The car accident case is absurd. I can't believe that case has been allowed to proceed.

I recall in law school that the argument that Southern Democrats made in the civil rights era was that the interstate commerce clause was not intended to help fight for civil rights. But the lawyers (many of them prosecutors) used the clause to fight discrimination by saying that a white owned restaurant cannot discriminate against Black customers because the mustard travelled in interstate commerce. While not what the interstate commerce clause was designed for, creative lawyering fostered a good result ie: civil rights.

In the case mentioned above on the assault, it seems that the prosecutor took the plain meaning of the law and applied it creatively to another worthy situation: ie going after drunk drivers who endanger children. So, unless you disagree with premise of trying to use every legal arrow in the quiver to go after drunk drivers it looks like good lawyering on the part of Assistant DA Weiner!

There is no reason to believe that extreme abuses are unique in any County. In District Seven the head trial judge, I have it on tape, discussed with the Defense Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney that no crime had taken place.

Paul then prceeded to trial. After jury selection and during the testimony of the first witness Paul abruptly ended the trial and dismissed the jury. All charges were dismissed. But a trial had taken place. A crime.

The charge was disorderly conduct. What the Judge did was an abuse of process. A malicious prosecution. The defense attorney and the assistant DA participated.

In this County a brutal execution took place. A man was murdered with three shots to the back of his head. The murdered man was killed in his bed. The sheriff burned the mattress and destroyed all of the evidence. He has since been re-elected. The District Attorney is still there, since re-elected. No charges for destruction of evidence were brought. Totally corrupt.

I may be confusing/combining this case with a different one I read about, but the point of creative lawyering remains the same. Also for you Republican trolls out there the Southern Democrats of yesteryear are the Southern Republicans of today!

There seems no justification for using an obscure provision of the law to go after a bad driver. In fact, such attempts to do so might end in appeal, resulting in new case law, negatively affecting future prosecutions for which the law was intended.

If the deputy Washington County DA lied to CPS or Social Services or whoever, he violated the professional conduct rules. He might say his motive was to protect a kid against somebody that he subjectively believed was dangerous, but in the eyes of the Bar Association at least, that does not justify lying.

I am curious as to why the operation of the Washington County DA's office is worthy of the repeated attention of Blue Oregon. Is there a partisan election coming up? I don't even know who the DA is out there and I don't care one way or the other as my only visits to Beaverton are infrequent trips to the Kuni service department. Whatever.

This turd is kin to the one in Michigan who tried to prosecute a college student for being a "minor in possession" of alcohol that was legally consumed in Canada but remained in the person's body when he returned to the US.

The best proposal I've seen to deal with this sort of problem is to require that attorneys who want to be prosecutors work for the same entity that provides public defense services and be subject to assignment equally over time on both sides.

Right now, attorneys can do nothing but prosecute and never have to face the consequences of their careerism.

I read Willamette Week's story about DDA Jason Weiner's case against the young driver that hit the stop sign while her siblings were in the car with her. The allegation by the county seems to be that the collision wasn't just a simple accident, and so charges were in order. The domestic violence charge is just one of five charges being brought against the defendant in this case. It stands to reason that the driver understood that her two passengers were her siblings, providing her with extra reason to drive especially careful, rather than with reckless disregard.

The trial won't be heard until Feb 17, so it's likely that WW is not able to hear from Weiner or anyone else, further details about the intent and state of mind of the driver that had in had in the DA's office, Weiner, and the Grand Jury feeling like this charge was appropriate.

I'm not absolutely sure, but the acts of the driver sounds, as defined by state statutes, quite a bit like domestic violence. Different from, as WW uses for an example in its story... the acts of 'wife beaters', but possibly very serious matter as well.

ws:

Here's the problem. The Legislators who drafted the domestic violence law said that the statute was in no way meant to be applied in a situation like this. They were appalled that it would be misused in this way. There is something to be said about applying the law as it was intended to be applied. Particularly when the job of a DDA is to follow the spirit of the law and see that justice is done. I think the DDA failed in that respect in this case.

