Be prepared for skills and thrills of all kinds on June 18–20 at Mt. Bachelor Village. Push your practice to dazzling new heights and relax with colleagues and friends in a lovely setting.
Hanni Fakhoury, Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco presents “Taking the Sting Out of Stingray: Post-Riley Digital Searches and Litigation in the Era of Secret Cell Phone Tracking.” Ryan Scott, Scott Sharp, Shaun McCrea, John Henry Hingson III and Tony Bornstein will present on respectively: jury instructions, voir dire, direct examination, cross-examination of cops, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. See complete program.
Search and Seizure in Oregon has been updated for 2015, with case law updates and two new chapters. The following chapters are new to the manual:
• Chapter 8—Search/Seizure of Digital Data, Bronson James
• Chapter 9—Before and After the Appeal, Ryan Scott
The following chapters have updates with significant case law since the manual was issued in September, 2014:
• Chapter 1, "Was there a Search/Seizure"
• Chapter 3, "Warrantless Searches"
• Chapter 5, "Search Warrants"
• Chapter 6, "Is Defendant Entitled to Suppression?"
The book focuses on key opinions, with in-depth analysis, practice tips, and much more. Starting at just $175. Order here.
Join us on the Garden Isle at the magnificent Grand Hyatt Resort & Spa for OCDLA’s annual pilgrimage to the tropics. You’ll discover the true spirit of grand Hawaiian hospitality at every turn at this luxury beach resort. Relax in elegantly designed guestrooms offering stunning ocean, garden or pool views from a private lanai. In between the pampering services of a world-class spa or a challenge on the championship golf course, learn from Jeff Fisher, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Stanford Law School, Joshua Karton, Communication Arts for the Professional, Santa Monica, and Katherine Berger, Portland. Read more about the presentations, and see registration details.
OCDLA’s 2014 edition is unlike any previous edition — the book has been streamlined into two parts, with the Notebook’s (one binder) motions, checklists, case law and practice tips slim enough to carry with you to court and the “Resource Guide” (two binders) beefed up and categorized, providing the basis for deeper research and learning, broad enough to act as your own DUII defense library in your office or on your hard drive. A total of three binders full of useful manuals and DMV forms if you choose to purchase the hardcopy, and scores of useful links to resources online. Read more and purchase 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
That Was the Year That Was by Eve Oldenkamp
June-July 2015 issue of the Oregon Defense Attorney