Welcome to The Library
(330 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | __NOTOC__ | + | {{DISPLAYTITLE:OCDLA Library of Defense - Latest Case Reviews}}__NOTOC__ |
− | <table | + | <table class="no-cellpadding no-cellspacing"> |
<tr> | <tr> | ||
− | <td | + | <td style="vertical-align: top;" id="main-blog"> |
− | <h2> | + | <h2>Blog</h2> |
− | + | {{Special:Wikilog/Blog:Main|limit=3|view=summary}} | |
− | + | <h2>Case Reviews</h2> | |
− | <h2> | + | {{Special:CaseReviews/15}} |
− | { | + | _________________________ |
− | + | </td> | |
− | + | <td style="vertical-align: top;" id="main-cases"> | |
− | + | {{Special:FeaturedContent/100}} | |
− | + | ________________________________________________ | |
− | + | <table class="gallery"> | |
− | + | <tr> | |
− | | '''[[Immigration|Immigration]]'''<br>[[Padilla| | + | <td> |
− | + | [[File:Police.jpg|x70px|link=Search_and_Seizure|center|border]] | |
− | + | </td> | |
− | + | <td> | |
− | + | [[File:Blood43.jpg|x70px|link=Forensic_Evidence|center|border]] | |
− | + | </td> | |
− | + | <td> | |
− | + | [[File:Courtroom.jpg|x70px|link=Evidence_Code|center|border]] | |
− | + | </td> | |
− | + | </tr> | |
− | + | <tr> | |
− | + | <td> | |
− | + | '''[[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]] | |
− | | '''[[ | + | </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> | |
− | <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]] | |
− | + | </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> | ||
− | + | </td></tr> | |
+ | </table> |
Latest revision as of 08:57, August 5, 2023
Blog
Felony Computer Crimeby: Ryan Scott • April 11, 2024 • no comments Today, the Oregon Supreme Court issued an opinion in State v. Azar. The split opinion significantly narrowed the scope of one particular theory of felony computer crime. Even if you don't have a felony computer crime case, it is worth reading -- both the majority opinion and the dissent -- on the circumstances in which legislative history can narrow the scope of an otherwise broadly written statute. And the opinion also suggests a potential defense to theft by selling in (of course) a footnote.
If I understand the point of this footnote, the Court is saying that selling stolen property is not necessarily "disposing of the property," and therefore not necessarily theft-by-receiving, until the property is transferred in some way. So, for example, entering into an agreement to sell stolen property, or even receiving money for said property, may not constitute theft-by-receiving until the property is delivered. I don't anticipate many situations where this would arise, but if it does, citing that footnote at MJOA might make you look like a genius. A Gun Minimum Sentencing Hackby: Ryan Scott • March 31, 2024 • no comments I had previously had a blog post where I argued that the first time a gun minimum is imposed, it must be imposed on the most serious offense to which the gun minimum was attached. Therefore, if a defendant is charged with murder with a firearm and felon in possession of a firearm, the gun minimum must be imposed on the murder (where, admittedly, it would have no effect.) However, is there a time when you'd want the gun minimum imposed on a later count, despite the law? That is, where it's something you'd rather negotiate for. Yes. First, if the state seeks to impose prison on one count and probation on the other, imposing the gun minimum on the non-prison count would likely increase the availability of sentence-reduction programs (AIP, transitional leave) that would not be available on a prison sentence with the gun minimum finding, even if the gun minimum is not imposed. Second, even if the defendant is looking at prison on both counts, putting the gun minimum sentence on a non-M11 count may allow a greater reduction for earned time. For example, assume defendant reaches a deal where he is going to be sentenced to attempted murder and felon in possession. Both allege the gun minimum, and it's the defendant's second gun minimum, so he is looking at 10 years mandatory. If the gun minimum is imposed on the attempted murder, the defendant's 120 month sentence would have 90 months subject to ballot measure 11 and therefore without earned time. The defendant could get earned time on remaining thirty months. Assuming all earned credits are in fact earned, the defendant would serve a sentence of 114 months. But if the defendant receives 90 months on the attempted murder charge and 120 months on the charge of felon in possession of a firearm to run concurrently, the defendant would get earned time on all 120 months, thereby reducing his total time to 96 months. (120-24). This is not speculation. Samson v. Brown, 486 P. 3d 59 (2021) Special Jury Instructions for Kidnappingby: Ryan Scott • January 12, 2024 • no comments THIS POST HAS BEEN AMENDED. In my opinion, one thing that sets a great defense lawyer apart from a good defense lawyer is the quality of their special jury instructions. Special jury instructions have a number of advantages. If given, they can put the weight of judicial authority behind your argument. It's not just you saying what the state needs to prove, for example. It's what the judge is saying. If the instruction is not given, the standard of review on appeal is very defense-friendly. To obtain a reversal on an ungiven special jury instruction, you need the instruction to be a correct statement of the law and any evidence in the record that would justify it. This is the reverse of the standard of review for MJOA, where the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the state. (To be precise, it's also important that the instruction is not only a correct statement of the law but also is not unduly slanted toward the defendant.) When are jury instructions most valuable? Usually when the statute is broadly written, but either the legislature or the case law has narrowed the scope of the statute. That happened with the crime of kidnapping, for example. Back in 2017, I spoke at a conference in Portland and recommended -- among many other things -- the following special jury instructions: → continue reading...Next 20 Articles Case Reviews
Oregon Court of Appeals, April 24th, 2024by: Rankin Johnson RIGHT TO COUNSEL - Burden of proof regarding prejudice DEFENSES - Self-defense RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS - Procedural due process Oregon Court of Appeals, April 17th, 2024by: Rankin Johnson APPEAL AND REVIEW - New trial motions CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL - Inferences CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor CLOSING ARGUMENT - Improper argument by prosecutor SENTENCING - Eligibility for alternative programs SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Scope of inquiry following stop Oregon Court of Appeals, April 3rd, 2024by: Rankin Johnson MENS REA - Mental states and specific elements EVIDENCE - Authentication POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Right to post-conviction counsel _________________________ |
RECENT LOD UPDATES________________________________________________ |