Appeals panel weighs whether Chelan County Jail intrusions require dismissal in State v. Tulilu

A three-judge panel of the Washington State Court of Appeals Division 3 heard oral argument on April 29, 2026, in case No. 407845 over whether intrusions into a defendant’s communications with counsel at the Chelan County Jail violated the Sixth Amendment and, if so, what remedy is appropriate.

Defense counsel Chris Gibson argued the violations were prejudicial and that the remedies the trial court ordered were inadequate. "The appropriate remedy in these circumstances is reversal and dismissal of the charges," Gibson told the panel, saying dismissal with prejudice is the only sanction that will send a statewide message that attorney-client confidentiality must be protected. He said the record shows multiple types of incursions — by phone, by reading mail, and during electronic-pad communications — and that unknown additional violations may have occurred, leaving unresolved questions about how any obtained information was used.

The state, represented by Mr. Lewis, told the panel the trial court weighed the totality of the circumstances and fashioned available remedies. Lewis emphasized that the record contains a concession that "no information from any alleged intrusion was obtained by jail staff and no information was passed on to investigators or to the prosecutor," and argued that outright dismissal is "an unusual and extraordinary remedy." He urged the court to leave the trial-court judgment intact or, at most, remand for additional findings.

Judges on the panel questioned both sides about practical remedies. They asked whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard when it found prejudice and whether remedies offered by the trial court — including transporting the defendant to his attorney’s office or transferring him to another facility — were adequate or even available. Gibson told the court offers to transport the defendant were not accepted and stressed that even partial measures (for example, an electronic pad with earbuds) allowed jail staff to overhear portions of counsel-client communications.

The state acknowledged that transfer to other jails had been attempted but reported some jurisdictions declined to accept the inmate for reasons reflected in the record, including his age and health. Panel members pressed whether it was the responsibility of defense counsel, prosecutors or the trial court to raise or order venue changes or other remedies; Lewis said ensuring a fair trial is a shared obligation but defended the trial court’s attempt to minimize prejudice.

Counsel debated controlling precedent and standards for remedies in cases of attorney-client intrusion. Gibson urged the court to apply the rule that prejudice must be eliminated beyond a reasonable doubt and said "reduced prejudice" is not enough; the state answered that courts consider the totality of circumstances, including the degree of prejudice and whether state actors acted with nefarious intent.

Gibson used reserved rebuttal time to reiterate that the Chelan County Jail lacked facilities for confidential meetings and that harsher penalties — including dismissal with prejudice — were necessary to deter future violations. After oral argument the panel took the case under advisement and said it would issue an opinion at a later date. "The matter will be submitted to the panel, and we will issue an opinion at a later time," Chief Judge Tracy Staub told counsel before adjourning the court.

The case raises questions about jail practices for attorney-client communications and about how appellate courts balance presumption of prejudice, available remedies and practical constraints such as inmate health or the ability of other jurisdictions to accept transfers.