Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Defense Of Criminal Convictions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oregon DOJ outlines rising appellate and post-conviction workload, cites Ramos/Watkins cases and public defense delays
Summary
Department of Justice officials told the Public Safety Subcommittee that the Defense of Criminal Convictions Fund supports appellate, post-conviction and federal habeas work, highlighted a sustained spike of non-unanimous jury cases after Ramos/Watkins and said the caseload will likely remain elevated into the next biennium.
Benjamin Gutman, solicitor general and head of the Appellate Division at the Oregon Department of Justice, and Kristen Boyd, Deputy Chief Counsel in the Trial Division, briefed the Public Safety Subcommittee on Feb. 6 about forecasting and workload for the Defense of Criminal Convictions Fund.
Gutman described the fund as covering state legal work to defend convictions and sentences in state and federal courts and estimated the legislatively approved 2023-25 budget for that fund at $41,000,000, which the agency equated to roughly 150,000 attorney hours of work. He said the workload is largely mandated because convicted persons have statutory and constitutional avenues to seek review.
The presentation outlined how cases move through the criminal-justice system: direct appeal, post-conviction petitions in trial court, post-conviction appeals, and then federal habeas review. Gutman and Boyd highlighted that certain recent court decisions have materially changed the volume and complexity of work. Gutman said the U.S. Supreme Court's Ramos v. Louisiana decision (2020), which reinforced a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury, and the Oregon Supreme Court's Watkins decision (2022) have generated hundreds of retroactive challenges in Oregon. "Since that time, the trial division has received over 850 cases raising a challenge to a conviction based on Ramos and Watkins," the presenters said.
The trial division has conceded relief where the record clearly shows a non-unanimous verdict and either returned cases for retrial or worked with district attorneys and post-conviction counsel on settlements to avoid resource-intensive retrials. As of the briefing, the trial ("trial division") had about 120 remaining Ramos-related cases and the appellate division had about 60 pending appeals tied to those matters; the presenters said work will continue through at least the next biennium.
Gutman and Boyd also flagged other appellate decisions that could expand retroactive challenges, including State v. Hubbell and Hill v. Miller, and warned that Hill could limit statutes of limitation for some post-conviction petitions. They noted federal habeas cases are fewer in number but typically far more resource intensive.
Committee members asked about whether a right to appointed counsel on appeal is statutory or constitutional; the presenters reserved a full answer and offered to follow up with written clarification. The presenters also said the public defense capacity crisis delays appointments of post-conviction counsel and can lengthen or complicate the state's response to challenges.
No formal action was taken; the item was an informational hearing and the committee closed the session after questions and answers.