Aside form the misuse of the law, domestic violence is extremely serious and needs to be addressed in the most pro active way. And if you and the DA want to label this young driver as a domestic abuser, then it diminishes what that even means in our society. If she's a bad and reckless driver, there are charges for that. If she committed vehicular assualt, there are charges for that. This is nothing more than a DDA trying to figure out how he can pile on the most serious charges possible.

To Greg D: Gee Greg, whatever

This is actually a really interesting case. It appears to me that the reason that DDA Weiner is using the charges he is using, is that he understands that this is not your usual case of reckless endangering "a misdemeanor that carries a sentence of up to one year in jail, but the usual result for a first-time offender is probation only." So he is pursuing a charge to get the guy in jail for 30 days. That does not by itself make it okay to do since the max punishment for reckless endangering is up to a year in jail (according to the WW article) so maybe if DDA Weiner did a good job in court he could get the guy sentenced for more than 30 days on that charge, but I will let trial lawyers who actually fully understanding how sentencing works to fight that battle.

On the second issue of the intent of Kate Brown and the other folks who wrote the law: Like has been mentioned before the use of the law outside of its intent is a principal reason that we have the civil rights we have now. Once a bill is signed into law the bill, and not the intent of the bill, becomes law. Maybe DDA Weiner is devaluing domestic violence or maybe this is really a case of domestic violence (I dont know the specific facts so I cant make a opinion on that). The main point I am trying to make is that I have nothing against a law being used outside its farmers intent as long as its for a legit reason. In this case the guy for sure showed horrible judgment in allowing the little kid to seat in the front seat on someone’s lap and somehow ended up hitting up a stop sign which indicates some reckless harm. I will let the legal experts decide if that’s domestic violence or not, but regardless of that that kid needs some serious punishment for putting the lives of a little child and a minor in danger in such a stupid way.

And now I will let the adults discuss...

"The Legislators who drafted the domestic violence law said that the statute was in no way meant to be applied in a situation like this." 13thjuror

Like what? How thoroughly have Secretary Kate Brown and the legislators that drafted the domestic violence law been briefed on the details of this case? WW doesn't say. Has she been provided with enough information about the incident and case to allow her to know for certain that domestic violence definitely did not occur?

From the above posted WW excerpt:

"But Secretary of State Kate Brown, who wrote the law 12 years ago when she was a state senator, says it was meant to punish domestic violence and she’s “horrified” it’s being used in this case by Washington County."

The DA, assistant and the Grand Jury members have heard details of the incident and possibly witness testimony that WW either hasn't heard, or has heard and isn't in a position to publish. That information may support a domestic violence charge as defined in the statute. The jury at trial will decide whether it does or doesn't.

Wow, the commenters all must be psychic! You were there, perhaps? No? Perhaps you've read all the police reports? No? Oh...you're just spewing based on slanted information given by someone who ALSO doesn't have all the information. I see now.

Let's think about this. Clearly, we don't know all the facts. But 7 grand jurors heard the case, since it's a felony, and decided, based on ALL the evidence, that the charge was merited.

Now, perhaps these fine citizens just happen to be collectively off their rockers. So, that's why we have a jury trial, so that 12 jurors can AGAIN here all the evidence and make their own decisions, before any punishment is imposed. What a terrible, draconian system we have! The accused only gets TWO juries and might face, horror of horrors, 30 days in jail for injuring a child recklessly!

Now, let us turn our attention to Ms. Axtman. She is, I will note, not a lawyer, and has never claimed any expertise in the law. Yet here she is, yet again, railing against those nasty people who just happen to be making far less money than they could otherwise make for the privilege of defending society from criminals. Her posts are rife with errors regarding the law, yet she's rarely called on them.

Now let's talk about funding for DA's Offices. The State only pays for the elected DA's salary, which is often less than that of their deputies, since it's paid by the State, which is notoriously cheap when it comes to the salaries of elected officials. Everything else is paid for by the counties. Yes, it's just terrible that the people of Washington County are having to pay for the DAO. Oh, wait, there's a local option law enforcement levy that pays for additional manning at the DAO and other law enforcement agencies. The people are SO upset over the debacle that is their DAO that they REGULARLY pass that additional voluntary taxation. It won by 64% of the vote last time. Clearly an unpopular measure.

