Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Rodriguez

Washington Supreme Court

Decided May 2, 2002No. 70666-2Published

1DissentSanders, J.

(dissenting) — The majority in effect holds Marcelino J. Rodriguez’s constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when Arnulfo Ojeda was allowed to testify in *273prison garb, handcuffs, and shackles.5 I agree. I however part ways with the majority on the remedy, because the majority provides none.

I. Abuse of Discretion: A Mistrial Should Have Been Granted

When a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial has been violated and he moves for mistrial, the motion should be granted. State v. Weber, 99 Wn.2d 158, 165, 659 P.2d 1102 (1983); State v. Essex, 57 Wn. App. 411, 415, 788 P.2d 589…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Estelle v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Holbrook v. FlynnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971

44 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