State v. Logan Storm
Apr 11, 2014OUTCOME: Not Guilty on all counts after jury trial
Defendant charged with two counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, each carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 75 months.
Portland, OR
Criminal defense Lawyer at Portland, OR
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Civil Rights
OUTCOME: Not Guilty on all counts after jury trial
Defendant charged with two counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, each carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 75 months.
OUTCOME: Reversed and remanded for new post-conviction trial
Lower court denied petitioner's Petition for Post-conviction relief, excluding much of petitioner's proffered evidence. Oregon Court of Appeals found excluded evidence to be highly relevant and the er ... ror of the lower court was not harmless.
OUTCOME: Reversed and remanded for new trial
Defendant lost civil trial for sexual battery of a child, and lower court ordered $4.5 million in damages. Oregon Court of Appeals found plain error where lower court allowed testimony by plaintiff's ... witnesses vouching for plaintiff's credibility.
OUTCOME: conviction reversed on appeal
Conviction reversed on appeal because of prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009).
OUTCOME: Conviction reversed on appeal
Conviction reversed on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009)
OUTCOME: Statements suppressed; case dismissed.
Defendant charged with bank robbery. Federal District Court granted Defendant's Motion to Suppress statements he allegedly made to FBI agents regarding the robbery, based on an invalid waiver of Defen ... dant's Miranda rights. Case later dismissed with prejudice on Speedy Trial grounds.
OUTCOME: Conviction reversed, case remanded for new trial
Defendant convicted of rape and sexual abuse filed petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Lower court denied petition. Oregon Court of Appeals found ... original trial counsel ineffective for improperly arguing critical motion in limine on evidentiary issue.