In July, Bronson James, LLC, won a case in front of the Oregon Supreme Court. The opinion can be found here.

Daniels concerns the search of items possessed by social guests when the police execute a search against a residence. The case falls in line with some other recent decisions in this area, such as State v. Casey. Hopefully Daniels and Casey will curb some of the overly zealous searches occurring. Our position before the court was simple, the state doesn’t get to search the purses and wallets of social guests in a home without at least some evidence that the criminal suspect may have secreted items there.  The position seems grounded in common sense.  And sometimes, common sense prevails.

A very difficult concept for non-lawyers to wrap their heads around is that the law values truth very little.  Concepts of truth, and justice, play at best a secondary role in the law to value placed on form, rules, and stability.  A classic example of this is the law of “preservation.”

Higher courts will normally only review lower court rulings that are ‘preserved.’  This means that the trial attorney had to utter the right objection, at the right time, and in the right language, to preserve the error for review.  Absent from this calculus is whether or not the error exists.  Indeed, you can have an error that everyone in the room knows is plainly wrong, but if it wasn’t preserved….oh well.  It is a rule that values stability.  Once something is decided, even if clearly wrong, it becomes difficult to correct.

This is one reason it grates on me when lawyers (particularly prosecutors) claim to the media that they are only interested in the truth.  No.  No lawyer is ever interested only in the truth.  Lawyers are interested in winning first.  If the truth helps you win, so be it.  But if the truth makes you lose, and you can invoke a rule to keep the truth out, you do it.  Every lawyer does it, and if they didn’t it would be malpractice.  I have seen, at least fifty times, the Oregon Attorney General’s office admit error, but argue vigorously that the error should go uncorrected because it wasn’t properly preserved.  A case issued from the Oregon Court of Appeals today is a classic example.

There, the trial court acknowledged that the defense was probably right that the evidence should have been suppressed.  But, the motion wasn’t filed in accordance with the local rules, so it was not heard.  Rules over truth.  Then on appeal, defendant challenges that decision and the Court of Appeals denies the challenge because the trial attorney didn’t properly preserve the objection to the denial of the motion.  Rule over truth again.  Two different examples of the law placing its arcane procedure ahead of the merits – all in the same case.

So, word to the wise.  Don’t come into the criminal justice system expecting justice.  Expect litigation.