Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Harrell / Wilson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 2013No. CC CR060548; CA A138184; SC S059513; CC C071438CR; CA A138740; SC S059461Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLinder, J.

I agree with the majority’s essential legal analysis in these cases, which recognizes that a trial judge’s decision whether to consent to a jury waiver in a criminal case may be based on an array of considerations, including the interests of the state, as articulated by the prosecutor. I further agree that the trial judge may not simply defer to the position of the prosecutor in a way that delegates the decision whether

*267to consent to the prosecutor, rather than base the decision on the trial judge’s independent and informed judgment. Consequently, I agree with the majority that State v. Wilson…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Patton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Singer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. State v. WagnerOregon Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 639 v. Yellow Bus Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. State v. MaiOregon Supreme Court · 1982

7 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