Volume 55 — Washington Appellate Reports

<bold>[1] Criminal Law — Confessions — Waiver of Constitutional Rights</bold> <bold>— Postindictment Questioning — Validity of Waiver.</bold> A statement made in the absence of counsel by an accused after the initiation of judicial proceedings is admissible if the accused's waiver of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. <bold>[2] Criminal Law — Confessions — Waiver of Constitutional Rights</bold> <bold>— Postindictment Questioning — Recitation of Rights —</bold> <bold>Sufficiency.</bold> <italic>Miranda</italic> warnings are sufficient to inform a person against whom a charge has been filed of the Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel during questioning by the State. <bold>[3] Criminal Law — Right to Counsel — Effective Assistance of</bold> <bold>Counsel — Test — In General.</bold> A criminal defendant's constitutional right to effective representation is violated if the attorney fails to exercise the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise under similar circumstances and it is reasonably probable that, without the attorney's errors, the result of the proceeding would be different. <bold>[4] Criminal Law — Right to Counsel — Effective Assistance of</bold> <bold>Counsel — Failure To Interview Witnesses.</bold> A criminal defense attorney does not satisfy the standard of reasonably competent performance by accepting the truth of statements made by<page_number>Page 167</page_number> critical eyewitnesses to the police and later failing to contact and interview them.

<bold>[1] Jury — Selection — Challenge for Cause — Review — Standard</bold> <bold>of Review.</bold> A trial court's denial of a challenge for cause against a prospective juror is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. <bold>[2] Jury — Selection — Challenge for Cause — Review — Remedy.</bold> A trial court's abuse of discretion in not excusing a prospective juror for cause requires that the ensuing judgment be reversed. <bold>[3] Jury — Selection — Challenge for Cause — Bias — Actual Bias</bold> <bold>— Factors.</bold> A challenge for cause to remove a prospective juror should be granted when the juror states that a jury of persons holding similar beliefs to those espoused by the juror would not give the accused a fair trial, the juror is a member of an organization having the purpose of preventing the type of crime of which the accused is charged, and the juror had a relative who was a victim of the same crime. Such a combination of factors gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of actual bias.<page_number>Page 808</page_number>