Defense urges Washington Supreme Court to require refund of forfeited cash bail after Blake

Edward Wicksler, counsel for Russell Charles, argued before the Washington State Supreme Court that the State's retention of forfeited cash bail following convictions now considered unconstitutional under Blake violates due process and must be refunded. "It violates due process for the State to retain cash bail as a financial windfall from those prosecutions in light of this court's decision in Blake," Wicksler said during opening argument.

Wicksler told the justices the proper inquiry is forward-looking: not whether a trial court had authority to impose or forfeit bail in 2007, but what countervailing interest, if any, the State retains today in money exacted as part of a prosecution that Blake later invalidated. He urged the court to apply the Nelson v. Colorado framework, which asks whether the government's continued retention of property constitutes an unjust enrichment now that the conviction's predicate has been severed.

Wicksler acknowledged historical cases involving bail forfeiture but said the defense's claim is narrower than some older holdings. He told the court the record shows roughly $900–$950 in posted bail, about $650 was applied to legal financial obligations, and roughly $250 remained forfeited and unrefunded; he argued those bookkeeping decisions produced a lingering LFO balance that penalized Mr. Charles for years.

The court reserved time for rebuttal, heard extensive questioning about bail-vs.-bond distinctions and procedural posture, and took the case under submission.