Response to Haugen Objection
-
Upload
statesman-journal -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Response to Haugen Objection
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
1/90
Andy Simrin PCAttorney at Law______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
405 NW 18th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 (503) 265-8940
Hon. Paul J. De Muiz
Oregon Supreme Court
1163 State St
Salem, OR 97301
Re: State v. Haugen, Marion County no. 04C46224, S Ct S059519
June 20, 2011
Dear Chief Justice De Muiz:
We write this letter in response to the letter dated June 14, 2011, from staff attorney
Philip Schradle to Jeffrey E. Ellis, requesting that Oregon Capital Resource Center,
and any other party desiring to be heard, to submit a memorandum regardingOCRCs standing. Though Mr. Goody and I may be precluded, absent an order from
your court, from advocating a position one way or the other on OCRCs standing, wefeel it is imperative for the court to understand the circumstances that created the
conundrum that the court faces and that, in our view, the court must find a way to
resolve.
While the petition for reconsideration was under advisement by your court in Mr.
Haugens direct appeal, OPDS approached Mr. Goody and me with a proposal thatwe be available to represent Mr. Haugen in post-conviction in the event he chose to
pursue that remedy. Mr. Haugen subsequently requested that Mr. Goody and I
represent him at the death warrant hearing. At Mr. Haugens request, I filed a motion
for substitution of counsel after the petition for reconsideration was denied but before
the appellate judgment was issued. Once the appellate judgment was issued, I filed a
notice of association of counsel in the Marion County Circuit Court establishing Mr.
Goody as co-counsel.
Initially, Mr. Haugen had indicated that he wished to waive further challenges to his
conviction and death sentence, but shortly after the appellate judgment was issued, he
expressed a desire for Mr. Goody and me to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.
Almost immediately after that, Mr. Haugen retracted that expression, indicating that
Mr. Goody and I had obtained under duress the note that he had written to the courtexpressing his intention to have us file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Mr.
June 20, 2011 02:21 PM
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
2/90
Page 2 of 4
Haugens vacillation on whether he wishes to challenge his conviction and sentenceof death or be executed promptly is a matter of record, in his own handwriting, in
your court.
With Mr. Haugen returning to a desire to waive all further challenges to his
conviction and sentence of death, it was incumbent for Mr. Goody and me todetermine whether such a waiver would be knowing, voluntary and intelligent.
Toward that goal, we secured the services of neuropsychologist Muriel Lezak, Ph.D.
Dr. Lezaks examination of Mr. Haugen indicated that he was not competent to be
executed under the standards articulated in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 US 399, 106 S
Ct 2595, 91 L Ed 2d 335 (1986), and Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 US 948, 127 S Ct
2842, 168 L Ed 2d 662 (2007).
Notwithstanding Mr. Haugens express desire to be executed, Dr. Lezaks assessmentrequired Mr. Goody and me, at a bare minimum, to seek an evidentiary hearing to
determine Mr. Haugens competency under the case law cited by Mr. Ellis in hisPetition for a Writ of Mandamus and his Memorandum of Law Regarding Standing
and the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel
in Death Penalty Cases, which have been adopted by OPDS. That obligation was
consistent with the statutory requirement of ORS 137.463(4)(a), which places the
burden of proof on the competency issue on the defense.
In order to prepare for the required evidentiary hearing, Mr. Goody and I apprised
Judge Guimond and the prosecution that we would need 60 to 90 days additional
time. Prior to the originally scheduled warrant hearing on May 13, 2011, JudgeGuimond indicated that he would give us additional time and that he would continue
the warrant hearing. When he took the bench, however, Judge Guimond accepted the
prosecutions contention that the warrant hearing must be completed within 30 daysafter the appellate judgment was issued and that no evidence was necessary or
relevant to determine Mr. Haugens competency, other than Mr. Haugens answers toa set of questions that the prosecution had drafted for the court to ask Mr. Haugen.
See Memorandum in Support of Issuance of Death Warrant at 3-5 (Proposed
Colloquy). Judge Guimond then re-set the warrant hearing for May 18, the date that
the prosecution asserted that the warrant hearing had to be completed by. In theinterim, Dr. Lezak had left for a trip to Europe, having understood that an evidentiary
hearing on competency would later be conducted, as Judge Guimond had initially
indicated.
Mr. Goody and I had received information suggesting that Judge Guimonds
impartiality in death cases might reasonably be questioned, which would require him
to disqualify himself under Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2-106(A)(1).
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
3/90
Page 3 of 4
Prior to the resumption of the death warrant hearing on May 18, we received
affidavits from attorneys Dennis Balske and Lawrence Matasar, the content of which
gave Mr. Goody and me no choice but to file a motion to disqualify Judge Guimond.
We filed the necessary motion, a copy of which is attached to this letter. The
Honorable Thomas Hart presided over a hearing on that motion on May 18.
In order to fully understand the circumstances of this case that brought it to this
procedural juncture, we encourage your court to review the motion to disqualify
Judge Guimond, the supporting affidavits and the entire transcript of the May 18
proceedings in Mr. Haugens case. I have enclosed copies of all of them with thisletter.
In rejecting our motion to disqualify Judge Guimond, Judge Hart relied on his
personal knowledge of information that was outside the record, rather than on the
undisputed sworn testimony of Messrs. Balske and Matasar. At the conclusion of the
hearing on our motion to disqualify Judge Guimond, Judge Guimond resumed the
bench. Because Rule 2-106(A)(1) is couched in terms of what a judge must do, I re-
raised the issue, attempting to explain why Judge Guimond was required to disqualify
himself, notwithstanding the fact that Judge Hart had denied our motion. Judge
Guimond responded by asking whether he should take my legal argument to be a
threat and admonishing me for failing to get my facts right, though the facts that I
had relied on were the undisputed facts sworn to in the affidavits of Mr. Balske and
Mr. Matasar.
Judge Guimond then asked Mr. Haugen if he wished to discharge Mr. Goody and me,and Mr. Haugen indicated that he did. Judge Guimond indicated that Mr. Goody and
I were then relieved as attorneys of record, but that we were to continue as standby
counsel for Mr. Haugen. In response to a request for clarification by Mr. Goody,
Judge Guimond indicated that our lips were sealed for the remainder of the deathwarrant hearing. Judge Guimond completed the death warrant hearing while Mr.
Goody and I sat mute. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Guimond signed the
death warrant.
Whether the courts discharge of Mr. Goody and me as counsel comported with therequirements ofState v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 831 P2d 666 (1992), and Faretta v.California, 422 US 806, 95 S Ct 2525, 45 L Ed 2d 562 (1975), is questionable. Also
questionable is whether an ostensibly incompetent defendant can waive counsel and
challenges to his conviction and sentence without an evidentiary determination of the
validity of those waivers. Equally questionable is whether potential violations or the
right to counsel, due process, the eighth amendment and Article I, section 16, of the
Oregon Constitution can and should be immunized from review by this court or any
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
4/90
Page 4 of 4other court on the dictate of a defendant whose competency is subject to unresolvedquestion and the acceptance of a questionable waiver of counsel.There is no question that the case law cited by Mr. Ellis would require Mr. Goodyand me to seek mandamus relief on behalf of Mr. Haugen, notwithstanding hisexpressed desire to proceed with his execution. Unfortunately, our reassignment byJudge Guimond as "stand by" counsel prevents us from discharging our constitutionalduties to Mr. Haugen. Instead, we believe, according to the trial court order, we arerequired to assist Mr. Haugen only upon his request, even if he is incompetent.Recently, your court previously approved a stipulation for attorney discipline in acase in which counsel filed an action without the client's consent. In reBailey. Thatwould appear to render Mr. Goody and me ethically prohibited from discharging ourconstitutional duties to Mr. Haugen.Whether or not OCRC has standing to either file a petition for a writ of mandamus onbehalf of Mr. Haugen or in its own right is only a component of the larger question ofwhat, if anything, the Oregon Supreme Court can and should do under the unusualcircumstances of this particular case. Mr. Goody and I agree that, if OCRC lacksstanding, ORS 1.002 necessarily must empower you to take appropriate measures toensure that the requirements of the constitutions of Oregon and the United States aremet in this case by the courts of this State.
W. Keith GoodyAttorneys at Law
Enclosures: motion to disqualify judge, transcriptscc: Jeffrey E. Ellis
Mary H. WilliamsAnna JoyceJeremy RiceHon. Joseph G. GuimondWalter M. BeglauGary Dwayne Haugen
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
5/90
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY HAUGEN,
Defendant.
)))))))))))
Marion County Circuit CourtCase No. 04C46224
DEFENDANTS MOTION TORECUSE COURT BASEDON APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS
Hon. Joseph C. Guimond
Motion to Recuse Based on Appearance of Fairness
In the last few days, it has come to the attention of defense counsel that this
Court previously displayed in chambers an artifact depicting an electric chair.
Several attorneys have said that they have viewed this artifact. Counsel can supply
declarations if the truth of the matter is at issue.
