[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6308996,"mediaKeyId","2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa","parentId",2415357,"title","Experts and advocates push HB 2641 to let judges balance prior-conviction impeachment; prosecutors oppose change","audioSeconds",2320,"startMs",3097790,"endMs",5418500,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa&start=3097&end=5418","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa/thumbnail_3097790.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6308996/Oregon/Experts-and-advocates-push-HB-2641-to-let-judges-balance-prior-conviction-impeachment-prosecutors-oppose-change","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6308996-4224770208023fb30f3b88cef8b32181/orig.mp4?Expires=1770942139&Signature=K5sufFbdhooCYi5m8IUs0haudtkJ2LHqSc0r5fPRAtldD0ZZIYqnZt7zm-SxaTMYFd-rbHGgcs7zfBSb7YbisOotyc2FmLhI3FmjBnDz8-0Z2vcf0~kvit1elqch5cfetuXpnMLSUhikubMgtSuZpipProQBy9R-vGbhX1nwC8J53~gRtsRT4yEbBptvwi0v6tv-zkho0CoNg4~T~CDpxVU5BG3Q~6mrl60vkC7C5hCV1tSioFEyk7FO-cGmaps~89zqRupZXQb0jHXMPV4FxmfwWfoURGF4mCF6vDD9cigyaCRyR7h8zGSJloVZ1OTCaz17vfQbOXkowr2NKSP5hA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-02-26T15:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee heard substantive testimony Feb. 26 on House Bill 2641, a proposal to change when prior criminal convictions can be used to impeach a witness’s credibility at trial. The bill would replace Oregon’s current mandatory-admission rule with a judicial balancing test similar to the federal rule of evidence allowing judges to exclude prior convictions when their prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value.

Representative Willie Choateson, who discussed the bill in committee, said the measure is intended to promote accuracy, fairness and access to justice. He and supporters said Oregon’s current rule — which permits felony convictions within 15 years to be used to impeach witness credibility without judicial balancing — discourages victims, defendants and third-party witnesses from testifying and may compound racial disparities.

Legal scholars who testified described the state as an outlier. Julia Simon Kerr, Evangeline Starr Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law and co‑founder of the Coalition for Prior Conviction Impeachment Reform, testified that empirical research does not support the assumption that prior convictions predict untruthfulness and that jurors commonly use prior-conviction information for impermissible purposes. “Jurors don’t actually use prior convictions to weigh the truthfulness of a witness’s testimony,” she said, summarizing published studies; instead, she said, prior convictions tend to make the evidence look stronger against defendants.

Anna Roberts, professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and a cofounder of the coalition, put Oregon in a small group of states that remove judicial discretion; she said 36 states and federal courts permit a balancing test, while a few states prohibit impeachment by prior conviction entirely.

Survivor-advocate testimony emphasized practical consequences. Jessica Klein, a restorative justice practitioner who identified herself as a survivor and advocate, said survivors may avoid reporting or participating if they fear their own past convictions or substance-use history will be used to discredit their testimony. Klein said many survivors have criminal records or substance-use histories arising from efforts to survive abuse and urged lawmakers to support HB 2641 to prevent unrelated past convictions from undermining credible testimony.

The Oregon District Attorneys Association opposed the bill. Bridal Powell, a deputy district attorney in Clackamas County testifying for the ODAA, argued compliance with historical legislative changes — including the voter-approved 1986 victims’ rights measure that shaped current rules — and said the proposed change would introduce two different balancing tests (one for defendants and one for other witnesses) and increase inconsistency across courtrooms. Powell also noted policy and case-law splits among federal circuits and cautioned that adopting a balancing test would create new litigation and variability.

