A Book from the Library of Defense

Main Entrance

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

Top Ten Observations about Defense Lawyers

by: Ryan Scott • March 31, 2017 • no comments

Kopf's list begins:

10. Criminal defense lawyers are at great risk of becoming drunken bastards—the stress is beyond description.

9. Being a good criminal defense lawyer requires sincerity whereas being a great criminal defense lawyer requires the ability to fake it.

8. When it comes to convincing a client to accept a guilty plea because it is in the manifest best interests of the client, a criminal defense lawyer must become a client whisperer.

7. When it comes to convincing a client to reject a plea offer and take the case to a jury, a criminal defense lawyer (regardless of gender) must possess balls of steel.

6. Real criminal defense lawyers don’t hate prosecutors, but they don’t trust them either.

The rest of the list gets more interesting.

→ continue reading...

Race, Crime, Lead: More on the Impact of Banning Leaded Gasoline

by: Ryan Scott • March 30, 2017 • no comments

Kevin Drum's post is here, highlighting two studies. Very interesting to show how leaded gasoline -- and the subsequent ban on leaded gasoline -- impacts incarceration and crime as categorized by the race of the defendant.

Does Retroactive Application of SO Registry Laws Violate Ex Post Facto?

by: Ryan Scott • March 30, 2017 • no comments

You may have thought this issue was dead, but apparently it has some life. Per SCOTUSblog, SCOTUS has invited the solicitor general to weigh in on the petition for cert in Snyder v. Doe, which raises the question whether retroactive application of sex-offender-registry laws violates ex post facto clause.

That doesn't mean the justices will take the case, but at least one justice is considering doing so. I wouldn't expect a decision on whether to grant cert until the fall.

SW to Seize and Search a Car's Black Box

by: Ryan Scott • March 30, 2017 • no comments

I've been waiting to have a case -- almost certainly a vehicular manslaughter or similar -- in which to raise this issue. Hasn't happened yet. But here's an appellate opinion where it was raised. Key quote:

The state challenges an order granting appellee Charles Worsham’s motion to suppress. Without a warrant, the police downloaded data from the “event data recorder” or “black box” located in Worsham’s impounded vehicle. We affirm, concluding there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information retained by an event data recorder and downloading that information without a warrant from an impounded car in the absence of exigent circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.

Here is Orin Kerr's take on the issue.

Historical Cell-Site Data: subpoena or search warrant?

by: Ryan Scott • March 22, 2017 • no comments

You can see a 9th Circuit oral argument on the issue here.

However, keep in mind, the Oregon Constitution may be far more favorable. See State v. Ghim for Oregon's take on the third-party doctrine.

Juvenile Arrest Rates Since 1980

by: Ryan Scott • March 6, 2017 • no comments

I highly recommend you look at this chart via Kevin Drum.

Mr. Drum writes:

Since 1996, arrests of juveniles have fallen by two-thirds. Arrests for violent crimes have fallen by more than two-thirds. Bottom line: Kids today are way better behaved and way less scary than they were in the 90s. One of these days we ought to start acting like we know this.

Child Porn Sentencing

by: Ryan Scott • March 5, 2017 • no comments

The Oregon Supreme Court has granted review to a case involving child porn sentencing. The issue is this: how many different criminal episodes are there when multiple images are found during a single search, but those images were obtained on different dates?

I won't reiterate the arguments here, but it's my case, so if anyone wants the briefs after they're filed, let me know.

If the defense wins, the impact could be that a defendant who is an "I" would stay an "I" for all counts. While much better than being an "A" after just a few counts, are there any other limitations that could dramatically shorten the sentence?

Yes. If the state can't prove separate victims, the 200% rule would kick in, and the defendant's likely sentence would be no more than 36 months.

But what if the images all involve separate children? My argument -- which I have written about before -- is that the burden is on the state to show that the people depicted in the images are still alive at the time of downloading by the defendant, because if they aren't, they are beyond all harm, and thus cannot be victims (in the same way you can't libel the dead).