Given this information, counsel is now obliged to move to recuse this Court
based on the appearance of fairness doctrine. See e.g., ABA Guidelines for theAppointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in death Penalty Cases,
Guideline 10.8 (commentary) (2003) (Because of the possibility that the client
will be sentenced to death, counsel must be significantly more vigilant about
litigating all potential issues at all levels in a capital case than in any other case.).
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
6/90
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The ABA Guidelines have been adopted by OPDS and set the standard in Oregon
for competent capital representation.
The Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2-102 provides in pertinent part:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges
impartiality reasonably may be questioned. The test traditionally employed to
determine whether recusal is mandated is whether an objective, disinterested, lay
observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was
sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality.Parker v.
Connors Steel Co., 855 F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir.1988). The purpose of the
judicial recusal statute requiring a judge to disqualify him based on an appearance
of impartiality is to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judicial
process. That appearance is especially critical in a capital case where life and
death are at stake. See also ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
SPECIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE JUDGE Standard 6-1.1(a) (2d ed. 1986) (The
trial judge has the responsibility for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and
the interests of the public in the administration of criminal justice. The adversary
nature of the proceedings does not relieve the trial judge of the obligation of
raising on his or her initiative, at all appropriate times and in an appropriate
manner, matters which may significantly promote a just determination of the
trial.).
To be clear, the question is not whether this Court is actually biased, nor is it
whether this Court would do its very best to weigh the scales of justice equally
between contending parties. Instead, the appearance of fairness doctrine employs
an objective test that focuses on the mere appearance of partiality.
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1988114558&referenceposition=1524&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=108&vr=2.0&pbc=044ACB21&tc=-1&ordoc=2000362425http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1988114558&referenceposition=1524&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=108&vr=2.0&pbc=044ACB21&tc=-1&ordoc=2000362425http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1988114558&referenceposition=1524&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=108&vr=2.0&pbc=044ACB21&tc=-1&ordoc=2000362425http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1988114558&referenceposition=1524&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=108&vr=2.0&pbc=044ACB21&tc=-1&ordoc=2000362425http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1988114558&referenceposition=1524&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=108&vr=2.0&pbc=044ACB21&tc=-1&ordoc=2000362425http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1988114558&referenceposition=1524&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&rs=WLW11.04&db=350&tf=-1&findtype=Y&fn=_top&mt=108&vr=2.0&pbc=044ACB21&tc=-1&ordoc=2000362425 -
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
7/90
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
According to the Judicial Code, this Court should put on the record an
explanation about the display of a depiction of an electric chair in its chambers. It
may be that there are begin reasons for the Courts display of such an artifact.
However, even assuming that the artifact does not reflect actual bias by the
Court, an accusation that counsel is not making, the appearance of fairness doctrine
still requires recusal. Executing a human being by electrocution was described by
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, in the following manner: ...the
prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks. The prisoner often
defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. The body turns bright red as its
temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point
of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire....Witnesses hear a loud and
sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh
permeates the chamber. See Glass v. Louisiana, 471 U.S. 1080 (1985) (Brennan, J.
dissenting from denial of certiorari). As a result, the electric chair has been
declared cruel and unusual punishment by the Nebraska Supreme Court, the last
state to execute in this manner.
As a result, a reasonable, disinterested observer would likely entertain
doubts about this Courts ability to impartially preside over a contested
competency hearing and/or to issue the death warrant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, this Court should recuse itself under the appearance of
fairness doctrine. This will result in a short delay, at worst. However, it will
remove this case from any specter of unfairness.
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
8/90
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Respectfully submitted, this 17th day of May, 2011.
_________________________________
W. Keith Goody OSB No. 102381
P.O. Box 23
Cougar, WA 98616
360 238 5211
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
9/90
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGONFOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON, ) Case No. 04C46224) Honorable Joseph C. GuimondPlaintiff, )v. ) AFFIDAVIT OF DENN IS BALSK E
GARY HAUGEN,)Defendant. j
STATE OF OREGON 1) ss .County of MultnomahI, Dennis Balske, being first duly sworn under oath do depose and say:1. I am an attorney. Along with attorney Lawrence Matasar, I represented Kip
~.. .,Kinkel in his post-conviction action in Marion County Circuit Court, in the case of Kinkel .. ,v. Law head, Case No. 03C-21079 , before Judge Joseph C. Guimond. . ,
? 1 # , . . . *2. The Kinkel post-convictiod trial was held before Judge Guimond on June 19-
3. During the cou rse of the proceedings, Judge Guimond invited counsel into hisoffice to discuss an issue. While waiting for the Judge, Mr. Matasar and I waited inJudge Gu imond's office, behind the chairs facing Judge Guimond, before the Judgebegan our meeting.
4. While waiting, I observed a plaque or fiarned photograph o f an electric ch air.I believe it was on a windo w sill in the back of the Judge's office. It faced into the office,such that it would have been in the Judge's view from his desk and in visitors' view asthey walked around the visiting chairs to be seated and then face the Jud ge.
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
10/90
5. I do not recall what the wording on the picturelplaque said, but it was myimpression that the picturelplaque had been given to Judge Guimond in appreciation forsomething he had done in support of the death penalty, and that the Judge was proud ofhis accomplishment and therefore displayed it openly in his chambers.
6. I remember that I discussed it with Mr. Matasar after we left the Judge'schambers. I also remember thinking, and possibly saying, that I was glad that our post-conviction case was not a death penalty case.
DATED this/f ay of May, 20 11.rennis BalskeSUBSRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1 1 day of May, 2011.
~ o t a r ~ublic for OregonMy Commission Expires: S )7 2 ~ '
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
11/90
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGONFOR THE COUNTY OF MARION.
STATEOF OREGON, ) Case No. 04C46224) Honorable Joseph C. GuimondPlaintiff, 1)v. ) AFFIDAVIT OF Lawrence MatasarGARY HAUGEN,
Defendant. j11STATE OF OREGON 1) ss.County of Multnomah )
I, Lawrence Matasar, being first duly sworn under oath do depose and say:1. I have been an Oregon lawyer since 1974. Dennis Balske and I represent Kip
Kinkel in his post-conviction action in Marion County Circuit Court, Kinkel v. Lawhead,Case No. 036-21079.
2. The Kinkel post-conviction trial was held before Judge Joseph C. Guimond onJune 19 and 20,2007.
3. I have been asked to provide this affidavit concerning an object I observed inJudge Guimond's chambers.
4. Before or during the trial, Judge Guimond invited counsel into chambers. Mr.Balske and I waited in Judge Guimond's office for the judge to come into his chambers.
5. While waiting, I observed an object concerning the death penalty, consisting ofa drawing, plaque, photograph or small sculpture, located on a window sill in the back ofthe Judge's office, facing the Judge's desk. I believe it may have been a hangman'snoose, electric chair, or gallows
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
12/90
6. I do not recall the wording on the object, other than that it depicted the dea thpenalty in a positive or humorous way.
7. I remember discussing this matter with Mr. Balske after we left chambers.Both o f us were surprised that such an item would be present in a judge's chambers.
DATED this / day of M ay, 201 1.-2@*awrence Matasar---t"-LLSUBSRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _?2_ day of M ay, 20 1 1.
Notary Public for OregonMy ~ om r nis sio n x ~ i r e s : /7--20~
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
13/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGONFOR THE COUNTY OF MARION
STATE OF OREGON, ))
Plaintiff, )
)vs. ) Case No. 04C46224
)GARY HAUGEN, )
)Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - May 18, 2011-Vol. I
BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled matter
came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable
Thomas M. Hart on the 18th day of May, 2011, at the
Marion County Courthouse, Salem, Oregon.
COLLEEN R. MCCARTY, CSR, RPR, CCR
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.10157 SW Barbur Blvd., Suite 208C
Portland, Oregon 97219(503) 406-2288
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
14/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
2
APPEARANCES
Mr. Doug Hanson, Deputy District Attorney for MarionCounty, representing the Plaintiff;
Mr. Don Abar, Deputy District Attorney for MarionCounty, representing the Plaintiff;
Mr. Andy Simrin, Attorney at Law, representing theDefendant Gary Haugen;
Mr. W. Keith Goody, Attorney at Law, representing theDefendant Gary Haugen.
-oOo-
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
15/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
3
(May 18, 2011, 9:27 a.m.)
THE COURT: Good morning. Be seated,
please. Mr. Hanson.
MR. HANSON: Good morning, Your Honor.
This is the State versus Gary Haugen, 04C46224.
Defense Counsel Keith Goody and Andy Simrin are
present with the defendant, who is in custody.
Doug Hanson and Don Abar for the State.
Your Honor, this is time and date that we
had set for a death warrant hearing that was continued
from last Friday, May 13. It's my understanding,
based on some motions filed by defense counsel, not
the defendant, that Your Honor is going to preside
over a motion to recuse the Court, specifically Judge
Guimond, from appearing on this case. The State is
ready to proceed.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Simrin and
Mr. Goody are both here.
Mr. Haugen, good morning, sir. How are
you doing?
MR. HAUGEN: Good morning, sir.