Committee members asked about practical effects if the law changed; witnesses debated whether a balancing test would increase testimony from defendants and victims and whether it would materially affect conviction rates. No committee vote was taken at the hearing, and witnesses said negotiations and additional briefing would continue.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Judiciary 02/26/2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Law professors, survivor advocates and a sponsor urged the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26 to pass HB 2641, a bill that would let trial judges exclude prior convictions used only to attack a witness’s credibility if the convictions’ prejudicial effect substantially outweighs their probative value.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",18092,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309001,"Committee hears competing views on HB 2469 omnibus changes to indictments, preventive detention and misdemeanor reductions",2138,949790,3087870,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa&start=949&end=3087","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa/thumbnail_949790.jpg","/articles/6309001/Oregon/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-HB-2469-omnibus-changes-to-indictments-preventive-detention-and-misdemeanor-reductions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309001-52e60a38c5b42763a777ed22e54dfdad/orig.mp4?Expires=1770942139&Signature=Z~GgBpnnIGjRBKbRQ4l9sXgx8uNzfJ5i3W6juIfXOYkT~jn-WZiOCGXfuorA32hPAagb~OyDNwL5nfT48USbvaWGVrDSEqI7lhd3kI4pNXVNXaJjslH6NBnTBEOsfGUdYmqYy9DO0MAn8C0iSh4YTuTozDnN9R-unQrPL4apuLBO1t2c8v~du-zyh2iV7bVGjqCJnUewhIt3zuQLosBctCoPAIV33D5ECS6Wo60QOIz9qyYBMxqHZ20Q7TvLFX-xtIwVsIY2j63ipjXjQmcWVpsB~apc5hGfv~NJxJWFyltXZQKdpct5JRfkbLUsTU4rb19HA7YGemRV2hHKVLFYRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard public testimony Feb. 26 on House Bill 2469, an omnibus measure with provisions affecting grand-jury timing, preventive detention, the ability of judges to reduce misdemeanors to violations and authority to enter judgments for class A violations.

A staff presenter described the bill as requiring a district attorney to submit an indictment to the grand jury at least 10 days before trial and directing the prosecutor to file motions for admission of evidence seized without a warrant. The measure would also change when a court may amend release decisions after ordering preventive detention and permit judges to reduce certain misdemeanors to violations, proponents said.

Willie Chotzen (spoke as House member and bill sponsor) asked members to focus on evidence-code changes and said an amendment likely would delete the bill’s sentencing-related second section; he framed the principal aim as aligning Oregon with federal rule practice on impeachment by prior convictions. He told the committee that the bill’s misdemeanor-reduction tool is meant to restore judicial discretion that prosecutors have gained over recent decades, and to create post-adjudication paths for reduction and docket-based early resolution options in the face of rising misdemeanor filings.

Defense and public-defender witnesses supported parts of the bill. Grant Hartley, Multnomah County director for Metropolitan Public Defenders, said allowing judges discretion to reduce misdemeanors to violations could help courts manage a 17 percent increase in misdemeanor filings in 2024 and a projected 38 percent rise during the biennium. Hartley also urged caution on preventive-detention language and said constitutional safeguards requiring an adversarial hearing and proof by clear and convincing evidence must remain intact.

Prosecutors and local district attorney representatives opposed some provisions. A Multnomah County prosecutor, Amanda Bridal, testified in opposition to the misdemeanor-to-violation sections, saying that if a court reduces a misdemeanor to a violation at sentencing the court loses the ability to impose probation and related conditions — including no-contact orders and restitution-monitoring — and that victims could lose protections the court otherwise could impose. Bridal also argued that the bill as drafted could leave open the possibility that class C felonies previously reduced to misdemeanors might be reduced further to violations.

Other prosecutors warned that allowing repeated reopening of preventive-detention decisions based on changing circumstances would create duplicative hearings, delay cases and require victims to retestify in ways they said would be retraumatizing. Defense witnesses countered that the ability to seek reconsideration is important where new discovery or release plans emerge that could alter a court’s earlier determination.

Committee members were told some sections were still under negotiation; witnesses noted both agreement on specific targeted changes and ongoing disagreement on preventive-detention procedure and the scope of misdemeanor-reduction authority. The committee did not take action on the bill at the hearing.

