Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence is the most politicized crime in our justice system, and each year the pendulum of public policy seems to swing farther in favor of the prosecution.  From police departments’ mandatory arrest policies to the courts’ harsh bail practices and reflexive no-contact orders  to the legislature’s ever-increasing punishments after conviction, there seem to be no laws or practices that police, judges, and legislators won’t support to look tough on domestic violence.

Fortunately, our system of justice still allows trial by a jury of one’s peers, and an experienced and effective trial lawyer can leverage the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case to get you a favorable result.  If the threat of trial doesn’t bring the prosecution to the bargaining table, an experienced lawyer like David can give you the best shot at trial by cutting through the politics of domestic violence and persuade a jury to evaluate each case on its facts.

Seattle criminal defense attorney David Hammerstad has spent the last decade going toe-to-toe with the prosecution on domestic violence cases in one of the toughest arenas in the State for domestic violence prosecution—King County Superior Court.

Testimonials

Resources

Frequently Asked Questions about Domestic Violence Defense

  • Not Guilty. Burglary in the First Degree, Interfering with Domestic Violence Reporting.
    State of Washington v. W.S.  I persuaded the jury that there was insufficient evidence that my client intended to commit a crime when he entered his ex-girlfriend’s house, and that police officer’s testimony that he was assaulted by client was not credible.  Client was also acquitted of a second charge of Interfering with Domestic Violence Reporting, and convicted of the lesser misdemeanor charge of criminal trespass. 
     
  • Not Guilty. Assault in the Second Degree, Felony Harassment.
    State of Washington v. D.C.  I was able to persuade the jury that the objective evidence was inconsistent with alleged victim’s claim of strangulation. A second count of Felony Harassment resulted in a hung jury.  On retrial the jury acquitted my client of Felony Harassment and convicted of the lesser-included offense of misdemeanor harassment.  He was sentenced to time served.
     
  • Not Guilty.  Felony Violation No Contact Order (2 counts).
    State of Washington v. J.H.  I was able to persuade the jury that the alleged victims’ claims were not credible and likely motivated by a custody dispute.  The jury hung, 8-4 to acquit, on a third count of Telephone Harassment, and the State subsequently dismissed that count.   
     
  • Not Guilty. Assault in the Second Degree.
    State of Washington v. AH.  I was able to persuade the jury that the alleged victim’s story was inconsistent with the objective evidence and was likely motivated by a race to the police station after a mutual conflict.  A second count of Assault in the Fourth Degree ended in a hung jury and the State dismissed that charge rather than retry the case.
     
  • Not Guilty.  Felony Harassment.
    State of Washington v. C.J.  I was able to persuade the jury that the incident in question was a volatile verbal argument, not a criminal threat.  A second charge of felony drug possession was dismissed after my motion to suppress evidence from an illegal search was granted.
     
  • Dismissed.  Felony Violation of No Contact Order.
    State of Washington v. T.W.  State dismissed after the Court granted my motion to suppress evidence because of illegal stop of vehicle containing client and alleged victim.
     
  • Dismissed.  Felony Violation of No Contact Order.
    State of Washington v. S.S.  The State dismissed after we set the case for trial and forced the State to reckon with witness availability issues.
     
  • Dismissed.  Assault in the Fourth Degree.
    City of Seattle v. S.R.  I was able to persuade the City that the alleged victim was the first aggressor
     

    • Dismissed.  Assault in the Fourth Degree.
    City of Burien v. D.L.  I was able to persuade the City that the alleged victim’s story was inconsistent with physical evidence.
     

  • Not Guilty.  Misdemeanor Harassment.
    State of N.H. v. M.L.  I was able to persuade jury that alleged victim’s claims were false and motivated by custody dispute.
     
  • Not Guilty.  Misdmeanor Harassment.
    State of N.H. v. D.K.  I persuaded the jury that the alleged victim’s claims were exaggerated.
     
  • Not Guilty.  Misdemeanor Harassment.
    State of N.H. v. T.R.   I persuaded the judge that my client’s alleged threat was not motivated by a genuine intent to harm.
25 May

The Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Privilege–How Does It Apply?

RCW 5.60.060 – Privileged Communication: Who is Disqualified?

This statute, as its name indicates, identifies whose communications are privileged. Privileged means that neither party to the relationship may testify in open court, nor otherwise disclose, any communication made during the course of that relationship without the other party’s consent. Broadly, the relationships covered by this statute are: spouses/domestic partners, priests &…

By Hammerstad Law Comments Off on The Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Privilege–How Does It Apply? Read more...