One of today's opinions: Curative instruction was sufficient
State v. Hager, No. 83717-1. Before the trial of Timothy Hager on the charge of first degree rape of a child, the trial court issued an order at the request of defense counsel instructing the police officer witnesses not to give their opinions or draw conclusions about Hager. Nevertheless, one of the officers giving testimony characterized Hager as "evasive." The defense immediately objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the testimony but did not grant the motion for a mistrial. Hager appealed and the court of appeals found that Hager's right against self incrimination had been violated and that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a mistrial.
Today, the State Supreme Court reverses the court of appeals and holds that Hager's right against self incrimination was not violated. Hager had not refused to answer the police officers' questions, but had rather given answers in an apparently evasive way. The officer's testimony rather infringed on the jury's role as the sole determiner of fact and thus violated Hager's right to a jury trial. However, the curative instruction, made orally following the officer's comment and reiterated in writing in the final jury instructions, were sufficient to cure the violation. Justice Alexander wrote for an eight-member majority. Justice Pro Tem. Richard Sanders wrote the lone dissent, contending that the majority's decision corrodes the important role of juries in our tripartite system of government by relying on them to follow the judge's curative instruction. (briefs, argument)
I read the opinion. Sanders is obviously correct. Furthermore, this guy was convicted soley on the word of a teenage girl shortly after breaking up with her boyfriend involving an incident that occured at least to years prior to being charged.
What is wrong with jurors who would convict a guy based only on the claims of a young girl who MIGHT have emotional issues? The guy may have done it, but how can anyone find this guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?