THE COURT: There's also been a request
by the prosecution to allow you to have your hands
freed so you can review some things. I'm going to
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
16/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
4
allow that, okay?
MR. HAUGEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. You're not going
to be in trouble with Mr. Goody or Mr. Simrin or
anybody else, are you?
MR. HAUGEN: No, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. There's just too many
people here watching all this stuff.
MR. HAUGEN: Absolutely.
THE COURT: That's not me in the front
here. I'm Judge Hart, and I'm up on the second floor,
okay? Cut him loose.
Have you had a chance to see the motion
that was filed yesterday?
MR. HAUGEN: No, I haven't.
THE COURT: Well, we're going to get you
a copy of that, and then I'm going to have some
inquiry with regard to that, okay?
MR. HAUGEN: Will you actually question
me about my opinion, Your Honor --
THE COURT: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
MR. HAUGEN: -- in relation to this whole
fiasco? Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Remember we have a court
reporter, so we stop talking long enough to let her
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
17/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
5
catch up.
MR. HAUGEN: Yes, sir. Got it.
THE COURT: Thank you. You okay with
yourself?
MR. HAUGEN: I'm fine.
THE COURT: All right. I don't have any
problem giving you both up. Do you have a copy of
that, Mr. Simrin or Mr. Goody, the motion that you
filed yesterday to --
MR. SIMRIN: I only have a single copy.
THE COURT: Well, he ought to have a
chance to take a look at what you filed on his behalf,
don't you think?
MR. SIMRIN: Can we run it into Judge
Guimond's chambers and have it photocopied there?
THE COURT: I can just pull the first
couple of pages off and let him take a look at mine.
And then -- because that was just a copy that I got.
Somebody will get one. I've had a chance to review
that already. I think it's important that he ought to
be able to see.
Now, their basic position is, Mr. Haugen,
that if you are not clear-headed -- you have one?
THE CLERK: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay, good.
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
18/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
6
-- then they have to act on your behalf.
And that's kind of what this whole issue's been about
right at the moment and the reason that the death
warrant hearing from last week was continued to today,
okay?
I mean, if they don't feel comfortable
with your mental abilities, which is ultimately a
court's decision, then they have to do certain things
on your behalf. And we're just going to do what needs
to be done. Yes, sir.
MR. HAUGEN: If I may, please?
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. GOODY: Your Honor, just for the
record here --
THE COURT: I'm not inviting you to talk
at this moment. We'll get a chance for the record.
I'm inquiring of Mr. Haugen at this point, okay?
MR. GOODY: Yes. But I'd object to any
inquiry made of the defendant for the reason that it
violates his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent.
And in particular, the Sixth Amendment right to
effective assistance of counsel and due process of the
law.
Our position -- I understand you
understand, but I'm just making the record. Our
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
19/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
7
position is he's not competent to be proceeding, he's
not competent to be waiving his Fifth Amendment rights
or his Sixth Amendment rights.
And under those -- and by you talking to
him that's kind of like the horse before the carriage.
I think you have to have a finding about competency
before he's permitted to just go on and on. Thank
you.
MR. SIMRIN: And I would like to add for
the record that provisions Article One, Section 10 and
11, of the Oregon Constitution that are the analogues
of the Fifth and Six Amendments.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, we've got that
taken care of. The question is really going to be --
and I also know that you sent a letter to Judge
Guimond with regard to asking that counsel be fired in
not so many words.
What I want you to do is take a look at
that -- they've made the objections for the record --
and then I'm going to talk to you, okay?
MR. HAUGEN: Okay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You getting like me, do you
need some readers?
MR. HAUGEN: If you have some,
definitely.
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
20/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
8
THE COURT: Here, you want to take these?
MR. HAUGEN: I'm getting old. Oh, I can
read it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Can you read all right?
MR. HAUGEN: I'm working it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HAUGEN: What I'm doing, Your Honor,
is scanning this as best I can trying to glean certain
points of concern.
THE COURT: Well, I already know that
based on the conversation that you were not provided
that copy of the motion that was filed on your behalf.
And the motion essentially asks for
recusal of Judge Guimond, and that's what I'm here to
work on today. Have you --
MR. HAUGEN: Well, Your Honor --
THE COURT: You sat through the whole
thing. You were here at your trial.
MR. HAUGEN: Absolutely.
THE COURT: You uncomfortable with Judge
Guimond?
MR. HAUGEN: Oh, I am more than
comfortable with Judge Guimond. I sat with him for
three months through our trial and assisted in our
defense, myself and my codefendant, and had no problem
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
21/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
9
with Judge Guimond at all.
I think he is not only an articulate, but
I think he is very -- he has the tools. He is very
competent, in my opinion.
And I feel that at this particular
juncture, Your Honor, and in the appellate process,
according to statute, this is my time. This is my
time to choose, right? This is -- by statute this is
my time to make a choice. My right, you know,
constitutional, statutory, and a God-given right of
free will to choose.
MR. GOODY: Your Honor, I object to any
more -- I need to make a record --
THE COURT: Sit down. Sit -- sit down,
Mr. Goody. Do you want to be held in contempt? Sit
down. I am asking him a question, okay?
The idea has to be it's his right. And I
understand that you want to act on his behalf. You
have -- but at some point in time the court is making
a decision with regard to whether or not Mr. Haugen is
capable to choose on his own behalf.
MR. SIMRIN: Your Honor, counsel needs to
be able to timely make the record --
THE COURT: And has it not --
MR. SIMRIN: -- not make it after the
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
22/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
10
fact.
THE COURT: And has it not been met? He
objected.
MR. GOODY: Well, I think now the
objection is it's just relevant -- relevancy. What
he's talking about now is not relevant to what's
before this court.
THE COURT: Yes, it is in the sense that
I need to know how comfortable he has thought through
all this stuff. And I'm going to make my own minimal
determination on his capabilities.
I was going to inquire a few things about
life on death row, okay? If I don't feel you're
comfortable -- and you're not displaying any of what
I'd call psychosis or inability to make an informed
and intelligent decision.
MR. HAUGEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Then if I don't kind
of dance around with this -- kind of like when I take
a plea, you know, I go -- I mean, it's like these guys
from the institution, they didn't let you have a
couple of drinks on the way in, did they?
MR. HAUGEN: No. But according to the
counsel here, the fetal alcohol syndrome, I'm waiting
for that to kick in at any time, you know. I could
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
23/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
11
use a drink right now.
THE COURT: The reason I ask about that
is I want to make sure that when you and I communicate
that you know what I'm saying and --
MR. HAUGEN: Absolutely. I understand
you completely, Your Honor. And I appreciate you
offering me the opportunity to speak to you as much as
the conflict between myself and counsel is
interrupting that process.
And the only denial I see of due process
here is my counsel against my right to sit back and
incompetently (sic) make a decision here today. And I
feel that they're doing everything they can to -- like
a woman. That's the only thing I can relate it to, is
a woman's right to choose.
And the appellate process at this
juncture, this is my right to choose. And they're
trying to take that away from me, Your Honor. And
it's damaging my spirit, you know.
And it's definitely damaging the
attorney-client relationship in relation to building
trust with indigent defendants and the community.
This is not building or supporting trust for the
community in attorneys or for me.
THE COURT: Let me ask you a question.
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
24/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
12
You've had a chance to review the recusal motion. Is
that something that you want to have done is have
Mr. -- have Judge Guimond taken off of this case?
MR. HAUGEN: Absolutely not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now let's hear some argument
of why you think -- I mean, we've got it all submitted
on the record. He doesn't join in the motion. I've
read the cases that have been provided by the State.
MR. HAUGEN: Excuse me, Your Honor, if I
may, please?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. HAUGEN: The one thing I did give to
Judge Guimond this morning was a letter motion saying
that it is my position --
THE COURT: Is that the one I just was
talking about?
MR. HAUGEN: I believe so. It is my
position --
THE COURT: About to fire counsel?
MR. HAUGEN: Not so much firing them,
slash, noncommunication. In order with them to not
communicate and not file anything in my behalf. I
have lost all trust in their -- and my faith in their
support of me and my will, my wishes right now. And
if they want to file something, file it, but not in my
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
25/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
13
behalf.
I don't agree with anything that they're
doing right now, and I personally object on the record
to definitely this motion.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me deal with the
recusal motion. And depending on what I do there will
decide where we go from there, okay? All right?
MR. GOODY: Mr. Simrin's going to speak
to the recusal issue.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SIMRIN: May it please the Court and
Counsel, Andy Simrin on behalf of Mr. Haugen.
Yesterday my co-counsel, Keith Goody, faxed in a
motion to disqualify Judge Guimond, and that is
supported by affidavits that we have not yet put into
evidence. Does the court have the affidavits from
Dennis Balske and Lawrence Matasar?
THE COURT: I do. The faxed copies.
MR. SIMRIN: Yeah. I have -- since we
only obtained these affidavits by facsimile
transmission yesterday afternoon we do not yet have
the originals from Mr. Balske and from Mr. Matasar.
I would move to provisionally admit
those affidavits into evidence pending the receipt of
the actual ones.
