On June 13, 2012, I argued State v. Phillips in the Oregon Supreme Court. The issue in Phillips is whether, when the defendant might have acted as both both the principal and an accomplice to the same crime, the jury has to agree on one or the other before returning a verdict of guilty. I think that the jury does have to agree, and I also think that result is compelled by prior Supreme Court cases, especially State v. Boots, 308 Or 371, 780 P2d 725 (1989). If I’m right, Mr. Phillips is entitled to a new trial because the jury was incorrectly instructed about its job and the law in his first trial.
Oral arguments can be viewed at the Oregon Judicial Department website, and the Phillips argument is at at the Oregon Supreme Court’s webcast of oral argument in State v. Phillips on June 13, 2012.Phillips is a companion case to State v. Pipkin, and Mr. Pipkin’s attorney, Susan Drake, argued first, so my argument appears to begin in the middle. The Supreme Court courtroom is an impressive setting, and they put some effort into the webcast, including multiple camera angles to show the individual judges and attorneys separately.
