Oregon Supreme Court 05-27-11
by: Abassos • May 26, 2011 • no comments
Read the full article for details about the following new cases:
- Sentence Vacated for Violation of Victims Rights
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled today that a trial judge is required to grant a victim's request to vacate a sentence where the judge has found that the victim's constitutional right to be informed in advance of sentencing was violated:
"The victim was entitled to a remedy by due course of law under Article I, section 42(3)(a). Her proposed remedy - vacating defendant's sentence and conducting a resentencing hearing - was permissible, in that it was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Because the remedy could be "effectuated after the disposition" of this criminal proceeding, the victim had not waived her rights under ORS 147.533. The trial court erred in not granting the victim the relief that she sought."
One key to this case is that the trial judge found that the victim's rights were violated. Diplomatically put, the record could have been more fully developed in that regard. What happened in this case is that the victim told the victim's advocate, a non-attorney employee of the District Attorney, that she wanted to attend critical stages of the proceedings. She was told to turn in a form to effectuate her request prior to March 2nd. Which she did, but not prior to a quick plea and sentencing that occurred on February 28th. The victim knew about the hearing date but was told by the advocate that she didn't need to be there.
The craziest thing about this case to me is that side conversations between the victim and any employee of the District Attorney apparently matter immensely. Yet the defense has no access to such information. As happens so often in criminal cases, the defense is simply blindsided. The defense is barred from talking to the complainant in most cases. The defense is barred from finding out what was said at Grand Jury. We're generally unable to talk to the officer who took the complainant's statements. The police aren't required to record the accusations. Which means that we are often hearing the complainant's actual story for the very first time at trial. This case feels like one more step in the direction of making critical information inaccessible to the defense.
Stay tuned for more on this case as the dust settles. It's also worth noting that one of the main tent presentations at the Annual Conference will be on victims rights. Just one more reason to attend.[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S059423.htm State v. Barrett]
