Background
A grand jury indicted Zackery Max Driver on multiple charges, including 25 counts of promoting prostitution. According to the indictment, none of the alleged victims testified before the grand jury; a single police officer was the only listed witness. Driver contended that the officer conveyed the alleged victims’ out-of-court statements in violation of ORS 132.320(7)(a), which restricts the presentation of inadmissible hearsay to Oregon grand juries.
Driver asked the trial court to review the grand-jury transcripts in camera and, if it found a statutory violation, to grant a preliminary hearing. The trial court found no good cause to review the transcripts for purposes of challenging the indictment and denied relief. Driver then petitioned the Oregon Supreme Court for an alternative or peremptory writ of mandamus.
The Court’s Holding
In a brief per curiam decision, the Oregon Supreme Court denied Driver’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court did not decide whether inadmissible hearsay had been presented to the grand jury, whether the trial court could review the grand-jury transcripts, or whether a trial court possesses inherent authority to remedy a violation of ORS 132.320(7)(a).
Justice James, joined by Justice Masih, dissented from the denial. The dissent would have issued an alternative writ and obtained briefing and argument on whether Oregon trial courts have inherent supervisory authority to set aside an indictment obtained in violation of the statutory hearsay restriction, notwithstanding prior decisions treating the grounds listed in ORS 135.510 as exclusive. Those views were expressed only in dissent and were not adopted by the court.
Key Takeaways
- The Oregon Supreme Court denied mandamus relief without resolving Driver’s statutory, constitutional, or inherent-authority arguments.
- The denial leaves the trial court’s order in place but does not establish that the challenged grand-jury testimony was admissible or that no remedy could exist.
- The dissent identified unresolved questions concerning judicial supervision of grand juries and the relationship between ORS 132.320(7)(a) and ORS 135.510.
Why It Matters
The decision provides no merits ruling for defendants seeking relief from indictments allegedly based on prohibited grand-jury hearsay. Trial courts and litigants therefore remain without definitive guidance from the Oregon Supreme Court on whether courts possess inherent authority to remedy such violations.
The dissent also noted that a 2026 statutory amendment created a hearsay exception potentially applicable to certain trafficking and prostitution cases. Because the amendment postdated Driver’s indictment, and because the court declined review, the opinion does not determine the amendment’s effect on this prosecution or on any available remedy.