Rich Law PC

04/08/2026

Thank you to all who viewed the video and provided feedback. The assigned Deputy District Attorney reviewed the video and decided to dismiss the case.

03/31/2026

Dogooder calls CPD to report a suspicious person getting things out of a car parked on a Corvallis street. Describes this individual and police respond finding him in the area. Officer forgets to start her body cam so the initial contact, where she tells him to drop the sticks and cup he was carrying, is not captured. Client describes the involved vehicle and shows the officer that he has the key. That should have been the end of it. However as you can see Sargent Ezekiel Ray escalates the encounter by laying hands on client and taking him to the ground. After arresting client for interfering with the investigation the police learn that it was in fact his car and that he had been living there. Trial is set.

04/24/2025

August 21, 2023
Me: Do you have the recorded interview from 2018
Prosecutor: There is no recorded interview from 2018.
Me: Files motions to get 2018 recording.
Prosecutor's Response: "In the first allegation, the Defendant takes as fact that Detective interviewed the victim at the ABC House and that it was recorded. The State does not believe the Defendant will be able to meet his burden to show this occurred. There is nothing in Detective’s report indicating he interviewed victim or there was a recording. Detective’s report notes other interviews that took place and when recordings were placed in Laserfiche. There appears to be inconsistent information between the ABC House report and Law enforcement and DHS records. The State is unconvinced that a forensic interview took place, especially as it was not reported by Detective. Detective was a seasoned detective and one would anticipate that such an important event, especially if disclosures were made, would be documented in his report. Moreover, a recording of a forensic interview was not included in the entire report. We see from the report that seven other audio recordings were placed in Laserfiche. Thus, even if Detective 2 had requested the supposed “forensic interview” recording before it was destroyed, there is no proof the recording existed or would have been produced. The State should not be held responsible for destruction of evidence the Defendant cannot prove existed. As such, the defendant is unable to meet their burden to show a reasonable likelihood the evidence would have been favorable and material to his defense."
Me: The State then argues that the 'Defendant will not be able to meet his burden to show this [recorded interview] occurred' while at the same time opposing the Defendant’s Motion to subpoena ABC House and DHS records where Defendant is seeking that material. This is yet another example of the State’s attempts to prevent the Defendant from obtaining justice in this case. The State delayed prosecution which resulted in the destruction of relevant exculpatory evidence and then opposes the defendant’s attempts to secure that information from alternative sources. Notably, the State does not indicate that anyone talked with Dr. about the representation from her report that “a forensic interview was conducted by Detective.”
Hearing Set for 2:00.
Hearing day 12:30.
Prosecutor calls: Great news we found the 2018 recording.
Me: WTF?

03/28/2025

Quotes at the end from District Attorney Ryan Joslin - "'We have not ruled out an appeal at this point,' Joslin said. 'If the matter were appealed successfully, we would be allowed to continue with the prosecution.'

Joslin said his office is not considering charges against Gatchet."

Stunning lack of accountability after prosecuting the wrong person. Shame on you Ryan Joslin!!

Partway through a jury trial, the accused lawyer learns about videos that may help his client.

03/28/2025

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/27/benton-county-attempted-murder-trial-dismissed-undisclosed-footage/

Body camera footage showed the alleged victim contradicting his claim of self-defense. It wasn’t released for two years.

03/24/2025

Constitutionally required discovery is designed to ensure that defendant’s rights to Due Process, Effective Assistance of Counsel, Confrontation, and Compulsory Process are honored and fulfilled under the mandates of both the Federal and Oregon constitutions. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 87 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 US 97 (1976); United States v. Bagley, 473 US 667 (1985) (duty to disclose “encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence”); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 US 419 (1995) (affirmative duty to seek out Brady materials); United States v. Price, 566 F3d 900 (9th Cir 2009); State v. Cartwright, 173 Or App 59, 72, (2001), rev’d on other grounds, 336 Or 408 (2004).
In Kyles, the United States Supreme Court indicated the case deputy district attorney has an affirmative burden to seek out and produce exculpatory evidence, whether that information is contained within the prosecution’s file or not. As the Kyles court held:
“the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the case, including the police * * * the prosecution’s responsibility for failing to disclose known, favorable evidence rising to a material level of importance is inescapable.”
Kyles, 514 US at 437.

Send a message to learn more

03/23/2025

While I am on my rant about the recent malfeasance from the prosecution, I may as well comment on the post I just found by the BCSO. This was a case where Mr. Roloff had been having a dispute with his neighbors about their pet deer eating his garden. After a conflict with the neighbor one morning Mr. Roloff fired a single shot into the air to emphasize the fact that they needed to keep the deer off his property. (Not the best idea but not criminal). After firing the shot Mr. Roloff noticed roofers standing on the neighbors roof looking at him. This was at 11:00 a.m. At around 5:30 p.m. a drone started buzzing around Mr. Roloff's home looking in his windows, circling his property and claiming to be from the Sheriff. No law enforcement officers or their vehicles were visible from Mr. Roloff's residence. Mr. Roloff thought he was being pranked by the roofers and began firing a pistol in an effort to chase off the invasive drone. (Again not a good idea but not illegal. I probably would have used a shotgun and took it out.)

Anyhow Mr. Roloff was arrested and charged with attempted murder among other things. (Nineteen counts in all). After protracted litigation where I learned that the prosecutor had illegally provided transcripts of secret grand jury recordings to the majority of her witnesses in violation of ORS 132.270. In response, we filed motions to exclude all of the tainted witnesses. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court issued a long written opinion which concluded as follows: "In conclusion, the Court determines that the State violated ORS132.270 and that Violation does require a remedy given the potential prejudice to Defendant's due process rights at trial. However, the Court also determines that, in this case, the circumstances do not require the exclusion of the witnesses at issue from trial as there are intermediate measures that will adequately address any potential prejudice."

Shortly after this ruling we agreed to resolve the case with a short probation, credit for jail time already served and no felony convictions. This was a win for Mr. Roloff who acknowledged making several very poor choices 4 years earlier.

Correction: sentencing was 12 months bench probation and 25 days incarceration with credit for time served.

On January 15, 2025, a Benton County Circuit Court Judge sentenced 62-year-old Daniel Scott Roloff, of Monroe, to a 12-month incarceration for Recklessly Endangering Another Person x2, and Menacing x3.

This conviction stems from Roloff's arrest on Aug. 18, 2021.

At about 5:30 p.m. on August 17, 2021, Benton County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) Deputies responded to the area of the 26000 block of Foster Rd. for a report of a male actively shooting a firearm in the direction of construction workers at a private residence in the area. Deputies established a perimeter of the area, evacuated the construction crew, attempted to make contact with the suspect, and were met with gunfire from the property. During that time, a total of 9 shots were fired in 9 minutes from the property. At approximately 11:00 p.m., the decision was made to stand down the SWAT team and hand the scene back over to BCSO deputies who remained in the neighborhood throughout the night.

On the morning of August 18, 2021, BCSO detectives returned to the location and served a search warrant on the residence. The lone resident, Daniel Scott Roloff, was taken into custody without incident by BCSO and transported to the Benton County Jail.

03/23/2025

Here is another video we received during the trial. We were already aware of much of the conversation because we had a recording from CPD Detective Samules as well as his report. I have often told my colleagues after reviewing this interview of Ms. Ross, that if I were ever to teach a class on how to property invoke your rights, this would be it. She makes exculpatory statements interlaced with requests for an attorney and explains why an attorney is necessary. She wants someone to protect her and doesn’t want the police to twist her words. Perfect!

Watch how Detective Moser twists her words in his report and then misrepresents her demeanor at trial.

Excerpt from Moser Report regarding interview with Ms. Ross:

“I let [Ms Ross] know that I had a recorder with me and the device was on. After mentioning that I worked for the Sheriff`s Office, [Ms Ross] began to shout that she was defending herself and believed she was going to die today and that nobody was around to protect her. Given the nature of her statements, and believing that she could utter a statement to me out of excitement regarding the incident that could be incriminating; I stopped [Ms Ross] and let her know that I wanted her to be aware of her rights. As I began advising [Ms Ross] of her rights according to Miranda; Tina told me that she did not want to speak with me without an attorney there to protect her. I explained to her that I understand her invoking and will respect her use of her rights. She went on to begin to tell me that Robert has severe post-traumatic stress disorder and that we will believe his story. I stopped her again; explained to her that her side of the story is very important; however I cannot speak with her without a clear and undisputable waiver of her right to remain silent. She replied that she would still like an attorney present to protect her. At this time her left arm began profusely bleeding, pouring out from her bandages. A surgeon rushed into the room to take care of this, asking me to help locate items as he needed more hands to stop the bleeding. It was at this time that I ended my conversation with [Ms Ross] to be out of the way of her immediate medical needs.” (Emphasis supplied).

