A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Welcome to The Library

From OCDLA Library of Defense
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(256 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
+
{{DISPLAYTITLE:OCDLA Library of Defense - Latest Case Reviews}}__NOTOC__
<table width="98%"; noborder cellpadding=10 cellspacing=4>
+
<table class="no-cellpadding no-cellspacing">
 
<tr>
 
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="55%" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 4px solid #16759A;">
+
<td style="vertical-align: top;" id="main-blog">
<h2>'''A Digital Manual For Oregon Criminal Defense'''</h2>  
+
<h2>Blog</h2>
 
+
{{Special:Wikilog/Blog:Main|limit=3|view=summary}}
[[File:books.jpg|left|thumb]]
+
<h2>Case Reviews</h2>
 
+
{{Special:CaseReviews/15}} 
The OCDLA Library of Defense is a digital manual for criminal defense built by the collective contributions of OCDLA members. Ultimately, it will contain every law, every case, every good idea, every expert and every resource an Oregon defense attorney might need.  But only if you help us out.
+
_________________________
 
+
</td>
If you visit a page on this website that is missing a case or has a typo, please [[How_To_Edit|edit the page]]. Before editing any pages for the first time, you may want to visit the [[How_To_Edit|how to edit]] page.
+
<td style="vertical-align: top;" id="main-cases">
 
+
{{Special:FeaturedContent/100}}
If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact Alex Bassos at abassos@gmail.com
+
________________________________________________
 
+
<table class="gallery">
<h2>'''The Library'''</h2>
+
<tr>
{| cellpadding="3"  style="background-color: #FFFFFF;"
+
<td>
 
+
[[File:Police.jpg|x70px|link=Search_and_Seizure|center|border]]
 
