Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): ¶28 The majority’s refusal to apply the civil rules to a civil “special proceeding” where the civil rules conflict with ANY statute is certainly a novel application of CR 81. We have never held the civil rules inapplicable under CR 81 because of a conflict with an unrelated statute of general applicability. Instead, we have held the rules inapplicable only where the civil rules conflict with the procedures specifically outlined in the statute governing the special proceeding. f 29 This means “[t]he matters before us turn on whether [the civil rule] is inconsistent with provisions for special proceedings under chapter 71.09 RCW.” In re Det. of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476, 489, 55 P.3d 597 (2002); see also In re Det. of Petersen, 145 Wn.2d 789, 801, 42 P.3d 952 (2002) (comparin 1204 (1999) (<HOLDING>). ¶32 Even where the accused’s protections stem 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal (B) holding because the svp is civil the accused has no constitutional right to counsel (C) holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection (D) holding because the svp statute is civil the accused has no right to confront witnesses (E) recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel
Output (English): holding because the svp statute is civil the accused has no right to confront witnesses