Immunity law challenged
By Sara Lieberth
Oregon Daily Emerald
The passage of Measure 73 would amend
the Oregon Constitution to permit the pros
ecution of witnesses after testifying in crim
inal investigations. Current Oregon law
grants such witnesses absolute immunity
from self-incrimination.
Opponents argue that the right to “take
the Fifth” would be severely threatened un
der the proposal. Proponents believe Fifth
Amendment protections under the U.S.
Constitution should be adopted literally to
Oregon’s current, more restrictive laws on
the issue.
Oregon is now one of only a few states
that permits “transactional,” or absolute
immunity from prosecution after testimo
ny is given. Phil Barnhart, chairman of the
Democratic Party of Lane County, opposes
the assertion that “use immunity,” which
is what Measure 73 would grant, does not
adequately protect the rights of citizens.
“Oregonians have a better bill of rights
than the federal constitution grants,” he
said. “What this measure really means is
you can be forced to testify against your
self.”
Citing an example of two bank robbers
under investigation, Barnhart said if one
opts to turn state’s evidence against the oth
er under current law, all charges against the
witness are dropped for assisting the police
and prosecutor with the case. Measure 73
would permit these agencies to prosecute
the witness should they discover additional
evidence, thereby removing the immunity
protection.
“The remedy for the prosecution is to
have you held in contempt of court and put
into jail,” he said. “We’re opposed to weak
ening the Oregon bill of rights in this way.”
m
The issue:
Measure 73 would allow a person ordered to
testify about a crime to be prosecuted for the
same crime if unrelated evidence is uncov
ered.
Pro: Current Oregon law makes it harder to try
cases with multiple defendants without prose
cutorial power to compel them to testify
against each other.
Con: It would erode the state’s bill of rights
and Oregonians’ protection from oppressive
government.
Clatsup County District Attorney Josh
Marquis holds that no testimony whatsoev
er given by a witness granted immunity
could ever be directly used against them,
but that they could be prosecuted if other
unrelated evidence became available from
independent investigations.
“Measure 73 would protect Fifth
Amendment rights but prevent criminals
from using immunity as a shield from right
ful prosecution,” he said.
As president of the League of Women
Voters of Oregon, Paula Krane said that
while her organization does not speak out
officially on the merit of particular mea
sures, it has urged voters to vote “no” on
measures like 73 because of their constitu
tional amendment status.
“These issues should remain in the
statutes,” she said. “The constitution is the
framework, statutes are supposed to be the
dry wall. They can be changed as needed.
Measure allows denial of bail
By Darren Freeman
Oregon Daily Emerald
Measure 71 would restrict pre-trial release
of defendants accused of violent felonies.
The measure proposes locking into the
Oregon Constitution an existing statute that
allows judges to deny bail to persons ac
cused of violent felonies. Denial of ]jail
would require clear and convincing evi
dence that the defendant would pose a
threat to society if released.
Proponents of Measure 71 say the bill
would increase protection of crime victims
and society at large from dangerous crimi
nals. Opponents argue that the bill’s pro
posals don’t belong in the constitution,
would stress the overcrowded jail system
and would violate Americans’ right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Howard Rodstein, a member of Crime
Victims United of Oregon and firm sup
porter of Measure 71, said The Oregonian
has reported 79 cases of people being killed
by defendants and convicted criminals on
parole, probation or bail.
“There is absolutely no doubt that if this
measure is defeated, innocent people will
be killed,” Rodstein said. “History shows
that clearly.”
Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, said
that although he supports the court’s right
to refuse bail, he opposes Measure 71.
If the bill passed and were locked into the
constitution, any revisions to the content or
wording of the bill would require a general
election, Prozanski said.
“ [The constitution] should not be a catch
all for codified statues,” he said. “It defeats
the whole purpose of having an elected
body representing the people.”
Steve Doell, president of Crime Victims
United of Oregon, wrote the senate bill that
13
The issue:
Measure 71 would amend the Oregon Consti
tution by allowing judges to refuse a defen
dant’s bail if there is probable cause to believe
the defendant is guilty and there is clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant would
pose a threat to society if released.
Pro: It would protect victims and society from
criminals before and during trial.
Con: It would impede revision of the law by
locking it into the constitution, overcrowd jails
and force the release of convicted criminals.