+
</td>
| '''[[Search_and_Seizure|Search and Seizure]]'''<br>  
+
<td>
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Did_the_State_Infringe_Upon_a_Privacy_or_Possessory_Interest_of_Defendant.3F|Privacy Interest]],  
+
[[File:Blood43.jpg|x70px|link=Forensic_Evidence|center|border]]
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_the_defendant_stopped.3F|Stops]],  
+
</td>
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_Defendant_Arrested.3F|Arrests]],  
+
<td>
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Did_someone_Consent_to_the_search.3F|Consent]],  
+
[[File:Courtroom.jpg|x70px|link=Evidence_Code|center|border]]
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Warrant Exceptions]],  
+
</td>
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Suppression Exceptions]],  
+
</tr>
* [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_a_Search_Warrant.3F|Search Warrants]]
+
<tr>
| '''[[Evidence_Code|Evidence Code]]'''<br>
+
<td>
* [[Evidence_Code#Procedure|Procedure]],  
+
'''[[Search_and_Seizure|Search and Seizure]]'''<br/>
* [[Evidence_Code#Relevance|Relevance]],  
+
[[Search_and_Seizure#Did_the_State_Infringe_Upon_a_Privacy_or_Possessory_Interest_of_Defendant.3F|Privacy Interest]],
* [[Evidence_Code#Privileges|Privileges]],  
+
[[Search_and_Seizure#Was_the_defendant_stopped.3F|Stops]],[[Search_and_Seizure#Was_Defendant_Arrested.3F|Arrests]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Did_someone_Consent_to_the_search.3F|Consent]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Warrant Exceptions]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_an_exception_to_the_Warrant_Requirement.3F|Suppression Exceptions]], [[Search_and_Seizure#Was_there_a_Search_Warrant.3F|Search Warrants]]
* [[Evidence_Code#Examining_Lay_Witnesses|Lay Witnesses]],  
+
</td>
* [[Evidence_Code#Examining_Expert_Witnesses|Experts]],  
+
<td>
* [[Evidence_Code#Hearsay|Hearsay]],  
+
'''[[Forensic_Evidence|Forensic Science]]'''<br>[[Ballistics|Ballistics]], [[Bitemarks|Bitemarks]], [[Bloodstain_Pattern_Analysis|Bloodstains]], [[DNA|DNA]], [[Eyewitness_Identification|Eyewitness ID]],  [[Fingerprints|Fingerprints]], [[Handwriting_Identification|Handwriting ID]], [[Polygraphs|Polygraphs]],  [[Shaken_Baby_Syndrome|Shaken Baby]]
* [[Evidence_Code#Physical_Evidence|Physical Evidence]]
+
</td>
| '''[[Self-Incrimination|Self-Incrimination]]'''<br>
+
<td>
* [[Evidentiary_Burdens|Evidentiary Burdens]],  
+
'''[[Evidence_Code|Evidence Code]]'''<br> [[Evidence_Code#Procedure|Procedure]], [[Evidence_Code#Relevance|Relevance]], [[Evidence_Code#Privileges|Privileges]], [[Evidence_Code#Examining_Lay_Witnesses|Lay Witnesses]], [[Evidence_Code#Examining_Expert_Witnesses|Experts]], [[Evidence_Code#Hearsay|Hearsay]], [[Evidence_Code#Physical_Evidence|Physical Evidence]]
* [[State_Compulsion|State Compulsion]],  
+
</td>
* [[Custody/Compelling_Circumstances|Custody/Compelling Circumstances]],  
+
</tr>
* [[Right_to_Silence|Right to Silence]],  
+
<tr>
* [[Impeachment|Impeachment]]
+
<td>
*
+
[[File:Passport.jpg|x70px|link=Immigration|center|border]]
*
+
</td>
| '''[[Crimes|Crimes]]'''
+
<td>
* [[Crimes#Measure_11_Crimes|Measure 11]],  
+
[[File:Police-line.jpg|x70px|link=Crimes|center|border]]
* [[Crimes#Drug_Crimes|Drugs]], [[Crimes#Sex_Crimes|Sex Crimes]],  
+
</td>
* [[Crimes#Homicide|Homicide]],  
+
<td>
* [[Crimes#Property_Crimes|Property]],  
+
[[File:Interrogate2.jpg|x60px|link=Self-Incrimination|center|border]]
* [[DUII|DUII]],  
+
</td>
* [[Crimes#Child_Abuse_Crimes|Child Abuse]],  
+
</tr>
* [[Crimes|Other Crimes]]
+
<tr>
*
+
<td>
|-
+
'''[[Immigration|Immigration]]'''<br>[[Padilla|Padilla]], [[Aggravated_Felonies|Agg Felonies]], [[Inadmissibility|Inadmissibility]], [[Removability|Removability]], [[Moral_Turpitude|Moral Turpitude]],  [[Naturalization|Naturalization]], [[Juvenile_Defendants|Juveniles]], [[U-Visas|U-Visas]]
| '''[[Forensic_Evidence|Forensic Science]]'''<br>
+
</td>
* [[Ballistics|Ballistics]],  
+
<td>
* [[Bitemarks|Bitemarks]],  
+
'''[[Crimes|Crimes]]'''<br>[[Crimes#Measure_11_Crimes|Measure 11]], [[Crimes#Drug_Crimes|Drugs]], [[Crimes#Sex_Crimes|Sex Crimes]], [[Crimes#Homicide|Homicide]], [[Crimes#Property_Crimes|Property]], [[DUII|DUII]], [[Crimes#Child_Abuse_Crimes|Child Abuse]], [[Crimes|Other Crimes]]
* [[Bloodstain_Pattern_Analysis|Bloodstains]],  
+
</td>
* [[DNA|DNA]], [[Eyewitness_Identification|Eyewitness ID]],
+
<td>
* [[Fingerprints|Fingerprints]], 
+
'''[[Self-Incrimination|Self Incrimination]]'''<br>[[Evidentiary_Burdens|Evidentiary Burdens]], [[State_Compulsion|State Compulsion]], [[Custody/Compelling_Circumstances|Custody/Compelling Circumstances]], [[Right_to_Silence|Right to Silence]], [[Impeachment|Impeachment]]
* [[Handwriting_Identification|Handwriting ID]],
+
</td>
* [[Polygraphs|Polygraphs]],
+
