Blog:Main/Update on the 2011 Criminal Law Quiz Results - Revision history

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

2013-08-09T19:09:19Z

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

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:03:07Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:23:52Z

Importing text file

New page

[[Blog:Main/2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_How'd_Optimists_Do|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 [/Does_UUV_Merge_With_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 UUV and PSV merge], you were right right. And for clients charged with sex abuse II, you have [[Blog:Main/sexual_Abuse_Ii_Possibility_Good_News_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 }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, August 9, 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Blog:Main/2011_Criminal_Law_Quiz_How'd_Optimists_Do|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]].
+[[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 [/Does_UUV_Merge_With_PSV?_Updated_May_2011 UUV and PSV merge], you were right right. And for clients charged with sex abuse II, you have [[Blog:Main/sexual_Abuse_Ii_Possibility_Good_News_Oregon_Supreme_Court|a very good reason]] to think ''Stamper ''will be overturned.
+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: