Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Oregon Appeals Court decision comes down

Expand Messages
  • merlyn@stonehenge.com
    Seven years after my arrest, and nearly six years after my conviction, and almost two years after our Appeals Court argument presentation, the Oregon Appeals
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Seven years after my arrest, and nearly six years after my conviction,
      and almost two years after our Appeals Court argument presentation,
      the Oregon Appeals court has filed their decision on 4 Apr 2001.
      Here's the summary from the newsletter... the referenced URL is the
      full text of the decision.

      State v. Schwartz (CA A91702)

      http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A91702.htm

      AREA OF LAW: EVIDENCE

      Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of three counts
      of computer crime. ORS 164.377. Defendant worked as an
      independent contractor for Intel Corporation and was charged with
      computer crime after he copied passwords and a password file from
      Intel computers onto his computer. He appeals the trial court's
      decision. Held: (1) Even assuming that the search warrant or its
      execution involved illegal police conduct, defendant's statements
      were not obtained by exploitation of any such conduct and
      consequently were properly admitted. (2)Parties are not entitled
      to present evidence of "legislative facts" as a matter of right.
      (3) The computer crime statute, ORS 164.377(3), is not
      unconstitutionally vague, because a potential violator or
      enforcer of the statute can be reasonably certain what conduct it
      prohibits. (4) Because the state presented sufficient evidence to
      prove that defendant took the property of another for the
      purposes of theft, ORS 164.377(2)(c), the trial court did not err
      in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. (5) To
      be properly included in a restitution award, attorney fees must
      be reasonable and necessary pecuniary damages. (6) Defendant was
      not entitled to merger of his convictions on counts two and
      three, because the acts that formed the basis for each violation
      were separated by a "sufficient pause" to allow defendant to
      renounce his criminal intent. Restitution order reversed and
      remanded for reconsideration; otherwise affirmed.

      As you can tell by that last statement, it's not the news I was
      looking for, and that quite frankly I'm very disappointed and sad.

      I'm working with my legal team now to lay out my options and determine
      the appropriate response. I won't be able to comment on that until
      things are final.

      [Steve Pacenka - can you copy this text and the corresponding URL text
      to the FORS site? Thanks.]

      --
      Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
      <merlyn@...> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
      Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
      See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.