</tr>
* [[Shaken_Baby_Syndrome|Shaken Baby]]
+
<tr>
| '''[[Immigration|Immigration]]'''<br>
+
<td>
* [[Padilla|Understanding Padilla]],  
+
[[File:Brain3.jpg|x70px|link=Mental_States|center|border]]
* [[Aggravated_Felonies|Aggravated Felonies]],  
+
</td>
* [[Inadmissibility|Inadmissibility]],  
+
<td>
* [[Removability|Removability]],  
+
[[File:Defense.jpg|x70px|link=Defenses|center|border]]
* [[Moral_Turpitude|Moral Turpitude]],  
+
</td>
* [[Naturalization|Naturalization]],  
+
<td>
* [[Juvenile_Defendants|Juveniles]],
+
[[File:Constitution.jpg|x70px|link=Oregon_Constitution|center|border]]
* [[U-Visas|U-Visas]], [[Glossary|Glossary]]
+
</td>
| '''[[Mental_States|Mental States]]'''<br>
+
</tr>
* [[Civil_Commitments|Civil Commitments]],  
+
<tr>
* [[Fitness_to_Proceed|Fitness to Proceed]],  
+
<td>
* [[Criminal_Negligence|Criminal Negligence]],  
+
'''[[Mental_States|Mental States]]'''<br>[[Civil_Commitments|Civil Commitments]], [[Fitness_to_Proceed|Aid & Assist]], [[Utilizing_a_GEI_Defense|GEI]], [[Disordered_Mental_State_Strategy|Disordered Mental State]], [[Mental_States#Mental_States_Required_for_Conviction|Mens Rea]], [[Testing|Testing]], [[DSM|DSM-IV]]
* [[Testing|Testing]]...
+
</td>
| '''[[Oregon_Constitution|Oregon Constitution]]'''<br>
+
<td>
* [[Speedy_Trial|Speedy Trial]],  
+
'''[[Defenses|Defenses]]'''<br>[[Alibi|Alibi]], [[Choice_of_Evils_and_Necessity|Necessity]], [[Speedy_Trial|Speedy Trial]], [[Self_Defense|Self Defense]]
* [[Right_to_Counsel|Right to Counsel]],  
+
</td>
* [[Confrontation/Cross_Examination|Confrontation/Cross Examination]]
+
<td>
|-
+
'''[[Oregon_Constitution|Oregon Constitution]]'''<br>[[Speedy_Trial|Speedy Trial]], [[Right_to_Counsel|Right to Counsel]], [[Confrontation/Cross_Examination|Confrontation]], [[Oregon_Constitution#Section_12:_Double_jeopardy.3B_compulsory_self-incrimination|Double Jeopardy]], [[Oregon_Constitution#Section_20:_Privileges_and_Immunities_of_Citizens|Equal Privileges]], [[Ex_Post_Facto|Ex Post Facto]], [[Oregon_Constitution#Section_11:_Rights_of_Accused_in_Criminal_Prosecution|Venue]]
| '''[[Defenses|Defenses]]'''<br>[[Alibi]], [[Defenses#Choice_of_Evils_and_Necessity|Necessity]], [[Defenses#Speedy_Trial|Speedy Trial]]
+
|'''[[Trial_Procedure|Trial Procedure]]'''<br>[[Trial_Procedure#Charging_Decision|Charging Decision]], [[Trial_Procedure#Discovery|Discovery]], [[Trial_Procedure#Right_to_Counsel|Right to Counsel]], [[Trial_Procedure#Pre-Trial_Motions|Pretrial Motions]]
| '''[[Trial_Procedure|Trial Procedure]]'''<br>[[Trial_Procedure#Charging_Decision|Charging Decision]], [[Trial_Procedure#Discovery|Discovery]], [[Trial_Procedure#Right_to_Counsel|Right to Counsel]], [[Trial_Procedure#Pre-Trial_Motions|Pretrial Motions]]
+
</td>
| '''[[Extradition|Extradition]]'''<br>
+
</tr>
| '''[[Veterans_and_Military_Service|Veterans and Military Service]]'''<br>Created by Jess Barton.
+
<tr>
|-
+
<td>
| '''[[Dependency_category|Dependency]]'''<br>
+
[[File:Extradition.jpeg|x70px|link=Extradition|center|border]]
* [[Removal|Removal]],
+
</td>
* [[Permanency|Permanency]],
+
<td>
* [[Termination_of_Parental_Rights|Termination of Parental Rights]],
+
[[File:Support_our_veterans.jpg|x70px|link=Veterans_and_Military_Service|center|border]]
* [[Temporary_Custody|Temporary Custody]],
+
</td>
* [[Petition|Petition]]...
+
<td>
| '''[[Investigation|Investigation]]'''<br>
+
[[File:Prison3.jpg|x70px|link=Sentencing|center|border]]
* [[Investigation#Ethics|Ethics]],
+
</td>
* [[Investigation#Surveillance|Surveillance]],
+
</tr>
* [[Investigation#Locating_Witnesses|Locating Witnesses]],
+
<tr>
* [[Investigation#Interviewing|Interviewing]],
+
<td>
* [[Investigation#Drug_Cases|Drug Cases]]
+
'''[[Extradition|Extradition]]'''<br>
| '''[[Appeals,_PCR_%26_Habeas|Appeals/PCR/Habeas]]'''<br>
+
</td>
* [[Post-Conviction_Relief|Post Conviction Relief]]
+
<td>
| '''[[Sentencing|Sentencing]]'''<br>
+
'''[[Veterans_and_Military_Service|Veterans and Military Service]]'''<br>Created by Jess Barton.
* [[Sentencing#Same_Criminal_Episode|Same Criminal Episode]],  
+
</td>
* [[Sentencing#Merger|Merger]],  
+
<td>
* [[Consecutive_Sentences|Consecutive Sentences]],  
+
'''[[Sentencing|Sentencing]]'''<br>[[Sentencing#Same_Criminal_Episode|Criminal Episodes]],[[Sentencing#Merger|Merger]], [[Consecutive_Sentences|Consecutive Sentences]], [[Sentencing#Mandatory_Minimum_Laws|Mandatory Minimums]], [[Sentencing#Probation|Probation]], [[Sentencing#Restitution|Restitution]], [[Sentencing#Collateral_Consequences|Collateral Consequences]]
* [[Sentencing#Mandatory_Minimum_Laws|Mandatory Minimum Laws]],  
+
</td>
* [[Sentencing#Probation|Probation]]
+
</tr>
|-
+
</table>
| '''[[Trial_Skills_category|Trial Skills]]'''<br> Not Yet Created
+
| '''[[Delinquency]]'''<br> Not Yet Created
+
|- 
+
| colspan=2 |
+
|}
+
<h2>'''The Pool'''</h2>
+
 
