Spray DUI-DWI Lawyer, Oregon


Janis Sue Porter

General Practice
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  40 Years

Thomas W Cutsforth

Other, Divorce & Family Law, Criminal, Business
Status:  Suspended           Licensed:  36 Years

Marion T Weatherford

Real Estate, Government, Estate, Business
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  28 Years

Justin W Nelson

Motor Vehicle, Wills & Probate, Employee Rights, Divorce & Family Law
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  17 Years

Steven A Humphreys

General Practice
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  37 Years

William Andrew Bennett

General Practice
Status:  Suspended           Licensed:  77 Years

Edward Matthew Holpuch

General Practice
Status:  Deceased           Licensed:  54 Years

Clif Ouellette

General Practice
Status:  Inactive           Licensed:  76 Years

Mike Kilpatrick

Real Estate, Government, Criminal
Status:  In Good Standing           Licensed:  47 Years

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Easily find Spray DUI-DWI Lawyers and Spray DUI-DWI Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Criminal areas including Expungement, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law attorneys.

LEGAL TERMS

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced '... (more...)
The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced 'to a moral certainty.' The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict.

CRIMINAL INSANITY

A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right... (more...)
A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right from wrong. Defendants who are criminally insane cannot be convicted of a crime, since criminal conduct involves the conscious intent to do wrong -- a choice that the criminally insane cannot meaningfully make. See also irresistible impulse; McNaghten Rule.

INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main r... (more...)
Testimony or other evidence that fails to meet state or federal court rules governing the types of evidence that can be presented to a judge or jury. The main reason why evidence is ruled inadmissible is because it falls into a category deemed so unreliable that a court should not consider it as part of a deciding a case --for example, hearsay evidence, or an expert's opinion that is not based on facts generally accepted in the field. Evidence will also be declared inadmissible if it suffers from some other defect--for example, as compared to its value, it will take too long to present or risks enflaming the jury, as might be the case with graphic pictures of a homicide victim. In addition, in criminal cases, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible. Because the rules of evidence are so complicated (and because contesting lawyers waste so much time arguing over them) there is a strong trend towards using mediation or arbitration to resolve civil disputes. In mediation and arbitration, virtually all evidence can be considered. See evidence, admissible evidence.

PLEA BARGAIN

A negotiation between the defense and prosecution (and sometimes the judge) that settles a criminal case. The defendant typically pleads guilty to a lesser crim... (more...)
A negotiation between the defense and prosecution (and sometimes the judge) that settles a criminal case. The defendant typically pleads guilty to a lesser crime (or fewer charges) than originally charged, in exchange for a guaranteed sentence that is shorter than what the defendant could face if convicted at trial. The prosecution gets the certainty of a conviction and a known sentence; the defendant avoids the risk of a higher sentence; and the judge gets to move on to other cases.

BAIL BOND

The money posted by a 'bondsman' for a defendant who cannot afford his bail. The defendant pays a certain portion, usually 10%. If the defendant fails to appear... (more...)
The money posted by a 'bondsman' for a defendant who cannot afford his bail. The defendant pays a certain portion, usually 10%. If the defendant fails to appear for a court hearing, the judge can issue a warrant for his arrest and threaten to 'forfeit,' or keep, the money if the defendant doesn't appear soon. Usually, the bondsman will look for the defendant and bring him back, forcefully if necessary, in order to avoid losing the bail money.

JURY NULLIFICATION

A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for ... (more...)
A decision by the jury to acquit a defendant who has violated a law that the jury believes is unjust or wrong. Jury nullification has always been an option for juries in England and the United States, although judges will prevent a defense lawyer from urging the jury to acquit on this basis. Nullification was evident during the Vietnam war (when selective service protesters were acquitted by juries opposed to the war) and currently appears in criminal cases when the jury disagrees with the punishment--for example, in 'three strikes' cases when the jury realizes that conviction of a relatively minor offense will result in lifetime imprisonment.

HOT PURSUIT

An exception to the general rule that a police officer needs an arrest warrant before he can enter a home to make an arrest. If a felony has just occurred and a... (more...)
An exception to the general rule that a police officer needs an arrest warrant before he can enter a home to make an arrest. If a felony has just occurred and an officer has chased a suspect to a private house, the officer can forcefully enter the house in order to prevent the suspect from escaping or hiding or destroying evidence.

ARRAIGNMENT

A court appearance in which the defendant is formally charged with a crime and asked to respond by pleading guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. Other matters... (more...)
A court appearance in which the defendant is formally charged with a crime and asked to respond by pleading guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere. Other matters often handled at the arraignment are arranging for the appointment of a lawyer to represent the defendant and the setting of bail.

BURGLARY

The crime of breaking into and entering a building with the intention to commit a felony. The breaking and entering need not be by force, and the felony need no... (more...)
The crime of breaking into and entering a building with the intention to commit a felony. The breaking and entering need not be by force, and the felony need not be theft. For instance, someone would be guilty of burglary if he entered a house through an unlocked door in order to commit a murder.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Kruse

184 P.3d 1182 (2008). 220 Or. App. 38. STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jay Lynn KRUSE, Defendant-Appellant. D055973M, D060612T, A132038 (Control), A132039. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Submitted January 4, 2008. Decided May 14, 2008. ...

State v. Machuca

227 P.3d 729 (2010). 347 Or. 644. STATE of Oregon, Petitioner on Review, v. Thomas Gregory MACHUCA, Respondent on Review. (CC 050647097; CA A133362; SC S057910). Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc. Argued and Submitted December 16, 2009. ...

Prior v. Department of Revenue

... [2]. In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the Department is in error in withholding the tax refund to pay for her "husband's DUI[,] [because] I have be[en] separated from him for 6 y[ea]rs and have nothing to do with his affairs or finances." [3] (Ptf's Compl at 1, Sec. ...