Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 09-1-00002-7
)
vs. ) MOTION FOR RECUSAL
) (MT)
AARON LYON, )
)
Defendant. )
)
I. DEFENDANT’S MOTION
Aaron Lyon, through his attorney Carol Dee Huneke, moves the Court
Leveque in these matters. This motion is made pursuant to the Due Process
conference held on January 29, 2010, Certificate of Carol Dee Huneke, and
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
_______
Carol Dee Huneke
Attorney for Mr. Lyon
WSBA 23065
I, Carol Dee Huneke, am the attorney of record for Aaron Lyon in this
matter, and am over 18 years of age and competent to testify in the court of
law. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of
clerk’s papers, and email. Excerpts of email correspondence listed below and
in the included memorandum of law have been formatted for easier reading
(first in time placed first) with signature lines removed and some relevant
portions emphasized with bold print that does not appear in the original. The
few punctuation marks and capitalization have been changed in excerpts from
The case against Aaron Lyon was filed January 2009. The trial date
was continued from its original trial setting of March 9, 2009 to August 3,
position at the United States Attorney’s Office to begin on March 9, 2009 and
of the case and an evaluation of the defendant were also not yet complete.
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 3 of 57
defense request for negotiations and the ongoing evaluation process, which
trial date, because I had not yet received the report from Dr. Mark Mays, the
although charged with murder, had no prior felony convictions, had spent
only a handful of days in jail previously, and was charged with “felony
even more difficult to process for a person like Aaron Lyon with significant
we were still waiting for Dr. Mays report, which I hoped to use to pursue a
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 4 of 57
I was waiting for this report, and conducting trials and investigation on my
other felony cases, I had not completed my trial preparation, and would not
be ready for trial on the November 2 trial date. The state was aware of my
Because trials are “sent out” every week in Spokane County Superior
“speedy trial,” and because criminal cases take priority over civil cases, I did
not discuss continuing the case beyond January with Aaron, especially in
light of the fact that the judges are always pressuring the lawyers for faster
which is extensive, a case that is called ready for trial on any given Monday
will be sent out for trial either the week it is scheduled, or, if the trial docket
is congested, the trial might in some cases get bumped one week, or, in rare
that judge to become familiar with the case and provide legal rulings on pre-
trial matters, as well as to provide a more definite trial date. However, the
order of pre-assignment does not change the defendant’s speedy trial rights,
than one pre-assigned case will be scheduled with the same judge on the
for continuance. The prosecutor, Mark Cipolla, did not object to a January
trial setting, although he did object to a trial date later than January. At the
time of the October 16 hearing, the trial date was scheduled for November 2,
2009. At the hearing, the parties proposed a January 4, 2010 trial setting.
attached as exhibits.
have no problem with the January 4th trial date. I would ask
[…]
THE COURT: The problem with the January date [ … ] is that the scheduling
continued. RP, 5.
[…]
It’s going to be tough to put this into place other than kicking
are and see if your report comes quickly enough to put the
action. RP, 6.
MS. HUNEKE: I think the problem with that is—and I would hope that that
we are now.
based upon whatever this report may or may not have, and
wouldn’t be ready.
[…]
MR. CIPOLLA: [ … ] I’m asking the Court to set the most reasonable trial
State would be ready and if the Court has to I’d ask the Court
[…]
do, but I also think, on the other side, justice at least requires
THE COURT: I would think so but I would want to talk to the court
effort, you just get a new judge. I’m not comfortable pre-
civil month and when the date comes broker it. That runs
brokering. RP, 8.
MR. CIPOLLA: Well, I guess I’m asking the Court to set it on the January 4th
MR. CIPOLLA: It’s the risk that would be taken but I’m saying I think we need
to set a realistic trial date and I’m asking for the January trial
make that inquiry or we’ll just stay here on the 4th and at that
trial date for this department and it isn’t realistic to think have
THE COURT: What you’re telling the Court is you’ve got something
already have a ton of other matters set and we’re now having
theory that we will ask for that date, go see what we can do
with Ms. Clarke and another judge and then come back with
unconstitutional.
