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
 
(122 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=6>
+
<table class="no-cellpadding no-cellspacing">
 
<tr>
 
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="54%" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 4px solid #16759A;">
+
<td style="vertical-align: top;" id="main-blog">
 
+
<h2>Blog</h2>
<h2>'''The Library'''</h2>
+
{{Special:Wikilog/Blog:Main|limit=3|view=summary}}
{| cellpadding="3" style="background-color: #FFFFFF;"
+
<h2>Case Reviews</h2>
 
+
{{Special:CaseReviews/15}}  
<gallery widths=90px heights=55px perrow=4>
+
_________________________
|title=The Library
+
</td>
|width=100
+
<td style="vertical-align: top;" id="main-cases">
|height=100
+
{{Special:FeaturedContent/100}}
|lines=3
+
________________________________________________
 
+
<table class="gallery">
File:Image001.jpg|'''[[Search_and_Seizure|Search and Seizure]]'''<br>[[Search_and_Seizure#Did_the_State_Infringe_Upon_a_Privacy_or_Possessory_Interest_of_Defendant.3F|Privacy Interest]], [[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]]
+
<tr>
 
+
<td>
File:Blood-1.jpg|'''[[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]]
+
[[File:Police.jpg|x70px|link=Search_and_Seizure|center|border]]
 
+
</td>
File:Phoenix-Wright-Objection1.jpg|'''[[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]]
+
<td>
 
+
[[File:Blood43.jpg|x70px|link=Forensic_Evidence|center|border]]
File:128px-immigration.jpg|'''[[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]]
+
</td>
 
+
<td>
File:Police-line.jpg|'''[[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]]
+
[[File:Courtroom.jpg|x70px|link=Evidence_Code|center|border]]
 
+
</td>
File:Interrogate2.jpg|'''[[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]]
+
</tr>
 
+
<tr>
File:Brain_seen_from_above.jpg| '''[[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]]
+
<td>
 
+
'''[[Search_and_Seizure|Search and Seizure]]'''<br/>
File:Defense.jpg|'''[[Defenses|Defenses]]'''<br>[[Alibi|Alibi]], [[Choice_of_Evils_and_Necessity|Necessity]], [[Speedy_Trial|Speedy Trial]], [[Self_Defense|Self Defense]]
+
[[Search_and_Seizure#Did_the_State_Infringe_Upon_a_Privacy_or_Possessory_Interest_of_Defendant.3F|Privacy Interest]],
 
+
[[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]]
File:Oregon-flag3.png|'''[[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]]
+
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[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]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[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]]
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Passport.jpg|x70px|link=Immigration|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Police-line.jpg|x70px|link=Crimes|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Interrogate2.jpg|x60px|link=Self-Incrimination|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<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]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[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]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[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]]
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Brain3.jpg|x70px|link=Mental_States|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Defense.jpg|x70px|link=Defenses|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Constitution.jpg|x70px|link=Oregon_Constitution|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[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]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[Defenses|Defenses]]'''<br>[[Alibi|Alibi]], [[Choice_of_Evils_and_Necessity|Necessity]], [[Speedy_Trial|Speedy Trial]], [[Self_Defense|Self Defense]]
 +
</td>
 +
<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]]
 
|'''[[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>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Extradition.jpeg|x70px|link=Extradition|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Support_our_veterans.jpg|x70px|link=Veterans_and_Military_Service|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
[[File:Prison3.jpg|x70px|link=Sentencing|center|border]]
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[Extradition|Extradition]]'''<br>
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[Veterans_and_Military_Service|Veterans and Military Service]]'''<br>Created by Jess Barton.
 +
</td>
 +
<td>
 +
'''[[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]]
 +
</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
  
File:Extradition.jpeg|'''[[Extradition|Extradition]]'''<br>
+
</td></tr>
 
+
</table>
File:Support_our_veterans.jpg|'''[[Veterans_and_Military_Service|Veterans and Military Service]]'''<br>Created by Jess Barton.
+
 
+
File:Prison.jpg| '''[[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]]
+
 
+
</gallery>
+
|-
+
| '''[[Dependency_category|Dependency]]'''<br>Under Construction
+
| '''[[Investigation|Investigation]]'''<br> Under Construction
+
| '''[[Appeals,_PCR_%26_Habeas|Appeals/PCR/Habeas]]'''<br> Under Construction.
+
| '''[[Delinquency]]'''<br> Not Yet Created
+
|- 
+
| colspan=2 |
+
|}
+
 
+
<h2>'''The Pool'''</h2>
+
 
+
This spot will be the entry point to the OCDLA online forum, the next generation of The Pond
+
 
+
[[File:Fish.jpg|thumb|center]]
+
 
+
<td valign="top" rowspan=2 style="background-color: #FEFDF9; border: 4px solid #16759A;">
+
 