The state's response, shared by some defense attorneys, is that when you download the images ten, twenty or even a hundred years later, you -- as a consumer of these images -- are the reason these images were created in the first place, thus you are complicit in the original abuse. Consequently, it is the harm from the original abuse that makes the children "victims" for all eternity, even if the porn people look at five hundred years from now is the same porn that exists today.

I think this is wrong because I don't think the law recognizes retroactivity in this type of culpability. Space/time certainly doesn't. But there is another key reason, and when I say it, you're going to be shocked, but read on, and you'll see I'm not promoting an argument that only a psychopath would make.

→ continue reading...

The Science on Marijuana Legalization's Impact on Opioid Addiction

by: Ryan Scott • February 28, 2017 • one comment

Judge Rejects Warrant Provision On Compelling Thumbprint to Unlock Phone

by: Ryan Scott • February 24, 2017 • no comments

Details here.

Where Can You Get Crime Statistics?

by: Ryan Scott • February 24, 2017 • no comments

For US crime statistics, go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. This is a good place to start. As Kevin Drum states, "Their data delivery tool provides a lot of flexibility, allowing you to get data for specific crimes, specific localities, and specific time periods. Unfortunately, it's usually two years behind the latest release, so you have to wade through the most recent PDF reports if you want current data. If you need a complete series, start with the data tool and then fill in the most recent couple of years by hand from the relevant reports."

More proof that the major reason for the drop in violent crime is. . . .

by: Ryan Scott • February 17, 2017 • no comments

. . . . unleaded gasoline. Or more precisely, the phasing out of leaded gasoline in the US in the 1970s. You can easily find previous articles and evidence of this around the internet. Perhaps the most compelling evidence is that the drop in violence is entirely predictable based on when and how quickly leaded gasoline was phased out, regardless of the country. Here is the evidence as it relates to Britain, which phased out leaded gasoline much later than occurred in the US but, once it did so, did so much more quickly.

This isn't rocket science. We know what lead does to the brain, in terms of intellectual development and impulse control. That getting it out of the environment would have long term benefits for the children who grew up after lead was reduced or eliminated in their neighborhoods is entirely predictable and born out by the evidence.

Things You Really Need to Know About Special Jury Instructions

by: Ryan Scott • February 16, 2017 • no comments

Today, the Oregon Supreme Court came out with an opinion in State v. Morgan. It's a good defense opinion but not a good one for this particular defendant.

The most significant holding is that in a robbery in the second degree based on "aided by another person actually present," the "other person" must actually intend to aid the principal in the commission of the robbery. It can't be inadvertent assistance.

But there are a few things from the opinion that are very much worth highlighting.

→ continue reading...

Is Your Smart TV Spying on You? And How This Relates to the Most Important Suppression Opinion of the Year

by: Ryan Scott • February 7, 2017 • no comments

The Fourth Amendment blog writes about the story here.

The blog post asks the question: "So, if this is third party data, is it subject to mere subpoena and not a search warrant?"

And the answer is:

→ continue reading...

An Objective View of the Relationship Between Immigration and Crime

by: Ryan Scott • January 27, 2017 • no comments

Article is here.

Key quote:

“Native-born Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than Central American immigrants, and recent increases in immigration occurred as crime actually fell in the US.”

The Costs of Mass Incarceration

by: Ryan Scott • January 27, 2017 • no comments

The costs referred to in the title are purely financial. But even those are huge, and likely conservative. The report comes from the Prison Policy Initiative. I haven't read it closely enough to determine if it includes the loss of tax income from inmates who would be working if they weren't incarcerated.

