Court Opinion

ID: 9782043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 17:52:52.063874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:45.368616
License: Public Domain

HASELTON, P. J.,
concurring.
I write separately to highlight two considerations, one that is implicit in the majority opinion, and one that is not.
*639First, our analysis pertains solely to mid-trial communications from represented criminal defendants that present the potential for improper ex parte contacts. As the majority explains, see 183 Or App at 636-37, there are qualitatively distinct dynamics and concerns that arise in the trial context. We do not address the proper limits of a court’s discretion in addressing communications from represented criminal defendants in the pretrial or post-trial settings.
Second, I agree that the trial court here acted within the proper limits of its discretion by not opening the letters until after trial. However, with respect, the better course would have been for the court, upon receipt of each letter, to have informed the parties in open court of that fact and then to have returned the letter unopened to defendant with the admonition that the court would not consider such communications and that defendant must convey any concerns or complaints through his counsel.