Opinion ID: 2511832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Upholding the discovery and protective orders comports with Boyd

Text: ¶ 70 Finally, I return to Boyd. As explained there, the purpose of the CrR 4.7(a)(1)(v) disclosure requirement is to protect the defendant's interests in obtaining meaningful access to evidence of the crimes charged for purposes of effective trial preparation and adequate legal representation. Boyd, 160 Wash.2d at 432, 158 P.3d 54. These purposes were satisfied in this case. There must be meaningful access to copies based on fairness and the right to adequate representation. Id. at 433, 158 P.3d 54. This concern was satisfied in this case. CrR 4.7(a) obliges the prosecutor to provide copies of the evidence as a necessary consequence of the right to effective representation and a fair trial. Id. at 435, 158 P.3d 54. As explained, the State stood ready to make copies of the hard drives and have them available for Grenning's defense team to forensically examine them. The State has the burden of establishing the need for appropriate restrictions; the defendant does not have to show that a copy of the evidence must be provided for effective representation. Id. at 433-34, 158 P.3d 54. The State provided sufficient grounds for restricting dissemination of copies of the hard drives, and the trial court therefore appropriately issued the protective order that required that the forensic evaluation take place in the County-City Building. ¶ 71 For all of the reasons set forth in this opinion, I disagree with the majority's recitation of the facts, its legal analysis, and its result. I dissent.