Source: http://nwlawyer.wsba.org/nwlawyer/july_2018?pg=38
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:00:58+00:00

Document:
Section (b)( 1) sets forth two limited circumstances in which immigration-status evidence may be handled through a Civil Rule 59(h) motion. The rule balances concerns about immigration status prejudice against a defendant’s legitimate need — in limited cases — where reinstatement or future lost wages are awarded.
Section (b)( 2) is procedural. A party intending to offer such evidence must file a written motion under seal pursuant to GR 15. The court must then hold a hearing in camera. If the court determines that the evidence may be used, it shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the use of that evidence. The papers and record of the hearing must be sealed, unless the court orders otherwise.
DAVID MARTIN is the Chair of the Domestic Violence Unit at the King County Prosecuting At-torney's Office in Seattle.
He can be reached at david.martin@ kingcounty.gov.
1. The rule was proposed by a coalition of advocates from Columbia Legal Services, the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Legal Voice, and Ken Masters.
2. ER 413 is not to be confused with the court’s 2013 adoption of a formal comment to RPC 4. 4(a) prohibiting attorneys in civil cases from inquiring into a person’s immigration status in order to “obstruct that person from participating in a civil matter.” RPC 4. 4 comment 4; see also The Unethical Use of Immigration Status in Civil Matters, NWLawyer, March 2014.
3. Federated Publications, Inc. v. Swedberg, 96 Wn.2d 13, 17, 633 P.2d 74, 76 (1981).
4. Lowset v. Seattle Lumber Co., 38 Wash. 290, 292, 80 P. 431, 432 (1905); Stratton v. C.H. Nichols Lumber Co., 39 Wash. 323, 331-32 (1905) (raising insurance issues during voir dire required new trial).
5. Alan Calnan, The Insurance Exclusionary Rule Revisited: Are Reports of Its Demise Exaggerated?, 52 Ohio St. L.J. 1177, 1178 (1991).
6. 5A Wash. Prac., Evidence Law and Practice § 411.1 (West 5th ed.).
7. 5A Wash. Prac., Evidence Law and Practice § 412.1 (West 6th ed. 2016).
8. Id. at §§ 412.3 & 412.5.
9. Salas v. Hi Tech Erectors, 168 Wn.2d 664, 672, 230 P.3d 583 (2010).
10. See Washington Courts Domestic Violence Bench Guide for Judicial Officers, Appendix F (2015); and 22 U.S.C.A. § 7101 ( 20).
11. Id., see also Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Pub.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 411
 § 412
 v. 
 § 7101