ORS 138.585
Access to confidential jury records


A person who files a petition for post-conviction relief under ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) and who seeks jury records that are confidential under ORS 10.215 (Master jury list) must either include in the petition a request for access to the confidential records or file a motion in the proceedings seeking access to the confidential records. A motion under this subsection must be filed not later than 90 days before the hearing date for the petition, unless the court allows a later filing for good cause shown. The petition or motion, and any supporting affidavit for the petition or motion, must be served on the trial court administrator for the court that entered the judgment of conviction and on the State Court Administrator. The request for confidential records must:


Specify the purpose for which the jury records are sought; and


Identify with particularity the relevant jury records sought to be released, including the type and time period of the records.


The court in the post-conviction relief proceeding may order release of the jury records if the court finds that:


The jury records sought are likely to produce evidence relevant to a claim of a substantial denial of the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both; and


Production of the jury records is not unduly burdensome.


An order under subsection (2) of this section may include, but need not be limited to:


A requirement that the petitioner provide advance payment to the trial court administrator for the court that entered the judgment of conviction and, if applicable, the State Court Administrator for the reasonable costs of providing copies of the jury records; and


Restrictions on further disclosure of the jury records including, but not limited to:


A requirement that the petitioner return all originals and copies to the court at the conclusion of the proceeding;


A requirement that the jury records may be used only for the purpose of supporting the petition for post-conviction relief;


A prohibition against distributing the jury records to a person who is not an agent or representative of the petitioner; and


A prohibition against contacting or attempting to contact the persons whose names appear on the jury records without specific authorization of the court.


The trial court administrator for the court that entered the judgment of conviction or the State Court Administrator may intervene at any time as a matter of right as to any issues relating to the release of jury records under this section.


The procedure established by this section is the exclusive means for compelling production of confidential jury records as evidence in post-conviction relief proceedings. The procedure established by ORS 10.275 (Jury challenges) is the exclusive means for compelling production of confidential jury records as evidence relevant to a challenge to a jury panel under ORS 136.005 (Challenge to jury panel) or ORCP 57A. [2011 c.308 §2]
§§ 138.510 to 138.680

Notes of Decisions

Any person who is convicted of a crime may seek relief under this section, whether or not he is in custody, regardless of whether his conviction is for a felony or misdemeanor. Morasch v. State, 261 Or 299, 493 P2d 1364 (1972)

Habeas corpus is a proper method of questioning the constitutionality of treatment accorded prisoners. Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 545 P2d 861 (1976)

These sections afforded plain, speedy and adequate remedy in lower courts and state Supreme Court would not exercise original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F2d 233 (1981)

Post-conviction relief is not suspension of writ of habeas corpus; it provides different procedure but retains all necessary substantive and procedural advantages of the writ. Atkeson v. Cupp, 68 Or App 196, 680 P2d 772 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Post-conviction relief under these sections is available to those convicted of DUII Class A traffic infractions to remedy constitutional violations. Evers v. State, 69 Or App 450, 685 P2d 1024 (1984)

Availability of post-conviction relief to persons convicted under state law but not to those convicted under municipal law does not violate Article I, section 20, or equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment, because persons convicted under municipal law do not constitute true class, and there is no discriminatory application of law. Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 761 P2d 502 (1988)

Granting of delayed appeal authorized where necessary to rectify substantial denial of constitutional rights. State v. Macy, 316 Or 335, 851 P2d 579 (1993)

Federal constitutional principle requiring that facts that increase penalty for crime beyond statutory maximum be submitted to jury does not apply retroactively to afford post-conviction relief. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

State will retroactively apply new federal rule regarding constitutionality only if rule places certain kinds of conduct beyond proscription or if procedural rule affects fundamental fairness required for accurate conviction. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

Law Review Citations

68 OLR 269 (1989)


Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021