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
26/90
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
27/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
15
MR. HAUGEN: Your Honor --
MR. SIMRIN: As the affidavit of
Dennis Balske indicates --
THE COURT: I don't need to read that
into the record either because we've already got it,
okay?
MR. SIMRIN: Okay. I am simply going to
review part of that affidavit. And in the most
important part Mr. Balske's indication that after he
left the chambers of Judge Guimond, after viewing this
object, his sense was that he remembered thinking and
possibly saying that he was glad that our post
conviction case was not a death penalty case.
The recusal statutes in the Oregon
revised statutes appear at ORS 14.250 to 14.270. The
motion that we have brought is not brought under those
provisions.
I'd like to draw the court's attention to
the Court of Appeals opinion in Lamonts Apparel,
Incorporated versus SI Lloyd Associates, 153 OR App
227.
In that case there had been some
litigation regarding the lease agreement and a
favor -- a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
28/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
16
verdict. And there had been a timing issue under ORCP
63(d) as to whether that had been timely filed.
To resolve that, Judge Robinson made an
investigative inquiry to the court operation
supervisor who subsequently testified as a witness in
that proceeding.
The plaintiff moved to disqualify Judge
Robinson relying, as Mr. Goody and I do in this case,
not on ORS 14.250 through 270, but on the ethics rules
and canons of judicial conduct that require
disqualification of a judge.
Rejecting the timing limits found in ORS
14.250 to 270, the Court of Appeals explained,
"Defendant's procedural arguments do not require
extended discussion. The statutes governing
procedures to disqualify a judge, ORS 14.250, 270,
apply to disqualification based on the situation that
exists when the judge is first assigned to a case and
require a showing only that the party seeking
disqualification has a good faith belief that it would
not receive a fair and impartial trial."
It is not necessary to allege specific
grounds for that belief. Those statutes are
irrelevant to whether later events require recusal as
a matter of law. If they were not, it would be
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
29/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
17
impossible to move for recusal after the statutory
time had passed no matter what happens in the interim.
THE COURT: Mr. Simrin, I understand all
that part of it, okay?
Let me just interject here. It has to do
with what somebody from the District Attorney's
office -- and I can't remember who else did it -- was
built -- re-creation of what they call Old Sparky from
Florida, okay, that Ted Bundy was killed in.
And it was, during the remodel here,
placed in this holding cell area, okay? Not -- and
Judge Guimond had nothing to do with any of that
creation.
What he did have something to do with was
to get it out of there so that guys like Mr. Haugen or
any other person that was in prison that was in
custody that had to come through this detention area
off the side, get it out of there so they wouldn't
have to be subjected to that. That is all that
remains of what, essentially, was a good move on
behalf of a good judge.
MR. HAUGEN: I concur. Your Honor --
THE COURT: Just a minute.
MR. SIMRIN: May I finish making my
record, Judge?
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
30/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
18
THE COURT: You're reading the case that
has clearly been cited. I do not need to listen to
that again, all right?
MR. SIMRIN: Okay. Well, I'm done with
that passage.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SIMRIN: I would like to point out
that what you may or may not have seen as a witness of
Old Sparky, as you call it --
THE COURT: It's not as I call it. And
you told me that you didn't hear about it until last
week. Now, we don't need to go --
MR. SIMRIN: What you're describing --
THE COURT: Stop. We'll only talk one at
a time, Mr. Simrin, okay? We really do.
MR. SIMRIN: Okay.
THE COURT: When it's on paper it doesn't
need to be read, okay? If it's cited, it does not
need to be read. It is exactly what it was, Old
Sparky. Because it went around in this building as
somebody who found the directions on the Internet.
And during the remodel, that's what it was. I'm not
saying that to be negative or anything.
And I know that it was Judge Guimond that
insisted that it be removed. And you're saying that
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
31/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
19
because the photo or plaque or whatever it is that's
in his office somehow makes it unfair for Mr. Haugen
to be heard or there's an appearance of impropriety.
Is that the bottom line for the recusal?
MR. SIMRIN: That's incorrect, Your
Honor.
MR. HAUGEN: I would have one in my cell
if I had a picture, Your Honor. I think everybody
should have one to understand the gravity of the
situation and not to take a bias position in which
these gentlemen are doing. Your Honor, they're
just --
THE COURT: Let me finish. We got to do
this part, okay?
So then what's the issue --
MR. SIMRIN: Whatever it was you saw,
Your Honor, in the holding area is -- that may be
relevant or it may not be. But it is apparently not
the thing that attorneys Matasar and Balske saw in the
chambers of the office of Judge Guimond.
And so Old Sparky, or whatever it was
that was in this holding area that you saw, is
evidently independent of the award or plaque that
attorneys Matasar and Balske observed in the chambers
of Judge Guimond, as Balske describes being on open
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
32/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
20
display. And the judge was proud of his
accomplishment and, therefore, displayed it openly in
his chambers.
That has nothing to do with whatever
depiction of Old Sparky that you saw in the holding
area that Judge Guimond, from your indication, asked
to be removed.
THE COURT: Okay. Then I'm going to
strike this from the record with regard to Balske
because it was four different things from which he
didn't have any present recollection, of one of which
was an electric chair, okay?
I won't strike it out of the record.
But --
MR. SIMRIN: Matasar was the one who
could not recall if it was an electric chair, a
hangman's noose, or gallows. Balske did remember.
THE COURT: And what did he view it as?
MR. SIMRIN: I'm sorry, I did not
understand.
THE COURT: It was the electric chair,
right?
MR. SIMRIN: (Nods.)
THE COURT: And that's exactly why that
photo is in there, is because Judge Guimond got the
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
33/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
21
actual constructive piece out of this building and
sent it away from here.
MR. SIMRIN: Would that explain why Judge
Guimond would have had it on display in his office if
he had merely ordered it removed from the holding
area? I don't think so.
THE COURT: So if we were to see a plaque
from the ACLU in there, would that be a problem from
the prosecution's standpoint? Would you be giving
some issues to his ability to be fair and impartial
today?
MR. SIMRIN: Are you asking me or are you
asking the prosecutors?
THE COURT: Well, you because you're
standing up.
MR. SIMRIN: The ACLU, as far as I
know --
THE COURT: That simply is a yes or no,
okay? Mr. Simrin, you want to close your argument,
please.
MR. SIMRIN: I'd like to continue it.
THE COURT: What else you --
MR. SIMRIN: Eventually I would like to
complete it.
THE COURT: Mr. Simrin, we're not in here
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
34/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
22
dancing around. Your argument is on paper. What are
you adding that is not written?
MR. SIMRIN: The canon of judicial
conduct that is --
THE COURT: Cited --
MR. SIMRIN: -- cited in the motion,
there's actually a clerical error.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SIMRIN: The real rule is Oregon Code
of Judicial Conduct Rule 2-106 A1. And the depiction
that was proudly displayed on Judge Guimond's office
wall conflicts with that.
That rule provides "A judge shall
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which
the judge's impartiality may be questioned."
As the prosecution successfully argued
last week in this court, in this case, the word
"shall" connotes a mandatory nondiscretionary duty.
Support for that is state ex rel Engweiler versus
Cook, 340 Oregon Reports 373, on page 378.
As the Oregon Supreme Court explained in
In re: Shank 318 Oregon 402, regarding the predecessor
to Judicial Rule of Canon of Conduct 2106. And that
would be former canon 3C1.
The Oregon Supreme Court said, "The
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
35/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
23
purpose and importance of canon 3C1's admonition is, a
judge should disqualify himself or herself in a
proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might
reasonably be questioned should be evident --
THE COURT: That's page 2. I'm read --
what --
MR. SIMRIN: That is not --
THE COURT: It's the same issue.
MR. SIMRIN: No, it is not, Your Honor.
And if I may make --
THE COURT: The appearance of --
MR. SIMRIN: And if I may make my record,
I will establish to you that it is not.
THE COURT: What? It's not what you have
on paper?
MR. SIMRIN: It is not in the motion.
And I am trying to make a record here. And I am
trying to rely on Oregon Supreme Court case law
regarding the predecessor here and how that applies
and is different in this particular case. And I would
like the opportunity to do that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SIMRIN: "The purpose and importance
of canon 3C1's admonition, a judge should disqualify
himself or herself in a proceeding in which the
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
36/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
24
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned
should be evident.
"Because not only the fact, but also the
appearance of impartiality of the very currency of
judicial legitimacy."
The sole distinction here, under JR 2106,
as compared to canon 3C1, is that 3C1 was couched in
terms of discretion. The word "should" that appeared
in the predecessor has been changed to the word
"shall," a term that even the prosecutor in this case
agrees is mandatory and obligatory on this court.
As the written motion sets forth,
Mr. Goody and I did not contend that the award given
to Judge Guimond establishes actual bias, only that it
establishes that the judge's impartiality may
reasonably be questioned.
And the affidavit of Dennis Balske
confirms that. He left the court chambers saying and
thinking, "I am glad that our post conviction case was
not a death penalty case."