Probable Cause to Arrest for Trespassing

by: Ryan Scott • January 23, 2017 • no comments

SCOTUS granted cert last week to a case with the following facts (taken from SCOTUSblog's summary):

The first grant came in District of Columbia v. Wesby, a case that presents important questions regarding the assessment of probable cause by police officers and qualified immunity. The case arose when police officers in Washington responded to a noise complaint about a vacant house, where they found scantily clad women and the smell of marijuana. No one seemed to know who owned the house or precisely what the occasion was, but some of the partygoers told police that they had been invited by someone named “Peaches” or “Tasty” – who was not at the party, but who admitted that she did not have the owner’s permission to use the house.
The partygoers were arrested for trespassing, but no charges were ever brought against them. The partygoers then filed a lawsuit, in which they alleged that the police lacked probable cause to arrest them because they had told police officers that they had been invited to the house and therefore did not intend to trespass.

Two pieces on criminal law worth reading

by: Ryan Scott • January 16, 2017 • no comments

The first piece involves the reduction, by 50%, of the number of black males under 30 who are incarcerated since 2001. The reason won't surprise anyone who has regularly read this blog. The thing to keep in mind is that, around the country, you're seeing lower incarceration rates for young males AND lower crime rates. Keep this in mind when you hear people defend higher incarceration rates as the explanation for reduced crime.

The second is a Slate piece about Oregon prosecutors. It's brief, and it tries to cover a lot of ground. Consequently, it's a more superficial discussion than I would like, but it's a start.

"Kids Are Killing a Lot Fewer Cops These Days"

by: Ryan Scott • January 4, 2017 • no comments

Here's the story behind it. It's another example of how the greatest anti-crime measure this country ever undertook was removing lead from gasoline.

Possession with Intent to Deliver: the state's special jury instruction

by: Ryan Scott • December 21, 2016 • no comments

I wrote about this back in 2011, after the COA had approved a state's instruction on possession with intent to delivery in State v. Schwab. Here's what I wrote, edited somewhat:

[T]he challenge to the instruction was very limited and therefore the COA's holding was narrow. ("In short, the issue that defendant frames on appeal — whether a jury instruction that indicates that a person may be found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance based solely on the quantity of the substance found — is not actually properly before this court.") The Supreme Court denied review, but another strange thing happened. There was a written concurrence to the denial of review, an event I don't know if I've ever seen before. (Dissents, yes, though primarily from SCOTUS. I'm sure it's happened before, but never, for me at least, memorably.)

The concurrence first quoted the instruction at issue:

"Under Oregon law, possession with intent to deliver constitutes delivery, even where no actual transfer is shown. An attempted transfer occurs when a person intentionally engages in conduct which constitutes a substantial step and includes, but [is] not limited to, possession of a large amount of a controlled substance, not for personal use, but consistent, instead, with trafficking in controlled substances."

Then the concurrence said this about the instruction:

→ continue reading...

Effect on the Listener

by: Ryan Scott • December 16, 2016 • one comment

From Justice DeMuniz's concurrence in Sullivan v. Popoff:

The first issue has to do with the relevance of the so-called effect-on-the-listener statements. Every statement has an effect on the mind of those who hear it; therefore, there is always an argument to be made that an out-of-court effect-on-the-listener statement is admissible because it qualifies as "not hearsay." However, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay only if it is (a) relevant, and (b) offered to show the statement's effect upon the listener's state of mind. Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Oregon Evidence § 801.01[3][d], 705 (6th ed. 2013); see, e.g., State v. West, 145 Or.App. 322, 325, 930 P.2d 858 (1996) (police officer could testify to instruction given by another officer to show the instruction's effect on defendant); see also State v. Hren, 237 Or.App. 605, 607, 241 P.3d 1168 (2010) ("Statements that are relevant to show their effect on a listener are not hearsay."). Stated another way, an out-of-court statement may be offered to show that the making of that statement had some effect on the person who heard the statement if that person's state of mind is relevant to an issue in the case. See State v. Thomas, 167 Or.App. 80, 83-84, 1 P.3d 1058 (2000) (trial court erred in excluding as hearsay witness's out-of-court statement offered to prove the effect on the defendant, one of the listeners). Not every out-of-court effect-on-the-listener statement is relevant to an issue in a case. For example, a police officer's state of mind is seldom relevant to an issue in a criminal case. Thus, when dealing with so-called "effect-on-the-listener," or state-of-mind statements, the question, "Is it relevant?" is just as important as the question, "Is it hearsay?" G. Michael Fenner, The Hearsay Rule 331-32 (3d ed. 2013). [Emphasis added.]

