Yamhill Plaza Building
Suite 500,
815 SW Second Ave.,
Portland, OR 97204
Ph: (503) 827-8092
Fax: (503) 223-1516
Client Testimonials
* No previously obtained outcome guarantees the same results in any new case.
OA
Portland, OR:
To Mark, Jean and Associates: It is with my utmost appreciation that I would like to thank all of you for your hard work and dedication in dealing with my cases...
More
...I cannot express to you in words how satisfied I am with the outcome of this dreadful ordeal. As you know the one charge we were all concerned about, especially myself, was dismissed due to the evidence provided to the District Attorney which was made available through the professionalism and hard-work of Jean and Mark together. These past few months have been exasperating for my family and I and for all us. It has been a very financially demanding while for my father and I am extremely glad to see that his finances were truly applied in our best interests. As for myself this has been a most unfortunate series of events that has been beneficially life altering. Not only has it made me realize the importance and adoration of freedom itself, but it has given me a true motivation and guide towards who I really want to become and what I really want to do with my life, short term and long term. And I can assure you that none of it involves police, probation, jail or any of the other horrible things that come with crossing blades with the law, so to speak. So with that said, I hope you don't take offense when I say I truly hope I would not require your services again, but God forbid I did, you would all undoubtedly be my first choice for defense. My deepest regards and best wishes to all of you.
Ballot Measure 11 Cases – What We Can Do
In 1994, Oregon voters passed a ‘tough on crime’ measure (Ballot Measure 11) that specified harsh minimum sentences for certain crimes, and mandated that certain under-age defendants should be tried as an adult. The measure disregards a defendant’s lack of previous offenses and throws out the option of sentencing leniency for extenuating circumstances. Ballot Measure 11 has had devastating consequences on thousands of families. Mark C. Cogan has practiced law in Oregon for more than a decade, and has extensive knowledge of this legal area. Even if a client seems doomed, our law firm can often achieve reduced charges and lighter sentencing.
How We Can Help
Recent Successes
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Table
How We Can Help
The process begins when a client contacts our firm. The earlier a defendant contacts us, the better our chances are of success in the legal process.
- We start by assembling a team of top-notch professionals dedicated to serving the client. Our team includes psychologists, investigators, polygraph experts, and other professionals. By working with our client and the client's loved ones, we assemble crucial evidence which enables us to mitigate or reduce punishment.
- We empower our client with information and tools that enable him or her to avoid making a tough situation worse.
- We never take the prosecution's assertions at face value. We work hard to establish evidence which supports our client's innocence, or which demonstrates that the prosecution's evidence is faulty.
- If the case is subject to news media attention, we work hard to minimize distortion by the press.
- Every activity is geared toward reducing or avoiding the punishment and collateral consequences which otherwise await our client. We fight for a successful outcome by negotiating with the prosecutor and by preparing for trial. The bottom line is that Mark C. Cogan, P.C. will leave no stone unturned in our dedicated, vigilant efforts to get our client through the potentially devastating experience of facing a Ballot Measure 11 charge.
Taking on Ballot Measure 11 cases is not for the faint of heart. Any person who is facing such charges needs an expert attorney dedicated to going the extra mile to accomplish a successful outcome. While we are honest with our clients about the outcomes that are possible in Ballot Measure 11 prosecution, we are not defeated by the dreadful possibilities. We do not shrink from taking on difficult and challenging cases - to the contrary, the more difficult and challenging the matter, the more determined we are.
Recent Successes
THE WORTHINGTON CASE
For many years, the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office has been seeking to crack down on the Followers of Christ Church of Oregon City, which has been reported in the news media of following the religious practice of “faith healing” instead of modern medicine. Following the death of Ava Worthington, the District Attorney prosecuted Carl Brent Worthington and his wife Raylene Marie Worthington, for the crime of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. The State alleged that Mr. and Mrs. Worthington failed to provide adequate medical care to their daughter Ava, and that this was the cause of Ava’s death.
