Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Russell v. Jones

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1982No. SC 28198Published

1DissentPeterson, J.

A majority of this court holds that Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees that defense counsel cannot be barred from attendance at a presentence interview and a plurality would reach the same result under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I disagree with both conclusions.

The majority holds that the presentence investigation “is a part of the sentencing procedure,” and that “just as a sentencing hearing to determine a defendant’s future liberty is a stage of a prosecution at which the assistance of counsel cannot be denied, so is a presentence…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  5. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981

22 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