A short primer on relevancy

by: Ryan Scott • December 16, 2016 • no comments

The first question in determining if evidence is admissible -- always the first question -- is relevancy. Once relevancy is demonstrated, the next step is admissibility (e.g., statement of a party opponent, excited utterance, doctrine of chances) and then lastly, whether the probative value is substantially outweight by its prejudicial effect (i.e., OEC 403.)

Normally, relevancy is easy. Does the evidence make a fact in dispute more or less likely?

Relevancy can, in some situations, have two prongs. Let's assume the evidence is only admissible if certain inferences are made. Inferences are okay, but speculation is not. But what if those inferences depend on a separate "fact" that in turn is merely an inference?

If the inference is only relevant if the separate fact is true, then the party seeking to offer the evidence must prove that separate fact before the evidence is admissible. Otherwise, there is improper speculation.

See these recent footnotes from State v. Jesse:

6 See also OEC 104(2) (if “relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition”).
7 The line between permissible inferences and impermissible speculation is difficult to articulate with precision. The federal courts usefully have described that line in these terms:
“The line between a reasonable inference that may permissibly be drawn by a jury from basic facts in evidence and an impermissible speculation is not drawn by judicial idiosyncrasies. The line is drawn by the laws of logic. If there is an experience of logical probability that an ultimate fact will follow a stated narrative or historical fact, then the jury is given the opportunity to draw a conclusion because there is a reasonable probability that the conclusion flows from the proven facts.” Tose v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 648 F2d 879, 895 (3d Cir), cert den, 454 US 893 (1981), abrogated on other grounds by Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 US 56, 103 S Ct 400, 74 L Ed 2d 225 (1982).

If the evidence is being offered by the state, defense counsel MUST request a limiting instruction to be given at the time the evidence is presented to the jury. If no limiting instruction can successfully mitigate the substantial prejudice of admission, then the evidence must be excluded. Consequently, the court must decide what the limiting instruction would be prior to determining if the evidence is admissible. In this way, an inadequate limiting instruction can result in reversal, even if the evidence might be admissible if a proper instruction were given.

Notable Cert Grant: Brady

by: Ryan Scott • December 16, 2016 • no comments

From Scotusblog:

Two of the cases that the justices agreed to review today, Turner v. United States and Overton v. United States, arise out of the brutal 1984 murder of Catherine Fuller, a District of Columbia mother. The petitioners in the case are a group of D.C. men who were convicted of the crime, based in large part on testimony from alleged eyewitnesses. Decades later, a reporter learned that defense attorneys had not received a statement suggesting that someone else had committed the crime; additional discovery then revealed that prosecutors had failed to turn over other evidence that could have aided the defendants. The men sought to vacate their convictions, but were unsuccessful in the lower courts.
Today the Supreme Court agreed to review both cases. Overton had asked the court to weigh in on the standard that the lower court used to evaluate his claim that prosecutors had not complied with their obligations under Brady v. Maryland, which requires the government to turn over information that could exonerate the defendant. Turner and his co-defendants had asked the court to consider whether, when determining the significance of suppressed evidence, courts can consider information that comes to light after trial. But the court today announced that it would review a more straightforward question in both cases: whether the men’s convictions must be set aside under Brady.

Racial Disparity in Florida Sentencing

by: Ryan Scott • December 11, 2016 • no comments

Disturbing analysis reported on here. Key paragraphs:

→ continue reading...

Another Great Merger Opinion from the Appellate Courts

by: Ryan Scott • December 5, 2016 • no comments

Last week, the Court of Appeals remanded for merger of three counts of sexual abuse involving three different body parts (two belong to the victim, one the defendant.) The case is State v. Nelson.

