Let Freedom Ring: Search and Seizure in the 21st Century

September 19–20 • Agate Beach Inn

This has been quite a year for search and seizure law, not the least of which is the seminal Riley case. We are on the border of a new legal electronic frontier. We have an exciting lineup of experts on search warrants, motions to suppress, child porn cases and more. Remember, you can’t beat Newport in September.

arrow Program and registration.

 

Death Penalty Defense Seminar

September 19–20 • Agate Beach Inn

This year’s OCDLA capital defense seminar “Turning of the Tide: How to Litigate in the Coming Age of Abolition” — will focus on what we can do in order to advance the cause of abolishing the death penalty in Oregon. Special presentations on jury research, policing misconduct, faulty forensics, and the national trend toward life, plus a panel featuring trial & PCR attorneys and an opportunity for attendees to share successful and inventive strategies. Program & registration here.

 

 

2014 Sunny Climate Seminar

November 9–13 • Mauna Lani Bay Hotel
and Bungalows

OCDLA has negotiated another unbeatable deal at the newly renovated and fantastic Mauna Lani Bay Hotel. Travel packages from Portland andSeattle begin at only $999 (per person, double occupancy) which includes round-trip airfare, four nights lodging, free parking, free internet, a variety of free recreational equipment, and all air and hotel taxes. Add days to the front or back and still receive our amazing discounted room rates. Lock in these great travel package rates. Contact Tom Cronkrite at TravelPro at 866-611-3785 or tom@tomtravel.net

A top-notch CLE program is planned — go here for details.


 

2014 DUII Trial Notebook

Three Volumes!

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. arrow Read more and purchase here.


 

library of defenseLibrary of Defense Case Summaries

Oregon Appellate Court - August 28, 2013
Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:23:03 GMT

by:Alex Bassos

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 Appellate Court - August 21, 2013
Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:55:14 GMT

by:Alex Bassos

  • 803(18)(a)(b) Child Abuse Hearsay Exception - Sufficiency of Notice
  • Endangering the Welfare of a Minor - Possession of Drugs in the Presence of a Minor May Be Enough
  • PCR - Failure to Object to Vouching
  • Criminal Trespass - A Tenant Can Override a Landlord's Exclusion
Read more.