The Impact & Application of Washington's SAPO Statute - Laura Jones, J.D. CourtWatch Manager King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Impact & Application of Washington’s SAPO Statute Laura Jones, J.D. CourtWatch Manager King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
Objectives
Overview of CourtWatch and SAPO
monitoring project design
Presentation on CourtWatch findings and
recommendations for improvement
Participant discussion about the SAPO
process statewide to identify:
◦+
◦-
Overview-
Program founded in 2010
Court monitoring is a way to gather
information about the courts through
observation and research
Volunteers from the community observe
criminal cases and SAPO proceedings
Follow-up with system personnel based on
observations and researchOverview- Why SAPOs?
Relatively new area of law (2006)
Anecdotal evidence from attorneys,
advocates, and clients that process
unpredictable and inaccessibleOverview- Project Design
Our staff reviewed court records for all
SAPO cases filed in/transferred to King
County Superior Court in 2010
CourtWatch volunteers and staff
observed and took notes on 51 SAPO
hearings in 41 different casesSEXUAL ASSAULT PROTECTION ORDER (SAPO) MONITORING FORM
Your name: _________________________________________ Date:____________________________
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION:
Case #:______________________ Judge Commissioner Pro Tem:______________________
Petitioner:_____________________________ Respondent:__________________________________
What was the petitioner’s gender? M F What was the respondent’s gender? M F
What was the petitioner’s apparent race/ethnicity? African Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino Native American Middle-Eastern/Arab Other Unknown
What was the respondent’s apparent race/ethnicity? African Asian/Pacific Islander Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino Native American Middle-Eastern/Arab Other Unknown
Did the petitioner appear to understand English? Yes No Can’t tell
Did the respondent appear to understand English? Yes No Can’t tell
Was an interpreter present? Yes No If yes, what language? ____________________________
Did any party have a visible disability? Yes No If yes, who/what disability? __________________
What is the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent? _____________________________
Was an attorney present for the petitioner? Yes No Name:____________________________
Was an attorney present for the respondent? Yes No Name:_____________________________
Was an advocate present for the petitioner? Yes No Name:____________________________
COURTROOM ENVIRONMENT:
Where did you monitor this proceeding? Seattle Courthouse Regional Justice Center
Was there a list of cases posted outside the courtroom? Yes No
Was the SAPO calendar separated from the anti-harassment calendar? Yes No
Did anyone ask who you were and/or why you were in court? Yes No
HEARING:
What time did this hearing begin? ___________ What time did it end? ___________
Was the SAPO on behalf of a child under age 16? Yes No Unsure
Was the respondent a minor? Yes No Unsure
Was there a discussion of the violence that led to the petitioner’s request? Yes No
If yes, please describe.___________________________________________________________________
Did the judge ask whether the petitioner called the police? Yes No N/A
Did the judge ask whether there was an ongoing criminal investigation? Yes No N/A
If the respondent was pro se, did he/she cross examine the petitioner? Yes No N/A
th
Did the judge advise the respondent of his/her 5 Amendment rights? Yes No N/ADid the respondent plead the 5th? Yes No N/A
If the respondent was represented by an attorney, did the judge appoint counsel for the petitioner or
give him/her a chance to obtain counsel? Yes No N/A
Did the judge ask whether respondent contacted petitioner since the assault? Yes No N/A
If there was a hearing, what evidence was presented to the court? Testimony from the parties
Testimony from witness: _______________________ Other: ______________________________
Did the judge show empathy toward the petitioner? Yes No
Please explain: _________________________________________________________________________
What was the outcome? Granted after hearing Dismissed after hearing Hearing continued
Dismissed- petitioner absent Granted- respondent absent Stricken- both parties absent
If the order was issued, what relief was granted to the petitioner? _______________________________
If the order was issued, what instructions did the judge give to the respondent? ____________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If the order was not issued, did the judge explain why? Yes No N/A
If yes, what was the explanation? _________________________________________________________
If the order was continued, did the judge explain why? Yes No N/A
If yes, what was the explanation? _________________________________________________________
If the order was continued, did the judge extend the temporary protection order?
Yes No N/A What is the new hearing date/time? ____________________________
SAFETY ISSUES:
Were the parties left alone together at any time during the hearing? Yes No Unknown
Where were the parties seated in the courtroom before their case was called? ______________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Was there any interaction between the petitioner and respondent (e.g. talking, glaring, touching)?