Over the past eight years or so, the defense bar has won a tremendous number of merger arguments. This is one of the last big ones. A few more can be found here.

Top 3 Cases from 2016 I'm Thankful For

by: Ryan Scott • November 28, 2016 • no comments

AMENDED: Oops, Villagomez, while still a great opinion, isn't as broad as I assumed below. See State v. Stewart.

First, State v. Villagomez. Before this case, you'd virtually never see a level-4 DCS. They would all be level-6 or level-8. After Villagomez, most Boyd deliveries will be level-4s. What's the difference between 6 and 4? In some cases less prison, in other cases, no prison, and in others, less probation.

Secondly, keeping with the CDO theme, State v. Rankins. This case, by weakening one of the CDO factors (specifically drug records, which no longer include routine texts between dealer and buyer), in combination with Villagomez, will help save a lot of people from prison.

Third, State v. Mansor,, the one computer search warrant case that is essential reading. Police are now routinely getting search warrants for our client's phones, especially in drug cases and homicides. This case will significantly reduce the state's discovery -- and reliance -- on a lot of bullshit character evidence. For example, read this story from Sentencing Law and Policy blog about how a Facebook post written by a defendant when he was 13 is being used by the prosecutor to give a minor life in prison. Key quote:

Prosecutors will use a Facebook post from 2010 when Gerome Moore was 13 showing him in possession of a handgun and "arguably" displaying gang signs to try to show Moore should be sentenced to life without parole in the January 2015 shooting death of Carolyn Temple in Belhaven.  Moore was convicted of capital murder in September, but his sentencing is on hold. A capital murder conviction had meant a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, but a 2012 Supreme Court ruling said judges must consider the unique circumstances of each juvenile offender....
Moore was 17 at the time of the crime. He didn't shoot Temple, but his gun was used. He and at least two others were driving around that evening looking for someone to rob. Prosecutors say they followed Temple's vehicle, a Mercedes, to her boyfriend's house in Belhaven. Once she got out her car and went to the curb to retrieve her boyfriend's garbage can, two of the individuals tried to take her purse. She resisted and one of them shot her. Prosecutors believe Moore stayed in the car and was the getaway driver, although he provided the weapon.

Next 20 Articles


Enter your email to get notice of new articles:


