Seven years after my arrest, and nearly six years after my conviction,
and almost two years after our Appeals Court argument presentation,
the Oregon Appeals court has filed their decision on 4 Apr 2001.
Here's the summary from the newsletter... the referenced URL is the
full text of the decision.

State v. Schwartz (CA A91702)

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A91702.htm

AREA OF LAW: EVIDENCE

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of three counts
of computer crime. ORS 164.377. Defendant worked as an
independent contractor for Intel Corporation and was charged with
computer crime after he copied passwords and a password file from
Intel computers onto his computer. He appeals the trial court's
decision. Held: (1) Even assuming that the search warrant or its
execution involved illegal police conduct, defendant's statements
were not obtained by exploitation of any such conduct and
consequently were properly admitted. (2)Parties are not entitled
to present evidence of "legislative facts" as a matter of right.
(3) The computer crime statute, ORS 164.377(3), is not
unconstitutionally vague, because a potential violator or
enforcer of the statute can be reasonably certain what conduct it
prohibits. (4) Because the state presented sufficient evidence to
prove that defendant took the property of another for the
purposes of theft, ORS 164.377(2)(c), the trial court did not err
in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. (5) To
be properly included in a restitution award, attorney fees must
be reasonable and necessary pecuniary damages. (6) Defendant was
not entitled to merger of his convictions on counts two and
three, because the acts that formed the basis for each violation
were separated by a "sufficient pause" to allow defendant to
renounce his criminal intent. Restitution order reversed and
remanded for reconsideration; otherwise affirmed.

As you can tell by that last statement, it's not the news I was
looking for, and that quite frankly I'm very disappointed and sad.

I'm working with my legal team now to lay out my options and determine
the appropriate response. I won't be able to comment on that until
things are final.

[Steve Pacenka - can you copy this text and the corresponding URL text
to the FORS site? Thanks.]

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@...> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!