MR. CIPOLLA: Well, I’m just saying—I just heard from the defendant—
I have not heard the defendant tell me that they do not want
MS. HUNEKE: Of course we couldn’t say that, Your Honor. We’re not ready
MR. CIPOLLA: That’s fine, Your Honor, I just wanted clarification because I
didn’t mean to –
At the end of this hearing, it was decided that the parties would
discuss with Ms. Clarke the possibility of “brokering” the case to a different
judge to accommodate a January trial setting. When I spoke with Ms. Clarke,
she indicated that she had already discussed the matter with Judge Leveque
or his staff; I can’t specifically remember which person from Judge Leveque’s
court, or whether it was Judge Leveque himself, Ms. Clarke indicated that she
had spoken to, but she was familiar with the “brokering” issue on Mr. Lyon’s
case. She said that “brokering” was not possible for Mr. Lyon.
had two trials I had to deal with this week (luckily (just
kidding) jared cordts got the flu and I didn't have to do the
Counsel:
case, but that is where the Connor case is currently set. The
indicating that Judge Leveque would not be available to hear Aaron Lyon’s
trial the week of March 1, 2010. It would later come to Ms. Huneke’s
attention that the vacation that would prevent the trial from being heard on
March 1 had been scheduled for “over a year” and was therefore already
scheduled when the October 16 continuance motion was heard (see, email
message from Ms. McCrow to Ms. Huneke with copies to Mr. Cipolla and Ms.
Clarke on May 11, 2010, 9:48 a.m., in relevant part: “As a heads up, we have
requests during this case—going so far as to cancel a vacation that had been
At the October 16 continuance hearing, the court gave Mr. Lyon the
choice of going to trial on November 2, 2009 with a lawyer the court was
aware was not ready for trial or “agreeing” to a trial date of March 1, 2010—
a continuance two months longer than the incarcerated Aaron Lyon had
voluntarily agreed to—a date that the court said it could commit to, as
opposed to a January trial setting, even though the court apparently had
_____________________________________________
From: McCrow, Kahren
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 9:49 AM
To: Cipolla, Mark; Huneke, Carol; Sterett, Rachel; Nordtvedt, Anna; Carroll,
Edward; Steinmetz, Larry; 'Trageser Law Office P.S.'
Cc: Clarke, Heidi
Subject: Judge Leveque's March trials
Counsel:
There is an issue with trial of the State vs. Lyon case which is currently set
for trial on March 1st. I do not have identified how many trial days that case
is gone through the 15th. We currently have the State vs. Terry Connor case
and the State vs. Aleksandr Pavlik scheduled for trial on March 16th. The
following Monday, March 22nd, State vs. Doney is scheduled to go out. If all
prioritizing. Also, Mr. Steinmetz, obviously this severely impacts State vs.
Devlin….
Our department is gone for one day on April 5th, but April 6th we are open
for trial, BUT, State vs. Parkins is scheduled to begin a 2 wk trial the following
Counsel, I really need some guidance….. Of course, we can just let the
chips fall where they may and attempt to broker any cases that
we're not available to hear, but I'd rather know what the priorities are
The above case is scheduled for trial on March 1st. Unfortunately, this court
is scheduled to be on vacation from March 4th through March 15th. Are you
available for a status conference next Friday, January 29th at 10:30 for a
in custody.
Trial Date
MR. CIPOLLA: Your Honor, we’re here on the Court’s motion for a
continuance.
MR. CIPOLLA: Your Honor, this was presently set when you’re on vacation.
The court specially set this to address the issue of the trial
date.
[…]
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 21 of 57
MS. HUNEKE: That’s a big question. What court dates is the court
THE COURT: Well, first of all let me know, are you ready to go?
MS. HUNEKE: Right this second, no. I had planned on getting ready by the
trial date. I’m not at this point because it’s not here yet so …
THE COURT: Well, when you say that, are you ready?
