Oregon Ballot Measure 70 (1999)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Oregon Ballot Measure 70 (1999) or House Joint Resolution (HJR) 88 is a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment that would give the people of Oregon, through a prosecuting attorney, the right to demand a jury trial in criminal cases.

In 1999, the Oregon Constitution allowed only the accused person the right to demand a jury trial in a criminal case. If the accused person does not want a jury to determine whether the person is guilty or not guilty, the accused person can waive a jury trial. If the judge consents to the person's waiver, the case is tried to the judge alone and the judge determines whether the person is guilty or not guilty.

If this measure had been approved, the prosecuting attorney could demand a jury trial even if the accused person wanted a trial without a jury. If the prosecuting attorney demanded a jury trial, the case would have to be tried to a jury.[1]

Official Ballot Title

HJR 88 - Amends Constitution: Gives Public, Through Prosecutor, Right To Demand Jury Trial In Criminal Cases[2]


Results

This measure failed at the November 1999 Special Election.

Support

[3] Representative Kevin Mannix was chief petitioner of the measure. He proposed a similar measure in 1996 (Measure 40), which was set aside because it violated Oregon's single-subject rule. He encouraged voters to vote "yes" on this new measure, saying, "designed to preserve and protect the right of crime victims, and the people, to justice by ensuring that the people also have a right to demand a jury trial".

Crime Victims United regretted that Mannix's 1996 measure was thrown out and strongly supported the new measure saying that Measure 40 "would have put an end to the practice of criminal defendants manipulating the system to find a sympathetic judge to try their case without a jury!"

Many supporters argued that Measure 70 ensures crime victims' rights and prevent the defense from "shopping" for a judge who will rule in their favor, without hindering the defendants right to a fair trial.

Opposition

[4] The Democratic Party of Lane County opposed the measure, reminding the voters that even they one day could be charged with a crime, possibly wrongfully, and that the measure would attack their rights.

They argued that prosecutors have no reason for wanting a jury trial over a bench trial and speculated that "the prosecutor might wish to exploit the inflammatory nature of the evidence before the jury, recognizing that in a bench trial, the judge would not be swayed by such evidence" and that "the prosecutor may wish to take advantage of jurors' lack of legal expertise".

State Representative Floyd Prozanski, who became a prosecutor after his daughter was murdered, opposed Measure 70 and similar measures proposed for the 1999 special election, arguing that "prosecutors don't need more power than judges in our courtrooms".

Many opposed feared the government giving more power to prosecutors. A number of crime victims shared their stories with the Secretary of State about their experience with the inefficiency of prosecutors in letters of opposition to the measure.

References

  1. ↑ Explanatory Statement of this measure from the State Voting Guide
  2. ↑ Detailed information about this measure from the Secretary of State
  3. ↑ Arguments in Favor
  4. ↑ Arguments in Opposition

See also

Retrieved from "http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_70_(1999)"
Personal tools