Oregon Appellate Ct - April 26, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 28, 2017 • no comments
  • Trial Court Did Not Err in Amending Judgment Without Resentencing Defendant
  • Civil Commitment – Insufficient Evidence that Appellant was a Danger to Himself
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner Failed to Prove that Counsel’s Response to Vouching Testimony was Inadequate
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner is Presumed to Know Immigration Law and Petition Did Not Fall into Escape Clause
  • Failure to Appear Requires Proof that Defendant Knew of Court Date at Time He Failed to Appear
  • Fines and Fees – Trial Court Did Not Err in Imposing Unitary Assessment and Criminal Fine but Did Err in Imposing County Assessments
  • Juvenile Dependency – Trial Court Did Not Err in Changing Permanency Plan
  • Attempt – Sufficient Proof of Substantial Step
  • Traffic Violation – Violation for Pedestrian “Improperly Proceeding Along a Highway” Does Not Include Pedestrians Who Are Crossing
  • Confessions – Defendant’s Confession was Inadmissible Because it was Induced by Promises and Threats
  • Conviction for Improper Use of Emergency Communication System Requires Proof that Caller Knew He Was Calling for Prohibited Purpose
  • Per Curiam – State Concedes Unlawful Search and Inventory
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - April 20, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 21, 2017 • no comments
  • Interference with a Peace Officer – “Passive Resistance” is Noncooperation with an Officer that Does Not Involve Violence or Other Active Conduct
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 19, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 21, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure – Defendant was Not Seized Under Oregon Law and Police Had Reasonable Suspicion Justifying Seizure Under Federal Law
  • Search and Seizure – Defendant Did Not Have a Privacy Interest in a BAC Test Conducted for Medical Treatment
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Relief Warranted When Trial Counsel Failed to Call Exculpatory Witness
  • Second-Degree Escape - Insufficient Proof of Escape When Defendant in Custody on Probation Violation - Courtroom was Correctional Facility for Purposes of Escape
  • Search and Seizure – Inventory of Defendant’s Bag was Lawful – Plain Error Imposing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam – PCR Court Did Not Err in Dismissing Petition Under ORCP 21 A(3)
  • Per Curiam – PCR Court Not Required to Respond to Petitioner’s Pro Se Claims
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 12, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 14, 2017 • no comments
  • Defendant Was Not Entitled to Grand Jury Notes – Court Will Not Exercise Discretion to Correct Sentencing Error
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Petitioner Failed to Meet Burden to Show Evidence Would Be Admissible
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Successive Petition is Procedurally Barred
  • Evidence – Prior Acts Admissible to Prove Hostile Motive
  • Restitution – No Good Cause for Delaying Restitution Hearing 203 Days After Judgment
  • Evidence – Any Error in Admitting Curative Testimony was Harmless
  • Post-Conviction Relief – Remand Required on Shackling Claim – Petitioner Not Entitled to Subpoena Victim
  • Search and Seizure – Extension of Stop Justified by Reasonable Suspicion of DUII
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - April 5, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • April 7, 2017 • no comments
  • No Reversible Error in Excluding Evidence of Defendant’s Character – Error in Applying Departure Factors
  • Restitution – Remand Required to Apply Ramos
  • Per Curiam – Reversal Required when No Signed Jury Waiver
  • Per Curiam – Reversing Attorney Fee Award
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Plainly Erred in Failing to Merge Guilty Verdicts
  • Per Curiam – Reversing Sentence that Exceeded the Statutory Maximum
  • Per Curiam – Reversing “Mandatory State Amt”
  • Per Curiam – Reversing “Mandatory State Amt”
  • Per Curiam – Juvenile Dependency – Termination of Parental Rights was Proper
  • Per Curiam – Trial Court Erred in Failing to Conduct OEC 403 Balancing Required
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - March 30, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 31, 2017 • no comments
  • Eyewitness ID - Defendant Entitled to Remand for Lawson/James Hearing
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 29, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 31, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure - Police Lacked Reasonable Suspicion to Extend Traffic Stop
  • Challenges to Uncharged Sexual Abuse Unpreserved and Restitution Award Supported by the Record
  • DNA Testing - Defendant Did Not Make a Prima Facie Showing of Actual Innocence
  • Juvenile Dependency - No Error in Maintaining Permanency Plan of Reunification
  • Per Curiam - OEC 403 Balancing Challenge is Unpreserved
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 22, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 24, 2017 • no comments
  • Post-Conviction Relief - No Appeal from Dismissal as Meritless Petition
  • Search and Seizure - Police Lacked Reasonable Suspicion - Record Not Sufficient to Address State's Alternative Basis
  • Fines and Fees - Trial Court Improperly Imposed Compensatory Fine
