PUBLIC DEFENDERS GET NO RESPECT!!!!

That is usually the case.  But not today as today the United States Senate confirmed The Honorable Michael McShane to the Federal Bench.  Judge McShane stated his carreer as a Portland Public Defender. 

He is a good man with a good heart and will be a great addition to the District of Oregon. 

Us lowely criminal defense attorneys (me and my daytime husband, Douglas Green) would like to say:  MAZEL TOV

PS: Did you notice my hillarious play on the word "judge" by using a picture of the Voice judges?  I couldn't resist - I'm addicted to The Voice! 

Boogard's Family Sues NHL

 

 

I've been watching the hockey playoffs lately, and I was interested to hear that the family of Derek Boogard is suing the NHL for wrongful death.

In the lawsuit, the family alleges the league is responsible for the brain damage that Boogaard suffered during six seasons as an enforcer, as well as his addiction to prescription painkillers.

As a civil trial lawyer, I wonder what the jury will do with this....  What would you do if you were on the jury?  Can we blame the NHL for Boogard's drug addiction?  I will be interested in hearing the attorney's theories on this one.

Will The Oregon Legislature Actually Do Something That Makes Sense?!?!

I was turned onto an excellent article (see, here) recently by my fabulous law partner that discussed an old, favorite topic of mine - sentencing reform.  It seems that someone introduced a bill recently (HB 3194 - see it here) that addressed the skyrocketing costs of incarceration and the enormous prison budget in Oregon.

As I have mentioned previously, statistics clearly show that the crime rate has not changed drastically in a very long time.  In the US, it steadily rose after World War II and peaked between the 1970's and 1990's.  It has been in a pretty steady decline ever since.  In other words, any recent hype and talk about crime waves, epidemics and the like are just that - talk.  The overall statistics do not support the need for bigger enforcement budgets, tougher sentencing laws, and all of our politicians, legislatures, and cops do not need to "get tough on crime" because no matter what we have done over the last 15 years or so hasn't made a shred of difference!

What has changed though, is our prison population which, both here in Oregon and nationwide, continues to spiral out of control.  What does that mean?  It means we are constantly having to build and fund bigger prisons for the people we stuff inside them though doing so doesn't seem to have any affect on the crime rates.  Does this make sense to anyone?

For decades now, Oregon has been no stranger to this trend especially since the passage of the draconian Measure 11 long ago.  AND, Oregon is no stranger to the overall trend that we have and continue to stuff so many people into our prisons, we can no longer sustain the cost of that.  So, someone commissioned a study and found that this is as insane as it sounds.  And by insane, I mean the old Albert Einstein definition of insane.

As a criminal defense attorney, I saw first-hand how the prosecutors can use and abuse this statute to force people who committed essentially lower-level crimes into pleas by just threatening or charging them as Measure 11 crimes adding a hefty mandatory minimum sentence to any conviction.  And, for some ridiculous reason, people sentenced under this statute get no good time credit and no access to any prison programs.    Working as an attorney in both the criminal and civil worlds obviously gives me a unique perspective on this issue and, maybe, I'm too close to the issue to see big picture though I'm brash enough to say, "I doubt it!"

Regardless, we hope, someone and something is going to be done about this if this billed gets passed.  Alas, the law and order types (and politicians who prosper on fear mongering to these people) will fight this bill hard telling everyone that we are all in grave danger if we reform some of our sentencing laws and empty some people from our prison population - or, allow them access to some program that might actually better themselves and make their time in custody of some benefit to them, and indirectly, society in general.  That position is perfectly espoused in this editorial which is the counter-point to the article that inspired this post.  What do you think?

Let's talk about sex, baby

Well sort of.  My good friend and attorney mentor, Ryan Scott, gives us the break down on a fascinating case being decided by the Oregon Supreme Court tomorrow.  

In a nutshell, this case exemplifies why our justice system is at times, INSANE!  Or as my people like to say:  Mishuganah!

INNOCENT SHMINOCENT

As criminal defense attorneys who have handled countless sex abuse cases, we found this story particularly compelling and the timing interesting considering that March Madness Mania is in full effect.

Last week a jury acquitted a former Washington state high school basketball coach of communicating with a minor for immoral sexual purposes, a misdemeanor.  The jury reached its verdict within five minutes of the conclusion of the trial: almost unheard of in a criminal defense case.

Based on media reports, a 16-year-old girl accused Barry Johnson of making several inappropriate sexual comments to her which prompted the charge.  While Johnson denied any wrongdoing, he ultimately resigned from his position,presumably because of pressure from the school district.  At trial the defense introduced countless inconsistencies and contradictions in the girl’s story. 

As both the mother of a young child, and a criminal defense lawyer, I am often conflicted about issues concerning allegations of child sex abuse to be.

Admittedly, I would never hire a male babysitter.  As irrational as that sounds, the reality is that I’m entitled to be irrational when it comes to my kid. 

On the other hand, I know that for a variety of reasons, innocent individuals are routinely accused of sex crimes against children.  Despite the presumption of innocence our laws mandate, once someone is accused of this type of conduct, regardless of the outcome in a criminal case, game over. Their reputation is ruined.  

My guess is that Mr. Johnson will never again be able to work with children and will probably have a tough time finding any type of employment.  

And he’s one of the lucky ones. The jury did the right thing.  He wasn’t convicted. He won’t spend decades in prison for a crime he didn’tcommit.

Yes the safety of our children should be our number priority.  

But let’s make sure we get it right every time.   

Bojack Attacks Art Tax

Our esteemed colleague, fellow attorney, and friend, Jack Bogdanski has filed a lawsuit against the City of Portland over the recently enacted art tax.  The lawsuit, filed in Oregon Tax Court, claims that the tax violates Oregon's Constitutional (see, Article IX) ban against a head or poll tax.  Read more about the lawsuit here, or here, or here.  Read Mr. Bogdanski's fantastic blog here.

While the Mayor's office has remained mum on the lawsuit thus far, they apparently have been working to amend the tax to address some of the same issues raised by the lawsuit.  While another esteemed colleague, fellow lawyer, and excellent Judge, The Honorable John Wittmayer, already ruled on a similar argument last summer, we here at RG, LLP have little doubt that Bojack knows what he's talking about.  (Though we also must admit that Judge Wittmayer's smart as whip, too.)  All I can say is if it wasn't for Jack, I never would have passed the tax portion of the bar exam.  By the way, thanks for that Jack, not sure I ever got the opportunity to properly thank you for that one. 

As criminal defense, personal injury, and employment trial lawyers, we try to stay away from the tax stuff, but good luck!  If it violates the Oregon Constitution, it should be fixed.  Let's hope that between the mayor's office, the tax court, and whomever else is supposed to be in charge, we can get this right.

Suspect Drops Jailhouse ID While Fleeing from Bank Heist

I heard this story over and over on the news this morning.  This is one of those times, as a criminal defense attorney, that you wished your clients were a little smarter.  In all honesty, this guy probably has a serious addiction or mental health problem and expecting people similarly afflicted to have cogent, rational thoughts is even more ridiculous than his actual behavior.  Or, is he just that stupid?

What do you think?