Submitted By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Advocates of allowing the convicted the opportunity to have DNA tests performed on evidence in the hope of releasing from prison innocent persons could find benefit in an En Banc ruling by the Washington Supreme Court.
In State v. Crumpton the Court created a standard lower courts court should use to decide a motion for post-conviction DNA testing and whether a court should presume DNA evidence would be favorable to the convicted individual when determining if it is likely the evidence would prove his or her innocence in order to determine if the DNA test is provided.
In 1993 petitioner Lindsey Crumpton was convicted of five counts of rape in the first degree and one count of residential burglary. He then petitioned the Superior Court to grant him a post-conviction DNA test as provided in RCW 10.73.170(3) which reads in pertinent part:
(3) The court shall grant a motion requesting DNA testing under this section if such motion is in the form required by subsection (2) of this section, and the convicted person has shown the likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate innocence on a more probable than not basis
The superior court denied this motion, saying he had not shown a ‘”likelihood that the DNA evidence would demonstrate his innocence on a more probable than not basis.” An appeal to a Washington Court of Appeals ultimately denied the defendant’s motion and affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of his motion. The Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded the motion back to the trial court to apply the new standard in determining whether such DNA testing should be granted.
Continue reading “Washington Supreme Court Clarifies Requirements For Post-Conviction DNA Testing” →
The website of Attorney Delbert Joe Modlin, 63, proclaims in big bold letters that “Joe Modlin Protects the Elderly.” Indeed, the Sacramento attorney describes his lifelong passion for “Elder Law” and “championing the elderly and ensuring they are not taken advantage of.” It was somewhat incongruous therefore when Modlin was last week with financial elder abuse as well as grand theft and securities fraud. Making it all the more bizarre was the allegation that he bilked a 90-year-old man of his savings to invest in what he claimed was a new type of litter box that he had invented.
