Blog:Main/Witness List Demand - Revision history

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

2013-08-09T19:09:56Z

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

Abassos@mpdlaw.com at 22:24, February 2, 2013

2013-02-02T22:24:12Z

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T02:07:17Z

Importing text file

Maintenance script: Importing text file

2012-12-21T00:27:47Z

Importing text file

New page

Based on an idea from both Larry Olstad and [http://www.oregonappeals.net/ Andy Simrin], following the issuance of [http://mpdtrainer.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/this-appellate-week-29/ the ''Chase ''opinion ]from earlier this week, I have drafted a "Demand that the Prosecutor Comply with Discovery Obligations; Motion to Exclude Witnesses for Non-Compliance."

[[Witness_List_Demand.doc|Witness list demand]]

There may be a number of ways to approach this. Why "demand" something the prosecutor is required to do by statute? Is it better to spring it on the state at the start of trial? Personally, I think judges would look disfavorably on this issue being raised for the first time at the beginning of a trial. But different attorneys will approach this differently and time will tell what happens.

It is something that would be most valuable in a messy, complicated, "tons of discovery" type of case, but it is worth noting that the discovery in ''Chase ''wasn't voluminous.

The demand could also be beefed up, if you so chose, with references to the absurdity of wasting time on preparing for possible witnesses that the state has no intention of calling, but that may be better raised at the oral argument on the motion to exclude. Again, different attorneys will take different approaches, and this demand should be seen as just one of many ways to raise the issue.
{{wl-publish: 2011-02-02 21:00:00 -0800 | Ryan }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, August 9, 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:

	The demand could also be beefed up, if you so chose, with references to the absurdity of wasting time on preparing for possible witnesses that the state has no intention of calling, but that may be better raised at the oral argument on the motion to exclude. Again, different attorneys will take different approaches, and this demand should be seen as just one of many ways to raise the issue.		The demand could also be beefed up, if you so chose, with references to the absurdity of wasting time on preparing for possible witnesses that the state has no intention of calling, but that may be better raised at the oral argument on the motion to exclude. Again, different attorneys will take different approaches, and this demand should be seen as just one of many ways to raise the issue.
−	{{wl-publish: 2011-02-02 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan }}	+	{{wl-publish: 2011-02-02 21:00:00 -0800 \| Ryan:Ryan Scott }}

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, February 2, 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Based on an idea from both Larry Olstad and [http://www.oregonappeals.net/ Andy Simrin], following the issuance of [http://~~mpdtrainer~~.~~wordpress~~.~~com~~/~~2011/02/02/this-appellate-week-29~~/ the ''Chase ''opinion ]from earlier this week, I have drafted a "Demand that the Prosecutor Comply with Discovery Obligations; Motion to Exclude Witnesses for Non-Compliance."	+	Based on an idea from both Larry Olstad and [http://www.oregonappeals.net/ Andy Simrin], following the issuance of [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A140643.htm the ''Chase ''opinion] from earlier this week, I have drafted a "Demand that the Prosecutor Comply with Discovery Obligations; Motion to Exclude Witnesses for Non-Compliance."

	[[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/witness-list-demand.doc Witness list demand]]		[[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/witness-list-demand.doc Witness list demand]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Based on an idea from both Larry Olstad and [http://www.oregonappeals.net/ Andy Simrin], following the issuance of [http://mpdtrainer.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/this-appellate-week-29/ the ''Chase ''opinion ]from earlier this week, I have drafted a "Demand that the Prosecutor Comply with Discovery Obligations; Motion to Exclude Witnesses for Non-Compliance."
-[[Witness_List_Demand.doc|Witness list demand]]
+[[http://libraryofdefense.org/sites/default/files/witness-list-demand.doc Witness list demand]]
 There may be a number of ways to approach this. Why "demand" something the prosecutor is required to do by statute? Is it better to spring it on the state at the start of trial? Personally, I think judges would look disfavorably on this issue being raised for the first time at the beginning of a trial. But different attorneys will approach this differently and time will tell what happens.