+
This spot will be the entry point to the OCDLA online forum. 
+
 
+
[[File:Fish.jpg|thumb|right]]
+
<td valign="top" rowspan=2 style="background-color: #FEFDF9; border: 4px solid #16759A;">
+
 
+
<h2>'''Recent Articles''' | ''{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}''</h2>
+
 
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/improper-joinder-demurrer-follow Improper Joinder Demurrer Follow-Up] | Ryan Scott
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/class-victims-animals-dead-uninjured The Class of Victims] | Ryan Scott
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/criminal-defense-news-week-18 News of the Week] | Stacy Du Clos
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/equal-protection-violations-bulk-restitution-indigency-and-probation-revocation Equal Protection, Restitution and Indigency] | Rankin Johnson III
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/self-fulfilling-prophecy-buzzed-driving-and-duii Self Fulfilling Prophecy: Buzzed Driving and DUII] | Richard Oberdorfer
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/silver-lining-mcdaniel The Silver Lining in McDaniel] | Jesse Merrithew
+
* [https://libraryofdefense.org/content/obliterating-id-marks-firearm Obliterating ID Marks on a Firearm] | Ryan Scott
+
 
+
<h2>'''This Week's Cases'''</h2>
+
 
+
[[File:Goaty.JPG|thumb|right]]
+
 
+
<h4>Animal Abuse</h4>'''''Goats are Victims Too'''''
+
 
+
Each individual animal identified with a count of animal abuse will qualify as a separate victim. Here, twenty counts of second degree animal abuse could not be merged into a single conviction because each separate count “identified a different animal and charged conduct by defendant toward that animal.” [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A145386.pdf State v. Nix] 
+
 
