FILE THIS OPINION WAS FILED FOR RECORD AT 8 A.M. ON IN CLERK’S OFFICE JUNE 25, 2020 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WASHINGTON JUNE 25, 2020 SUSAN L. CARLSON SUPREME COURT CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON COLLEEN DAVISON, legal guardian for K.B., a minor, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and GARY MURRELL, NO. 96766-1 Respondents, v. EN BANC STATE OF WASHINGTON and WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF June 25, 2020 Filed ________________ PUBLIC DEFENSE, Petitioners. STEPHENS, C.J.—This class action cuts to the heart of Washington’s system of indigent criminal defense. The plaintiff class sued the State of Washington and the Office of Public Defense (OPD), alleging ongoing violations of the right to counsel in Grays Harbor County Juvenile Court. They premise state liability not only on alleged systemic, structural deficiencies in the state system, which currently offers indigent public defense services at the local level, but also on the State and Davison et al. v. State of Washington et al., 96766-1 OPD’s alleged knowledge of Grays Harbor County’s specific failures to safeguard the constitutional right to counsel. Our legislature has delegated the duty to enforce the right to counsel to local governments—counties and cities. See generally ch. 10.101 RCW. While the State bears responsibility to enact a statutory scheme under which local governments can adequately fund and administer a system of indigent public defense, it is not directly answerable for aggregated claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rather, to prevail on their claims against the State, the plaintiff class must show that the current statutory scheme systemically fails to provide local governments, across Washington, with the authority and means necessary to furnish constitutionally adequate indigent public defense services. Given that standard, we reject the plaintiffs’ claims premised on the State and OPD’s alleged knowledge or awareness of Grays Harbor County’s failure to provide adequate public defense services. Such an allegation cannot support state liability even if we could fairly impute knowledge or awareness of a particular county’s failings to the State. That said, the plaintiffs’ claims alleging systemic, structural deficiencies in the state system of public defense remain viable. We therefore affirm the superior court’s denial of the State’s motion for summary judgment in part on other grounds and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. -2- Davison et al. v. State of Washington et al., 96766-1 FACTS The plaintiff class sued the State and OPD under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, ch. 7.24 RCW, alleging ongoing, systemic violations of the right to counsel taking place in Grays Harbor County Juvenile Court. The superior court certified a class composed of: “All indigent persons who have or will have juvenile offender cases pending in pretrial status in Grays Harbor County Juvenile Court since April 3, 2017, and who have the constitutional right to appointment of counsel.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 557-58. The plaintiffs’ complaint details several alleged cases of ineffective assistance of counsel, including severe failings on part of the public defender(s) Grays Harbor ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals