×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Washington PSIR Statements Absent Counsel Used in Appeal Warrant New Trial
Washington State prisoner Darrell Everybodytalksabout (petitioner) challenged the appellate affirmation of his murder convictions. He alleged Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations when Department of Corrections pre-sentence investigator Diane Navicky used statements made by him, absent the presence of his attorney, in the appellate proceeding. His convictions were reversed and a new trial ordered without the admission of the statements.
The petitioner was convicted of first and second-degree murder with a deadly weapon in 1997. During the pre-sentence investigation, Navicky elicited statements about the crime without first contacting the petitioner's attorney, although the commencement of the court-ordered report was relayed to his attorney. Navicky used the statements during the petitioner's appeal, resulting in the affirmation of his conviction. Everybodytalksabout petitioned for review, raising claims of self-incrimination and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Supreme Court for the State of Washington ruled that the statements were elicited deliberately in the absence of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. The Court further held that since the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance was violated, there was no need to entertain his Fifth Amendment claims. See: State v. Everybodytalksabout, 161 Wash.2d 702, 166 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2007).
The petitioner was convicted of first and second-degree murder with a deadly weapon in 1997. During the pre-sentence investigation, Navicky elicited statements about the crime without first contacting the petitioner's attorney, although the commencement of the court-ordered report was relayed to his attorney. Navicky used the statements during the petitioner's appeal, resulting in the affirmation of his conviction. Everybodytalksabout petitioned for review, raising claims of self-incrimination and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Supreme Court for the State of Washington ruled that the statements were elicited deliberately in the absence of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings. The Court further held that since the petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance was violated, there was no need to entertain his Fifth Amendment claims. See: State v. Everybodytalksabout, 161 Wash.2d 702, 166 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2007).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
State v. Everybodytalksabout
| Year | 2007 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 161 Wash.2d 702, 166 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2007) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
State v. Everybodytalksabout
| Year | 2007 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 161 Wash.2d 702, 166 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2007) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |