Oregon Supreme Court - August 16, 2018
by: Rankin Johnson • August 23, 2018 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> TRIAL PROCEEDINGS - Motions for change of judge </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''TRIAL PROCEEDINGS - Motions for change of judge'''...") |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Motion for change of judge was correctly denied as untimely, notwithstanding that the judge was assigned before counsel had been appointed and counsel filed a motion when appointed. Affirmed. | Motion for change of judge was correctly denied as untimely, notwithstanding that the judge was assigned before counsel had been appointed and counsel filed a motion when appointed. Affirmed. | ||
| − | Defendant also argued that the judge was biased because she worked for the Department of Justice at the same time as defendant was prosecuted for murder, and that the | + | Defendant also argued that the judge was biased because she worked for the Department of Justice at the same time as defendant was prosecuted for murder, and that the DOJ assisted with that prosecution, and she had represented the state in an employment action in which a witness against defendant had been a party. The court held that the judge was not actually biased and had not violated rules regarding recusal. |
The court held that evidence about life in prison and about misconduct by prisoners, not about defendant, was admissible as to the second death-penalty question. | The court held that evidence about life in prison and about misconduct by prisoners, not about defendant, was admissible as to the second death-penalty question. | ||
Latest revision as of 11:48, November 28, 2018
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS - Motions for change of judge
Motion for change of judge was correctly denied as untimely, notwithstanding that the judge was assigned before counsel had been appointed and counsel filed a motion when appointed. Affirmed.
Defendant also argued that the judge was biased because she worked for the Department of Justice at the same time as defendant was prosecuted for murder, and that the DOJ assisted with that prosecution, and she had represented the state in an employment action in which a witness against defendant had been a party. The court held that the judge was not actually biased and had not violated rules regarding recusal.
The court held that evidence about life in prison and about misconduct by prisoners, not about defendant, was admissible as to the second death-penalty question.
The court rejected defendant’s arguments about fourth-question instructions, including the argument that the court’s pre-trial rulings and comments were an enforceable promise of a different instruction.
State v. Langley 363 Or 482 (August 16, 2018) (Nakamoto, J.)