Moving right along, let's talk about the elected DA of Washington County, Bob Hermann. Clearly, if he's doing such a terrible job, there must be some sort of recall or contested election? Oh, wait, he was SO unpopular that no one bothered to run against him last time.

Give it up, Ms. Axtman. The people of Washington County are apparently quite happy with their DA's Office. They apparently are not as concerned as you are that someone who drives recklessly and injures a child is being charged with a felony.

mlw...I commented, and I don't think I was one of the commenters objecting to the charge of domestic violence being brought. I'm not a lawyer either, though I've heard a bit about what it is that, in Oregon, constitutes domestic violence or abuse.

Willamette Week certainly seems to like to mention that Kate Brown and Ginny Burdick, in 1997, wrote the law defining domestic violence in Oregon(also did so in a November 11 'rogue'). I couldn't seem to find a description of exactly what it is they wrote. Found the the following though:

background brief on domestic violence by bill taylor

An excerpt:

"In Oregon, there is no single crime of domestic violence. The term is used to describe any number of crimes (assault, murder, burglary, harassment, menacing) that occur between family or household members"

Was the law passed as a domestic violence law? Yes. Does it by its own wording limit itself to domestic violence situations? No. 163.160 "(c) The assault is committed in the immediate presence of, or is witnessed by, the person’s or the victim’s minor child or stepchild or a minor child residing within the household of the person or victim." Kate Brown, who IS a lawyer, certainly could have limited the language further, but did not.

What's really appalling about this slanderous attack on the Washington County DA's Office is that Ms. Axtman is picking on a group of people who legally cannot respond to her allegations. It's unethical conduct for a prosecutor to make most statements that would respond to her criticisms, because the case is ongoing and the defendant has the right not to be tried in the media.

Her attack has all finesse of someone kicking a muzzled dog, and about as much fairness.

and not one of those points has been seriously considered.

Well, called, sir!

This is America, for those that want it in a nutshell. Endless dithering about the intention of a law (fetish behavior), and not one comment about the fact that we live in a system where the victim has no say about a complaint. A peace officer with an AA makes a complaint, and a pol decides when to prosecute. From the Normans on, it has been a way to promote state interest, not give you justice.

If you can grasp the concept, you will have to radically change the system to ever get justice. It is not what it is designed to achieve, as is. Period. But then, if the Nazis rounded up 12 civies to watch a kangaroo court trial, you would probably call that a jury and decide that justice had been done. Completely lead around by the nose with the concept of criminality. This is how it ends, with a very pitiful whimper.

Her attack has all finesse of someone kicking a muzzled dog, and about as much fairness.

Madame La Snarque spells that S-P-O-R-T!

This time she's right, though. BO has reached a new hight of progressive liberalism! This week we've heard that misunderstanding with the police are probably a matter that we don't understand their training, and need to get educated and that a bunch of developer enslaved liberal wannabees probably know best what kind of ambitious legal hack to inflict on those whose lives wouldn't be allowed inside a gated community.

I must go meditate again for that 9.5 subduction zone quake, which will force most of Portland to realize that most the city sits like a parasite around SE.

JJ and Lord Beaverbrook's comments about a victims role in issuing a complaint is worthy of discussion, but progressives should NOT be in favor of such a model. If that were the case there would be no prosecutions of domestic violence victims who recant because of the battering of their partner; child sex abuse cases where the boyfriend molests the child and the mom sides with the boyfriend? Elderly victims who are going to be too scared, tired or embarassed to want to go to court for being the victim of a theft? or in this case people who endangering their own children with reckless conduct? If you think the system favors the wealthy now, just imagine the ability of a criminal rich enough to buy off their victim so they don't file charges.

I my opinion this is an example of poorly drafted ill considered legislation too typical of what we get from Salem. When the politicians feel a need to 'get tough' and in fact there is little they can do to 'get tough' that does not involved Ways and Means they result to elevating crimes to felonies. Domestic Violence is often a political football. In reality whether or not a youth winesses an assault has ittle to do with whether or not the crime was serious or that it influences future behavior of the youth. Economic issues and educational factors are much better predictors of future behavior of the youth.

Since it has been enacted the language in the act has bothered many on both the defense and prosecution.

One thing that I believe the Legislature over relies on is the concept of prosecutorial discretion- that is that the District Attorneys will use discretion in deciding which charges to bring and if to prosecute. Not saying this applies to the case at hand, the unwritten policy of the prosecution in Oregon is to bring all possible charges and to bring the most serious charges even though they may not be warranted in the minds of many.

For some time I have believed that the Legislature should develop prosecutorial guidelines for District Attorneys to address this issue. The problem is that this would be left to the Legislature which almost always spells poor work product IMHO.

I admire most of the criminal prosecutors in Oregon. They have tough jobs and a for the most part are tremendously under paid and under valued. However, if there is one problem it is the natural sin of over zealousness which is a product of culture and in many instances the youth and inexperience of the attorneys.

Carla, your "feeling along with the other jurors that the DA had brought a weak case and wasted taxpayer dollars" is not atypical however it is important to remember that it is frequently the "weak" case that goes to trial as the "strong" cases tend to be settled in the plea offer machine. There is nothing wrong with the DA bringing a "weak" case per se because justice may demand it but a frivolous "weak" case that's another story and perhaps what you witnessed.

Many times when yout typical citizen that is not involved in the "system" hears the nuts and bolts of this type of case they seem to be dumbfounded and with good reason. Often times it is only due to dumbing down that it all makes sense to the attorneys involved. I'm not speaking about any particular case or ethics issues, but really the criminal justice system in this state is in poor health and it is not likely to improve any time soon primarily due to a lack of funding and extended political games at the legislature.

First, no one has disputed the following: This was a car accident. No alcohol. An 18-19 year old girl was driving way too fast and a 4 year old was hurt and a 15 year old was in the car and saw the injury. No one was beating anyone. If you think that's domestic violence, I guess there's no convincing you otherwise, but it is certainly not what anyone in law enforcement has EVER thought was DV. DDA Weiner has not disputed these facts. All he said was that under the language of the statute, those facts could be charged under the DV statute. So really, lets drop the pretense that maybe there are things we don't know. THats a red herring.

Second. Whether Sen Brown wrote a perfect bill with perfect language is not the issue. Its very clear and undisputed that this bill was passed and enacted and agreed to to appropirately punish domestic violence. Perhaps the Senator never thought in a million years that an officer of the court sworn to uphold the law, would ever purposefully misuse the law by taking this language out of contest. Therefore, assuming that you agree this is not really DV, then the DDA is misusing the law, because he can.

Third. The grand jury. Where to start. I'm sure the DDA didn't inform the GJ that this was passed by our legislature as a DV law, as made clear in the context of the statute (as a sub paragraph of the DV specific provisions), but that he'd like to use it in this case because he couldn't find any other felonies to charge her with. Or, more likely did he just present the facts, then read the statute without telling the GJ about its history and context, just as readers here have, and ask for the indictment.

This is really a simple simple situation. Its not as difficult or complicated to understand as the DDA defenders would have you believe.

We have a DDA who is using a statute that was clearly never meant to be used in this situation because he can, and probably because HE believes she needs to be punished more than he can ethically punish her under the applicable law. He's not defending civil right and equal protection under the law, another red herring.

So the question is...Is this the person who you want to have bringing charges against citizens? Knowing that it will cost thousands of your dollars to prosecute (and defend because she does have a public defender who will go to trial rather than plea this out to this charge). Is this the office you want in charge of reviewing complaints against YOU and YOUR FAMILY?

Not me.

13th - Clearly the voters of Washington County are just peachy with having an aggressive DA, since they routinely re-elect him. If you don't like, him, move to Washington County, get a law degree, and run against him.

