<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:CenturySchoolbook-Italic;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:CenturySchoolbook;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>S</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>TATE </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>C</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>OURT </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>R</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>ULING </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>T</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>HAT </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>V</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>ICTIM </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>W</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>AS </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>U</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>NAVAILABLE </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>A</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>FFIRMED<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Hardy, Warden v. Cross</span></i></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>, </span></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>565 US __ (December 12, 2011) (<i>per curiam</i>) (7</span><span style='font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>th </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Circuit /<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Illinois). Petitioner was tried in Illinois state court for a knifepoint kidnapping and sexual<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>assault. He admitted the act but claimed that the victim (A.S.) had traded him sex for drugs and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>money. Although the victim was terrified of petitioner, she voluntarily appeared at trial and<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>testified, albeit haltingly. The jury acquitted him of kidnapping but hung on the sexual-assault<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>charges, and the court declared a mistrial and set it for retrial. A week before the retrial date, the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>prosecutor disclosed that the victim had disappeared and that the police could not find her<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>despite an extensive search. Over petitioner’s objection, the court found that the police effort to<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>find the victim was “way beyond due diligence” and allowed the state in the retrial to present the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>victim’s testimony in the first trial by having a law clerk read her answers. The jury found<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>petitioner guilty, and the state court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner then filed a petition for<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>habeas corpus </span></i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>relief in federal court. The district court dismissed the petition but the Seventh<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Circuit reversed, ruling that the state court’s ruling was an unreasonable application of federal<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>law, because the state had not made a sufficient effort to find the victim.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CenturySchoolbook-Italic","serif";color:black'>Held</span></i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"CenturySchoolbook","serif";color:black'>: Reversed </span><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>and remanded. [1] “In <i>Barber v. Page</i>, 390 U S 719 (1968), we held<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>that a witness is not unavailable for purposes of the confrontation requirement unless the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. In <i>Barber</i>,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>we held that a witness had not been unavailable for Confrontation Clause purposes because the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>State, which could have brought the witness to court by seeking a writ of <i>habeas corpus ad<o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>testificandum, </span></i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>had made absolutely no effort to obtain his presence at trial apart from<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>determining that he was serving a sentence in a federal prison. We again addressed the question<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>of witness unavailability in <i>Ohio v. Roberts</i>, 448 US 56 (1980),” and held that “the State had<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>discharged its duty of good-faith effort.” [2] “In the present case, the holding of the Illinois<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Court of Appeals that the State conducted the requisite good-faith search for A.S. did not<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>represent an unreasonable application of our Confrontation Clause precedents. Whether or not<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>the state court went too far in characterizing the prosecution’s efforts as ‘superhuman,’ the state<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>court identified the correct Sixth Amendment standard and applied it in a reasonable manner.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>[3] The prosecutor’s decision not to subpoena the victim did not establish a lack of due diligence:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>the victim had expressed fear about testifying at the first trial but had nevertheless appeared in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>court and had taken the stand. The State represented that A.S., although fearful, had agreed to<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>testify at the retrial as well. We have never held that the prosecution must have issued a subpoena<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>if it wishes to prove that a witness who goes into hiding is unavailable for Confrontation<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Clause purposes, and the issuance of a subpoena may do little good if a sexual assault witness is<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>so fearful of an assailant that she is willing to risk his acquittal by failing to testify at trial.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>[4] “The Sixth Amendment does not require the prosecution to exhaust every avenue of inquiry,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>no matter how unpromising. And, more to the point, the deferential standard of review set out in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>28 USC § 2254(d) does not permit a federal court to overturn a state court’s decision on the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>question of unavailability merely because the federal court identifies additional steps that might<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>have been taken. Under AEDPA, if the state-court decision was reasonable, it cannot be<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>disturbed.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue'><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-74.pdf">http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-74.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>C</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>OURT </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>E</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>RRED </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>B</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Y </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>O</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>RDERING </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>F</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>ORFEITURE OF </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>C</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>AMERA </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>F</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>OR </span></b><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>SPO V</span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>IOLATION<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><b><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>State v. Olson, </span></i></b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>__ Or App __, __ P3d __ (December 8, 2011) (<i>per curiam</i>) (Lincoln)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>(AAG Justice Rillera). The circuit court issued a stalking protective order (SPO) that prohibited<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>defendant from contacting B, a high-school student, or any member of B’s immediate family.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Defendant violated the SPO by going to B’s high school and taking pictures of B’s sister. The<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>court found him in violation of SPO, found him guilty of criminal trespass, imposed a<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>probationary sentence, and ordered, as a condition of probation, that he forfeit the camera.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>Held</span></i><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>: Reversed and remanded for resentencing. [1] ORS 161.045(4) generally provides<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>that a criminal conviction does not allow “forfeiture of property … except where a forfeiture is<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>expressly authorized by law.” No statute authorizes forfeiture of a camera in these<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>circumstances. [2] ORS 137.540(2), which authorizes conditions of probation, does not permit<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black'>forfeiture of property as a condition of probation.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:blue'>http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A142327.pdf<o:p></o:p></span></p></div>
<DIV>
*****CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*****<BR>
<BR>
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. <BR>
<BR>
************************************<BR>
</DIV></body></html>