Students and community members caught a glimpse of the highest court in the state at the University School of Law on Tuesday.
The Oregon Supreme Court visited the University and heard arguments for three state cases as part of the legal research and writing curriculum at the law school. The Court visits the University each year to allow law students to see it in action.
Joan Malmud, a legal research and writing instructor, said the event is beneficial for law students in the legal writing program because they will have to produce their own oral arguments for a fictional case before the class ends.
“For us, we see a tremendous benefit in having our students watch attorneys in action,” she said. “The decision to come to the University begins with the Supreme Court in that they want to reach out to the public, and they want to reach out to law students.”
The Supreme Court is the highest court in Oregon’s judicial branch and can be superseded only by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices in the court have the powers to review decisions either from the Oregon Court of Appeals and or lower courts.
In one of Tuesday’s cases, defense attorney Andy Simrin was appealing a trial court decision to exclude evidence in State v. Davis because of its remoteness.
In the case, Cornelius Key Davis, the defendant, was convicted of shooting his girlfriend, Carrie Hammock, in the forehead after a heated argument. Davis contends Hammock committed suicide in front of him.
Simrin argued that evidence showing Hammock’s depression and threats to kill herself months before her death should not have been thrown out.
Kaye Ellen McDonald, the prosecuting attorney, argued the lower courts should be able to say whether old evidence is irrelevant or not. She also said the exclusion applied to “harmless error” law in that the defense was able to show ample evidence, and the excluded evidence would not have swung a jury.
The final of three cases reviewed “the requisite specificity” of search warrants in regard to a 1996 Court of Appeals decision that denied the suppression of evidence gained during the search of an apartment within a house. After police issued a warrant based on informant information, the defendant answered the door to the officers, who then noticed a second apartment — which they did not search — and proceeded to search the defendants’
apartment and confiscate evidence of marijuana growing and sales.
The defendants’ attorney made initial arguments to deem the search unlawful because it was based on an “invalid” warrant, because the warrant specified one residence, not an apartment within a residence. The state’s attorney argued to find the search legal because the officer believed the house was a single-family residence and was able to identify the apartment to be searched because the defendant was present when the warrant was executed.
First-year law student Jim Forrester said the state attorney posed some very provocative questions during the case and “seemed like he already made his decision.” Forrester also commented on the manner in which the Supreme Court Justices posed their questions.
“Some of the justices asked a lot of interesting questions,” he said. “It seemed like they were persuading their colleagues who had yet to decide.”
During a question-and-answer period, Justice Durham encouraged law students to work for the Supreme Court as clerks if they are interested in becoming judges.
“I would certainly encourage you to pencil that in as a possible option after law school,” he said.