Rantz: WA Supreme Court proposed rule lets judges arbitrarily dismiss charges against criminals

The Washington State Supreme Court is considering a rule change as a way to circumvent the state legislature. It would grant new authority to judges to dismiss charges against defendants, even over the objections of elected prosecutors, without statutory authorization. The rule change, if adopted, would essentially allow left-wing judges to further dismantle the criminal justice system and let even more dangerous criminals run free.

According to the draft rule change, a judge would be granted the power to “dismiss any criminal prosecution due to arbitrary action or governmental misconduct.” It would allow them to use their personal judgment on “the seriousness and circumstances of the offense” and “the impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community (the defendant is part of the community).” The change amends the current rule CrR 8.3(b).

The rule change was proposed by the far-left King County Department of Defense, the Washington State Office of Public Defense, the Washington Defender Association, and the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense. 

Why is this rule change necessary? 

The rule change proponents argue that judges stop viewing themselves as “passive instruments of prosecutorial policies,” citing State v. Starrish. 

That case imposed a “narrow reading” of CrR 8.3(b), holding that courts lacked inherent authority to dismiss charges “in the furtherance of justice” and effectively reducing judges to “passive instruments of prosecutorial policies.” The proposed amendment directly rebuts Starrish by expressly empowering trial courts to dismiss cases for reasons of “justice” and prescribing specific factors to guide that discretion.

What’s particularly galling is that a similar, but less severe change, failed to gain momentum in this year’s legislative session. House Bill 1125 would have allowed judges to reduce sentences for convicted felons, based on nothing more than their own subjective judgments. It failed to advance, only to be upended by a more extremist version that wouldn’t go through the state legislature at all.

Significant push back

The public has until April 30 to provide commentary, though, as is usually the case, almost no one outside of those in the legal profession even knew this rule was being considered. But those who work in the system are deeply alarmed.

Colin Hayes, a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for the Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, bluntly told the Washington Supreme Court justices that “this proposal should be rejected.”

“First, it is not necessary. The proponents fail to identify any particular problem under the current rule that calls for this ‘fix,'” he wrote. “Second, it could lead to disparate outcomes in different jurisdictions based on similar facts. Third, allowing for dismissal without a showing of prejudice will lead to reduced public confidence in the justice system.”

Lucy Pippin, a Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, echoes those concerns.

“Because the proposed amendment does not require the action or misconduct to prejudice the accused in any manner, it untethers the rule from due process,” she wrote. “As a result, defendants would benefit—and victims and public safety would suffer—even when the State’s action has in no way interfered with a defendant’s right to a fair trial. This significant broadening of the rule and trial court’s discretion would lead to unequitable application of the law.”

Why is this being proposed?

The rule change isn’t reform—it’s a back-door power grab. And it’s driven by radical ideology.

If judges need new “discretion” to toss out prosecutions, maybe they should run for legislative office instead of hiding behind their black robes. The legislature already debated and rejected a milder version of this proposal, so the only reason to sneak it in through court rulemaking is that the architects knew it could never survive a straight-up vote of the people’s representatives. That ought to set off every alarm bell about judicial overreach and unchecked activist judges deciding on public safety policy, not to mention the slap in the face to crime victims who will be left wondering whether their suffering even matters.

If you care about accountability, community safety, or the simple principle that laws should be made by elected officials, now is the time to speak up. Write, call, tweet or carrier-pigeon your objections to the Supreme Court clerk, and your local legislators—just make sure your voice is heard before radical judges rewrite the rules behind your backs.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3 p.m. -7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on X, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz