Blog postings about appeals.
Oregon Supreme Court is now streaming and webcasting oral argument
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...
read moreIn State v. Phillips, Oregon Supreme Court accepts review to discuss different theories of criminal liability.
The Oregon Supreme Court has taken review of my case State v. Phillips. The Supreme Court only accepts review in a small percentage of appellate cases, usually only to resolve important and unanswered questions of Oregon law. The issue in Phillips is whether the jury must agree on a basis to convict when a criminal defendant is accused of both committing a crime and assisting another person to commit the crime. That issue could have far-reaching consequences, about how detailed an indictment must be, about how many crimes arise from related...
read moreIn Post-Conviction Relief appeal, Oregon Court of Appeals will consider actual-innocence claim
I represent in a post-conviction relief appeal a fellow who was convicted of sex offenses ten years ago. The victim of the offenses has since come forward to deny that my client committed the offenses; rather, she was persuaded to accuse my client by a relative who disliked my client. In the post-conviction trial court, the state moved to dismiss, arguing that post-conviction relief is not available for a claim of actual innocence. The trial court agreed and dismissed, and I appealed. In front of the Oregon Court of Appeals, the state sought...
read moreNine things to know about Oregon criminal appeals
1. Unlike a trial, an appeal is not about the facts At trial, the parties offer evidence to resolve issues of fact. In a jury trial, the jury listens to the evidence and decides whether to believe it. When evidence is in conflict (one witness says that the defendant was not provoked before hitting the victim, and one witness says that the victim hit the defendant first) the jury decides whether to believe one version, the other, or neither. The jury is told what law to apply, and it reaches a verdict by deciding the facts and...
read more