There's all this talk about "that's not what Brown meant", but that's beside the point, isn't it? When it comes down to it, why shouldn't we take the "meaning" of the statute as being what the most conservative legislator who voted for it thought? As for DV or not DV, I return again to the point that it's not written as purely a DV law. They could have wrote it that way, but they didn't. Kate Brown isn't stupid and she has plenty of legal experience. Whatever she says now, it makes sense to presume that she wrote the law in a manner that she thought it would get passed, which it did, WITHOUT the DV language.

As for all moaning about the "abuse of prosecutorial discretion", isn't that why we have elections? DA's are elected by county. Why should the State have any role in imposing guidelines on them? If you don't like the way the Washington County DA charges crimes, don't commit a crime in his county. Alternatively, replace county elections with a statewide appointment system for prosecutors. Or try, because it would never pass. People LIKE electing their own prosecutors to reflect their local values.

Besides, guidelines are impractical. You simply can't anticipate every possible situation in advance. The reason we elect DAs and have grand juries is so that the will of the people can be expressed on a case by case basis. Whenever someone harps on about inconsistencies in charging, they usually do so from a position of not knowing all the facts, as is certainly the case here. Since the defendants (that is, the criminals) do not have any ethical duty not to put their "point of view" before the press, the discussions in forums like this tend to have only half the facts - that of the criminal.

I imagine most people realize that there are rarely robust contested races for District Atty positions because of numerous factors- i.e. advantage of incumbency, nature of the bar, etc. so these issues are not debated in public. In many instances Attorneys that would be excellent DAs are not interested the positions because of the low salaries, long working hours, etc. Like judgeships many District Atty positions are first filled by appointment, usually the incumbent DA's choice, after timed resignation by the DA. I would always favor the local election however the State Constitution does not grant to each county any power to impose the "will of the people... on a case by case basis."

DAs routinely "overcharge" a defendant. 1) it scares the bejeebus out of them when a DA can say they are looking at "50 Years" 2) they can always drop the charges later if they don't apply or to bargain. In essence, dropping the bogus charges as part of a plea "deal."

I like it that our DAs are tough, but when you see the cases that are prosecuted, especially the ones where one estranged parent is testifying against the other one - let alone cases like the Lake Oswego swim coach, you do wonder if they don't go too far some times.

No one who has seen the video on the Lake O swim coach case would have any question that his conduct was inappropriate. The issue was solely whether it was criminal - meaning was it for a sexual purpose, rather than just because he was kind of a weirdo when it came to touching people. I don't know about you, but, criminal or not, in a few years when my daughter is a teenager, I'm sure as heck not going to want her male swim coach putting his hands all over her butt. It may not always be criminal, but it sure is weird. The jury may have found that the proof was insufficient to show criminal intent, but that don't make it right.

If that's the best you've got in terms of "overcharging" then I'll just rest my case. The DA did his job, the jury did theirs and the defendant was acquitted. It's not the DA's job only to take cases where a win is absolutely guaranteed. They're supposed to be taking the close ones to trial to let the jury do their job as arbiters of the community standard and the proof in each case.

Why thank you Morris_Todd! The areas you mention concern me too. Just saying, there has to be a better way. I know it's American to think it's better to screw over everyone than only a select few, but...surprise! You're still being screwed. The founders' concerns about unreasonable searches and seizures have been completely eroded. That is the lever that moves everything, and it could not have happened without the surrogate prosecution model. I doubt any of the canned respondents actually understood the words. Nice to know at least one person has actually read the posts, at least once!

On balance, what have the highest DAs in the land, i.e. Attorney Generals, been like? How many certifiable scumbags like John Berrien, John Mason, Reverdy Johnson, Alphonso Taft, George Wickersham, John Mitchell, Richard Kleindienst, William French Smith, Ed Meese, Dick Thornburgh, William Bar, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales does it take for one to realize that it's not about liberty and justice for all?

Can you name one group with a membership like that that you would defend? "Criminality" is one powerful behavioural straight-jacket!

Shame on the Grand Jury for going along with this. What a bunch of chickin sh*ts to not be able to say "no" to the DA. They've been watching too many cop shows. This is why I will NEVER vote to increase taxes for law enforcement reasons. So long as they have the resources for this and other chiippy cases, they can't complain about not having resources to pursue real cases. THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER!