Blog:Main/2011 Oregon Criminal Law Quiz - Revision history

Admin1: Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

2013-08-09T18:49:02Z

Text replace - "| Ryan }}" to "| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}"

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 22:04, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T22:04:08Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 22:02, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T22:02:53Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 05:11, January 22, 2013

2013-01-22T05:11:45Z

Jwestover@mpdlaw.com at 00:17, January 18, 2013

2013-01-18T00:17:33Z

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:08:14Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:28:43Z

Importing text file

New page

Perhaps this will turn into an end of the year tradition, in the manner of William Safire. Please feel free to record your answers in the comment section, if you're willing to go on record. If appropriate to the question, multiple answers are allowed'''.'''

'''1. The [Http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/herrera.pdf petition for cert in ''Oregon v. Herrera''] is now pending with SCOTUS. It raises the issue of [[Blog:Main/unanimous_Jury_Issue|unanimity in criminal jury trials]]. SCOTUS will''':

(a) Deny cert, like they've done 3 times in the past two years.

(b) Grant cert and rule for the state of Oregon.

(c) Grant cert and rule for Mr. Herrera.

'''2. The Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) has [http://www.ojd.state.or.us/records/sccalendar.nsf/b29dd44d01dffea088256c91005b3a5b/3afdabd6f7399fba8825775300669f78?OpenDocument ''State v. Speedis''] under advisement. This is a case that - if the defense wins - would result in the state being unable to go forward on non-enumerated enhancement factors, such as "on supervision at the time of the offense." [/sites/default/files/non-enumerated-factors-memo-1.doc See here for a trial level ''Speedis'' motion] modified from Meredith Allen's appellate brief. OSC will:'''

(a) Rule for the state and the status quo will remain unchanged.

(b) Rule for the defense on very narrow grounds, giving us a win but a small one.

(c) Rule for the defense in such a way that calls into question all of the recent COA opinions on aggravating factors.

'''3. The Oregon Supreme Court will grant review in [Blog:Main/Sentence_Enhancers_vs_Elements:_a_Comment_on_State_v._Sanchez | ''State v. Sanchez''] (which asks: what are the pleading requirements for enhancement factors?).'''

(a) True

(b) False

'''4. The Oregon Court of Appeals has previously ruled that sex abuse II applies to otherwise consensual sex with minors in a case called [/When_Things_Come_Together:_Simultaneity,_Merger_and_Intercourse:_UPDATED ''State v. Stamper'']. The result has been a number of unintended consequences. In 2011, the court will:'''

(a) Affirm ''Stamper''.

(b) Reverse ''Stamper''.

(c) Ignore ''Stamper''.

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

(a) [/Update_on_the_2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_Results 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.

'''6. The Oregon Court of Appeals will hold that the following crimes merge''':

(a) [/Does_UUV_merge_with_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 UUV and PSV.]

(b) [/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED MCS and PCS].

(c) [/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Ii-encouraging-child-sex-abuse Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse], even if the pictures are of different children

(d) [[Blog:Main/two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_And_One_That's_Little_Tougher|Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.
{{wl-publish: 2010-12-13 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:49, August 9, 2013
Line 48:		Line 48:

	(d) [[Blog:Main/Two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_%28and_one_that's_a_little_tougher%29 \| Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.		(d) [[Blog:Main/Two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_%28and_one_that's_a_little_tougher%29 \| Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.
−	{{wl-publish: 2010-12-13 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2010-12-13 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 '''5. In the last half of 2011, Oregon defense lawyers will read the tea leaves and be talking about the strong possibility of''':
-(a) [[Blog:Main/Update_on_the_2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_Results | overturning ''CA v. Hurtado''], yet another incorporation case, in light of wins in Herrera and McDonald.
+(a) [[Blog:Main/Update_on_the_2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_Results | 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?]"

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Perhaps this will turn into an end of the year tradition, in the manner of William Safire. Please feel free to record your answers in the comment section, if you're willing to go on record. If appropriate to the question, multiple answers are allowed'''.'''
-'''1. The [http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/herrera.pdf petition for cert in ''Oregon v. Herrera''] is now pending with SCOTUS. It raises the issue of [[/content/unanimous-jury-issue unanimity in criminal jury trials]]. SCOTUS will''':
+'''1. The [http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/herrera.pdf petition for cert in ''Oregon v. Herrera''] is now pending with SCOTUS. It raises the issue of [[Blog:Main/The_Unanimous_Jury_Issue | unanimity in criminal jury trials]]. SCOTUS will''':
 (a) Deny cert, like they've done 3 times in the past two years.