Yes No Unknown If yes, please describe:________________________________________
Was there a security officer present in the courtroom during the SAPO hearing? Yes No
Did anything else happen that raised safety concerns for you? Yes No Maybe
Please describe:________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE NOTE ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS BELOW: Write direct quotes as often as possible
and indicate quotes with quotation marks. Please document the time that the comment was made as
this allows us to listen to the recording. Write down positive assessments as well!Findings- Positive
SAPO Act filled a gap that previously
existed for many sexual assault victims
SAPOs appear to be an effective means to
protect victim safetyFindings & Recommendations for
Improvement
Findings re: SAPO process and 12
recommendations for improvement
“Access to justice” issues:
◦ Service of Process
◦ Rules of evidence
◦ Consistency Between Judges
◦ Advocacy
◦ Legal RepresentationPoll Question #1: Service of Process The personal service requirement presents a problem for your clients: a) Never b) Rarely c) Often d) Always
Service of Process In at least 29% of cases that made it past the ex parte hearing, the personal service requirement presented an issue. 10 cases with 3 or more hearings (at least 8 weeks) 9 cases where petitioner stopped showing up
Service of Process-
Recommendations for Improvement
Amend RCW 7.90 to allow alternative
means of service via publication or mail
Allow telephonic continuances (as in
Pierce County)Discussion: Service of Process In your county, are there ways for a petitioner to continue a hearing without physically coming to court? Any other creative solutions to this issue?
Poll Question #2: Evidence How do the judges in your county run SAPO hearings? a) Informally, relaxing the rules of evidence b) As mini-trials c) Depends on the judge
Evidence
In the cases that we observed, some of
the judges ran the hearings informally,
while others ran them as mini-trials, even
referring to them as “trials.”
Relaxed Hearings “Trials”
“Tell me what I need to know” Direct and cross examination
If petition on behalf of child, Hearsay not permitted
parent/guardian did not need to
bring them in to testify
Would not consider the petition
Allowed legal objectionsEvidence- Recommendation for
Improvement
The courts should relax the rules of
evidence in SAPO hearings as allowed by
Evidence Rule 1101(c)(4).Poll Question #3: Consistency
In your county, SAPO cases are:
a) Always heard by the same judge or
commissioner
b) Heard by different judges or commissioners
c) OtherConsistency Between Judges In King County, SAPO cases are heard by judges on a rotation (monthly basis), so the process is constantly changing: Trial vs. informal hearing Order that cases are heard Familiarizing parties with the applicable statutes
Consistency- Recommendations for
Improvement
Predictable order to cases that best
upholds privacy of parties
Announcement to the gallery about the
order in which cases will be heard
Read the SAPO statute aloud prior to
hearing casesDiscussion: Consistency In counties where consistency is an issue, what solutions/workarounds have you come up with?
Poll Question #4: Advocacy Do advocates accompany victims to court in your county? a) Yes b) No
Poll Question #5: Advocacy Do advocates assist victims with filling out SAPO paperwork in your county? a) Yes b) No
Advocacy In the cases we tracked, only 35% of petitioners had an advocate. Success rate w/ an advocate: 80% Success rate w/o an advocate: 34%
Advocacy- Recommendation for
Improvement
Information regarding advocacy and
contact information for sexual assault
programs serving King County residents
should be made available in the clerk’s
office.
(In 2011, increase in advocacy and
continued higher success rate with an
advocate)Discussion: Advocacy What strategies have you employed in your county to increase access and awareness to advocacy services?
Poll Question #6: Legal
Representation
Have you seen a judge appoint an attorney
for the petitioner when the respondent is
represented?
a) Never
b) Sometimes
c) AlwaysLegal Representation
In 2010, 8 petitioners represented and 11
respondents represented
◦ Where both sides represented, SAPOs
granted about 50% of the time, agreed orders
about 50% of the time
◦ Where petitioner only represented, granted
75% of the time
◦ Where respondent only represented,
dismissed 100% of the timeDiscussion: Legal Representation What strategies have you seen in your county to obtain legal counsel for a petitioner? Are there many attorneys in your county with expertise in SAPOs?
Sexual Assault Protection Order (SAPO) Hearing Checklist The rules of evidence need not be applied. ER 1101(c)(4). The respondent must be personally served at least 5 days prior to the hearing. If personal service has not been made, the court shall continue the hearing and reissue the temporary SAPO for up to 14 days to allow personal service. The temporary SAPO may be renewed one or more times, as required. RCW 7.90.050, 7.90.120(3). Evidence of a petitioner’s prior sexual conduct or reputation is generally inadmissible, and should not be admitted without holding an in camera hearing after respondent files a written motion 14 days before the hearing. RCW 7.90.080, ER 412. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner has been a victim of nonconsensual sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration by the respondent, the court shall issue a sexual assault protection order. RCW 7.90.090(1)(a). The court must not deny an order due to any of the following: the minor status of either party; the petitioner did not report the assault to law enforcement; there is no proof of physical injury to the victim; either party was voluntarily intoxicated; or the petitioner engaged in limited consensual touching. RCW 7.90.090. The court can order that a respondent under age 18 transfer schools after considering certain statutory factors. RCW 7.90.090(3). A final SAPO may be granted for up to two years. RCW 7.90.120(2). Mutual protection orders not permitted because of due process and enforcement concerns. All continuances and final orders should be issued on the record. RCW 7.90.120. A legal advocate must be allowed to accompany the victim to court. RCW 7.90.060. If the respondent is represented, the court may appoint an attorney for the petitioner. RCW 7.90.070.
Questions?
You can also read
