Diane Downs' case

A case of unjust and illegal judicial procedure


             A clearly example of justice being ignored in a

country that claims to have the

world's premier justice system.



In an unprecedented move judge Gregory Foote was promoted from ‘juvenile’ to ‘senior’ judge in order that he would also be able to preside at the trial of Diane.

Juvenile Court Judge Gregory Foote denied access to the children by all blood relatives and the State took charge of the children, including Diane’s new born whilst she stood before the juvenile court. Judge Foote lost his impartiality!

Diane was arrested one year later after the attack by which time the State had prepared their child star witness, Diane’s own daughter.

For the Defense an ex-Prosecutor, James C. Jagger was recommended to Diane’s father. Not a good choice. Jagger often forgot that the person who had engaged him was the father of his client. Jagger at the time was married to Oregon’s Lane County Circuit Court Judge, Laurie Holland who would become a colleague of the above Judge Foote). This completes the ‘Trio Noir’: Foote, Hugi, Jagger (see page 6).

The State of Oregon took custody of her children one year before the trial, even though Diane Downs had not been convicted let alone sentenced. Defense Attorney Jagger’s protests at this were totally ignored. Jagger should have sought guidance from his wife who dealt in child advocacy law! Perhaps she could also have shed light on why Diane’s new born was put up for adoption without the mother’s consent and why the Prosecutor himself adopted Diane’s other children later then, again without her consent. More so, we should ask just what kind of judicial system resides in Lane County, Oregon.

Budget cuts, media and public pressure were at their height just prior to the arrest of Diane Downs. However, the State’s star witness was well rehearsed.

Some further anomalies for this Oregon trial:

- Judge Foote misdirected the jury

- The Prosecutor entered inadmissible evidence

- State witness testimony was different from original statements

- Defense Attorney ignored vital evidence that would have exculpated his client

- Scientific evidence was grossly flawed

- Champagne-and-strawberry festival right after trial end, ready kept cold for a victory ceremony within schedule for an unknown jury verdict

- Continuously postponed or delayed appeals, a continuing kind cooperation between court and attorney General's Office (see page 7)