50 Trial Lawyer • Summer 2022 Sheets Continued from p 49 rule, the Supreme Court relied on the federal analysis of whether the amended claims would be “futile.” The Supreme Court concluded a post-conviction court may properly consider evidence of judicially noticeable facts in determining futility, such as evidence that a petitioner reasonably knew or should have known facts giving rise to the proposed new claims at the time of filing her first petition. As applied here, the Supreme Court concluded the post-conviction court abused its discretion in denying the amended claims respecting two of the three witnesses and only the petitioner’s third claim pertaining to the third witness was “futile” and barred under ORS 138.550(3). DECISIONS OF THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS Statutory fee amounts properly awarded
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=