Oregon Supreme Court, October 29, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • November 2, 2020 • no comments
m |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | SELF-INCRIMINATION - Waiver | |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | ||
| − | ''' | + | '''SELF-INCRIMINATION - Waiver''' |
Unequivocal assertion of right to remain silent under Oregon constitution invalidated subsequent interrogation with intervening Miranda warning but no express waiver. Reversed. | Unequivocal assertion of right to remain silent under Oregon constitution invalidated subsequent interrogation with intervening Miranda warning but no express waiver. Reversed. | ||
| − | In explaining its ruling, the court noted that defendant, | + | In explaining its ruling, the court noted that police had failed to honor defendant's invocation of rights during his first interrogation, the results of which were suppressed, and that defendant had been incarcerated for four or five days without the appointment of counsel. He was intellectually disabled, although competent to stand trial. |
| + | The court observed that the 'totality of circumstances' required that all the relevant factors had to be considered in combination, and that the paucity of the record weakened the state's position. | ||
Finally, the court distinguished federal law and held that a ruling that an Art I, sec 12 waiver is 'knowing and intelligent' is reviewed for legal error, as is a ruling that such a waiver is 'voluntary.' | Finally, the court distinguished federal law and held that a ruling that an Art I, sec 12 waiver is 'knowing and intelligent' is reviewed for legal error, as is a ruling that such a waiver is 'voluntary.' | ||
[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S066598 State v. Ward] 367 Or 188 (October 29, 2020) (Flynn) (Washington County, Knapp) | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/S066598 State v. Ward] 367 Or 188 (October 29, 2020) (Flynn) (Washington County, Knapp) | ||
{{wl-publish: 2020-11-02 20:34:16 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | {{wl-publish: 2020-11-02 20:34:16 -0800 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin Johnson }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:08, November 30, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SELF-INCRIMINATION - Waiver
Unequivocal assertion of right to remain silent under Oregon constitution invalidated subsequent interrogation with intervening Miranda warning but no express waiver. Reversed.
In explaining its ruling, the court noted that police had failed to honor defendant's invocation of rights during his first interrogation, the results of which were suppressed, and that defendant had been incarcerated for four or five days without the appointment of counsel. He was intellectually disabled, although competent to stand trial. The court observed that the 'totality of circumstances' required that all the relevant factors had to be considered in combination, and that the paucity of the record weakened the state's position. Finally, the court distinguished federal law and held that a ruling that an Art I, sec 12 waiver is 'knowing and intelligent' is reviewed for legal error, as is a ruling that such a waiver is 'voluntary.'
State v. Ward 367 Or 188 (October 29, 2020) (Flynn) (Washington County, Knapp)
