July 20, 1946 – October 22, 2013
OCDLA President, 1986–1988
Ross was a life member of the association, vigilant lobbyist, tireless voice for the accused and an ardent advocate for adequate public defense funding. He will be greatly missed by family, friends, colleagues and others whose lives he touched.
In lieu of flowers, by family request, donations can be made to OCDLA.
Photo by Geoffrey Squier Silver.
Members have been asking the Education Committee for more evidence topics, and we’ve been listening! Don’t miss this exciting CLE for experienced and newer practitioners. Chris Fabricant, Director of Strategic Litigation with the Innocence Project, New York, NY, will discuss attacking the state’s junk scientific evidence. Chris will present strategies, options and tools to aid you in debunking the state’s evidence.
Experienced practitioners will discuss: the Brady bill, new laws affecting mentally ill clients, hearsay, vouching, opinion and prior bad act evidence, common judicial evidentiary mistakes, new strategies to attack multi-count indictments and ethics.
Z is for Zealous: Effective Criminal Defense Advocacy features engaging, experienced speakers; practical advice you can use right away; and a new format — we are hosting the seminar in two locations that will be linked by teleconferencing. While this is not new technology, it is a new approach for OCDLA. This program contains reliably rock solid content and is worth the price of admission for practitioners of all skill levels.
OCDLA’s “Brady Bill” (SB 492), making discovery statutes consistent with the constitution, is signed by Governor John Kitzhaber on August 27th. Watching are DeAnna Horne, Gail Meyer, John Potter, David Angeli, John Henry Hingson III, and Aaron Jeffers.
See andhear Executive Director John Potter and Board President Lane Borg say a few words and raise a toast to our charter donors.
Download a commemorative PowerPoint presentation to view on your computer.
OCDLA’s 2013 edition of The Trial Notebook has achieved new levels of excellence. Extensive revisions to the chapters on Discovery, Jury Selection, and Closing Arguments will help you hone your skills and rule the courtroom. A new chapter on electronic evidence unravels the admissibility of email, text messages and social network data. Need to know how to subpoena an out-of-state witness? It’s in there. Want to blast the DDAs with an extensive background on prosecutorial vouching case law? It’s in there. Want the best damn discovery checklist and rundown of digital discovery basics at your fingertips? You’re covered. Purchase PDF licenses and hardcopies here.
Burglary Requires Criminal Intent at the Initiation of a Criminal Trespass
Burglary is a criminal trespass with the intent to commit a crime. Thus, where a person unlawfully enters without criminal intent and then later develops criminal intent, there is no burglary. Here, defendant trespassed into an empty home to look around. He then decided to take a key while he was inside. He was not guilty of burglary because he did not have the intent to steal at the time he entered the home. Note that a burglary can also be committed by remaining unlawfully. In that case, the person must intend to commit a crime at the point where permission to be on the property is revoked. Reversed for entry of judgement on Criminal Trespass II. State v JNS, ___ Or App ___ (2013)
Possession/Manufacture of a Destructive Device - Pyrotechnics Don't Count
A pyrotechnic device is not a destructive device for the purpose of ORS 166.382-4, possession and manufacture of a destructive device. Pyrotechnic devices, also known as fireworks, are explosive substances "prepared for the purpose of providing a visible or audible effect." Here, defendant, a juvenile, filled a tennis ball with gunpowder and, using a pixie stick as a wick, planned to light the tennis ball for the purpose of creating a big flash. If his purpose was not to destroy anything, but only to create a visible effect, he was not guilty of either possession or manufacture of a destructive device. Reversed and remanded for fact finding and determination on the question of whether the tennis ball creation was a pyrotechnic device. State v JNS, ___ Or App ___ (2013)
Corroboration is Not "Bolstering"
When a defendant calls witnesses to confirm his version of events, it is not "bolstering". It is corroboration. Here, defendant attempted to call an eyewitness to a recent prior assault by the complainant against defendant to support self-defense. The Lane County judge barred the witness, saying "I'm not going to let him bolster". The appellate court finds that it was reversible error to exclude the testimony. "When a defendant raises the defense of self-defense, evidence of the alleged victim's prior violent acts toward the defendant is admissible under OEC 404(1)." Moreover, since complainant denied the recent violent acts, the eyewitness could have made the difference. Reversed. State v Beisser.Read more
Oregon Law Center’s Hillsboro Regional Office announces its expungement project, Scrubbing Criminal Records to Unlock Barriers (SCRUB). Project SCRUB will provide low-income members of the community with legal and financial assistance to expunge their Washington County criminal records, helping to remove the barriers that can prevent them from finding jobs and housing.
The project needs pro bono attorneys to donate 1–3 hours on the third Friday of the month to help with filling out court documents and providing advice. Upcoming clinic dates are November 15th and December 13th.
2013 Recipient — Emily Simon, Portland
The View From Here by Lane Borg
Newest Issue of the Oregon Defense Attorney