  • Juvenile Dependency - Affirming Jurisdiction over Child Due to Domestic Violence in the Home
  • Search and Seizure - Search Warrant Affidavit Established Probable Cause for Search of RV
  • Per Curiam - Search and Seizure - Search Under Automobile Exception Justified
  • Per Curiam - Court Erred in Imposing Fine on Merged Count
  • Per Curiam - Civil Commitment Court Plainly Erred in Failing to Advise of Right to Subpoena
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 15, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 17, 2017 • no comments
  • Indictments - Any Error in Amending Indictment was Harmless
  • FAPA Orders - Insufficient Evidence that Respondent Threatened Harm to Petitioner
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Appellate Counsel was Not Ineffective for Failing to Raise Claim
  • Civil Commitment - Evidence Sufficient to Find that Appellant Continued to Be a Danger to Herself
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Trial Counsel Not Ineffective for Failing to Argue for Application of Shift-to-I Rule
  • Sentencing - Trial Court Erred in Imposing Consecutive Sentences for Robbery and UUV
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - March 9, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 10, 2017 • no comments
  • Search and Seizure - Automobile Exception Justified Search
  • Mandamus - Court Orders Murder Indictment Dismissed With Prejudice on Former Jeopardy Grounds
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 8, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 10, 2017 • no comments
  • Evidence - Victim's Statements Were Admissible as Evidence of His State of Mind
  • Expert Testimony - Trial Court Did Not Err In Limiting Expert's Testimony
  • Juvenile Dependency - DHS Made Reasonable Efforts to Ameliorate Mother's Mental Health Issues
  • Parole - Rejecting Petitioner's Challenges to Denial of Parole
  • Search and Seizure - Officer's Pat-Down of Defendant Not Justified on Officer Safety Grounds
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - March 2, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 5, 2017 • no comments
  • Search & Seizure - Police Must Have Suspicion of Specific Crime or Type of Crime
  • Interrogation - Defendant Unequivocally Invoked Right Against Compelled Self-Incrimination
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - March 1, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • March 4, 2017 • no comments
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Petitioner Did Not Create an Issue of Fact with Respect to Prejudice
  • Civil Commitment - Evidence was Sufficient to Support Finding that Appellant was a Danger to Others
  • Post-Conviction Relief - State Committed Brady Violation with Respect to Two Witnesses
  • Search and Seizure - Defendant Did Not Consent to a Search of His Residence
  • Sufficiency of Evidence - Reconsideration - Acknowledging Factual Mistake but Adhering to Original Opinion
  • Sentencing - Trial Court has Authority Under ORS 137.750 to Find Defendant Ineligible for a Reduction in Sentence
  • Juvenile Dependency - Record Legally Sufficient to Support Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
  • Post-Conviction Relief - PCR Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment for State
  • Per Curiam - Sex Abuse Guilty Verdicts Merged
  • Per Curiam - Insufficient Evidence of Witness Tampering
  • Per Curiam - Sex Abuse Guilty Verdicts Merged
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Appellate Ct - Feb 23, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • February 27, 2017 • no comments
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Reversing Grant of Post-Conviction Relief Because Trial Counsel Made Reasonable Strategic Choices
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Petitioner's Padilla Claim was Barred Because Padilla is Not Retroactive
  • Evidence - Evidence of Other Sexual Assaults in Another County was Admissible
  • Sufficiency of Evidence - Officer's Order to Defendant was Lawful for Officer Safety Reasons
  • Search and Seizure - Automobile Exception Applies to Cars Stopped for Traffic Violation
  • Trial Court Did Not Err in Finding Defendant in Summary Contempt
  • Sentencing - Declining to Overrule Precedent Requiring Full Remand for Merger Error
  • Post-Conviction Relief - Petitioner Did Not Establish that Expert Testimony Would Have Been Admissible
  • Per Curiam - Reversing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam - Trial Court Did Not Plainly Err in Imposing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam - Defendant's Father Lacked Actual Authority to Consent to Search of Defendant's Room
  • Per Curiam - Insufficient Evidence to Support Civil Commitment
  • Per Curiam - Reversing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam - Defendant's Two Unlawful Delivery Guilty Verdicts Should Merge
  • Per Curiam - Reversing Attorney Fees
  • Per Curiam - Juvenile Dependency Appeal Dismissed as Moot
  • Per Curiam - Rejecting Challenge to Auto Exception Search
  • Per Curiam - Court Grants Reconsider to Correct Citation Error
→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Ct - Feb 16, 2017

by: Sara Werboff • February 20, 2017 • no comments
  • Second-Degree Robbery - State Required to Prove that Person Providing Aid to Defendant Acted with Intent to Promote or Facilitate Defendant's Acts
→ read the full summaries...