I just saw the post on the Washington statute that requires the state to pay when it loses a criminal case on self-defense grounds. Interesting story on that. When I first started working [as a lawyer], I took a call from a Washington attorney whose client had been acquitted of some kind of homicide (I forget the details). This attorney related that the judge in her case refused to instruct on self-defense, but the jury acquitted anyway. She claimed that since R.C.W. 9A.16.110 went into effect, Washington judges had gotten very stingy on self-defense instructions out of concern for the state fisc. It actually makes a kind of bizarre sense, if you're not too hung up on, you know, basic fairness: If the jury returns a not guilty verdict without a self-defense instruction (either because they think it was self-defense even without an instruction, or for some other reason), the defendant is in good shape (albeit perhaps deeply in debt to his counsel). And if the jury returns a guilty verdict, the lack of a self-defense instruction is reversible error on appeal (assuming a self-defense instruction was really warranted). So the defendant can appeal and get a new trial. No harm, no foul . . . well, er, kinda . . .A perfect example of the law of unwanted consequences. The Legislature out there needs to include a section stating that self defense instructions shall be given.