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 (b) [[Blog:Main/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED|DCS and PCS - UPDATED 12-28]] .
-(c) [[/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Ii-encouraging-child-sex-abuse Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse]], even if the pictures are of different children
+(c) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_Part_II_(Encouraging_Child_Sex_Abuse) | Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse]], even if the pictures are of different children
 (d) [[Blog:Main/Two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_%28and_one_that's_a_little_tougher%29 |  Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.
 {{wl-publish: 2010-12-13 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 (c) Rule for the defense in such a way that calls into question all of the recent COA opinions on aggravating factors.
-'''3. The Oregon Supreme Court will grant review in [Blog:Main/Sentence_Enhancers_vs_Elements:_a_Comment_on_State_v._Sanchez |  ''State v. Sanchez''] (which asks: what are the pleading requirements for enhancement factors?).'''
+'''3. The Oregon Supreme Court will grant review in [[Blog:Main/Sentence_Enhancers_vs_Elements:_a_Comment_on_State_v._Sanchez | ''State v. Sanchez'']] (which asks: what are the pleading requirements for enhancement factors?).'''
 (a) True
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 (b) False
-'''4. The Oregon Court of Appeals has previously ruled that sex abuse II applies to otherwise consensual sex with minors in a case called [/When_Things_Come_Together:_Simultaneity,_Merger_and_Intercourse:_UPDATED ''State v. Stamper'']. The result has been a number of unintended consequences. In 2011, the court will:'''
+'''4. The Oregon Court of Appeals has previously ruled that sex abuse II applies to otherwise consensual sex with minors in a case called [[Blog:Main/When_Things_Come_Together:_Simultaneity,_Merger_and_Intercourse:_UPDATED | ''State v. Stamper'']]. The result has been a number of unintended consequences. In 2011, the court will:'''
 (a) Affirm ''Stamper''.
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 '''5. In the last half of 2011, Oregon defense lawyers will read the tea leaves and be talking about the strong possibility of''':
-(a) [/Update_on_the_2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_Results overturning ''CA v. Hurtado''], yet another incorporation case, in light of wins in Herrera and McDonald.
+(a) [[Blog:Main/Update_on_the_2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_Results | 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?]"
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 '''6. The Oregon Court of Appeals will hold that the following crimes merge''':
-(a) [/Does_UUV_merge_with_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 UUV and PSV.]
+(a) [[Blog:Main/Does_UUV_merge_with_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 | UUV and PSV.]]
-(b) [[Blog:Main/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED|DCS and PCS - UPDATED 12-28]] .
+(b) [[Blog:Main/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED|MCS and PCS]] .
 (c) [[Blog:Main/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_Part_II_(Encouraging_Child_Sex_Abuse) | Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse]], even if the pictures are of different children

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Perhaps this will turn into an end of the year tradition, in the manner of William Safire. Please feel free to record your answers in the comment section, if you're willing to go on record. If appropriate to the question, multiple answers are allowed'''.'''
-'''1. The [Http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/herrera.pdf petition for cert in ''Oregon v. Herrera''] is now pending with SCOTUS. It raises the issue of [[Blog:Main/unanimous_Jury_Issue|unanimity in criminal jury trials]]. SCOTUS will''':
+'''1. The [http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/herrera.pdf petition for cert in ''Oregon v. Herrera''] is now pending with SCOTUS. It raises the issue of [[/content/unanimous-jury-issue unanimity in criminal jury trials]]. SCOTUS will''':
 (a) Deny cert, like they've done 3 times in the past two years.
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 (c) Grant cert and rule for Mr. Herrera.
-'''2. The Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) has [http://www.ojd.state.or.us/records/sccalendar.nsf/b29dd44d01dffea088256c91005b3a5b/3afdabd6f7399fba8825775300669f78?OpenDocument ''State v. Speedis''] under advisement. This is a case that - if the defense wins - would result in the state being unable to go forward on non-enumerated enhancement factors, such as "on supervision at the time of the offense." [/sites/default/files/non-enumerated-factors-memo-1.doc See here for a trial level ''Speedis'' motion] modified from Meredith Allen's appellate brief. OSC will:'''
+'''2. The Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) has [http://www.ojd.state.or.us/records/sccalendar.nsf/b29dd44d01dffea088256c91005b3a5b/3afdabd6f7399fba8825775300669f78?OpenDocument ''State v. Speedis''] under advisement. This is a case that - if the defense wins - would result in the state being unable to go forward on non-enumerated enhancement factors, such as "on supervision at the time of the offense." [[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/non-enumerated-factors-memo-1.doc See here for a trial level ''Speedis'' motion]] modified from Meredith Allen's appellate brief. OSC will:'''
 (a) Rule for the state and the status quo will remain unchanged.
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 (a) [/Does_UUV_merge_with_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 UUV and PSV.]
-(b) [/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED MCS and PCS].
+(b) [[Blog:Main/Do_DCS_and_PCS_Merge?_UPDATED|DCS and PCS - UPDATED 12-28]] .
-(c) [/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Ii-encouraging-child-sex-abuse Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse], even if the pictures are of different children
+(c) [[/Criminal_Episodes_and_Crime_Sprees,_part_Ii-encouraging-child-sex-abuse Multiple counts of Encouraging Child Sex Abuse]], even if the pictures are of different children
-(d) [[Blog:Main/two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_And_One_That's_Little_Tougher|Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.
+(d) [[Blog:Main/Two_Open_Merger_Questions_You_Should_Win_Easily_%28and_one_that's_a_little_tougher%29 |  Multiple counts of ID Theft]], as long as the state hasn't proven that the names are of non-imaginary people.
 {{wl-publish: 2010-12-13 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}