by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Oregon vacated a murder conviction, holding that police questioning of a represented criminal defendant about an uncharged crime associated with the charged crime for which he had counsel violated his right to counsel under the Oregon Constitution. It also held that all evidence resulting from that violation should have been suppressed.
In 2011, George West Craigen was charged with four counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm (“FIP”). He retained counsel, Gushwa, to represent him on those charges, and Gushwa sent notice of representation to the prosecutor, stating: “Please instruct all police officers and personnel of your office not to speak to the defendant without first obtaining written permission from me.”
When Craigen was scheduled to appear for a status conference on the FIP charges, he shot and killed his neighbor, Clark, on December 30, 2011. Two days later, detectives interrogated Craigen about the shooting but did not notify Gushwa because they mistakenly believed he no longer represented Craigen on the FIP charges. Gushwa later moved to withdraw, but he was still counsel of record when Craigen was interrogated.
Early in the interrogation, detectives asked why Craigen shot Carter. He said he ...
by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Washington, sitting en banc, announced a new rule for situations involving flagrant appeals to racial and ethnic bias by the prosecution during voir dire and vacated a Hispanic man’s convictions, concluding that the prosecution’s voir dire examination flagrantly “appealed to the jurors’ potential racial or ethnic bias, prejudice, or stereotypes and therefore constituted race based prosecutorial misconduct.”
Someone called police to report a possible vehicle prowler when they saw Joseph Mario Zamora walking to his niece’s house at about 9:30 p.m. on February 5, 2017. There was no actual vehicle prowler in the area.
When Zamora reached his niece’s driveway, police officer Kevin Hake approached, saying he needed to speak with him. Hake quickly became nervous, claiming later that Zamora was “looking through” him with eyes the “size of silver dollars.” Hake grabbed and attempted to restrain Zamora, supposedly fearing that he had a weapon. He did not. They struggled, and eight officers joined the fray, culminating in “what may be described as extreme acts of violence” perpetrated against Zamora.
Zamora did not have a heartbeat or pulse when responding paramedics arrived to find him restrained by two officers, handcuffed, hog-tied, and face ...
by Mark Wilson
In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, vacated a trial court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s discovery request under California’s Racial Justice Act of 2020 and announced the framework for evaluating whether defendants are entitled to discovery of requested materials.
The California Legislature enacted the Racial Justice Act of 2020 (“Act”), effective January 1, 2021, mandating that “the State shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.” Cal. Penal Code, § 745(a). Four categories of conduct violate the Act: (1) “the judge, an attorney ... , a law enforcement officer ... , an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin;” (2) during trial, in court and during the proceedings, “the judge, an attorney … , a law enforcement officer … , an expert witness, or juror, used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful;” ...
by Mark Wilson
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a Minnesota man’s 12-month supervised release revocation sanction, finding that the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota improperly forced him to choose between inadequate counsel and no counsel during revocation proceedings.
Phillip Ivers was convicted ...
by Mark Wilson
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana committed plain error in accepting a guilty plea without ensuring that the defendant understood the nature of the charged drug conspiracy offense and that there was ...
by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Hawaii held that a trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that the “restraint” necessary for a kidnapping conviction is “restraint in excess of any restraint incidental to the infliction or intended infliction of bodily injury or subjection or intended ...
by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Oregon unanimously upheld a lower court’s suppression of the State’s wiretap evidence, concluding that the wiretaps violated federal law. It also affirmed the trial court’s suppression of search warrant evidence because the warrants lacked specificity and were overbroad.
During the evening of September ...
by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld a lower court’s suppression of un-Mirandized statements made to police, finding that the defendant was in custody at the scene of an automobile collision.
On October 23, 2018, Joseph Corcoran’s vehicle struck a light pole on a Rhode Island ...
by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the Court’s pro se posttrial ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) procedure applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings and extends to IAC claims against both retained and appointed counsel. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in failing to conduct ...
by Mark Wilson
The Supreme Court of Oregon unanimously held that upon finding that a life without parole (“LWOP”) sentence is not appropriate under Oregon’s repeat sex offense law, sentence must be imposed under the state sentencing guidelines.
Oregon lawmakers enacted ORS 137.719 in 2001. Section 1 requires a presumptive ...