+
<h4>Inventory</h4>'''''Pandora’s Closed Container of Exceptions'''''
+
 
+
The Portland police inventory policy for opening closed containers designed to contain valuables (1) only applies to items in the possession of a person placed in custody, and (2) must occur prior to placing such person into a holding room or police vehicle. Here, defendant was a passenger in a stopped car, so he was stopped, but he was not "in custody" for purposes of inventory because he was only stopped as a witness. The state could not use the arrested driver's constructive possession of the bag to justify the search because the driver was already in the patrol car.
+
 
+
The state’s arguments that defendant lost his privacy rights in his laptop bag are unpersuasive to the court:
+
 
+
*A denial of ownership does not itself establish an intention to relinquish all interests in the property.  Defendant had a continuing privacy interest in his bag even though he initially denied owning it, then said he was holding onto it for a friend.
+
*Officers may conduct a search to determine the owner of lost property only when the property is actually lost, as in abandoned.  There is no exception to the warrant requirement that allows officers to open a closed container in order to determine whether the contents are stolen.
+
*A defendant only loses his privacy interest to stolen goods that are in plain view.  Here, officers suspected, but did not know that the laptop bag contained stolen goods.
+
 
+
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A143095.pdf State v. Rowell]
+
 
+
<h4>Stops</h4>'''''No Stop If Officer Says Free to Leave'''''
+
 
+
A stop occurred when police asked for defendant’s identification, wrote down the defendant’s information on his hand and told the defendant that he had been seen engaging in strange behavior. However, the stop ended when a police officer informed defendant that he was free to leave, even though the police officer had just told the defendant to stand in the search position with his hands behind his back. Therefore, the evidence obtained from defendant’s consent to search after that point was not the product of an illegal stop.  [http://courts.oregon.gov/Publications/A143570.pdf State v. Canfield]
+
 
+
<h4>Speeding</h4>
+
 
+
A person may be found guilty of speeding, under ORS 811.111, if the person either drives above the statutorily designated speed limit for that type of road or drives above a posted speed limit that is different from the designated speeds. Defendant had argued, based on the language of the statute, that if the designated speed is posted then the statute wouldn’t apply.  The court rejects that construction: “under that interpretation, the statutory speeds. . .could not be both posted and enforced.” [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A143367.pdf State v. Patrick]
+
 
+
<h4>Juvenile Dependency</h4>'''''Hearsay Statements by Step-Child to DHS Worker Are Admissible Under Party-Opponent Exception'''''
+
  
When DHS offers a child’s out-of-court statements in a dependency case, they are admissible as non-hearsay statements of a party-opponent under OEC 801(4)(b)(A), because the child is a party adverse to  DHS. This applies to step-children too because DHS puts their step-child/parent relationship at risk.  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A150208.pdf DHS v. JG]
+
</td></tr>
 +
</table>

Latest revision as of 08:57, August 5, 2023

Blog


Does the Lack of a Mental State Render Most Major Sex Crimes Unconstitutional?

by: Ryan Scott • July 17, 2025 • no comments

The Oregon Supreme Court is going to hear argument in September in the case of State v. Monaco. The conviction was for felony murder. One of the "questions presented and proposed rules of law" identified in the opening brief is as follows:

Third Question Presented. Does ORS 163.115(1)(b), Oregon’s felony murder statute, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Proposed Rule of Law. This court has interpreted ORS 163.115(1)(b) as creating a presumption of a culpable mental state for the causation-of-death element of felony murder, by the defendant’s commission or attempted commission of the underlying felony. Such a legal presumption violates due process because it is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, relieves the state of its burden to prove every element of the offense, and invades the province of the jury. In the alternative, it violates due process by establishing a strict-liability offense for a violent felony.

My question, which is in the larval stage of development, is this: Are any of the constitutional principles on which the Monaco argument relies applicable to major sex crimes where no mental state at all applies to the element that makes a defendant guilty (the age of the victim in a Jessica's Law case) or where no mental state applies but the defendant has the ability to raise an affirmative mental state defense (sex with a sleepy or intoxicated person)?