Violates the right to be presumed innocent un
til proven guilty.
created the statute allowing judges to deny
bail. He said the bill should be placed into
the constitution to prevent future, more lib
eral legislatures from tampering with it.
Prozanski voiced his concern that the bill
could have the ironic effect of forcing the
release of convicted criminals from jail to
make room for defendants refused bail. He
also expressed his reservations about jail
ing a defendant who’s presumed innocent
until proven guilty.
Doell argues that the right to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty wouldn’t be
violated by the measure because juries
would not be told that defendants are being
held without bail.
“We’re not talking about people who
steal bread from 7-Eleven,” Doell said.
“We’re talking about serious offenders,
people charged with rape, kidnaping, ag
gravated assault, child molestation.”
Voters to decide if convicted criminals eligible to serve on juries
The issue
Measure 75 would prohibit felons
and those convicted of misde
meanors involving dishonesty and
violence from serving on grand ju
ries and on juries in criminal trials.
Pro: A constitutional amendment
would make it hardertoallow crimi
nals to serve on juries in other cas
es.
Con: Oregon iawalready prohibits
felons from serving jury duty; this
would bar people convicted of rela
tively minor offenses.
GOLF CLUB
(faty at iU
College Students -*20.00
Exp. 10-9-99
822-3220
1007584
SKI
SWAP
Lane County Fairgrounds
To Sell on Consignment:
Oct. 28th 9-9; 29th 9-5
SALE
Oct. 29th 6-9; 30th 9-6
New and used skis,
snowboards, cross
country, snowshoes,
clothing, gear and more!!!
By Darren Freeman
Oregon Daily Emerald
Oregon voters will decide in
November whether or not citizens
convicted of certain crimes
should serve on juries.
Measure 75 would amend the
Oregon Constitution to ban peo
ple from serving on grand juries
and criminal juries if they had
been convicted of a felony or had
served felony sentences within
the 15 years preceding their ap
pointed jury duty date. This pro
vision is already an Oregon law.
The measure proposes going a
step beyond current law by ban
ning from juries people who had
been convicted of misdemeanors
involving violence or dishonesty
within the five years preceding
their first day of jury duty.
Proponents of the measure say
it would promote responsible and
fair juries, while opponents say
the measure would violate a citi
zen’s right to serve on juries and
would unnecessarily limit the
jury pool.
Julie Hedden, a member of
Crime Victims United and Par
ents of Murdered Children, said
jurors should be held to a high
standard.
“I don’t feel felons or dishonest
people should serve on juries de
ciding people’s fate,” she said. “I
wouldn’t want a rapist sitting on
a jury for a child molestation
case.”
Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eu
gene, who opposes the measure,
said banning misdemeanor of
fenders from juries would be un
fair. According to the measure’s
language, Prozanski said, some
body convicted of stealing a five
cent mint or for using false identi
fication to buy alcohol could be
banned from jury duty.
“There definitely is a [federal]
constitutional right to serve on
jury duty,” Lewis and Clark Law
School Professor Steve Kanter
said. “And once people have
completed their sentences, they
should be allowed the full rights
of citizenship.”
Proponents of the measure,
however, argue that crime victims
should have the right to see ac
cused criminals tried by law-abid
ing citizens.
“People that have been ad
versely affected by the court sys
tem, i.e. convicted of a crime, are
less likely to be fair and impar
tial,” Lane County District Attor
ney Doug Harcelroad said.
Prozanski said that such has
not been the case in his experi
ence as a prosecuting attorney.
“I’ve had people convicted of
crimes serve on my juries, and I
didn’t lose those cases,” Prozans
ki said.
Measure 75 is one of seven
measures in the November Spe
cial Election that was passed in
1996 as part of Measure 40 and
referred to the ballot by the Legis
lature.
d with
gfQttil
4
Howl-o-grams will run in the
Emerald on Friday, Oct. 29.
4
Call 346-4343 to place your gram
today, or fill out this form and stop by the
Emerald Classified Office: Suite 300, EMU
Deadline:
Wed. Oct. 27, 1 pm
Write the m©st creative sp@©k
and win a t-shirt and a pumpkin!
name:
phone:
address:
payment method: cash/check/credit
card #
Write text here.