Laserfiche WebLink
No. 51177-1-II <br />The trial court reserved ruling until it received a response and it set a hearing at a later date. The <br />trial court set bail at $35,000 based on "the nature of the charges, the criminal history, [and] the <br />fact that there's been at least four or five warrants over the years." Verbatim Report of Proceedings <br />(RP) at 14. <br />At an arraignment hearing a few days later, the trial court declined to lower bail because <br />the court was concerned about whether Jackson would return, about the nature of the allegations, <br />and about community safety. The trial court again declined to reduce bail at a later status hearing. <br />The trial court subsequently held a hearing on Jackson's objection to restraints and motion <br />for their removal. The hearing consolidated multiple defendants' motions regarding being <br />shackled in their cases. The trial court said it would issue a decision that applied to the entirety of <br />the Clallam County Superior Court. <br />Six weeks later, the trial court issued a memorandum opinion "address[ing] all <br />restraint/shackling motions currently before the court and reflecting] the unified position <br />of the Clallam County Superior Court on this issue." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 64. The ruling <br />acknowledged that "less restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest of <br />courtroom security" existed, which would "eliminate potential problems associated with <br />defendants being so humiliated and distracted by their restraints that it interferes with their ability <br />to communicate with their lawyers and would address concerns associated with the routine use of <br />restraints affronting the dignified and decorous judicial process." CP at 65-66. The trial court <br />envisioned implementing video conferencing as a less restrictive option, but it noted that the <br />superior court would be unable to implement a video conferencing policy for several months. <br />FA <br />Ell <br />