In his report, Detective Moser fails to capture most of what Ms. Ross said to him and (1) mischaracterizes her demeanor, (2) twists her words inserting things into the report that she never said (we will believe his story) and (3) solidifies the fact that he is only looking for incriminating statements. He pretends to be protecting her by stopping her from talking but what he is really doing is trying to preserve his ability to use her incriminating statements against her in court. If her statements were exculpatory they can choose to use it or not but no defense lawyer is going to have exculpatory information excluded because they “violated her rights” in obtaining said information.

Compare Detective Moser’s Report to CPD Detective Samuel’s report on the same interview:

“Once Ross was in a position to speak, Detective Moser and I entered the room and Detective Moser introduced us. Detective Moser explained to Ross that our conversation with her would be recorded (visual & audio), and she responded by saying something similar to, "I was defending myself." Detective Moser told Ross he`d like to talk more about what happened that morning, but he wanted to ensure that she understood her Miranda Rights.

It should be noted that when Ross stated she was defending herself, my audio recording device was not on at the time.

The following is an interview summary. It is not intended to be a verbatim account and does not memorialize all statements made during the interview. Communication by the parties in the interview were electronically recorded. The recording captures the actual words spoken, and actions taken. I later placed the recording into evidence as Item #1.

INTERVIEW WITH ROSS

As Detective Moser was trying to advise Ross of her Miranda Rights, Ross would interrupt him by asking questions such as, "Are you arresting me?" or "So I need a lawyer?" Detective Moser explained to Ross that she could remain silent if she`d like, but he`d like to speak with her about what occurred. Ross replied to Detective Moser by saying something to the effect of, "He doesn`t tell the truth." Detective Moser explained to Ross why he wanted to speak with her, and at that time she allowed him to finish advising her of rights.

Detective Moser informed Ross of her rights, but when he asked her if she understood them Ross replied by saying, "Ok then I need a lawyer." Detective Moser explained to Ross that he would respect her rights, but Ross continued to make statements such as, " A lot happened", and "He has PTSD and goes into rages." Detective Moser interrupted Ross and reminded her that she requested to have a lawyer. It was explained to Ross that if she wanted to speak with him, then she understood that she was waiving her right to have a lawyer present. Ross responded by saying she believed that she needed a lawyer to be there for her.
At that time Ross began to sob, made a statement about not being in her right mind and then said, "I thought I was going to die today." Ross stated she didn`t know where she was when Deputies found her, she`d lost of lot of blood and was weak.

Detective Moser again interrupted Ross and again explained if she continued to speak with him then she would do so understanding that she was waiving her right to have a lawyer present. Ross responded by stating she wanted a lawyer because she wanted some to protect her. Detective Moser stated he understood and ended the interview shortly afterward.

As Detective Moser was speaking with Ross, I noticed that she had some injuries on her face that were consistent with being involved in some sort of physical altercation. The bridge of Ross`s nose had several liner marks on it, and it appeared to be swollen. There also some liner red marks on the upper right side of Ross`s forehead. Ross`s hands were wrapped in gauze so I could not see the extent of her injuries.

As soon as Detective Moser ended his interview with Ross, her left hand began to bleed profusely and medical staff quickly entered the room. Photographs of Ross`s injuries could not be taken for that reason.”

When the State elected not to call Detective Samuels as a witness for trial, they seemed surprised that we wanted to call him for the case. First he was more accurate in his description of this event and second Detective Samuels was the only law enforcement officer to note the injuries to Ms Ross’ face in a report.

Here is how Detective Moser testified regarding this encounter:

Moser: I believe it was around 12:30 when I was able to enter the room and have a conversation with Ms. Ross.