MS. HUNEKE: I’m telling the Court I’m not ready right now. My plan was to
try to get ready by the trial date currently set. It’s always a
THE COURT: If you’ll go back to the question, I didn’t ask if you were ready
now. I guess are you ready to try the case and if you’re not
ready to try the case by the trial date currently set. Is that
THE COURT: And is that plan something you think you would be able to
meet?
MS. HUNEKE: Perhaps. I can’t say for sure if I could or not. I mean, if this is
THE COURT: We’ve got a trial date of March 1st; is that right?
THE COURT: And March 1st isn’t going to work so you’re saying had had a
MS. HUNEKE: I feel like the court is asking me to predict the future. The
THE COURT: I don’t want you feeling something that isn’t a fact. I don’t
prophet. I’m asking this question: if the trial date was March
1st as you sit here now would you be ready to try the case on
March 1st?
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 23 of 57
THE COURT: Okay. So, in other words, the time frame to be able to get
this thing done if it’s beyond March 1st is going to provide you
March 1st certainly then you could be ready for date following
March 1st.
I’m not sure exactly what the point of the Court’s inquiry is. I
trial date. It’s not my motion and so I’m feeling a little put on
the spot.
THE COURT: Don’t do this. Don’t do this. What I’m trying to find out is
we’ve got to move from March 1st. I’ll be picking dates for
MS. HUNEKE: Well, there are no dates that I’m going to say that to beyond
March 1st.
THE COURT: That’s what I was driving at. And if it was a question so
THE COURT: Ms. Huneke, are you going to have any concerns with a
MS. HUNEKE: For myself personally, I wouldn’t, but Mr. Lyon isn’t interested
[…]
THE COURT: Okay. At this particular time and because we do have some
goes both ways. I don’t believe that Court can continue this
from the 1st because that date of March 1st may be available
courtroom and approached the judge. It was apparent from what was
overheard that the assistant was reminding the court that the court had
MR. CIPOLLA: Your Honor, I’ll note to the Court the Court’s vacation is good
THE COURT: No, I understand it’s good cause. I’m willing to reschedule my
RP, 19.
continuing the trial date to April 26, 2010, was signed off by the parties, the
On April 26, 2010, Mr. Lyon pled guilty to the amended charge of
Murder 2. The court set sentencing for May 13, 2010 while the parties were
still present in the courtroom. Ms. Huneke indicated that she needed to
date, and would correspond with the court as soon as she checked.
detective’s availability for the trial date caused me distress at the time I read it. I did not believe that I
had represented that I would agree to the court’s continuance, but I felt that by pointing this out, I would
be sabotaging any hope of negotiating a settlement with Mr. Cipolla. I also felt that Judge Leveque might
not treat me fairly in a credibility dispute with Mr. Cipolla, based on my perception that Judge Leveque
believed that I had caused him to cancel his vacation by objecting to the court’s continuance. Ultimately,
I decided not to raise the agreement issue or a recusal motion at that time. Even though I do not believe I
communicated that I would agree to the court’s motion to continue, I assumed that the court would grant
its own motion—there were at least 30 days of speedy trial remaining, and the court could easily, with or
without good cause, move the trial date to accommodate its vacation. My main objectives in voicing an
objection to the continuance were 1) to help maintain my relationship with my client, who had felt forced
into agreeing to a longer continuance than he wanted at our January hearing; and 2) to “burn up” some
speedy trial time in order to make brokering a trial easier by giving us a higher priority on speedy trial. I
also considered a motion to recuse at that time—my client was upset by the court’s statement that it was
foregoing its vacation due to his trial. Aaron was worried that Judge Leveque might not treat him fairly if
the judge perceived that it was Aaron’s fault that the court’s vacation was cancelled. I discussed this
issue with Aaron, and told him that I thought that the Judge’s reaction to our objection was odd; but that I
thought the court would realize upon reflection the impropriety of publicly canceling a vacation based on
the assertion of a right. For these reasons, Aaron agreed to the state’s motion to continue based on
Detective Hollenbeck’s unavailability, thus moving the trial date into April. When the new April trial
date was chosen, it was chosen off the record with the parties in the court’s office. I agreed to the date
chosen by Mr. Cipolla and the court, and had my client sign off on that date.
