Rule 8.3.b Explained Noble Award Washington State Supreme Court

Send us a text

The Consider Podcast
Examining Today's Wisdom, Folly, and Madness
www.consider.info

www.consider.info

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Noble Award from the Consider Podcast,
wwwconsiderinfo, awarding theWashington State Supreme Court
for Criminal Rule 8.3.B.
The Washington State SupremeCourt issued power for
Washington State judges todismiss criminal charges.

(00:21):
The Washington State SupremeCourt merits recognition for its
decision on Criminal Rule 8.3.B.
It's understandable thatprosecutors of Washington State
are resistant to having theirdirty diaper changed, but I
would prefer to focus on thesignificance of this ruling at
this time.
It should be noted this ruledoes not address the issues of

(00:43):
corruption involving Judge BethM Andrus, who has shielded
Detective Grant McCall fromscrutiny.
Nor does it confront the showtrial chock full of right rape
in proceedings overseen by JudgeLori K Smith in the
prosecutor's successful attemptto take down a righteous
Christian church by using anaccused crime.

(01:03):
That was both impossible and,by their own acknowledgement,
they had zero evidence topresent to a jury See Washington
State v Malcolm Fraser,evidence located at
wwwconsiderinfo orwwwedamclawcom.
Rule 8.3b will be commendableonly if the judges maintain

(01:25):
truth and integrity.
Only judges of high integritycan benefit Washington state by
restraining the currentexcessively uncontrolled
prosecutors and their policethat are destroying justice at a
rampant level.
This is one reason prosecutorsof Washington state refer to
jury selection as their dog andpony show.

(01:46):
The following is a commissionanalysis of Criminal Rule 8.3.B
issued by the Washington StateSupreme Court.
Invalidating unjust prosecutionssome positive consequences in
Washington State criminal law.
Whether you reside inWashington or another state in

(02:07):
our country, you can typicallyrely on a wide range of rules
and principles when facing acriminal trial, from hearing the
actual charges levied againstyou to being judged in front of
a jury of your peers.
There are certain tenets thatall of us hold dear, even if we
don't think about them thatoften.
At the same time, certainjudicial decisions can change

(02:28):
many of the norms and principlesthat we hold so dear.
Because these decisions arebeing made by the highest courts
, they are binding on all of uswithin the court's jurisdiction.
How relevant is this to thestate of Washington?
Several days ago, the SupremeCourt of Washington issued a
decision that makes a key changeto Washington state criminal

(02:49):
rule 8.3b.
Ultimately, the decision givesjudges the authority to dismiss
criminal charges that theybelieve are unjust.
On the surface, it seems likethis decision is the perfect
example of judicial overreach.
It seems like this decision isthe perfect example of judicial
overreach.
Giving judges the power tothrow out criminal charges that

(03:11):
they personally deem unjustcould be seen as unjustified
power in the hands of oneindividual.
That being said, I would takethe opposite side of this debate
.
This decision, even though itseems broad on the surface,
gives an extremely importantpower to judges, that power
Reigning in rogue prosecutorswho are seeking to prosecute
cases that shouldn't be tried.

(03:34):
The Rule Change this specificrule change, wasn't made in a
vacuum.
It was in response to a rulethat was supported by public
defense offices, which includedthose in King and Snohomish
counties.
Those public defense officessupported the proposed adoption
of amendments to Rule 8.3b.
But let's back up.

(03:55):
What exactly is Rule 8.3b?
Rule 8.3b is a provision thatoutlines certain scenarios that
allow for the dismissal ofcriminal indictments,
information or complaints.
Those dismissals can occur onmotion by the prosecution,
defense or court.
The court's ability to dismissis the relevant power here.

(04:19):
The court's ability to dismissis the relevant power here,
before the amendment, thelanguage provided for a court to
dismiss the criminalprosecution due to arbitrary
action or governmentalmisconduct when there has been
prejudice to the rights of theaccused which materially affect
the accused's right to a fairtrial.

(04:41):
As you can see, the rule isthere to give the court some
flexibility if there is amaterial fact that affects the
ability to gain a fair trial.
That ability to get a fairtrial is the important language
here.
In the amendment, theWashington Supreme Court
completely eliminated thelanguage that states which

(05:01):
materially affect the accused'sright to a fair trial.
Along with that, the court saidthe following In deciding
whether to dismiss, the courtshall consider the following
factors, in addition to anyother information the court
believes is relevant to theinquiry 1.
The seriousness andcircumstances of the offense.

(05:21):
2.
The impact of a dismissal orlack of dismissal on the safety
or welfare of the community.
The defendant is part of thecommunity.
3.
The impact of a dismissal orlack of dismissal upon the
confidence of the public in thecriminal justice system.
4.
The degree and impact of thearbitrary action or governmental

(05:45):
misconduct.
As you can see, the WashingtonSupreme Court gave Washington
judges immensely more discretionin deciding whether or not to
dismiss criminal charges.
Instead of just looking atwhether the accused's right to a
fair trial is materiallyaffected, the court can consider
factors like the public'sconfidence in the judicial
system and how a dismissal orlack of dismissal will affect a

(06:09):
community's safety or welfare.
Ultimately, this amended Rule8.3b goes into effect on
September 1, 2025.
The rule effectively overturnsa seminal case called State v
Starish.
Starish played a role inlimiting judicial discretion
when dismissing criminal charges.

