Legal Opinion

State v. Soriano

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 13, 1984No. 83-006CR 83-006CR CA A27206 (Control) CA A27207PublishedCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGillette, J.

In these consolidated contempt ’ cases, defendants refused to testify before a grand jury investigating a possible burglary at the General Store in Klamath Falls, claiming their right under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution 1 not to be compelled to testify against themselves. After extensive proceedings, the trial court granted them use and derivative use immunity under ORS 136.617-136.619 2 and ordered them to testify. They persisted in their refusals, claiming that the statutory immunity was insufficient to replace their constitutional right and that only transactional…

2Cases cited52 opinions

  1. Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Elkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. Kastigar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Marchetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. State v. GomezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Priest v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. VondehnOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State v. WhiteOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Commonwealth v. SwinehartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API