Main/Update on the 2011 Criminal Law Quiz Results

[[Blog:Main/2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz:_How'd_the_Optimists_Do%3F |  As previously noted]], optimists took a hit on many of the predictions raised at the beginning of the year in the 2011 [[Blog:Main/2011_Oregon_Criminal_Law_Quiz |  Oregon Criminal Law Quiz]].

We weren't wrong on everything, of course. If you predicted that the Court of Appeals would find that [[Blog:Main/Does_UUV_merge_with_PSV?_Updated_May_2011|UUV and PSV]] , you were right right. And for clients charged with sex abuse II, you have [[Blog:Main/Sexual_Abuse_II:_Possibility_of_Good_News_from_the_Oregon_Supreme_Court |  a very good reason]] to think ''Stamper ''will be overturned.

And it's worth noting that last week's opinion in [http://mpdtrainer.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/this-appellate-week-67/ ''Moore''] was also anticipated by the quiz. Question 5 said:

<blockquote>

'''''5. In the last half of 2011, Oregon defense lawyers will read the tea leaves and be talking about the strong possibility of:'''''

''(a) overturning CA v. Hurtado, yet another incorporation case, in light of wins in Herrera and McDonald.''

''(b) challenging felon in possession charges on as-applied basis under both the state and federal constitutions, using the analysis known as "[http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/03/why-cant-martha-stewart-have-a-gun.html Why can't Martha Stewart own a gun for self-defense?]"''

''(c) cops needing to get search warrants for urine or blood in all DRE DUIIs.''

</blockquote>

And as I noted before, lots of good cases that weren't anticipated by the quiz, including a great new Equal Privileges case.

If you have any thoughts regarding what topics should be in the 2012 Oregon Criminal Law Quiz, please let me know.
{{wl-publish: 2011-12-17 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan:Ryan Scott }}