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 27 of 57
Hello,
Thanks, Carol
_____________________________________________
From: McCrow, Kahren
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:21 PM
works for me
_____________________________________________
From: McCrow, Kahren
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:26 AM
To: Cipolla, Mark; Huneke, Carol
Cc: Clarke, Heidi
Subject: RE: Lyon sentencing date
scheduling order and provide it for the judge's signature. Heidi/Kim, please
change transport from May 13th at 4:00 to May 27th at 4:00. Thanks.
Two weeks later, on May 10, 2010, the following email exchange occurred:
<KMcCrow@spokanecounty.org> wrote:
Counsel:
How would you feel about moving the sentencing on Mr. Lyon
I'll check with the judge, but they may need to make
other arrangements.
Good morning,
__________________________________
From: Cipolla, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:49 AM
To: Huneke, Carol; McCrow, Kahren
Subject: RE: State vs. Lyon 09-1-00002-7
right.
Thank you
Mark Cipolla
I have spoken with Judge Leveque, and he states the sentencing can remain
on the original date - May 27th at 4:00. He told me that I should find his first
available time for Ms. Huneke to bring her emergency motion for his recusal
- that time is May 19th at 8:30. Heidi, will you arrange transport for that
date and time and also return the sentencing transport to May 27th at 4:00?
Thanks.
_____________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:00 AM
To: Clarke, Heidi; McCrow, Kahren; Cipolla, Mark
Subject: RE: State vs. Lyon 09-1-00002-7
Heidi, I am out of town and not available May 18-21; therefore, the May
19th hearing should not be set on that date.
Because I had not heard back from either Ms. Clarke or Ms. McCrow by
almost 3:00 p.m. despite having sent my email message at 10:42 a.m., I
a separate trip and furlough day immediately following the San Francisco
trip, which accounts for my unavailability through May 21. I can, of course,
-----Original Message-----
From: Angela Auyong [mailto:Angela.Auyong@sfgov.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:35 PM
To: Huneke, Carol
Cc: Tamara Aparton
Subject: Fw: E ticket issued CONFIRMATION
Hi Carol,
See attached e ticket for your flights. I will book the hotel for you and
Angela
Angela Auyong
Executive Assistant
Office of the Public Defender
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 37 of 57
stating that it [now] appeared that I had a conflict with the May 19 hearing
-----Original Message-----
From: McCrow, Kahren
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:56 PM
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 38 of 57
availability, the defendant's motion for judicial recusal will be heard pursuant
to the attached Amended Order. Heidi, please strike transport on May 19th
and reschedule the May 27th hearing to half an hour earlier at 3:30. Thank
you.
________________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:02 PM
To: McCrow, Kahren; Clarke, Heidi; Cipolla, Mark
Subject: RE: E ticket issued CONFIRMATION
however, I would prefer that they not waste a trip over here.
Thanks, Carol
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 39 of 57
different day, I received a letter from the Court. In part this letter reads:
“Your request for the hearing within the next three days unfortunately
cannot be accommodated, and your statement that you will not be available
after the 18th of May, coupled with your intent to have this as soon as
possible leaves May 27th at 3:30 as the time and date to hear your argument
regarding recusal.
heard within the next three days; I asked for a date for the recusal
wrote this request was still set for May 25th). I also did not say that
I was not available after May 18, I wrote that I was unavailable May
a date earlier than the sentencing hearing, so that Dr. and Mrs.
Lyon and family friend Jeff Jones would not waste a trip to Spokane.
Spokane on the date that is currently set. My client's father, Dr. Ken Lyon, is
_____________________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10:14 AM
To: McMaster, Tammey
Subject: transcript request
Thanks, Carol.