+
<h2>'''You, yes YOU can Edit This Website'''</h2>  
+
 
+
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 expert, every resource and every good idea an Oregon defense attorney might need.  But only if you help us out. If you visit a page on this website that is missing a case or has a typo, please [[How_To_Edit|edit the page]]. You can even reorganize or rewrite the page if you're feeling ambitious. If you have any questions or suggestions, please email '''Alex Bassos at abassos@gmail.com'''
+
 
+
<h2>'''Recent [[The_Blog|Blog]] Posts'''</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>
+
 
+
<h4>Character Evidence of Truthfulness – Laying the Foundation</h4>
+
 
+
In order to lay a proper foundation for character evidence as to a witness’s propensity for truthfulness or untruthfulness, there must be adequate contacts for the witness to have a current personal opinion. Here, there were adequate contacts where the witness testified that he had known the complainant his whole life, including seeing her after the incident in question. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A145769.pdf ''State v. Colon'']
+
 
+
<h4> Prosecutorial Misconduct – Right to Remain Silent – Prejudice </h4>
+
 
+
The court finds that even though at trial the prosecutor intentionally violated defendant’s right to remain silent by asking questions to the officer about defendant’s invocation, the violation was harmless. A violation is harmless where it is unlikely that the jury drew a prejudicial inference. Defendant was acquitted on the charge of resisting arrest, to which he devoted the overwhelming majority of his defense.  The remaining count, PCS, was never ‘at issue’ in that defendant neither argued that he didn’t possess the pipe nor that the pipe did not contain cocaine. Thus, it is unlikely that the jury drew any inferences from defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent at the scene.  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A145216.pdf ''State v Dalby'']
+
 
+
<h4> Merger – Theft by Receiving </h4>
+
 
+
Two charges of theft by receiving merge where the charges are for separate items received during one criminal episode without evidence of a sufficient pause between thefts. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A145218.pdf ''State v Jay'']
+
 
+
<h4> Reversal on Remand – Prejudice </h4>
+
 
+
This case is a reconsideration in light of Lopez-Minjarez, the S.Ct.’s rejection of the natural and probable consequences instruction.  Defendant had argued that he withdrew from the crimes of robbery and burglary before his codefendant shot the victim.  The court decides that the jury could have found that the murder was a natural consequence of the robbery but that it did not occur in the course of and furtherance of the robbery because defendant withdrew.  Ergo, the verdict could have been based on the illegal instruction and must be reversed.  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A137433.pdf ''State v Perez-Chi'']
+
 
+
<h4> Compensatory Fine – Preservation </h4>
+
 
+
A compensatory fine may not be used to reimburse a witness for travel expenses to attend a trial.  Here though, defendant told the court that restitution may not be imposed for such a purpose.  As a result of that objection, the court imposed a compensatory fine instead, to which there was no objection.  Thus, the argument on appeal that the compensatory fine was illegal was insufficiently preserved.  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A144445.pdf ''State v Choat'']
+
 
+
<h4> PCR > Issues on Remand </h4>
+
 
+
Where Court of Appeals “reverses and remands,” the case is returned to its original pretrial posture unless the court specifies that only certain claims are to be retried.  Thus, where the court reversed and remanded in Allen I, the post-conviction court erred by not exercising its discretion to allow petitioner to amend his petition for post-conviction relief. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A145367.pdf ''Allen v. Premo'']
+
 
+
<h4> PCR > No Review for Dismissals as Meritless </h4>
+
 
+
“[PCR] petitions that fail to state a claim are meritless, and a judgment dismissing a petition as meritless is not appealable.” Young v. Hill. Here, both parties agreed that the post-conviction court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. Thus, the appellate court could not review the court’s decision.  [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A146409.pdf ''Pedroso v. Nooth'' ]
+

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

Blog


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...

How to Keep Out The Forensic Interview

by: Ryan Scott • May 21, 2025 • no comments

For the past couple of years, I have encouraged a variety of arguments for keeping out the forensic interview in child sex cases. Not a lot of appellate success so far. Right now, though, I want to focus on excluding it under OEC 403. I've made the argument a couple of times myself, I've written an appellate brief on the issue, I've read other appellate briefs on the issue, and I've read trial transcripts where the arguments were raised. Here is a step-by-step process for what I think is the best way to maximize your chances of either keeping out the interview or winning on appeal.

→ continue reading...



Next 20 Articles

Case Reviews


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...

Oregon Court of Appeals, June 11th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

EVIDENCE - Other bad acts

SENTENCING - Restitution

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Supreme Court, June 5th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

PLEA AGREEMENTS - Enforcement

→ read the full summaries...

Oregon Court of Appeals, June 4th, 2025

by: Rankin Johnson

EVIDENCE - Prior convictions

EVIDENCE - Other bad acts

→ read the full summaries...

_________________________


________________________________________________