Your Honor, Mr. Goody's and my case is a
death penalty case.
MR. HAUGEN: I will concede --
THE COURT: Mr. Hanson.
MR. HANSON: Your Honor, the State relies
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
37/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
25
on the two cases that have been cited to the court.
The State's position is that the defense motion in
this case by the defense attorneys, not the defendant,
is irrational.
And based on Kafoury versus Jones, we ask
the court to make that finding, and that there is no
basis to find that Judge Guimond lacks impartiality in
any way based on the court's understanding of the case
law and the canons that have been cited by defense
counsel.
THE COURT: 15 years as a judge, Judge
Guimond has been steady and even-handed. Mr. Haugen
himself even indicated that he felt comfortable.
And whatever may have been referred to in
the affidavits, whether they could actually remember
them or not or not having the ability to even ask the
question as to why that was there, was as a real
accomplishment of his fairness to not have it in
anywhere around where somebody in the position of
Mr. Haugen would ever have to endure seeing something
like that while they waited for their case to be dealt
with. Anybody in custody.
It was nothing that was of Judge
Guimond's creation. And it was clearly of Judge
Guimond's order to have it removed. And that memory
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
38/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
26
that was reflected in that is something he ought to
feel good about and that we as members of the
community ought to feel good about.
Do you join in this motion at all,
Mr. Haugen?
MR. HAUGEN: I absolutely do not, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I'm going to find that you're
clear-headed with me today and that you freely,
knowingly, and understandingly make the decision not
to join in the motion. I'm going to deny the motion
to recuse, and I'm going to allow Judge Guimond to
come --
MR. SIMRIN: Your Honor, in that case I
have one additional motion. Like to ask for a recess
so that Mr. Goody and I may have the opportunity to
prepare and submit our petition for a writ of mandamus
on this issue in the Oregon Supreme Court.
MR. HAUGEN: Your Honor, if I may --
MR. SIMRIN: This is a nondiscretionary
call here. And what was in the waiting area had
nothing to do with what was on display in Judge
Guimond's chambers.
THE COURT: I'm going to deny that motion
right now, and then we're going to let Judge Guimond
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
39/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
27
deal with you.
Do you want to file the writ of mandamus?
MR. HAUGEN: No, Your Honor. May I say
one thing before we go, because --
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. HAUGEN: You've been very --
THE COURT: You're supposed to stand when
you address me anyway.
MR. HAUGEN: Oh, excuse me, Your Honor --
MR. SIMRIN: I don't think that chair
slides back.
MR. GOODY: The plan was that he wasn't
supposed to stand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That wasn't my plan. I came
down here, I'm going to give him the respect that he
deserves for dealing with how he needs to be dealt
with. It's not like there aren't enough people
around, okay?
Mr. Haugen, you're going to do what you
need to do, correct?
MR. HAUGEN: May I stand, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. I hate to -- yeah,
yeah. I don't want your drawers falling down, okay?
MR. HAUGEN: Excuse me. Your Honor, what
I find and I object in this whole proceeding is we're
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
40/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
Colloquy
28
at the juncture, as I said before, in the appellate
process where it's my choice. And all I'm getting is
ideological and political rhetoric from my counsel,
you know, appointing counsel, that do not agree with
my position.
And so they're using every stall tactic,
every maneuver, every -- personally, in my opinion,
what they're doing to Judge Guimond is reprehensible
and pretty disrespectful, you know, in trying to
attack his character and his ability and competency to
be able to conduct this hearing.
And so me personally, I object to any
motion that they file, period, in regards to trying to
get some sort of extension, continuation at the
taxpayers' expense. How long does this have to go on?
You know, and that's just my opinion, and I wanted to
express it to Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. And it was very
articulate and well said. I'm going to sign the order
denying the motion to recuse. I'm going to send in
Judge Guimond.
(Proceedings adjourned 10:00 a.m.)
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
41/90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
CERTIFICATE
29
STATE OF OREGON )) ss.
COUNTY OF MARION )
I, Colleen R. McCarty, hereby certify that I am
an official reporter for the Third Judicial District
and Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of
Oregon.
I further certify that I reported in stenotype
the foregoing proceedings before the Honorable Thomas
M. Hart, and subsequently transcribed my shorthand
notes into a typewritten transcript, Pages 1 through
28 inclusive, and that the foregoing is a true and
correct transcript to the best of my knowledge,
ability, and belief of the proceedings as designated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
in the City of Salem, County of Marion, State of
Oregon, this 31st day of May, 2011.
________________________COLLEEN R. MCCARTY, RPROR CSR No. 00-0371WA CSR No. 2044
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
42/90
0
00-0371 [1] - 29:23
04C46224 [2] - 1:4, 3:6
1
1 [1] - 29:11
10 [1] - 7:10
10157 [1] - 1:22
10:00 [1] - 28:22
11 [1] - 7:11
13 [1] - 3:12
14.250 [4] - 15:15,
16:9, 16:13, 16:16
14.270 [1] - 15:15
15 [1] - 25:11
153 [1] - 15:20
18 [2] - 1:11, 3:1
18th [1] - 1:14
2
2 [1] - 23:5
2-106 [1] - 22:10
2011 [3] - 1:14, 3:1,
29:17
2011-Vol [1] - 1:11
2044 [1] - 29:23
208C [1] - 1:22
2106 [2] - 22:23, 24:6
227 [1] - 15:21
270 [3] - 16:9, 16:13,
16:1628 [1] - 29:12
3
318 [1] - 22:22
31st [1] - 29:17
340 [1] - 22:20
373 [1] - 22:20
378 [1] - 22:20
3C1 [3] - 22:24, 24:7
3C1's [2] - 23:1, 23:24
4
402 [1] - 22:22