Park: Did [Ms Ross] begin shouting something whenever you walked into the room?

Moser: Yes. (JR - I believed this to be a lie but at that point I only had the partial audio recording from CPD of this encounter and it would not have included her initial statement to Moser)

Park: What did she shout?

Moser: That she didn’t have anyone to defend her and she believed she was going to die today.

Park: Shortly after that did she then require some more medical attention?

Moser: Yes.

Park: And so did you leave the room at that time?

Moser: So, while I was talking to her she did have a wound that began spurting blood . . .

The trial ended before we could call Detective Samuels as a witness to set the record straight.

03/23/2025

On the positive side my client and I would like to thank Newport police officer and former Crescent Valley wrestler Abraham Felix and Benton County Sheriff Sgt Scott Bressler for their assistance in finding and saving Ms Ross. Officer Felix saw a car out of place on his way to work and reported the location to BCSO. Sgt Bressler followed up on that tip and found Ms. Ross after she had been there for several hours. Sgt Bressler knew Ms Ross from a prior seatbelt ticket and quickly developed rapport with her at the scene. He treated Ms Ross with dignity and respect and she asked him to stay with her during the transport to the hospital. He stayed with her even in the ambulance and she is forever grateful. Even when they had her locked up in the Benton County Jail she wrote thank you letters to the officers that saved her life. Well done and thank you both!

03/21/2025

Our client is a domestic violence survivor. In 2022 she was assaulted by her abuser and in self defense she shot him. He beat her and took the gun. He then lied claiming she had a flare gun and shot her multiple times. She did not have a phone but he did. As she fled for her life he called 911 and told dispatchers that she shot him without provocation. They rushed to his aid and had him transported to the hospital. They didn’t find her until roughly 4 hours later on a logging road bloody and shot. The first thing she tells them is that it was self defense. She makes numerous other statements consistent with that assertion but when confronted at the hospital and advised of her rights she told them she wanted a lawyer.

They also talked to the abuser at the hospital and he repeated the story he told 911. Upon my client’s release from the hospital they tracked her down and arrested her for Attempted Murder despite the fact that she was scheduled for surgeries, other medical procedures and was working on getting a lawyer to help her through this traumatic event. She was still wearing the paper hospital clothes because that was all she had.

Trial started last Monday. On Wednesday, I requested evidence during my cross examination of one of the detectives. He was sent to retrieve the items that I requested as they had not been provided previously. What we received was evidence on innocence that had been in the possession of the police for 2 years 2 months and 19 days. What they had was a statement from the abuser that he hit her and she shot him. They also had other exculpatory evidence from an interview with the person that picked her up from the hospital and was allowing her to stay at his residence. In his statements that were not provided for 2 years 2 months and 19 days, he told the detective that the abuser had hit her and busted her nose before any shooting happened.

On Thursday, we played the four videos that hadn’t been provided previously for the judge and he dismissed the indictment for a violation of my client’s due process rights. As a result of this prosecution she lost everything but she needs her story told.

11/13/2022

Looks like Measure 114 will pass. If you have high capacity magazines, now is the time to document (photograph?) your ownership prior to the effective date of 114.
“(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:
(a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person’s control or possession; or
(b) The possession of a large-capacity magazine was obtained by a person who, on or after the effective date of this section, acquired possession of the large-capacity magazine by operation of law upon the death of a former owner who was in legal possession of the large-capacity magazine; and
(c) In addition to either (a) or (b) of this subsection the owner has not maintained the large-capacity magazine in a manner other than:
(A) On property owned or immediately controlled by the registered owner;
(B) On the premises of a gun dealer or gunsmith licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for the purpose of lawful service or repair; (C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery
or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law; or
(D) While participating in fi****ms competition or exhibition, display or educational project about fi****ms sponsored,
conducted by, approved or under the auspices of a law enforcement agency or a national or state-recognized entity that fosters proficiency in fi****ms use or promotes fi****ms education; and
(E) While transporting any large-capacity magazines in a vehicle to one of the locations authorized in paragraphs (c)(A) to (D) of this subsection, the large-capacity magazine is not inserted into the firearm and is locked in a separate container.”