Confirmation of Bias
by: Ryan • December 20, 2011 • no comments
Is it too early in the morning for snark?
Different counties have different reputations. The defense bar in county X has a different reputation than the defense bar in county Y. Certainly, the judiciary in county A has a different reputation than any other county in the state. Even jurors in Portland are known for . . . well, you know. And I've heard fantastic things about the professionalism and fairness of a DA's office and its prosecutors in a county far south of where I work, which I won't embarrass by naming on a criminal defense blog.
Well, I just read the press release from today's Court of Appeals decisions. Two opinions stood out. Both are from the same county. After I summarize the summaries, see if you can guess from which county these cases originated. Note that the opinions themselves have not yet been released, so this post might turn out to be quite unfair once more details are known.
Case #1: "Held: To support a conviction for the offense of assault in the second degree based on use of a dangerous weapon, the state must establish the use of a dangerous weapon." No s**t. This required an appellate decision? The court further added, "In the absence of evidence of a dangerous weapon, defendant is correct that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal."
Case #2: "Held: The trial court erred when it directed defendant to answer the prosecutor's question concerning defendant's conversations with his attorney." WTF? The press release adds that the error was not harmless because the prosecutor used the testimony to attack both defendant's and his attorney's credibility.
Both of these cases required something special from both the prosecutors and the judges. Any guess which county? Here's a clue. In the last year, this same county has seen three aggravated murder convictions overturned by the Oregon Supreme Court.
Again, in all fairness, the opinions themselves - when they lay out the facts in more detail - may suggest a perfectly understandable reason why someone was convicted of a M11 Assault II based on a dangerous weapon without evidence of a dangerous weapon or why it was okay to violate lawyer/client privilege.
Come back later today for a more thorough summary of the opinions.
