on any sworn statements, nor did the judge make any findings about why the subpoena for his bank records was necessary, according to an unsealed transcript of the special inquiry proceeding.

That raises state and federal privacy concerns, Nussbaum and Thompson said. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

Continued at the hyperlink above​

The article you linked is dealing with an entirely diferent matter altogether. It deals with how they obtained the information. I'm not talking about how they can obtain the information. I'm talking who they share it with and at what point in time. I'm saying that rules for obtaining evidence shouldn't change, simply that the prosecutor should be able to share it with the jury in private before the trial begins without the judge, the defendant, or the defendant's attorney ever hearing anything about it or even bing made aware what was presented to the jury before the trial.

A proposal prima facie un-Constitutional, a clear violation of the 6th Amendment right to a public trial by an impartial jury and the right of the defendant to confront the witnesses against him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to avoid pointing the finger at so many innocent people in the media and forcing them to pay for a lawyer and go to court to suffer through a trial, I propose a solution. It would also guarantee a speedy trial.

The police investigate you. The DA brings charges. The DA meets privately with only the jury and selects the twelve he likes. He tries to persuade the jury you are guilty. Only after he can convince the jury that you are guilty do we proceed. If he can't convince the jury, you are never even contacted. A judge is located for a private meeting with the DA, you are contacted by the police, arrested, brought to the courthouse, given an opportunity to get a lawyer, and you are then informed of what has been happening as well as what the jury has found you guilty of. This way, they don't bother you unless they are pretty sure you are guilty. You would be spared having your picture in the paper and spared the expense of a trial if we know you're not guilty. You would be spared from even having to prove your innocence. You would also be guaranteed a speedy trial.

You can then enter a plea. If you plead innocent, the trial resumes with the same jury on the spot. The DA has already presented his evidence to the jury, so there is no need to re-hash it and waste everyone's time. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have to share any evidence with each other. It will be made available as it is brought up in court starting from this point on. You are then given a fair chance to prove your innocence.

They already have something like that but it's not something that I consider a "fix":

Secret Hearings: Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff' | Seattle Times Newspaper

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - Page updated at 10:00 p.m.

Obscure law used by prosecutors is 'sneak-and-peek stuff'

By GENE JOHNSON
The Associated Press
A defense lawyer in Eastern Washington was reading a detective's statement in his client's drug case when he came across a curious line. In asking to search the man's house and cars, the detective revealed he had already seen the defendant's bank records.

That's odd, thought the lawyer, Robert Thompson of Pasco. There's no search warrant for the bank records. How'd he get them?

The answer: with a subpoena secretly issued by a judge. The case provides a window into the little-known "special inquiry judge proceedings." They are used in many Washington counties — in one notable recent use, Snohomish County prosecutors compelled testimony from the 5-year-old daughter of a Marysville police officer later charged with manslaughter.

Prosecutors who use them say the proceedings are authorized by state law, make for more efficient investigations and have plenty of judicial oversight.

But Thompson and other defense attorneys say they raise questions about privacy, accountability and open administration of justice.

"The public has a right to know that the government is doing all this sneak-and-peek stuff," said Thompson's co-counsel, Lenell Nussbaum of Seattle. "These special inquiry files are not public. How does the public know this is happening? What happens to the evidence that was taken?"

How it works

The proceedings, created by the Legislature in 1971, function as grand juries without the grand jury: At the request of a prosecutor, a judge can secretly hear from witnesses, review evidence or issue subpoenas based on a reasonable belief that someone "may be able" to provide testimony or evidence.

The proceedings are used as investigators try to develop probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but are immune from prosecution for what they say — important in complex public corruption or organized crime investigations.

If no charges are ever filed, no one aside from those involved ever learns the proceedings occurred.

The special inquiry law doesn't require sworn statements or a finding of probable cause that a crime has been committed, as issuance of a search warrant would.

The Benton County Prosecutor's Office, which is prosecuting Thompson's client's case, says its attorneys are typically under oath when they appear before special inquiry judges.

However, the subpoena issued by the judge in Alfredo Ahumada Ozuna Jr.'s case was not based on any sworn statements, nor did the judge make any findings about why the subpoena for his bank records was necessary, according to an unsealed transcript of the special inquiry proceeding.

That raises state and federal privacy concerns, Nussbaum and Thompson said. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says people have the right to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation."

Continued at the hyperlink above​

The article you linked is dealing with an entirely diferent matter altogether. It deals with how they obtained the information. I'm not talking about how they can obtain the information. I'm talking who they share it with and at what point in time. I'm saying that rules for obtaining evidence shouldn't change, simply that the prosecutor should be able to share it with the jury in private before the trial begins without the judge, the defendant, or the defendant's attorney ever hearing anything about it or even bing made aware what was presented to the jury before the trial.

A proposal prima facie un-Constitutional, a clear violation of the 6th Amendment right to a public trial by an impartial jury and the right of the defendant to confront the witnesses against him.

The right to due process and a presumption of innocence is not ‘shenanigans.’

The burden of proof rests solely with the state; if a defense attorney is able to destroy the state’s case, the fault is with the prosecution alone, not the defense.