Washington Becomes 1st State in Country to Create Rule Deeming Immigration Status Evidence Inadmissible

Back in 2009/2010, I did a series of posts about whether lawyers and/or judges should be able to question witnesses about their immigration status. After doing a number of these posts, I wrote an essay for the Northwestern University Law Review Online: “Crossing Over: Why Attorneys (and Judges) Should Not Be Able to Cross-Examine Witnesses Regarding Their Immigration Statuses for Impeachment Purposes.” Subsequently, the Court of Appeal of California cited the article in finding that a trial court properly precluded defense counsel from interrogating a prosecution witness about his immigration status. But, as far as I can tell, no jurisdiction ever created a categorical rule precluding such interrogation…until now.

In Washington, “Alex Salas slipped from a ladder on a construction site about 15 years ago, suffering 10 fractures, he sued the site’s scaffolding subcontractor because the ladder did not meet code requirements.” 

A jury in 2006 decided the company was negligent, but did not award Salas any money. Nearly a decade later, after appeals, a new King County jury awarded Salas $2.6 million in the case.

The two juries heard the same case — with a critical difference. The first jury knew he was in the country illegally; the second did not.

That rule, Washington Rule of Evidence 413, reads as follows:

H/T Ann Murphy and Pam Loginsky.

-CM