Good afternoon,

Here are my initial thoughts, I think the Judges did a really nice job in drafting these.

It appears under the new Rule 2.6 that defendants cannot get a bench warrant recalled by posting a bond, only full cash bail.  Is this correct?  I’m not sure that is legal.

I also think rule 3.2(a)(3) needs to be re-worded I’m pretty sure you can’t legally hold a person without bail for more than 72 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause.

I would recommend re-wording rule 3.3(d) to say “CrRLJ 3.3 time for trial limits” as opposed to “speedy trial limits”.  Technically “speedy trial” refers to the constitutional rule while “time for trial” refers to the court rule.

Any chance we can get a local rule on agreed continuances whereby the parties can file a document and not appear?  This would dramatically shrink dockets and improve court efficiency.

Thanks,

Richard Gilliland

Dear Judges Masters and Judge Clements,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new and/or amended Local Court rules. The Legal Department has the following comments:

YMLAR 1.4 (b)(2)(A) regarding Special Set hearings-

This portion of the rule adds a burden, may add costs, and may create evidentiary problems for the defense and prosecution. We are unclear as to the purpose of this portion of the rule because the court cannot review the evidence prior to its proper admission at the special set hearing and the court does not have a system to play media or display evidence that requires an upload ahead of time. Requiring each side to submit physical evidence ahead of time may create a chain of custody issue.

We are also concerned about the term, “serve.” “Serve” in a legal context means more than just handing someone a document. It is a specific legal procedure with defined requirements that may involve costs to accomplish at a time when the City is struggling with budget shortfalls. In contrast, the Criminal Court Rules For Court Of Limited Jurisdiction ( CrRLJ) require each side to disclose discovery material. The City Legal Department provides discovery as it become available electronically through the evidence portal. We request clarification on the use of the term, “serve,” in the proposed rule.

If the purpose of this rule is for court time planning, the Legal Department suggests that the court require a list of evidence be provided to the court and opponent rather than the actual evidence.

YMLAR 30(e) regarding Electronic Filing and Service

This part of the rule requires that the prosecutor update the court’s website. The Legal Department does not have access to make changes to the court’s website. The website will need to be updated by either the Information Technology Department or court staff with documents provided by the police department.

Sincerely Yours,

Sara Watkins                                                                  Cynthia Martinez

Yakima City Attorney                                            Senior Assistant City Attorney