The Oregon Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus from Zackery Max Driver on October 8, 2026. This decision impacts Driver's ongoing criminal case, where he faces multiple charges, including promoting prostitution. The court's ruling centers on the use of hearsay evidence in grand jury proceedings, which is a significant legal issue in Oregon.
The case began when the state charged Driver with 25 counts of promoting prostitution. The indictment was secured through testimony from a police officer, who conveyed statements from alleged victims without their direct testimony. Driver argued that this reliance on hearsay violated Oregon law, specifically ORS 132.320(7)(a), which prohibits the presentation of inadmissible hearsay to a grand jury.
Driver's legal team, led by Lindsey Burrows of Burrows Appellate Law LLC, filed the petition for a writ of mandamus after the Washington County Circuit Court denied their request for a preliminary hearing to review the grand jury's decision. The state, represented by Sara Del Rubin, Assistant Attorney General, countered that the officer's testimony did not constitute hearsay or that it fell under an exception.
The court's ruling, delivered per curiam, stated, "The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied." Judge James dissented, expressing concern that the denial might reinforce uncertainty about a trial court's authority to act on such matters. He noted that the case highlights a potential gap in legal recourse for defendants when hearsay is improperly presented to a grand jury.
In his dissent, Judge James emphasized the importance of addressing the implications of hearsay in grand jury proceedings. He argued that the trial court appeared uncertain about its authority to act, even if it recognized a violation of ORS 132.320(7)(a). This uncertainty could hinder the ability of courts to uphold legislative intent regarding the use of hearsay evidence.
The court's decision has broader implications for how hearsay is treated in grand jury proceedings in Oregon. The ruling reinforces the state's strict prohibition against hearsay, which is not common in many jurisdictions. Oregon law explicitly limits the presentation of hearsay evidence, aiming to protect the integrity of the grand jury process.
Moving forward, this ruling may impact how future cases are handled, particularly those involving allegations of improper hearsay in grand jury indictments. It raises questions about the extent of a trial court's authority to intervene in grand jury proceedings when there are concerns about the admissibility of evidence.
As for next steps, Driver's legal team may consider other avenues for appeal, although the court's ruling on the writ of mandamus is typically seen as final. The court did not indicate whether there are related cases pending that might influence future decisions on this matter.