Topics on Which the OSC has Just Granted Review

This wikilog article is a draft, it was not published yet.

by: Ryan • October 6, 2011 • no comments

The full press release is here. It includes a 1st Amendment case that isn't criminal, which I do not discuss below below.

In State v. Klein, where the convictions included murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted aggravated murder, two questions are presented.

1. In the definition of "aggrieved person" in ORS 133.721(1), is the phrase "a person against whom the interception was directed" limited to persons expressly named in the order allowing the interception of communications, or does it include persons who were obviously targeted by the order but not expressly named?
2. Was it harmless error to exclude testimony by a fellow inmate that the witness who was "a centerpiece of the state's case" admitted that she "made this whole thing up to get out of jail"?

In St v. Eumana-Moranchel, a DUII case involving retrograde extrapolation, the question presented is:

What kind of evidence does ORS 813.010(1)(a) contemplate when it requires the state to prove a driver's blood alcohol content "as shown by chemical analysis of the person made under ORS 813.100, 813.140, or 813.150??

In St v. Powell, the questions involve the fruit of a poisonous tree.

1. Does ORS 136.425(1) require the suppression of a second confession if that second confession follows a first confession that was made in response to a promise of leniency, and the second confession: occurs shortly after the first confession and in the same room, involves some of the same people, and was made following renewed indications that the offer of leniency was still "on the table," but also occurs in the presence of a uniformed police officer who reads defendant his Miranda rights (but describes them as a mere formality)?
2. Does the scope of ORS 136.425(1), which prohibits the use in evidence of a defendant's confession or admissions under certain circumstances, include the suppression of derivative physical evidence and subsequent statements that were the result of interrogators' exploitation of a prior, allegedly involuntary confession?