406-2288 [1] - 1:23
5
503 [1] - 1:23
6
63(d [1] - 16:2
9
97219 [1] - 1:22
9:27 [1] - 3:1
A
a.m [2] - 3:1, 28:22
A1 [1] - 22:10
Abar [2] - 2:4, 3:9
abilities [1] - 6:7
ability [4] - 21:10,
25:16, 28:10, 29:14
able [3] - 5:21, 9:23,
28:11
above-entitled [1] -1:12
Absolutely [4] - 4:9,
8:19, 11:5, 12:4
absolutely [1] - 26:6
accomplishment [2] -
20:2, 25:18
according [2] - 9:7,
10:23
ACLU [2] - 21:8, 21:16
act [2] - 6:1, 9:18
actual [3] - 13:25,
21:1, 24:14
add [1] - 7:9
adding [1] - 22:2additional [1] - 26:15
address [1] - 27:8
adjourned [1] - 28:22
admit [1] - 13:23
admonition [2] - 23:1,
23:24
affidavit [3] - 15:2,
15:8, 24:17
affidavits [5] - 13:15,
13:16, 13:20, 13:24,
25:15
afternoon [1] - 13:21
agree [2] - 13:2, 28:4
agreement [1] - 15:23
agrees [1] - 24:11
alcohol [1] - 10:24
allege [1] - 16:22
allow [3] - 3:24, 4:1,
26:12
Amendment [4] -
6:20, 6:21, 7:2, 7:3
Amendments [1] -
7:12
analogues [1] - 7:11
Andy [3] - 2:6, 3:7,
13:12
anyway [1] - 27:8
App [1] - 15:20
Apparel [1] - 15:19
Appeals [2] - 15:19,
16:13appear [1] - 15:15
appearance [3] - 19:3,
23:11, 24:4
APPEARANCES [1] -
2:1
appeared [1] - 24:8
appearing [1] - 3:16
appellate [3] - 9:6,
11:16, 28:1
applies [1] - 23:19
apply [1] - 16:17
appointing [1] - 28:4
appreciate [1] - 11:6
area [7] - 17:11, 17:17,19:17, 19:22, 20:6,
21:6, 26:21
argued [1] - 22:16
argument [3] - 12:5,
21:19, 22:1
arguments [1] - 16:14
Article [1] - 7:10
articulate [2] - 9:2,
28:19
assigned [1] - 16:18
assistance [1] - 6:22
assisted [1] - 8:24
Associates [1] - 15:20
attack [1] - 28:10attention [3] - 14:12,
14:20, 15:18
Attorney [4] - 2:2, 2:4,
2:6, 2:8
attorney [1] - 11:21
Attorney's [1] - 17:6
attorney-client [1] -
11:21
attorneys [4] - 11:24,
19:19, 19:24, 25:3
award [3] - 14:23,
19:23, 24:13
B
Balske [9] - 13:17,
13:22, 15:3, 19:19,
19:24, 19:25, 20:9,
20:17, 24:17
Balske's [1] - 15:9
Barbur [1] - 1:22
based [5] - 3:13, 8:11,
16:17, 25:5, 25:8
basic [1] - 5:22
basis [1] - 25:7
BE [1] - 1:12
become [1] - 14:2
behalf [10] - 5:12, 6:1,
6:9, 8:12, 9:18, 9:21,
12:22, 13:1, 13:12,
17:21belief [3] - 16:20,
16:23, 29:14
best [3] - 8:8, 14:15,
29:13
between [1] - 11:8
bias [2] - 19:10, 24:14
Blvd [1] - 1:22
bottom [1] - 19:4
brought [2] - 15:16
building [4] - 11:21,
11:23, 18:20, 21:1
built [1] - 17:8
Bundy [1] - 17:9
C
canon [5] - 22:3,
22:24, 23:1, 23:24,
24:7
Canon [1] - 22:23
canons [2] - 16:10,
25:9
capabilities [1] -
10:11
capable [1] - 9:21
care [1] - 7:14
carriage [1] - 7:5
Case [1] - 1:4
case [20] - 3:16, 12:3,
15:13, 15:22, 16:8,
16:18, 18:1, 22:17,
23:18, 23:20, 24:10,
24:19, 24:20, 24:21,
24:22, 25:3, 25:8,
25:21, 26:14
cases [2] - 12:8, 25:1
catch [1] - 5:1
CCR [1] - 1:21
cell [2] - 17:11, 19:7
certain [2] - 6:8, 8:8
certainly [1] - 14:9
certificate [1] - 14:21Certified [2] - 1:21,
29:6
certify [2] - 29:4, 29:8
chair [5] - 14:25,
20:12, 20:16, 20:21,
27:10
chambers [8] - 5:15,
14:22, 15:10, 19:20,
19:24, 20:3, 24:18,
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 1.800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
State of Oregon v. Gary Haugen - 5/18/11
1
26:23
chance [5] - 4:13,
5:12, 5:19, 6:16,
12:1
changed [1] - 24:9
character [1] - 28:10
choice [2] - 9:9, 28:2
choose [5] - 9:8, 9:11,9:21, 11:15, 11:17
CIRCUIT [1] - 1:1
Cited [1] - 22:5
cited [5] - 18:2, 18:18,
22:6, 25:1, 25:9
City [1] - 29:16
clear [2] - 5:23, 26:9
clear-headed [2] -
5:23, 26:9
clearly [2] - 18:2,
25:24
clerical [1] - 22:7
CLERK [1] - 5:24
client [1] - 11:21close [1] - 21:19
co [1] - 13:13
co-counsel [1] - 13:13
Code [1] - 22:9
codefendant [1] - 8:25
COLLEEN [2] - 1:21,
29:22
Colleen [1] - 29:4
comfortable [5] - 6:6,
8:23, 10:9, 10:14,
25:13
commendation [1] -
14:23
communicate [2] -11:3, 12:22
community [3] -
11:22, 11:24, 26:3
compared [1] - 24:7
competency [2] - 7:6,
28:10
competent [3] - 7:1,
7:2, 9:4
complete [1] - 21:24
completely [1] - 11:6
concede [1] - 24:23
concern [1] - 8:9
concur [1] - 17:22
conduct [3] - 16:10,
22:4, 28:11
Conduct [2] - 22:10,
22:23
confirms [1] - 24:18
conflict [1] - 11:8
conflicts [1] - 22:12
connotes [1] - 22:18
Constitution [1] - 7:11
constitutional [1] -
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
43/90
9:10
constructive [1] - 21:1
contempt [1] - 9:15
contend [1] - 24:13
continuation [1] -
28:14
continue [1] - 21:21
continued [2] - 3:11,6:4
conversation [1] -
8:11
conviction [2] - 15:13,
24:19
Cook [1] - 22:20
copies [1] - 13:18
copy [5] - 4:17, 5:7,
5:10, 5:18, 8:12
correct [2] - 27:20,
29:13
couched [1] - 24:7
Counsel [2] - 3:7,
13:12counsel [13] - 3:13,
6:22, 7:16, 9:22,
10:24, 11:8, 11:11,
12:19, 13:13, 14:12,
25:10, 28:3, 28:4
COUNTY [2] - 1:1,
29:2
County [4] - 1:15, 2:2,
2:4, 29:16
couple [2] - 5:17,
10:22
COURT [76] - 1:1, 3:3,
3:18, 3:23, 4:3, 4:7,
4:10, 4:16, 4:21,
4:24, 5:3, 5:6, 5:11,
5:16, 5:25, 6:12,
6:15, 7:13, 7:22, 8:1,
8:4, 8:6, 8:10, 8:17,
8:20, 9:14, 9:24,
10:2, 10:8, 10:18,
11:2, 11:25, 12:5,
12:11, 12:15, 12:19,
13:5, 13:10, 13:18,
14:1, 14:13, 14:17,
15:4, 17:3, 17:23,
18:1, 18:6, 18:10,
18:14, 18:17, 19:13,
20:8, 20:18, 20:21,
20:24, 21:7, 21:14,21:18, 21:22, 21:25,
22:5, 22:8, 23:5,
23:8, 23:11, 23:14,
23:22, 24:24, 25:11,
26:8, 26:24, 27:5,
27:7, 27:14, 27:22,
28:18
court [10] - 4:24, 9:19,
10:7, 13:16, 16:4,
22:17, 24:11, 24:18,
25:1, 25:6
Court [9] - 1:21, 3:15,
13:11, 15:19, 16:13,
22:21, 22:25, 23:18,
26:18
court's [3] - 6:8,
15:18, 25:8Courthouse [1] - 1:15
creation [3] - 17:8,
17:13, 25:24
CSR [3] - 1:21, 29:23,
29:23
currency [1] - 24:4
custody [3] - 3:8,
17:17, 25:22
Cut [1] - 4:12
D
damaging [2] - 11:19,
11:20
dance [1] - 10:19
dancing [1] - 22:1
date [1] - 3:10
days [1] - 14:11
deal [2] - 13:5, 27:1
dealing [1] - 27:16
dealt [2] - 25:21, 27:16
death [7] - 3:11, 6:3,
10:13, 14:24, 15:13,
24:20, 24:22
decide [1] - 13:7
decision [5] - 6:8,
9:20, 10:16, 11:12,
26:10
Defendant [3] - 1:6,
2:6, 2:8
defendant [5] - 3:8,
3:14, 6:19, 15:25,
25:3
Defendant's [1] -
16:14
defendants [1] - 11:22
Defense [1] - 3:7
defense [6] - 3:13,
8:25, 14:12, 25:2,
25:3, 25:9
definitely [3] - 7:25,
11:20, 13:4denial [1] - 11:10
Dennis [3] - 13:17,
15:3, 24:17
deny [2] - 26:11, 26:24
denying [1] - 28:20
depicting [1] - 14:24
depiction [2] - 20:5,
22:10
Deputy [2] - 2:2, 2:4
describes [1] - 19:25
describing [1] - 18:13
deserves [1] - 27:16
designated [1] - 29:14
detention [1] - 17:17
determination [1] -
10:11
different [4] - 14:5,20:10, 23:20
directions [1] - 18:21