(06:29):
Even more significant is thefact that the Washington State
Legislature considered aproposal that would let judges
reduce sentencing based on theirpersonal beliefs of fairness.
That proposal was never enactedinto law, which raises red
flags in the eyes of critics ofthis new rule change.
The positive side of asignificant rule change.

(06:52):
There is already public outcryabout how this rule change will
empower criminal judgesthroughout the state of
Washington.
Rule change will empowercriminal judges throughout the
state of Washington.
Already, we are hearing talkabout how activist judges will
essentially let a criminal runfree if they believe the
criminal needs a break.
The potential is there forjudges to succumb to the
pressure of public opinion, forinstance, even if dismissing

(07:15):
specific criminal charges willdo more harm to community safety
in the long run.
These criticisms aren'tmeritless.
Judges will will do more harmto community safety in the long
run.
These criticisms aren'tmeritless.
Judges will now have more powerto let criminals off easy and
to let public opinion anddiscourse sway their decisions.
At the same time, critics seemto overlook a positive
consequence of this new rulechange.

(07:37):
Just think about a situationlike this, this new rule change.
Just think about a situationlike this A rogue prosecutor
decides to bring criminalcharges against a specific
community leader.
That community leader was inthe wrong place at the wrong
time.
That community leader is amember of some political party
and the prosecutor is a memberof the opposing political party.
On the surface, those chargesseem frivolous.

(08:00):
It was just an unfortunateseries of events that led the
community leader to be in asituation where criminal
activity took place.
Nevertheless, the prosecutordecided to bring criminal
charges against that individual,even if the charges don't have
much evidence behind them.
In that type of situation, thisamended Rule 8.3b may be

(08:22):
beneficial.
The judge overseeing thecriminal case would have the
discretion to drop the chargesentirely.
That judge would have thediscretion under all four of the
circumstances outlined by theamendment.
Whether it was due to theimpact on the community, impact
on the public's confidence inthe criminal justice system or
something else, that judge wouldbe well justified to act.

(08:45):
Or there could be a situationwhere prosecutors were too
shoddy in their work.
Let's say that there is amanhunt for a serial killer in
Washington.
The police arrest a suspect,but the evidence linking that
suspect to the killings isextremely thin.
Further complicating the matteris whether the public and or
media were looking to blame thekillings on someone.

(09:08):
If the government's actionswere so shoddy and sloppy, a
judge could act to drop thecharges.
In that specific scenario, thatjudge could be saving a falsely
accused defendant fromsignificant prison time,
balancing the Merits.
Like many debates over criminallaw, there are two camps at odds

(09:29):
here.
On one side you have thelaw-and-order camp.
That camp is rightly concernedabout letting hardened criminals
go free.
Yet in this specific debatethey are overly focused on that
cost rather than justice withorder.
Justice with order.
In other words, theyunderweight the very real

(09:50):
scenario of a rogue prosecutorunjustly pursuing a criminal
action against an innocentperson.
Ultimately, I encourageWashington citizens to focus on
the positive aspects of thisrule change.
There are very real scenarioswhere innocent people have their
lives destroyed because ofrogue prosecutors pursuing their
own agendas.
This rule change goes a longway in preventing these types of

(10:13):
situations from happening.
Not only can the judge makethat decision when a criminal
case is in front of them, butthe rule change creates a
deterrent effect.
In effect, prosecutors shouldbe less willing to bring cases
that lack merit.
But in the end, this entirediscussion relies on one group
the judges.

(10:33):
The amended Rule 8.3b assumesthat judges will be honorable
and will act according to theirbetter angels.
This is a key assumption andone that we can't take for
granted.
On one side, there may besituations where judges properly
use the new 8.3b to protectinnocent individuals.
However, there may be othersituations where these judges

(10:57):
abuse 8.3b and let hardenedcriminals walk free.
So what can we as members of thepublic do?
For one thing, judges areelected.
It's critical to vote in everyelection, but especially so now
that judges have this expandedpower.
If there comes a time when ajudge is abusing their power,

(11:18):
under this rule, washingtoncitizens can vote them out
Beyond elections.
Members of the public need tobe vigilant.
If we see a judge not followingthe letter of this new rule, we
must make our voices known.
We can peacefully protest, forinstance.
While there isn't much we cando to convince the judge to make

(11:39):
actual decisions, we can remindthe judge that we are paying
attention.
Yes, the judges have the powerhere, but we aren't powerless.
Yes, the judges have the powerhere, but we aren't powerless.
Through this patchwork ofsolutions, we can do our part.
We can balance both sides ofthis debate and help make
Washington safer and more just.
The Consider Podcast Examiningtoday's wisdom, folly and

(12:11):
madness.