Our law office defended Mr. Worthington. During the period leading up to the trial, we conducted exhaustive research into the history of the strong protections of religious freedom which are contained in the Oregon Constitution, which led up to several days of pretrial hearings in which we challenged the basis for the Indictment. We argued that the prosecution of Mr. and Mrs. Worthington was invalid because of the District Attorney’s selective prosecution of the members of the Followers of Christ Church. We argued that the Indictment was flawed because it was premised on a theory of “Criminal Negligence” instead of the more rigorous standard of “Knowledge”. We argued that the 1999 legislation which removed the affirmative defense of faith based healing from Oregon’s Manslaughter statute was invalid. The motions were denied and the case moved to trial.
More
The prosecution of Mr. and Mrs. Worthington culminated in a month-long trial before the Clackamas County Circuit Court. Throughout the trial, the courtroom was packed by supporters of Mr. and Mrs. Worthington, as well as local and national news media. Jury selection took the first week of trial. We were very concerned about getting a fair jury which was not contaminated by the intensive, often inaccurate and negative media coverage of our case. During the second week of trial, the State presented its case, including 4 medical experts. Our cross examination of the State’s witnesses established that the government’s investigation was seriously flawed, and that the State’s experts actually disagreed about certain crucial findings as to the cause of Ava’s death. The defense presented its evidence during the third week of trial. During the presentation of the defense case, the jury received testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Worthington, as well as their family members and close friends. The defense evidence established that Mr. and Mrs. Worthington are loving and devoted parents who did everything they knew to save the life of their child. The defense evidence demonstrated that the State’s case was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Mr. and Mrs. Worthington’s religious faith and that of their community. The defense evidence demonstrated that the State had erred in urging to the jury that Ava had failed to thrive as a result of parental neglect. With the help of an expert witness, Dr. Ophoven, the defense established that the autopsy which had been conducted by the Medical Examiner was flawed, lacked curiosity and failed to consider other reasonable explanations for Ava’s death. During the fourth week of trial, the prosecution attempted to patch its case by recalling the witnesses which had testified on the State’s direct case.
The jury deliberated for more than a week. In the end, the jury pronounced Mr. and Mrs. Worthington Not Guilty of the crime of Manslaughter in the Second Degree. Mr. Worthington was found guilty of the Misdemeanor of Criminal Mistreatment in the Second Degree. One of the jurors explained to the news cameras after the verdict that the jurors felt that someone had to be penalized for Ava’s death, and that Mr. Worthington, as the head of household, was that person. The judge sentenced Mr. Worthington to 60 days in the county jail, and 5 years of probation. Mr. Worthington is pursuing an appeal based on the non-unanimous jury verdict (Oregon is one of only two States in the United States that allows a non-unanimous jury verdict in a criminal case). Mr. Worthington’s appeal also challenges the court’s ruling that allowed him to be convicted based on the diminished mental state of “Criminal Negligence”. We maintain, based on the strong protections of the right of freedom of worship which are contained in the Oregon Constitution, that a person cannot be penalized for his worship activities unless the government establishes that the accused had Knowledge of the harm which would be caused as a result.
We are very proud of what we accomplished in the Worthington defense. Our victory came in the face of overwhelming community opposition to the “faith healing” practices of the Followers of Christ Church. In one informal survey conducted by a local television station, nearly 80% thought the Worthingtons should be found guilty of Manslaughter in the Second Degree, which carries a prison sentence of 75 months in prison, with no eligibility for early release or time off for good behavior.
More information about the Worthington case can be found on our Legal Blog which includes some of the significant legal documents, video and TRU-TV footage.
Client CC was indicted for multiple charges of assault and robbery charges, with multiple victims. Despite the fact that CC lacked any criminal history, she faced a mandatory minimum prison sentence of many years under the harsh framework of Ballot Measure 11. When CC came to us, she had already been indicted and was represented by a court-appointed attorney. We took over her case, and as a result of the work we did with our client over a period of several months, we were able to accomplish a vastly improved outcome. CC ended up not facing the severe consequences of Ballot Measure 11. When our client regains her freedom, her co-defendants will still have many years yet to serve in prison. Equally important, our client will be able to get all records of her prosecution expunged, and her conviction erased, while the co-defendants will be burdened by criminal convictions for the rest of their lives.