_____________________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:08 PM
To: McMaster, Tammey
Subject: ADD'L transcript request
Hi again Tammey,
I will also need a transcript of the hearing held on Mr. Lyon's case on October
16, 2010. I believe it was either a scheduling hearing or a pretrial
conference. Could you please let me know when you will be able to get
these to me? I will need both transcripts as quickly as possible.
Thanks, Carol
________________________________________
From: McMaster, Tammey
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:53 PM
To: Huneke, Carol
Subject: RE: ADD'L transcript request
I should be able to have them to you fairly quickly. I'm thinking Monday at
the latest but will be shooting for Friday.
Thanks,
Tammey
_____________________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:01 PM
To: McMaster, Tammey
Subject: RE: ADD'L transcript request
________________________________________
From: McMaster, Tammey
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:19 PM
To: Huneke, Carol
Subject: RE: ADD'L transcript request
Hi Carol,
Almost. On my last proof and then I'll be putting it together. I'll email you
when I'm done.
Thanks,
Tammey
_____________________________________________
From: McMaster, Tammey
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 43 of 57
_____________________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:58 PM
To: McMaster, Tammey
Subject: RE: Lyon
_____________________________________________
From: Huneke, Carol
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:58 PM
To: McMaster, Tammey
Subject: RE: Lyon
________________________________________
From: McMaster, Tammey
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Huneke, Carol
Subject: RE: Lyon
Hi Carol,
Apologies for the delayed response. I've been out ill and just returned today.
I have it in my office probably be faster than waiting for me to have time to
email it. Want me on our next recess to deliver it somewhere or interoffice
mail?
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 44 of 57
before leaving town. I thought an emailed copy of the reports would suffice;
however, unfortunately Ms. McMaster became ill, and wasn’t able to respond
to my request for an emailed copy until Thursday, May 20. This was no fault
week, I was not able to begin writing the recusal brief until this Monday, May
24, 2010.
appointments, I have done little else this week, other than the preparation of
this brief; including foregoing preparation for sentencing. (I did stop for a
glass of Iced Tea on my way home from work yesterday.) I have slept 3
hours the last two nights. If the court is able to read this document this
morning, and the reading of my documents leads the court to believe that
sentencing will not occur today, I ask that the court let me know, so that I
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 45 of 57
Lyons travel plans, I would need to know by 9:30 a.m. To halt Mr. Jones
motion.
A. Legal Background
and the appearance of fairness are hallmarks of due process. See, e.g.,
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 46 of 57
Wn.App. 252, 255 (1993). See also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904-05
(1997) (Due Process Clause requires a judge “with no actual bias against the
Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). The neutrality requirement of the Fourteenth
has been done,’ by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests
assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him.” Marshall,
2
The United States Supreme court reaffirmed these core principles in the very recent case of Caperton v.
A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S.Ct. 2252 (2009). In that civil case arising from a law suit against a coal mining
company in West Virginia, the state’s highest court had ruled that the due process clause protected against
only actual, subjective, judicial bias, and did not protect against objective, appearance-of-bias, problems. In
fact, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the challenged West Virginia high court judge – Judge Benjamin
– refused to recuse himself from hearing the Caperton case because he “had no direct, personal, substantial,
pecuniary interest in this case,” and that judge concluded that “a standard merely of ‘appearances,’ …
seems little more than an invitation to subject West Virginia’s justice system to the vagaries of the day – a
framework in which predictability and stability yield to supposition, innuendo, half-truths, and partisan
manipulations.” Id., 129 S.Ct. at 2259 (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme
Court reversed, however, on the ground that the Due Process Clause protected against more than just actual,
subjective, judicial bias.
