In re the Personal Restraint of Crace
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtVan Deren, J.
¶1 Hoyt William Crace was convicted of attempted second degree assault, first degree criminal trespass, and second degree malicious mischief. Crace petitions for a new trial or a reference hearing. Crace argues that his due process rights were violated because the jail compelled him to wear jail-issue sandals at trial. He also contends that his right to a fair trial is called into question because a juror saw him outside the courtroom in jail-issue sandals and restraints before voir dire but the juror did not disclose that fact when asked during voir dire if she knew Crace. Crace further…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited115 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kimmelman v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Smith v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Beck v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. GrierWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- In re the Personal Restraint of CraceWashington Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. GrierWashington Supreme Court · 2011
- In re the Personal Restraint of MonschkeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
- Hoyt Crace v. Robert HerzogCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.