Client MN came to us facing potential sexual abuse charges, arising from a consensual relationship with a co-worker. If convicted, the client faced many years in prison, lifetime registration as a sex offender, and the prospect of being excluded from any employment opportunities in his chosen profession. Even if the client was found not guilty, the prospect of being arrested and prosecuted for this crime would have been devastating. The only solution was to intervene strongly in the investigation stage of the matter, and persuade the authorities that the client was innocent and should not be prosecuted. No other course of action would save the client from dire consequences. Fortunately, MN came to us before he was indicted, so we had the maximum possible opportunity to avoid the harshest consequences. As a result of several months of diligent work, on the part of all members of our defense team, we were able to clear the client from suspicion. In the end, we persuaded the authorities that it would be a grave injustice to charge the client with any crime.
Client DC was charged with Ballot Measure 11 assault of the client’s wife, and the District Attorney piled on charges of kidnapping and other offenses. Client and his wife saw the incident as an opportunity to address issues and improve their marriage. To protect the couple from being abused by the legal process, we referred the wife to a capable attorney. Together with the wife’s attorney, we formulated a strategy that resulted in the couple being reunited and the charges being drastically reduced to a level that did not cause the client to forfeit his career or spend any time in jail.
Client KW faced Ballot Measure 11 charges of rape and sodomy which would have resulted in many years of imprisonment without our intervention. The client had previously been represented by a court-appointed attorney who did nothing to advance his defense. Thorough investigation on the part of the defense resulted in the gathering of evidence which demonstrated that client was innocent of the crimes for which he was indicted. We persuaded the prosecution to dismiss all charges and the client was set free.
Client MM faced Ballot Measure 11 charge of assault and other offenses due to an encounter with an overly aggressive volunteer for the Sheriff’s Office. Our investigation of the matter established that the volunteer failed to comply with his training and applicable regulations, and that the police investigation was flawed. We were able to get the case reduced from a major felony to a low-level misdemeanor offense, with no jail time and no probation.
Client CA faced Ballot Measure 11 sex charges arising from a failed relationship with his past girlfriend. Assisted by a favorable polygraph result, we were able to persuade the District Attorney’s Office to reduce the charges to a level that did not cause the client to be convicted of a Sex crime and have to register as a Sex Offender. Further, we were able to negotiate an outcome that did not require the client to serve any time in jail. After a relatively brief waiting period, our client will be able to expunge all records of his arrest and prosecution in this matter.
Client RV faced Ballot Measure 11 charges of Assault and Kidnapping. After a thorough investigation and evaluation by an expert psychologist, we were able to persuade the prosecuting attorney and the judge that our client did not deserve the full brunt of prosecution under Ballot Measure 11. We negotiated an outcome which resulted in the client being released from jail and a conviction that qualifies for expungement.
Client SG faced possible prosecution for Ballot Measure 11 Rape. Swift investigation on our part, and a successful polygraph result, spared our client from the humiliation and devastating consequences that would have ensued as a result of being arrested and prosecuted for this crime.
AV was accused of multiple Ballot Measure 11 charges, based on a violent assault involving numerous victims. The client has a good family background, and had no prior criminal history, and yet he was facing a prison sentence of 10 years or more because of the nature of the allegations. Our work in this case made use of an extensive psychological evaluation performed by our forensic psychologist. We utilized the services of two excellent investigators, who tracked one key witness down in Europe and also gathered important motion-picture archival information that was key to our defense of the client. After many months of hard work on the part of all members of our defense team, we were able to accomplish a non-Measure 11 outcome for this client. As a result of our work in this matter, our client will not have to serve the prison sentence that would otherwise have been his fate. Even more important, as a result of the successful outcome of this matter, our client will be able to expunge all records of his arrest and prosecution. We are very proud of the success we accomplished for this client.
* No previously obtained outcome guarantees the same results in any new case.
Contact Mark C. Cogan Law Offices
If you are facing prosecution in a Ballot Measure 11 matter, please contact us immediately. There are many things which must be done at an early stage to avert prosecution entirely, or to minimize the danger of receiving a Ballot Measure 11 sentence. What your legal team does at this critical moment could have long-lasting consequences. We look forward to serving you!