A judge in Yamhill County has limited the release of a sexual assault victim's records after a hearing in which the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center represented the interests of the victim.

The defendant in the case had sought to have the trial judge review all of the victim's medical, mental health, and school records for potential release to him.  The Oregon Crime Victims Law Center opposed the release on the grounds that the request violated the victim's constitutional right to privacy and the doctor-patient and psychotherapist-patient privilege, and that the defendant had not shown that there was material in the records that would be favorable and material to his defense so as to overcome that privilege.

Legal Director Rosemary Brewer filed a motion asking the court to withhold the records from the defendant.

At a hearing on February 7, Judge John L. Collins held that the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center's motion was granted in part, strictly limiting the records that were released to the defendant.  None of the victim's school or medical records were released, and only very limited portions of the victim's therapy records were released.

The victim learned of the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center through the victim advocates of the Yamhill County District Attorney's Office.

The Oregon Crime Victims Law Center (OCVLC) received a $25,000 donation from Vangelisti Kocher LLC.

Richard Vangelisti and Scott Kocher have been strong legal advocates for crime victims in civil cases for many years, and their generous contribution demonstrates a remarkable commitment to making a positive difference in the lives of Oregon crime victims in criminal cases as well. It's this kind of the support from donors that make it possible for the OCVLC to continue offering services at no cost to crime victims in Oregon.   

Although the OCVLC's core work has been funded by government grants, recent federal funding cuts have made support from private donors increasingly vital to helping the OCVLC continue its important mission.

On Jan. 18, the OCVLC helped to persuade the Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (BPPPS) that an inmate who bludgeoned and then choked to death a Portland man almost 25 years ago should spend at least another 24 months behind bars.

Although the three-member board previously had found that the inmate, Scott Wickee, aka Wickey, was likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time and had set a
release date for April 2012, it unanimously concluded, at a Jan. 18 hearing, that it was not required to release him at that time because he has a severe emotional disturbance that would make him a danger to the community if released.

The board set a new release date of April 16, 2014, with another hearing to be held in Fall 2013 to determine whether Wickee’s current psychological status and release plan warrant release at that time.

At the hearing, Wickee refused to acknowledge that he and his co-defendant, Kevin Roper, intended both to rob and murder the victim, Eddie Lee “Bobby” Gibbs, when they left Gibbs’ Southeast Portland house together in 1987, despite intense and at times disbelieving questioning from board members.

“There were real contradictions,” board chairman Aaron Felton told Wickee about his version of the crime, which Wickee has had almost 25 years to consider.

“The story should be clear,” Felton said. “It shouldn’t be ambiguous.”

Felton told Wickee that the board also was “deeply concerned” about how he might deal with authority outside prison. “You still need to do some work,” Felton concluded.

Wickee and Roper both were convicted of Aggravated Murder and sentenced to life in prison with mandatory minimum sentences of 30 years without the possibility of parole. However, in 2010 the Oregon Supreme Court held that, as a result of the board's 2008 findings that Wickee and Roper were likely to be rehabilitated, it was required to set release dates for them,
even though they had not yet served their 30-year minimum sentences.

That ruling also affected 28 other inmates, of which Roper was the first to have a hearing scheduled to determine whether his existing release date would be delayed. On Nov. 15, Roper, who had been scheduled for release in March 2012, also was denied release for at least another two years.

Wickee's release also was opposed by Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney Charles “Chuck” French and Gibbs' mother and brother.

The OCVLC, which represented Gibbs' sister at Wickee’s hearing, also represented her at Roper’s hearing.

The Oregon Crime Victims Law Center was honored to have submitted a “friend of the court” brief in an appeal of a private lawsuit in which the Oregon Supreme Court today (Dec. 2) ruled that the State of Oregon is entitled to millions of dollars in punitive damages.

The ruling in Williams v. Philip Morris hopefully will be the final legal step in a 12-year-long effort to get the tobacco company to pay the state’s share of the $79.5 million in punitive damages that a Multnomah County jury awarded in 1999. With interest, the damages currently are estimated at $100 million, of which the state will get approximately $55 million.

The jury based the punitive damages award on Philip Morris’ “extraordinarily reprehensible” conduct in concealing the health risks of smoking. The plaintiff, Mayola Williams, was the widow and personal representative of Portland resident Jesse Williams, who died of lung cancer in 1997 after decades of smoking.

Philip Morris subsequently argued that the state had released its claim to its share of these damages by entering into a multi-state settlement with tobacco companies that included Philip Morris. (Under Oregon law, the state is entitled to 60 percent of punitive damages awards; however, as a result of an agreement between the state and Williams, the state agreed to accept less than 60 percent. In exchange, Williams’ attorneys argued – with the state – that Philip Morris was not entitled to keep 60 percent of the jury’s punitive damages award. Williams was represented by Portland attorney James S. Coon and the state by Stephanie Striffler, a senior assistant attorney general with the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Portland-based  National Crime Victim Law Institute also filed an amicus curiae “friend of the court” brief in support of  Williams.

Under Oregon law, the state’s $55-million share must be used to benefit crime victims.

Oregon Supreme Court  Media Release

Oregon Supreme Court Opinion  

Following a lengthy contested hearing on Tuesday, Lane County Circuit Court Judge Suzanne Chanti upheld the prosecutor’s determination that a homicide victim’s aunt was a “victim” for purposes of affording her crime victim’s rights in a prosecution for aggravated murder.

Anjelica Swartout is accused of smothering her newborn and putting the body in a dumpster after giving birth in a bathroom of a motel where she worked.  Swartout’s sister, Jewel Sward, alerted authorities after finding inconsistencies in Swartout’s story about what happened to the baby.

Prosecutors designated Sward the “victim” under Article I, Section 42 of the Oregon Constitution, thereby giving her certain rights including the right to attend the entire trial.  Swartout’s attorneys filed a motion to disallow the “victim” designation, arguing that Sward did not meet the statutory or constitutional definition of “victim,” and that allowing her to remain in the courtroom throughout the trial would violate their client’s constitutional due process rights because Sward would be able to tailor her testimony to that of others and she could be referred to as a “victim” before any crime had been proven.

Defense attorney Eve Oldenkamp also argued that the Oregon Constitution’s delegation to the prosecutor of the authority to designate who is a victim of crime violates Swartout’s federal due process rights as applied in this case.  In rejecting Oldenkamp’s argument, Judge Suzanne Chanti made it clear she had done her homework – she referred to the legislative history of Article I, Section 42, and cited to several cases from other jurisdictions in which similar challenges had been rejected. 

 In supporting his reasons for designating Sward as a victim, prosecuting attorney Bob Lane told the court that, among other listed reasons, Sward had given Swartout emotional support during the pregnancy, had been excited about the birth and saddened by the death of the infant, and had planned the baby’s funeral.

 Another motion filed by the defense asked the court to order Sward to show the jury a tattoo she got after the death of Swartout’s baby showing the baby’s name.  Judge Chanti deferred ruling on the motion until time of trial, but indicated after hearing from Sward’s attorney that if she allowed the tattoo to be shown to the jury, a photo of the tattoo would likely be more appropriate “because of privacy and dignity issues.”

Sward was represented by Erin K. Olson, a pro bono attorney appearing on behalf of the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center.

Related Registered Guard article