→ continue reading...

Article I, Section 16, Opportunities

by: Ryan Scott • June 17, 2025 • no comments

Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution states:

“Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.”

The proportionality provision requires a “comparative relationship” between punishments and the offenses for which they are imposed:

“The term ‘proportion’ indicates a comparative relationship between at least two things. See, e.g., 2 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 45 (1828) (“proportion” indicates a “comparative relation”). Here, the two things being related are “penalties” and “the offense,” and the provision requires that the penalties for each particular offense be “proportioned”—that is, comparatively related—to that offense. The strong implication of that requirement is that a greater or more severe penalty should be imposed for a greater or more severe offense and, conversely, that a less severe penalty should be imposed for a less severe offense.”

State v. Wheeler, 343 Or 652, 655-56, 175 P3d 438 (2007)

The test for making proportionality determinations has “at least three factors” to consider, including: “(1) a comparison of the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime; (2) a comparison of the penalties imposed for other, related crimes; and (3) the criminal history of the defendant.” State v. Rodriguez/Buck, 347 Or 46, 58, 58 n 6, 217 P3d 659 (2009).

Buck/Rodriguez involved Measure 11 crimes, requiring a 75 month mandatory minimum sentence. But the actual behavior was rather minor, and therefore the 75 month sentence was overly severe.

In addition, the Oregon Supreme Court has held that characteristics of the defendant plays a significant role in determining if a sentencing is disproportionate. In State v. Ryan, the Court held:

"Evidence of an offender's intellectual disability therefore is relevant to a proportionality determination where sentencing laws require the imposition of a term of imprisonment without consideration of such evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that, where the issue is presented, a sentencing court must consider an offender's intellectual disability in comparing the gravity of the offense and the severity of a mandatory prison sentence on such an offender in a proportionality analysis under Rodriguez/Buck."

Id. at 620-21.

In State v. Gonzalez, the Oregon Supreme Court held that other characteristics other than intellectual disability may be relevant, but rejected the argument that the defendant's mental health attributes rendered a M11 sentence unconstitutional.

I think, however, the case law has only scratched the surface of situations where Article I, section 16, would come into play. What follows are some ideas for when the constitutional protections of the proportionality clause might be triggered.

→ continue reading...

Is A Defendant Entitled to a Jury Trial On Restitution?

by: Ryan Scott • June 13, 2025 • no comments

Today, the OSC issued a press release that announced one case it was granting review on, and a number of cases it was not. Among those cases where the court was not granting review, individual justices either said they would have granted review or, more likely, concurred in the denial of review but felt the issue was worth addressing in a future case.

In other words, the individual justices were alerting lawyers -- defense lawyers in particular -- of issues they would like to see raised in future cases.

One of those cases was State v. Anne. Justices DeHoog and James both concurred in the denial of review "but observed that the petition raised an important legal issue that the Court should consider in

an appropriate case." Do they say what that issue is? Nope, I had to look up the case to find out what the issue was. And let me tell you, it's a doozy.

→ continue reading...



Next 20 Articles

Case Reviews


Oregon Supreme Court, July 10th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

SENTENCING - Credit for time served

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Court of Appeals, July 10th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Successive trials

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Court of Appeals, July 9th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

EVIDENCE - Other bad acts

SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Particularity

CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Court of Appeals, July 2nd, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

RIGHT TO COUNSEL - Waiver

SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Technological surveillance

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Court of Appeals, June 25th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

FAPA, STALKING, AND RESTRAINING ORDERS - Victim's rights

APPEAL AND REVIEW - Notice of Appeal timelines

JURY SELECTION - Juror history of abuse

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Court, June 24th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

CLOSING ARGUMENT - Facts in evidence

JURY INSTRUCTIONS - Reviewability

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Court of Appeals, June 18th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

EVIDENCE - Other bad acts

DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS - Probation-violation hearings

RESISTING ARREST AND RELATED OFFENSES - Passive resistance

→ read the full summaries...

_________________________


________________________________________________