Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1/25/1995

State v. Pollard

Citations

888 P.2d 1054
132 Or. App. 538
1995 Ore. App. LEXIS 93

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a “quid pro quo was apparent” when detectives told the defendant he could admit what had occurred and 388 State v. Chavez-Meza get “help” or his case would be taken “to a grand jury” and it would be “real rough”
noting, in concluding that the defendant had been induced to confess by implicit promises of leniency, that the defendant had not been told that he would face charges regardless of whether or not he confessed
only a promise of treatment made in lieu of prosecution may render a resulting confession involuntary
a promise cannot induce an admission in the absence of a contemporaneous quid pro quo
promises that suspect would receive treatment in lieu of prosecution rendered subsequent admissions involuntary
promise of treatment that induced confession was involuntary as a matter of law because promise implied that treatment was an alternative to taking the case before the grand jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Riggs, Richardson, Warren, Deits

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.