Legal Opinion

State v. Nemitz

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 13, 2001No. 18680-6-IIIPublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

This driving under the influence (DUI) case presents two issues. First, did the district court violate Keith Nemitz’s constitutional right to a representative jury by refusing to provide an interpreter for a Vietnamese prospective juror who had trouble understanding spoken English? Mr. Nemitz has no constitutional right to a non-English-speaking juror. The court did not err then by refusing to seat and provide an interpreter for this prospective juror.

The next question is whether the district court erred by denying Mr. Nemitz’s motion in limine to exclude all reference to a card he had been…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Powers v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. State v. EasterWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State v. EasterWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1991

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. RomeroCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. State v. RomeroCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  4. State v. CurtisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  5. State v. CurtisCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API