Court of Appeals of Washington· 8/28/1989

State v. Pizzuto

Citations

778 P.2d 42
55 Wash. App. 421
1989 Wash. App. LEXIS 292

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

limiting the applicability of ER 410 to “plea negotiations with prosecuting attorneys, or with their agents who possess express authority to plea bargain, and defense counsel or the defendant”
explaining Pacheco and stating, \[T]he State has never before been required to demonstrate good faith and due diligence to exclude time from speedy trial calculations when a defendant was involved in `[p]reliminary proceedings and trial on another charge.'\
explaining Pacheco and stating, “[T]he State has never before been required to demonstrate good faith and due diligence to exclude time from speedy trial calculations when a defendant was involved in ‘ [preliminary proceedings and trial on another charge.’ ”
\Our Supreme Court has recognized the significant utility of bright line rules\ and \[a]doption of something less than a bright line rule... would only result in uncertainty. . . and greater numbers of cases for the courts.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Forrest, Swanson, Scholfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.