Blog:Main/An Observation about Severance - Revision history

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

2013-08-09T19:01:16Z

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

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 05:33, February 4, 2013

2013-02-04T05:33:22Z

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 05:43, January 22, 2013

2013-01-22T05:43:44Z

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:09:59Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:30:30Z

Importing text file

New page

When counts are properly joined in an indictment, and the defendant seeks severance based on prejudice, the [https://libraryofdefense.org/The_Severance_Chimera case law is quite bad] for the defense.

(When you have counts that are improperly joined, you should read [https://libraryofdefense.org/Improper_Joinder_Demurrer:_Dismissal,_Not_Severance this post] and [https://libraryofdefense.org/Crime_Sprees_and_Criminal_Episodes,_Part_V_(A_Strategic_Demurrer)(UPDATED) this post].)

But last week, the COA issued an [http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/Publications/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [https://libraryofdefense.org/Vouching:_State_v._Lupoli ''Southard/Lupoli''] error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.

<blockquote>

[B]ecause--as we concluded above--K's diagnosis likely affected the jury's conclusion about the credibility of K's testimony concerning his abuse, did that conclusion have the ancillary consequence of affecting the jury's determination of whether E's testimony about her abuse was also credible?

</blockquote>

The court concluded it did.

Self-evidently, the convictions involving E would not have been overturned if the counts hadn't been joined. The question is, can this holding go beyond just those issues involving credibility of a complainant? If the defendant's confession regarding one child is erroneously admitted, would that require reversal of the counts involving the other child? If a bad eyewitness ID results in a robbery conviction being overturned, would that justify overturning a different conviction from a different day that had been joined with the first, if the bad ID from the first implicitly provided support for the second? Who knows, but it should perhaps be something you raise with the trial court in justifying severance. "Lots of very tricky issues, Judge, in this one case, but not the other. Why take the chance?"

The trial attorney should also put on the record how the evidence presented in one case would impact the evidence in the other.

And we shouldn't assume that trial courts are no longer making ''Lupoli/Southard'' type mistakes. In ''State v. Vidal'', the COA noted:

<blockquote>

In sum, ''Southard'' left open the question of whether OEC 403 would require exclusion of medical testimony of child sexual abuse where physical evidence supports an expert's opinion. ''Lovern'', likewise, left that question unanswered.

</blockquote>

My personal feeling is that the answer to the open question will be "depends." I had a case where the diagnosis was made largely based on the credibility of the complainant, but the physical evidence -- while it was disputable -- did exist. Nevertheless, the ambiguous physical characteristics were a secondary consideration. If the judge were to let in the diagnosis, I think I'd have good grounds for a reversal. But I'd predict a different result if the physical evidence was less ambiguous.

In other words, we won't get a ''Southard/Lupoli ''bright-line rule, but we will have objections that will win on appeal some of the time.

So, be sure to file a motion to exclude the diagnosis even when there is "some" physical evidence, and if you win on appeal, and there's more than one complainant, you may get more reversals than you would otherwise expect.
{{wl-publish: 2012-03-07 18:44:49 -0800 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, August 9, 2013
Line 30:		Line 30:

	So, be sure to file a motion to exclude the diagnosis even when there is "some" physical evidence, and if you win on appeal, and there's more than one complainant, you may get more reversals than you would otherwise expect.		So, be sure to file a motion to exclude the diagnosis even when there is "some" physical evidence, and if you win on appeal, and there's more than one complainant, you may get more reversals than you would otherwise expect.
−	{{wl-publish: 2012-03-07 18:44:49 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2012-03-07 18:44:49 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 (When you have counts that are improperly joined, you should read [[Blog:Main/Improper_Joinder_Demurrer:_Dismissal,_Not_Severance|Improper Joinder Demurrer: Dismissal, Not Severance]]  and [[Blog:Main/Crime_Sprees_and_Criminal_Episodes,_Part_V_(A_Strategic_Demurrer)(UPDATED)|A Strategic Demurrer Updated w/ sample demurrer]] .)
-But last week, the COA issued an [http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/Publications/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [[Southard:_No_Diagnosis_Absent_Physical_Evidence |''Southard/Lupoli'']]  error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.
+But last week, the COA issued an [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [[Southard:_No_Diagnosis_Absent_Physical_Evidence |''Southard/Lupoli'']]  error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.
 <blockquote>

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 (When you have counts that are improperly joined, you should read [[Blog:Main/Improper_Joinder_Demurrer:_Dismissal,_Not_Severance|Improper Joinder Demurrer: Dismissal, Not Severance]]  and [[Blog:Main/Crime_Sprees_and_Criminal_Episodes,_Part_V_(A_Strategic_Demurrer)(UPDATED)|A Strategic Demurrer Updated w/ sample demurrer]] .)
-But last week, the COA issued an [http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/Publications/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [[Vouching:_State_v._Lupoli|''Southard/Lupoli'']]  error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.
+But last week, the COA issued an [http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/Publications/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [[Southard:_No_Diagnosis_Absent_Physical_Evidence |''Southard/Lupoli'']]  error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.
 <blockquote>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-When counts are properly joined in an indictment, and the defendant seeks severance based on prejudice, the [https://libraryofdefense.org/The_Severance_Chimera case law is quite bad] for the defense.
+When counts are properly joined in an indictment, and the defendant seeks severance based on prejudice, the [[Blog:Main/The_Severance_Chimera|The Severance Chimera]]  for the defense.
-(When you have counts that are improperly joined, you should read [https://libraryofdefense.org/Improper_Joinder_Demurrer:_Dismissal,_Not_Severance this post] and [https://libraryofdefense.org/Crime_Sprees_and_Criminal_Episodes,_Part_V_(A_Strategic_Demurrer)(UPDATED) this post].)
+(When you have counts that are improperly joined, you should read [[Blog:Main/Improper_Joinder_Demurrer:_Dismissal,_Not_Severance|Improper Joinder Demurrer: Dismissal, Not Severance]]  and [[Blog:Main/Crime_Sprees_and_Criminal_Episodes,_Part_V_(A_Strategic_Demurrer)(UPDATED)|A Strategic Demurrer Updated w/ sample demurrer]] .)
-But last week, the COA issued an [http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/Publications/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [https://libraryofdefense.org/Vouching:_State_v._Lupoli ''Southard/Lupoli''] error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.
+But last week, the COA issued an [http://courts.oregon.gov/sites/Publications/A141564.pdf opinion] where joinder came back to bite the state. It was a sex case. The alleged victims were the defendant's wife's two grandchildren. The trial court made a [[Vouching:_State_v._Lupoli|''Southard/Lupoli'']]  error regarding one child, and the question for the COA was whether to reverse the convictions involving both children.
 <blockquote>