OCDLA Library of Defense - Latest Case Reviews
Blog
Three Challenges to Felony Murderby: Ryan Scott • May 18, 2025 • no comments Felony murder occupies an unusual place in the murder firmament. It does not require an intent to kill. Nor does it require the defendant kill the victim. Yet it carries the exact same sentence as any other murder in the 2nd degree (live, with a 25 year mandatory minimum before eligibility for parole). Given that significantly less culpability is built into the offense, it seems to me that every felony murder sentence is vulnerable to a challenge under Article I, section 16. But that's not the point of today's post. Instead I want to discuss three challenges to felony murder. The first applies to every felony murder. The second is limited to those situations where the defendant's only role is as an accomplice to the predicate felony. And the third applies to a very specific theory of felony murder: when a child dies from injuries sustained during an assault in the first or second degree. → continue reading...The Shadow Challengeby: Ryan Scott • May 6, 2025 • no comments “Shadow Challenge” is a type of motion to controvert, and the name comes from The Hollow Men by T.S. Eliot:
Police get a search warrant. When they do, there is probable cause that evidence relevant to the crime will be found in the location to be searched. But there's many a slip between the cup and the lip. If the police – after they have obtained a search warrant, but prior to its execution – obtain information that undermines the probable cause requirement, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution obligates them to return to the magistrate for a new finding of probable cause. United States v. Marin Buitrago, 734 F2d 889 (2d Cir 1984). See also, Washington v Reichenbach, 153 Wash 2d 126, 101 P3d 80 (2004); United States v. Bowling, 900 F2d 926 (6th Cir 1990). Justice Bushong Highlights A Few Improper Closing Argumentsby: Ryan Scott • May 5, 2025 • no comments In State v. Mendez Perez, 373 Or 591 (2025), the Oregon Supreme Court looked at whether a handful of arguments made by the prosecutor in closing/rebuttal merited reversal, when the defendant did not object to those arguments. The court concluded the various statements did not merit reversal. In his concurrence, Justice Bushong, joined by Justice James, suggested that the court's blanket approach to "plain error" may not be appropriate in every situation where an error is unpreserved. That discussion, which is highly valuable, is something for appellate attorneys to consider, and I don't plan to get into it here. Justice Bushong goes on and highlights some -- but not all -- of arguments that are inappropriate and objectionable when made by the prosecutor. His list starts on page 617 of the opinion. It is a good list, and I highly recommend reviewing it before your next trial. Note also that Justice Bushong recommends a law review article -- Michael D. Cicchini, Combating Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Arguments, 70 Okla L Rev 887 (2018) -- for additional examples of inappropriate argument. Next 20 Articles Case Reviews
Oregon Court of Appeals, May 7th, 2025by: Rankin Johnson CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS - Belated Miranda warnings HEARSAY AND CONFRONTATION - Sex-abuse hearsay exception CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor MUNICIPAL AND JUSTICE COURTS - Appeal Oregon Supreme Court, May 1st, 2025by: Rankin Johnson DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS - Uncharged offenses CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor Oregon Court of Appeals, April 23rd, 2025by: Rankin Johnson CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor DEFENSES - Sufficiency Oregon Court of Appeals, April 9th, 2025by: Rankin Johnson EVIDENCE - Hearsay EXPUNGEMENT - Unpaid restitution CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor _________________________ |
RECENT LOD UPDATES________________________________________________ |
