Recently, a Collective member was successful in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The Oregon Court of Appeals explained:

This is an appeal from judgments in two consolidated cases, one involving multiple counts of violation of a stalking protective order (SPO) (case number A138098), and the other involving a conviction for stalking relating to a different victim (case number A138097).  In the first case, we accept the state’s concession that the trial court plainly erred by failing to merge defendant’s three separate convictions for the offense of violating a single SPO, when those convictions were based on different theories of guilt arising from a single telephone call to one person.  We exercise our discretion to review defendant’s challenge as plain error and remand that case for resentencing and imposition of a single conviction for violating a stalking protective order. See State v. Ascencio-Galindo, 220 Or App 600, 188 P3d 392, rev den, 345 Or 175 (2008) (reviewing as plain error and correcting trial court’s improper failure to merge two convictions where multiple counts represented different theories of guilt for the same criminal act).

In the second case, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because, among other reasons, the charged contacts involved expression protected under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution.  In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal, we consider whether any rational trier of fact, accepting reasonable inferences and making reasonable credibility choices, could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. King, 307 Or 332, 339, 768 P2d 391 (1989).  In so doing, we review the facts in the light most favorable to the state and draw all reasonable inferences in the state’s favor.  State v. Hall,  327 Or 568, 570, 966 P2d 208 (1998).  As explained below, we reverse.

Read the full opinion here.

The Portland Law Collective is delighted to announce that Hudson Tate Muñoz joined us on August 31, 2010.  We are extremely excited to start working with him.

Hudson earned his Bachelor’s degree in 2009 from The Evergreen State College where he focused on community organizing and legal studies. His work included independent research in labor law, prisoners’ rights, and alternative business structures. During his college tenure Hudson worked with the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene, Oregon and was an intern investigator at The Defender Association in Seattle, Washington.  He also coordinated a successful effort to design, fund and lobby for a program that allows Iraqi refugees to attend the college tuition-free. After graduating from college, Hudson completed a fellowship at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia where he led investigations into serious felony offenses.

At the Portland Law Collective, Hudson concentrates solely on the organizational and investigative need of the Collective. Hudson is not an attorney, but he is an active member of the National Lawyers Guild as a legal worker.

On August 18, an Oregon Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of two activists on charges that their protests of Ungar Furs in downtown Portland violated a restraining order.  Portland Law Collective attorney Kenneth Kreuscher and attorney Paul Loney, both of the National Lawyers Guild’s Protester Project, represented the activists.  A police officer testified that the protesters had come within 49 feet and 8 inches of the store at a time a restraining order required them to stay at least 50 feet away.  The judge credited the officer’s testimony but found that the protesters had not intended to violate the order.  The restraining order is no longer in effect (as of August 20), and the activists celebrated with a lively protest outside Unger furs.

You can read more about the acquittal in the Oregonian:  Downtown Portland fur protesters acquitted of violating space near Ungar Furs.

An attorney from the Portland Law Collective recently joined the legal team of Aref, et al. v. Holder, et al. as co-counsel. Aref is a lawsuit challenging the legality of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons’ special prison units known as “Communications Management Units” or “CMUs.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York City organized the team and initiated the litigation.   To read the complaint click here.

Starting in 2006, the U.S. government formed special units designed to isolate certain prisoners from the rest of the world.  Those prisoners have mostly been Muslim inmates and inmates with “unpopular” politics.  Prisoners in CMUs enjoy far less opportunities for education, work, and other programs.  CMU prisoners are virtually cut off from their family, friends, and communities.  There is no known mechanism to review the government’s designation of CMU prisoners.  As CCR explains on its website:

Prisoners in the CMU, alone out of all general population prisoners within the federal system, are categorically banned from any physical contact with visiting friends and family, including babies, infants, and minor children.  To further their social isolation, the BOP has placed severe restrictions on their access to phone calls and work and educational opportunities.  Adding to the suspect nature of these units, upwards of two-thirds of the prisoners confined there are Muslim – a figure that over-represents the proportion of Muslim prisoners in BOP facilities by at least 1000 percent.  Many of the remaining prisoners have unpopular political views, including environmental activists designated as “ecoterrorists.”

Five CMU prisoners and two of their spouses (who, along with their children, have been subjected to draconian rules governing visitation and phone calls) have joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.  All five men confined in the CMU have been classified as low or medium security, but were designated to the CMU despite their relatively, and in two cases perfectly, clean disciplinary history.  Not a single one has received discipline for any communications-related infraction within the last decade, nor any significant disciplinary offense.

Like all CMU prisoners, the men received no procedural protections related to their designation, and were not allowed to examine or refute the allegations that led to their transfer.  They are also being held indefinitely at the CMU without any meaningful review process.  They expect to serve their entire sentences in these isolated and punitive units.