","The House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26 heard testimony on House Bill 2469, an omnibus criminal procedure bill that would change grand-jury timing, corrective authority over release decisions and let judges reduce some misdemeanors to violations.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309006,"House Judiciary holds public hearing on DA-backed omnibus HB 2473 to streamline evidence and pretrial rules",953,2880,956865,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa&start=2&end=956","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2415357-7a6252a053709ad733672da498c1c4aa/thumbnail_2880.jpg","/articles/6309006/Oregon/House-Judiciary-holds-public-hearing-on-DA-backed-omnibus-HB-2473-to-streamline-evidence-and-pretrial-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309006-8767a62ddb815c6b8fb4c7e7accdb2de/orig.mp4?Expires=1770942139&Signature=Jie5P14XPlKMpWOw048FpkK0afP5nGeVpd6wCmrSAB1GZyIZNDB0wMGwBf8exv9L7jM0656E-qOXicZvSiZpctZSE3~XOKmt5kXIRTYfNi696UzTmddB0cjjmHqSP2K8A3SXoYCvSH~tr0oUBxJK2cXBt-wKR2vit0orZGYW9epFbMSpZ2GFOWNZE-MugVGhy7zblmVWiYnCTE-~56G7~jR~uam0ZmPxzuHZQS5k8jd7FvD1QDR3bhKavHzhdqJ2ZUn4dd63Gk1T6fFds2lTzPTYZ3fePK3nQwDQeuWexE12QrHf5TGLYMK-mavZRZGKvvXvQlEYm7epVPw5DxF1AQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26 heard public testimony on House Bill 2473, an omnibus criminal-law package offered by the Oregon District Attorneys Association that sponsors described as a “process efficiencies” bill addressing record authentication, forensic imaging of digital devices belonging to deceased persons, grand jury recordation, preventive detention wording and allowing certified phlebotomists to perform investigatory blood draws.

Mariel Moda, speaking on behalf of the Oregon District Attorneys Association and identifying herself as staff with the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, said the bill contains seven sections and described the major changes. Moda said Section 2 “relates to the process currently required to access digital information stored within the phone of a deceased person” and that the proposed change would let investigators preserve device data more quickly. “I wanna point out that this does not allow us to search the data. It only allows us to extract it to preserve it,” Moda said.

The bill would also amend a technical authentication statute that Moda said the group wants aligned with the federal counterpart to reduce inefficiencies; allow earlier release of grand jury recordings when both parties agree; and adjust statutory wording around preventive detention so that a prosecutor would not be required to have sought preventive detention at arraignment before seeking detention later if the defendant violates release conditions.

Defense representatives raised narrower, procedural concerns. Maylee Browning, legislative director for the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, asked that language requiring the prosecutor to provide a custodian-of-record contact be retained in the authentication section, saying it “will save a lot of defense attorney and defense investigator time” when contacting companies such as Apple or Google. Browning also said the defense appreciated a DA-proposed clarification that a warrant would still be required to access the substance of data after an extraction.

Grant Hartley, Multnomah County director for Metropolitan Public Defenders, supported the proposal to allow earlier access to grand jury recordings but warned that the preventive-detention changes raise constitutional issues. Hartley cited United States v. Salerno (1987) and argued that preventive detention is an “incredibly powerful tool” that requires judicial procedures and proof; he said a later request for detention after a release-condition violation would still require the state to prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.

Moda said the preventative-detention wording change is technical and intended to resolve a drafting ambiguity created after earlier bail-schedule reforms. She said the DA group is working with OCDLA and other stakeholders on several sections; one section was withdrawn for more negotiation. Moda also said Section 7, added at the request of chiefs of police and sheriffs, would allow certified phlebotomists to draw blood in criminal investigations to ease burdens on emergency medical services.

Committee chair called the public hearing closed after multiple parties expressed a mix of support for particular sections and requests for further drafting and negotiation. No committee action or vote was taken during the Feb. 26 hearing.

The bill remained under discussion among proponents and defense groups after the Feb. 26 committee hearing.

","The House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26 heard public testimony on House Bill 2473, an omnibus criminal-law package offered by the Oregon District Attorneys Association that sponsors described as a “process efficiencies” bill addressing record authentication, forensic imaging of digital devices belonging to deceased persons, grand jury recordation, preventive detention wording and allowing certified phlebotomists to perform investigatory blood draws.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Experts and advocates push HB 2641 to let judges balance prior-conviction impeachment; prosecutors oppose change

Committee hears competing views on HB 2469 omnibus changes to indictments, preventive detention and misdemeanor reductions

House Judiciary holds public hearing on DA-backed omnibus HB 2473 to streamline evidence and pretrial rules