granting of a new trial to the plaintiff on the grounds that the actions of the
trial judge’s former law partner made it impossible for the judge to preside
over the trial and to satisfy the constitutional requirement of maintaining the
appearance of fairness. The issue in that case was who owned certain
property situated on a river which had changed its course. The judge heard
the case and entered a decision in favor of the plaintiff. But then the
defendant moved for a new trial on the grounds that the judge’s former law
partner had given a legal opinion to the plaintiff which was favorable to the
plaintiff. Although the judge never saw the letter until after the trial was
over and after he had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant argued
that given the prior legal opinion given by his former law partner, there was
new trial to be held before a different judge. The trial judge’s order stated:
The plaintiff appealed and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision to
grant a new trial on appearance of fairness grounds, holding that a new trial
was required even though there was no indication that the trial judge was
actually biased in favor of the position that had been taken by his former law
partner:
3
The Dimmel rule recognizing a trial judge’s responsibility to disqualify himself when circumstances
indicate that his impartiality would reasonably be questioned is now codified in CJC (3)(D)(1) which
provides in part: “Judges should disqualify themselves in a proceeding in which their impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: (a) the judge has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding; . . .” State v. Gamble, ---_Wn.2d ---, ¶ 65, 2010 WL 315024 (Jan. 28, 2010).
SUPERIOR COURT MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ORDSM) PAGE 50 of 57
See, e.g., State v. Gamble, __ Wn.2d __, ¶ 65, 2010 WL 315024 (Jan. 28,
2010) (“The law goes farther than requiring an impartial judge, it also
61, 69-70 (1972) (“A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which
prudent and disinterested person. See Smith v. Behr, 113 Wn.App. 306
person knows and understands all the relevant facts.” Id. (citations and
internal quotations omitted). See also Sherman v. State, 128 Wn.2d 164,
holds Mr. Lyon and his attorney responsible for the cancellation of the court’s
vacation last March. First, the court made the decision to forego its vacation
articulated, the Court stated on the record in Mr. Lyon’s presence that it was
foregoing its vacation, and it was obvious from the context that the cancelled
continuance.
Assuming that the court’s vacation was something desirable to the court, the
own statements or statements of its agent, that Mr. Lyon or Ms. Huneke
provided by Criminal Court Rules CrR 3.3 (b)(5) allowed the court to continue
the trial date at least 30 days beyond march 1, 2010. For speedy trial
date to accommodate its vacation, a fact the state was aware of.
that a court’s vacation is not good cause for a continuance unless the court
has taken action to find another court available to hear the trial and the
court makes a careful record that no other judicial officers in the county are
available to hear the trial), if the court has a vacation that conflicts with a
trial date, the court should assign the trial to another judge, as contemplated
by Ms. McCrow’s January 14, 2010 email regarding the court’s conflict with
After a guilty plea was entered, the Court set a sentencing date that
regarding the rescheduling this date, the court’s judicial assistant stated, “As
vacation that had been scheduled for over a year.” Following this statement
were more summarily scheduled court dates: The recusal motion was set for
the same date as the re-scheduled sentencing date, which Ms. Huneke had
already indicated was not available; the recusal motion was re-set to a date
that Ms. Huneke had indicated she was out of the office; there was no
response to a message from Ms. Huneke reiterating that she was out of state
on May 19th. Finally, after the forwarding of air travel confirmation to the
court, the re-rescheduling of the sentencing hearing with the recusal motion
to be heard on the same date and time; obviously affecting Mr. Lyon’s
family, since they won’t know where the sentencing hearing will be heard on
record that it was missing its vacation due to Mr. Lyon’s trial, and the recent
the court’s (and presumably the court’s staff’s) vacation on the defendant
and his attorney’s schedule (“As a heads up, we have rearranged our
this case - going so far as to cancel a vacation that had been scheduled for
over a year.”)
and his family. No matter what the outcome, years of his life will be
determined by the judgment of the court. Because the amount of time that
Court holds Mr. Lyon and his attorney responsible for the cancellation of its
unfair than a judge passing sentence on a defendant whom the court blames
As the case law (and the canons) recognize, the absence of proof of
actual bias or actual prejudice will almost universally be the case, absent
or potential bias.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 618 (1992) (emphasis
added).
Respectfully,
_____________________________________
Carol Dee Huneke
Attorney for Mr. Lyon
WSBA 23065