Predictably, the lack of procedural protections has allowed for an unchecked pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory designations to the CMU.  Rather than being related to a legitimate penological purpose or based on substantiated information, our clients’ designations were instead based on their religious and/or perceived political beliefs, or in retaliation for other protected First Amendment activity.

These conditions have unjustifiably interfered with the men’s ability to maintain relationships with their loved ones – relationships that are the key to their successful transition back to society.

To learn more about Communication Management Unit (CMU) prisons, download CCR’s CMU fact sheet here.

Kenneth won a criminal defense appeal today in the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The court wrote:

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree theft, ORS 164.055.  In his first assignment of error on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to merge those two convictions.  * * * * * We write only to address his first assignment of error concerning the merger of his convictions.

Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment.  The first count alleged that defendant stole stainless steel boxes, and the second count alleged that he then sold those boxes.  A jury found defendant guilty of both counts.  Despite defendant’s request that the trial court merge the convictions, the court entered a judgment of conviction on both counts.

On appeal, defendant contends that, under State v. Cox, 336 Or 284, 82 P3d 619 (2003), the trial court erred in failing to merge the two convictions because the two counts alleged only a “single theft.”  The state concedes that the trial court erred in failing to merge the convictions because, under Cox, “defendant’s alternate forms of depriving the victim identified in the indictment * * * of the same property does not transform that single act of theft into multiple convictions.”  We agree and accept the concession.  See also State v. Turner, 211 Or App 96, 97, 153 P3d 134 (2007) (holding that convictions for two counts of first-degree theft based on stealing packaged meat and then selling it merged).

Convictions on Counts 1 and 2 reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of conviction for one count of first-degree theft reflecting that defendant was found guilty on both theories and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

Read the full opinion here.

Thanks to everyone who joined us at our open house Friday, May 7.

We had a wonderful time and hope you did too!

The Portland Law Collective is proud to announce a victory in the police complaint review process.

Lawyers from the collective represented Mr. Waterhouse and assisted his law student advocate in the Citizen Review Committee appeal.  Ben Haile represented Mr. Waterhouse in his successful civil rights case.

On April 29, 2010, Maxine Bernstein of the Oregonian wrote:

“Facing mounting pressure from a citizens panel, Portland Police Chief Rosie Sizer has reversed her stand in a citizen complaint case involving Officer Ronald Frashour’s 2006 use of a Taser against a man who was videotaping police.

The chief, in an April 27 letter to the Independent Police Review Division, agreed to sustain the finding of excessive force against Frashour for his use of a stun gun November 2006 against Frank Waterhouse.

Frashour is the officer who fatally shot Aaron M. Campbell, 25, on Jan. 29 as Campbell came out of an apartment walking backward toward police. The shooting of the unarmed man in the back set off a series of angry community protests. A Multnomah County grand jury found no criminal wrongdoing but issued a sharp rebuke of the police bureau’s poor communication and lack of command at the scene.

Sizer’s reversal in the Waterhouse case shows the power that the citizens review panel can wield and will bring still-undetermined discipline to Frashour. That may or may not affect Frashour when the bureau completes its internal review of the Campbell shooting. * * *

The Citizen Review Committee disagreed with the chief, contending that stun gun use was ‘unnecessary physical force.’ The committee voted 6-2 to recommend the chief change the bureau’s finding.

Last fall, Waterhouse won a $55,000 federal jury verdict. * * *”

Move Accomplished!

The Portland Law Collective has moved to our new office space.  Our new address is on the home page.

The Portland Law Collective is proud to be working with the Portland National Lawyers Guild’s Protestor Project to provide legal support to police accountability demonstrators who were arrested during protests over the past week here in Portland, Oregon.

If anyone witnessed acts of police misconduct against demonstrators or arrests, or if you have video of any arrests or demonstrations, please contact NLG Protestor Project attorney, Paul Loney:

Attorney Paul T. Loney
Belmont Law Center
3430 SE Belmont St #101
Portland OR  97214
Phone 503 234-2694

Fax  503 234-1330

Email: blc @ hevanet.com

Thanks!

From the March 18, 2010 Member Flash, the member newsletter for the Oregon Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals:

Persistence Pays Off in Major PRO Grievance Win

Union members discovered that payroll was being processed incorrectly and OFNHP requested an audit. We discovered Kaiser was moving people through the salary steps incorrectly. Those who were moved too slowly will receive back pay to mid-Dec. 2008. Those who were moved too quickly will not be penalized, but will have a freeze until correct wage is reached. This means hundreds of thousands for members of the PRO BU. OFNHP Attorney Cathy Highet (Portland Law Collective) credited the persistence of PRO Contract Specialists Signa Gibson and Ute Kongsbak for this victory.