discretion [1] - 24:8
discussion [1] - 16:15
display [4] - 14:21,
20:1, 21:4, 26:22
displayed [2] - 20:2,
22:11
displaying [1] - 10:14
disqualification [3] -
16:11, 16:17, 16:20
disqualify [6] - 13:14,
16:7, 16:16, 22:14,
23:2, 23:24disrespectful [1] -
28:9
distinction [1] - 24:6
District [4] - 2:2, 2:4,
17:6, 29:5
Don [2] - 2:4, 3:9
done [5] - 6:10, 12:2,
14:18, 14:24, 18:4
Doug [2] - 2:2, 3:9
down [5] - 9:14, 9:16,
27:15, 27:23
draw [1] - 15:18
drawers [1] - 27:23
drink [1] - 11:1drinks [1] - 10:22
due [2] - 6:22, 11:10
during [2] - 17:10,
18:22
duty [1] - 22:18
E
effective [1] - 6:22
either [1] - 15:5
electric [4] - 14:25,
20:12, 20:16, 20:21
endure [1] - 25:20
Engweiler [1] - 22:19
entitled [1] - 1:12
error [1] - 22:7
essentially [2] - 8:13,
17:20
establish [1] - 23:13
establishes [2] -
24:14, 24:15
ethics [1] - 16:9
even-handed [1] -
25:12
events [1] - 16:24
Eventually [1] - 21:23
evidence [2] - 13:16,
13:24
evident [2] - 23:4,
24:2
evidently [1] - 19:23ex [1] - 22:19
exactly [2] - 18:19,
20:24
excuse [1] - 27:9
Excuse [2] - 12:9,
27:24
exists [1] - 16:18
expect [1] - 14:7
expense [1] - 28:15
explain [1] - 21:3
explained [2] - 16:13,
22:21
express [1] - 28:17
extended [1] - 16:15extension [1] - 28:14
F
facsimile [1] - 13:20
fact [2] - 10:1, 24:3
fair [2] - 16:21, 21:10
fairness [1] - 25:18
faith [2] - 12:23, 16:20
falling [1] - 27:23
far [1] - 21:16
favor [2] - 15:24
favorable [1] - 14:25
faxed [2] - 13:13,
13:18
felt [1] - 25:13
fetal [1] - 10:24
few [2] - 10:12, 14:11
fiasco [1] - 4:23
Fifth [3] - 6:20, 7:2,
7:12
file [5] - 12:22, 12:25,
27:2, 28:13
filed [8] - 3:13, 4:14,
5:9, 5:12, 8:12,
14:10, 14:14, 16:2
fine [1] - 5:5
finish [2] - 17:24,
19:13
fire [1] - 12:19
fired [1] - 7:16
firing [1] - 12:20
first [2] - 5:16, 16:18
floor [1] - 4:11
Florida [1] - 17:9
FOR [1] - 1:1
foregoing [2] - 29:9,
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 1.800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
State of Oregon v. Gary Haugen - 5/18/11
2
29:12
formal [2] - 14:2, 14:3
former [1] - 22:24
forth [1] - 24:12
four [1] - 20:10
free [1] - 9:11
freed [1] - 3:25
freely [1] - 26:9Friday [1] - 3:12
front [1] - 4:10
G
gallows [1] - 20:17
GARY [1] - 1:5
Gary [3] - 2:6, 2:8, 3:6
gentlemen [1] - 19:11
given [2] - 9:10, 24:13
glad [2] - 15:12, 24:19
glean [1] - 8:8
God [1] - 9:10
God-given [1] - 9:10
GOODY [6] - 6:13,
6:18, 9:12, 10:4,
13:8, 27:12
Goody [11] - 2:8, 3:7,
3:19, 4:4, 5:8, 9:15,
13:13, 14:10, 16:8,
24:13, 26:16
Goody's [1] - 24:21
governing [1] - 16:15
gravity [1] - 19:9
grounds [1] - 16:23
Guimond [25] - 3:16,
7:16, 8:14, 8:21,
8:23, 9:1, 12:3,
12:13, 13:14, 14:22,
15:10, 17:12, 18:24,
19:20, 19:25, 20:6,
20:25, 21:4, 24:14,
25:7, 25:12, 26:12,
26:25, 28:8, 28:21
Guimond's [5] - 5:15,
22:11, 25:24, 25:25,
26:23
guys [2] - 10:20, 17:15
H
hand [1] - 29:15
handed [1] - 25:12
hands [1] - 3:24
hangman's [1] - 20:17
Hanson [4] - 2:2, 3:4,
3:9, 24:24
HANSON [2] - 3:5,
24:25
Hart [3] - 1:14, 4:11,
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
44/90
29:10
hate [1] - 27:22
Haugen [14] - 2:6, 2:8,
3:6, 3:20, 5:22, 6:17,
9:20, 13:12, 17:15,
19:2, 25:12, 25:20,
26:5, 27:19
HAUGEN [38] - 1:5,3:22, 4:2, 4:6, 4:9,
4:15, 4:19, 4:22, 5:2,
5:5, 6:11, 7:21, 7:24,
8:2, 8:5, 8:7, 8:16,
8:19, 8:22, 10:17,
10:23, 11:5, 12:4,
12:9, 12:12, 12:17,
12:20, 15:1, 17:22,
19:7, 24:23, 26:6,
26:19, 27:3, 27:6,
27:9, 27:21, 27:24
headed [2] - 5:23,
26:9
hear [2] - 12:5, 18:11
heard [1] - 19:3
hearing [4] - 1:13,
3:11, 6:4, 28:11
held [1] - 9:15
hereby [1] - 29:4
hereunto [1] - 29:15
herself [3] - 22:14,
23:2, 23:25
himself [4] - 22:14,
23:2, 23:25, 25:13
holding [5] - 17:11,
19:17, 19:22, 20:5,
21:5
Honor [38] - 3:5, 3:10,
3:14, 4:20, 4:23,
6:13, 7:21, 8:3, 8:7,
8:16, 9:6, 9:12, 9:22,
10:17, 11:6, 11:18,
12:4, 12:9, 14:16,
15:1, 17:22, 19:6,
19:8, 19:11, 19:17,
23:9, 23:21, 24:21,
24:25, 26:7, 26:14,
26:19, 27:3, 27:9,
27:13, 27:21, 27:24,
28:17
Honorable [2] - 1:13,
29:9
horse [1] - 7:5
I
idea [1] - 9:17
ideological [1] - 28:3
impartial [2] - 16:21,
21:10
impartiality [6] -
22:15, 23:3, 24:1,
24:4, 24:15, 25:7
importance [2] - 23:1,
23:23
important [2] - 5:20,
15:9
impossible [1] - 17:1
impropriety [1] - 19:3IN [2] - 1:1, 29:15
inability [1] - 10:15
Inc [1] - 1:21
inclusive [1] - 29:12
incompetently [1] -
11:12
Incorporated [1] -
15:20
incorrect [1] - 19:5
independent [1] -
19:23
indicated [1] - 25:13
indicates [2] - 14:11,
15:3indication [2] - 15:9,
20:6
indigent [1] - 11:22
informed [1] - 10:15
inquire [1] - 10:12
inquiring [1] - 6:17
inquiry [3] - 4:18,
6:19, 16:4
insisted [1] - 18:25
institution [1] - 10:21
intelligent [1] - 10:16
interim [1] - 17:2
interject [1] - 17:5
Internet [1] - 18:21interrupting [1] - 11:9
investigative [1] -
16:4
inviting [1] - 6:15
irrational [1] - 25:4
irrelevant [1] - 16:24
issue [5] - 13:9, 16:1,
19:15, 23:8, 26:18
issue's [1] - 6:2
issues [1] - 21:10
IT [1] - 1:12
J
join [3] - 12:7, 26:4,
26:11
Jones [1] - 25:5
JR [1] - 24:6
Judge [34] - 3:15,
4:11, 5:14, 7:15,
8:14, 8:20, 8:23, 9:1,
12:3, 12:13, 13:14,
14:22, 15:10, 16:3,
16:7, 17:12, 17:25,
18:24, 19:20, 19:25,
20:6, 20:25, 21:3,
22:11, 24:14, 25:7,
25:11, 25:23, 25:24,
26:12, 26:22, 26:25,
28:8, 28:21
judge [9] - 16:11,16:16, 16:18, 17:21,
20:1, 22:13, 23:2,
23:24, 25:11
judge's [4] - 22:15,
23:3, 24:1, 24:15
judgment [1] - 15:25
Judicial [3] - 22:10,
22:23, 29:5
judicial [3] - 16:10,
22:3, 24:5
juncture [3] - 9:6,
11:17, 28:1
jury [1] - 15:24
K
Kafoury [1] - 25:5
Keith [3] - 2:8, 3:7,
13:13
kick [1] - 10:25
killed [1] - 17:9
kind [4] - 6:2, 7:5,
10:18, 10:19
knowingly [1] - 26:10
knowledge [1] - 29:13
L
lacks [1] - 25:7
Lamonts [1] - 15:19
last [5] - 3:12, 6:4,
14:11, 18:11, 22:17
law [4] - 6:23, 16:25,
23:18, 25:9
Law [2] - 2:6, 2:8
Lawrence [1] - 13:17
lease [1] - 15:23
left [2] - 15:10, 24:18
legitimacy [1] - 24:5
letter [2] - 7:15, 12:13
life[1]
- 10:13light [1] - 14:25
limits [1] - 16:12
line [1] - 19:4
listen [1] - 18:2
litigation [1] - 15:23
Lloyd [1] - 15:20
look [3] - 5:12, 5:17,
7:18
loose [1] - 4:12
lost [1] - 12:23
M
mandamus [2] -
26:17, 27:2
mandatory [2] - 22:18,
24:11
maneuver [1] - 28:7
MARION [2] - 1:1, 29:2
Marion [4] - 1:15, 2:2,
2:4, 29:16
Matasar [5] - 13:17,
13:22, 19:19, 19:24,
20:15
matter [3] - 1:12,
16:25, 17:2
McCarty [1] - 29:4
MCCARTY [2] - 1:21,
29:22
mean [3] - 6:6, 10:20,
12:6
meantime [1] - 14:8
members [1] - 26:2
