Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aminigreen2 sentences2021As this court has explained regarding the right to an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, “the guarantee of trial by an ‘impartial jury’ means a trial by a jury that is not biased in favor of or against either party, but is influenced in making its decision only by evidence produced at trial and legal standards provided by the trial court.” Amini, 331 Or at 391. 2002State v. Amini, 331 Or 384, 394 , 15 P3d 541 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Straingreen2 sentences2026However, in criminal cases, a trial court’s discretion is constrained by the need “to protect the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Id. “[A]s a representative of the state,” a prosecutor “owes a primary duty to see that all criminal defendants receive a fair trial. * * * [And] all of a prosecutor’s arguments must comport with the constitutional protections afforded a criminal defendant at trial.” 2026However, in criminal cases, a trial court’s discretion is constrained by the need “to protect the defendant’s constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution and the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” Id. “[A]s a representative of the state,” a prosecutor “owes a primary duty to see that all criminal defendants receive a fair trial. * * * [And] all of a prosecutor’s arguments must comport with the constitutional protections afforded a criminal defendant at trial.” | 1 | 1 |
Holbrook v. Flynngreen1 sentence2021Likewise, the Supreme Court has explained that, “[c]entral to the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, is the principle that one accused of a crime is entitled to have his guilt or innocence determined solely based on the evidence introduced at trial.” Holbrook, 475 US at 567 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Aminigreen1 sentence2004In Amini, this court addressed “whether a jury instruction advising the j ury of the consequences of a finding that [the] defendant was guilty except for insanity violated [the] defendant’s right to a trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11[.]” 331 Or at 386. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langleygreen2 sentences2003See State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 259 , 839 P2d 692 (1992) (assuming same analysis under statute as under state and federal constitutions for motion for change of venue). 2003See State v. Langley, 314 Or 247, 259 , 839 P2d 692 (1992) (assuming same analysis under statute as under state and federal constitutions for motion for change of venue). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Busbygreen2 sentences1995See State v. Busby, 315 Or 292 , 300 n 7, 844 P2d 897 (1993) (this court, in rejecting argument that evidence admitted at trial violated the defendant’s right to an impartial jury, stated: “Defendant does not * * * argue that the jury impaneled for his own trial was influenced * * * by the evidence of his prior conviction, because that evidence was never placed before the jury.” (emphasis added)). 1995See State v. Busby, 315 Or 292 , 300 n 7, 844 P2d 897 (1993) (this court, in rejecting argument that evidence admitted at trial violated the defendant’s right to an impartial jury, stated: “Defendant does not * * * argue that the jury impaneled for his own trial was influenced * * * by the evidence of his prior conviction, because that evidence was never placed before the jury.” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Banks
green
2 sentences2026State v. Banks, 367 Or 574, 582 , 481 P3d 1275 (2021). 2026State v. Banks, 367 Or 574, 582 , 481 P3d 1275 (2021). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Cavan
green
2 sentences2014In State v. Cavan, 337 Or 433 , 98 P3d 381 (2004), this court addressed the right to an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, of the state constitution in similar fashion. 2014In State v. Cavan, 337 Or 433 , 98 P3d 381 (2004), this court addressed the right to an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, of the state constitution in similar fashion. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Leland
green
2 sentences2000That explanation of the guarantee of Article I, section 11, is consistent with the court’s earlier observation in State v. Leland, 190 Or 598, 608 , 227 P2d 785 (1951), that the term “fair trial” means “a trial before an impartial judge, an honest jury, and in an atmosphere of judicial calm.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) The significance of Ricco for purposes of construing the guarantee of trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, is its holding that the guarantee applies to misdemeanor as well as felony trials. 198 Or at 430 . 2000That explanation of the guarantee of Article I, section 11, is consistent with the court’s earlier observation in State v. Leland, 190 Or 598, 608 , 227 P2d 785 (1951), that the term “fair trial” means “a trial before an impartial judge, an honest jury, and in an atmosphere of judicial calm.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) The significance of Ricco for purposes of construing the guarantee of trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, is its holding that the guarantee applies to misdemeanor as well as felony trials. 198 Or at 430 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State Ex Rel. Ricco v. Biggs
red
2 sentences2000That explanation of the guarantee of Article I, section 11, is consistent with the court's earlier observation in State v. Leland, 190 Or. 598, 608 , 227 P.2d 785 (1951), that the term "fair trial" means "a trial before an impartial judge, an honest jury, and in an *547 atmosphere of judicial calm." (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) The significance of Ricco for purposes of construing the guarantee of trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, is its holding that the guarantee applies to misdemeanor as well as felony trials. 198 Or. at 430 , 255 P.2d 1055 . 2000That explanation of the guarantee of Article I, section 11, is consistent with the court’s earlier observation in State v. Leland, 190 Or 598, 608 , 227 P2d 785 (1951), that the term “fair trial” means “a trial before an impartial judge, an honest jury, and in an atmosphere of judicial calm.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) The significance of Ricco for purposes of construing the guarantee of trial by an impartial jury under Article I, section 11, is its holding that the guarantee applies to misdemeanor as well as felony trials. 198 Or at 430 . | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Amini
green
2 sentences2001State v. Amini, 154 Or App 589 , 963 P2d 65 (1998). 2001State v. Amini, 154 Or App 589 , 963 P2d 65 (1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.