State v Burleson

The Saturday Oregonian (6/2/07) ran a story (byline Anne Saker), “Grand jury to see IDs, records in abuse case,” on the latest developments in the case against David O. Burleson. I blogged about this case on March 4th. The Oregon Supreme Court decided on Friday, 6/1/07, in State v. Burleson (SC S054377):

“The trial court, while correctly denying the state’s motion for contempt, should have granted the state’s motion to compel. The trial court itself concluded that the evidence sought was relevant and not privileged. The grand jury is entitled to evidence that “might be given on the trial of the person charged with the crime in question.” ORS 132.320(1). As a matter of diligence, the prosecutor must identify victims and interview them about facts likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. The identity of victims of crime is the most basic kind of evidence given at trial. Accordingly, we issue a peremptory writ ordering the circuit court to grant the state’s motion to compel production of full and unredacted medical records.”