memory [1] - 25:25
mental [1] - 6:7
merely [1] - 21:5
met [1] - 10:2
might [2] - 23:3, 24:1
mine [1] - 5:17
minimal [1] - 10:10
minute [1] - 17:23
moment [2] - 6:3, 6:16
months [1] - 8:24
morning [5] - 3:3, 3:5,
3:20, 3:22, 12:13
most [1] - 15:8
motion [24] - 3:15,
4:13, 5:8, 8:12, 8:13,
12:1, 12:7, 12:13,
13:4, 13:6, 13:14,
14:10, 15:16, 22:6,
23:16, 24:12, 25:2,
26:4, 26:11, 26:15,
26:24, 28:13, 28:20
motions [1] - 3:13
move [3] - 13:23, 17:1,
17:20
moved [2] - 15:25,
16:7MR [83] - 3:5, 3:22,
4:2, 4:6, 4:9, 4:15,
4:19, 4:22, 5:2, 5:5,
5:10, 5:14, 6:11,
6:13, 6:18, 7:9, 7:21,
7:24, 8:2, 8:5, 8:7,
8:16, 8:19, 8:22,
9:12, 9:22, 9:25,
10:4, 10:17, 10:23,
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 1.800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
State of Oregon v. Gary Haugen - 5/18/11
3
11:5, 12:4, 12:9,
12:12, 12:17, 12:20,
13:8, 13:11, 13:19,
14:8, 14:15, 14:19,
15:1, 15:2, 15:7,
17:22, 17:24, 18:4,
18:7, 18:13, 18:16,
19:5, 19:7, 19:16,20:15, 20:19, 20:23,
21:3, 21:12, 21:16,
21:21, 21:23, 22:3,
22:6, 22:9, 23:7,
23:9, 23:12, 23:16,
23:23, 24:23, 24:25,
26:6, 26:14, 26:19,
26:20, 27:3, 27:6,
27:9, 27:10, 27:12,
27:21, 27:24
N
necessary [1] - 16:22need [11] - 7:23, 9:13,
10:9, 14:13, 14:18,
15:4, 18:2, 18:12,
18:18, 18:19, 27:20
needs [3] - 6:9, 9:22,
27:16
negative [1] - 18:23
noncommunication
[1] - 12:21
nondiscretionary [2] -
22:18, 26:20
noose [1] - 20:17
Northwest [1] - 1:21
notes [1] - 29:11nothing [4] - 17:12,
20:4, 25:23, 26:22
notwithstanding [1] -
15:25
O
object [7] - 6:18, 9:12,
13:3, 14:20, 15:11,
27:25, 28:12
objected [1] - 10:3
objection [1] - 10:5
objections [1] - 7:19
obligatory [1] - 24:11
observed [1] - 19:24
obtained [1] - 13:20
occur [1] - 14:7
OF [7] - 1:1, 1:1, 1:2,
1:11, 29:1, 29:2
offer [2] - 14:9
offering [1] - 11:7
office [5] - 17:7, 19:2,
19:20, 21:4, 22:11
-
8/6/2019 Response to Haugen Objection
45/90
official [1] - 29:5
old [1] - 8:2
Old [5] - 17:8, 18:9,
18:19, 19:21, 20:5
one [11] - 5:19, 5:23,
12:12, 12:15, 18:14,
19:7, 19:9, 20:11,
20:15, 26:15, 27:4One [1] - 7:10
ones [1] - 13:25
oOo [1] - 2:15
open [1] - 19:25
openly [1] - 20:2
operation [1] - 16:4
opinion [5] - 4:20, 9:4,
15:19, 28:7, 28:16
opportunity [3] - 11:7,
23:21, 26:16
OR [2] - 15:20, 29:23
ORCP [1] - 16:1
order [3] - 12:21,
25:25, 28:19ordered [1] - 21:5
OREGON [3] - 1:1,
1:2, 29:1
Oregon [13] - 1:15,
1:22, 7:11, 15:14,
22:9, 22:20, 22:21,
22:22, 22:25, 23:18,
26:18, 29:7, 29:17
originals [2] - 13:22,
14:3
ORS [4] - 15:15, 16:9,
16:12, 16:16
ought [4] - 5:11, 5:20,
26:1, 26:3
own [2] - 9:21, 10:10
P
page [2] - 22:20, 23:5
Pages [1] - 29:11
pages [1] - 5:17
paper [4] - 14:17,
18:17, 22:1, 23:15
part [6] - 14:2, 14:4,
15:8, 15:9, 17:4,
19:14
particular [3] - 6:21,
9:5, 23:20party [1] - 16:19
passage [1] - 18:5
passed [1] - 17:2
penalty [4] - 14:24,
15:13, 24:20, 24:22
pending [1] - 13:24
people [2] - 4:8, 27:17
period [1] - 28:13
permitted [1] - 7:7
person [1] - 17:16
personally [3] - 13:3,
28:7, 28:12
petition [1] - 26:17
photo [2] - 19:1, 20:25
photocopied [1] -
5:15
photograph [1] -14:21
picture [1] - 19:8
piece [1] - 21:1
placed [1] - 17:11
Plaintiff [3] - 1:3, 2:2,
2:4
plaintiff [2] - 15:24,
16:7
plan [2] - 27:12, 27:14
plaque [4] - 14:20,
19:1, 19:23, 21:7
plea [1] - 10:20
point [3] - 6:17, 9:19,
18:7points [1] - 8:9
political [1] - 28:3
Portland [1] - 1:22
position [9] - 5:22,
6:24, 7:1, 12:14,
12:18, 19:10, 25:2,
25:19, 28:5
possibly [1] - 15:12
post [2] - 15:12, 24:19
predecessor [3] -
22:22, 23:19, 24:9
prepare [1] - 26:17
present [2] - 3:8,
20:11preside [1] - 3:14
pretty [1] - 28:9
prison [1] - 17:16
problem [4] - 5:7,
8:25, 14:6, 21:8
procedural [1] - 16:14
procedures [1] - 16:16
proceed [1] - 3:17
proceeding [6] - 7:1,
16:6, 22:14, 23:3,
23:25, 27:25
Proceedings [1] -
28:22
proceedings [2] -
29:9, 29:14
PROCEEDINGS [1] -
1:11
process [6] - 6:22,
9:6, 11:9, 11:10,
11:16, 28:2
proof [1] - 14:9
prosecution [2] -
3:24, 22:16
prosecution's [1] -
21:9
prosecutor [1] - 24:10
prosecutors [1] -
21:13
proud [1] - 20:1
proudly [1] - 22:11
provided [2] - 8:11,
12:8provides [1] - 22:13
provisionally [1] -
13:23
provisions [2] - 7:10,
15:17
psychosis [1] - 10:15
pull [1] - 5:16
punctuation [1] - 14:6
purpose [2] - 23:1,
23:23
put [1] - 13:15
Q
questioned [4] -
22:15, 23:4, 24:1,
24:16
R
re [2] - 17:8, 22:22
re-creation [1] - 17:8
read [9] - 8:3, 8:4,
12:8, 14:1, 14:13,
15:4, 18:18, 18:19,
23:5
readers [1] - 7:23reading [1] - 18:1
ready [1] - 3:17
real [2] - 22:9, 25:17
really [2] - 7:14, 18:15
reason [3] - 6:3, 6:19,
11:2
reasonably [3] - 23:4,
24:1, 24:16
receipt [1] - 13:24
receive [1] - 16:21
recess [1] - 26:15
recollection [1] -
20:11
record [19] - 6:14,6:16, 6:25, 7:10,
7:19, 9:13, 9:23,
12:7, 13:3, 14:2,
14:4, 14:14, 14:16,
15:5, 17:25, 20:9,
20:13, 23:12, 23:17
recusal [8] - 8:14,
12:1, 13:6, 13:9,
15:14, 16:24, 17:1,
19:4
recuse [3] - 3:15,
26:12, 28:20
referred [1] - 25:14
reflected [1] - 26:1
regard [4] - 4:18, 7:16,
9:20, 20:9
regarding [3] - 15:23,22:22, 23:19
regards [1] - 28:13
regularly [1] - 1:13
Rejecting [1] - 16:12
rel [1] - 22:19
relate [1] - 11:14
related [1] - 14:24
relation [2] - 4:22,
11:21
relationship [1] -
11:21
relevancy [1] - 10:5
relevant [3] - 10:5,
10:6, 19:18relies [1] - 24:25
rely [1] - 23:18
relying [1] - 16:8
remain [1] - 6:20
remains [1] - 17:20
Remember [1] - 4:24
remember [3] - 17:7,
20:17, 25:15
REMEMBERED [1] -
1:12
remembered [1] -
15:11
remodel [2] - 17:10,
18:22removed [4] - 18:25,
20:7, 21:5, 25:25
reported [1] - 29:8
reporter [2] - 4:25,
29:5
Reporter [1] - 29:6
Reporters [1] - 1:21
Reports [1] - 22:20
reprehensible [1] -
28:8
representing [4] - 2:2,
2:4, 2:6, 2:8
request [1] - 3:23
require [4] - 16:10,
16:14, 16:19, 16:24
resolve [1] - 16:3
respect [1] - 27:15
review [4] - 3:25, 5:19,
12:1, 15:8
revised [1] - 15:15
rhetoric [1] - 28:3
rights [3] - 6:20, 7:2,
7:3
Northwest Certified Court Reporters, Inc.503.406.2288 *** 1.800.558.8077 *** www.nwccr.com
State of Oregon v. Gary Haugen - 5/18/11
4
Robinson [2] - 16:3,
16:8
row [1] - 10:13
RPR [2] - 1:21, 29:22
rule [2] - 22:9, 22:13
Rule [2] - 22:10, 22:23
rules [1] - 16:9
run [1] - 5:14
S
Salem [2] - 1:15,
29:16
sat [2] - 8:17, 8:23
saw [4] - 19:16, 19:19,
19:22, 20:5
scanning [1] - 8:8
seated [1] - 3:3
second [1] - 4:11
Section [1] - 7:10
see [4] - 4:13, 5:21,
11:10, 21:7
seeing [1] - 25:20
seeking [1] - 16:19
send [1] - 28:20
sen