By Paul Daquilante • Staff Writer • 

Former Yamhill County deputy DA sentenced

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

myopinion

She is not consume alcohol in excess of a .08 blood alcohol content??? So she can drink, just have to keep her BAC down?? Nice. Considering she had been “drinking in excess”. WOW! Pretty sure zero consumption of alcohol is the usual protocol.

Joel

Sounds like she got a hell of a good deal. $2,250 bucks and 24 hours community service. Pretty sad if that's all the punishment for forcefully throwing a child to the ground and choking him so hard that he turns purple and you leave bruises and nail marks on his neck.

Mac Native 66

ALL SHE'S GETTING IS A SLAP ON THE BACK OF THE HAND AND TOLD NOT TO DO IT AGAIN!!!!!
What hypocrites!

Brad M

wow, no jail time!?!

T.W.S.

Brad M - first time offenders, especially under a plea deal on misdemeanor offenses, don't get jail time.

Mac Native 66 - see above reply, anyone else who is a first time offender charged with the same misdemeanors and took the same plea deal would get the same, or thereabouts depending on their means.

myopinion - you should have picked a better handle; so you're pretty sure zero consumption of alcohol is the usual protocol, eh? Is that your objective (factually based) opinion, or your subjective (emotive, not factually based) opinion?

myopinion

T.W.S. MOST people who got into trouble while drinking alcohol, are not allowed to CONSUME alcohol while on probation.....common knowledge.

Lulu

Justice truly is blind. And deaf.
What a sweet deal for her.

T.W.S.

myopinion - " WOW! Pretty sure zero consumption of alcohol is the usual protocol."

myopinion - "T.W.S. MOST people who got into trouble while drinking alcohol, are not allowed to CONSUME alcohol while on probation.....common knowledge."

'Usual protocol' typically means for everyone, now you're saying "MOST." Either way, usual...most...does not mean across the board. Hence, some don't and Dresden fell into the some category as a first time offender.

sbagwell

It seems to me like she fell into a category not available to ordinary citizens.
It looks, feels and smells like insider favoritism. And that sends a very bad message.
Steve

Lulu

Who hired Dresen in the first place?

TTT

I've decided to grab some popcorn and watch as T.W.S. attempts to defend the former DDA. Right after T.W.S. attacks me first of course.

myopinion

TTT - pass the popcorn.....

Bill B

So is there a way to "ignore" a poster??

Mac Native 66

In my view, T.W.S. is sticking up for the offender, so that must mean you're a skunk. I smelled one in a DV class once, but was killed off (figuratively speeking). She's still getting a slap on the hand.

T.W.S.

sbagwell - "It seems to me like she fell into a category not available to ordinary citizens.It looks, feels and smells like insider favoritism. And that sends a very bad message.
Steve"

Can you PROVE it was 'insider favoritism'?

T.W.S.

Lulu - "Who hired Dresen in the first place?"

How is that even relevant? She is human, you are human, I am human, we are all human beings; and to be human is to err. According to the article she was employed at the DAs office for about 8 years...people change, life happens, and people, human beings, make mistakes and we are supposed to learn from them. It is not your place, or anyone else's' to cast judgment. Remember the golden rule, no?

T.W.S.

TTT - I am in no way defending her criminal actions against the teenager. All I have done and will continue to do is correct the misinformation of others, and defend only the truth. Don't choke on your popcorn.

T.W.S.

Bill B - "So is there a way to "ignore" a poster??"

Scroll down. Don't comment at or about them. Duh!

T.W.S.

Mac Native 66 - "In my view..."

Your view, feelings, beliefs or what you think doesn't matter. The ONLY thing that matters is what you can PROVE.

tagup

The "No Contest" plea is an interesting choice...Gives the impression that she didn't want to admit her guilt......I wonder how Ms. Vanderhoof feels about the sentence and conditions....

bonnybedlam

I'm still wondering why a 38 yo woman was giving a sex talk to a bunch of teenage boys in a garage, and exactly how that led to a physical assault. How drunk does a person have to be for any part of that to seem like a good idea?

tagup

Sounds like (if she's smart) she will walk away from this with a dismissal....Not sure I would be happy with the outcome if it were my kid that got assaulted....

Lulu

Are you maintaining, TWS, you embody of the golden rule? What a (graveyard) laugh. Prove it.
She accepted what sounds like the Alford plea. Her case was handled differently. And after a brief period of time, Poof! It all goes away as if it never happened. Just like magic...for certain fortunate people.
Everyone knows it. No justice; no peace.

T.W.S.

Lulu - "Are you maintaining, TWS, you embody of the golden rule?"

Blatant strawman fallacy right there!

Lulu - "She accepted what sounds like the Alford plea."

Clearly you didn't read the article. She plead guilty to the assault charge and "No Contest" to the others; that is NOT the same ting as the Alford plea.

It is a foregone conclusion that you have 0 knowledge/experience (professional or academic) in the matters of the criminal justice system. You really should refrain from trying to speak intelligently about a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

Lulu - "Her case was handled differently."

Were you there? Do you have a red line to her attorney? The courts? Yeah, didn't think so.

Lulu - "And after a brief period of time, Poof! It all goes away as if it never happened. Just like magic...for certain fortunate people."

Not how it works. Since it is a misdemeanor she can check to see if her case qualifies for expungement. And if so, she goes through that process just like everyone else to have the case expunged from her record. Then yes, it is as if it never happened, just like it would for everyone else filing for same. There is no "fortunate people" here, expungement laws and procedures are the same for everyone.


lulu - "Everyone knows it."

Only in your fictional world.

lulu - "No justice; no peace."

Oh, so you're one of those Chairborne types. That explains your ignorance of the criminal justice system and emotive outbursts to it.

Lulu

Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?

myopinion

T.W.S = Amanda Dresen???????

Lulu

Maybe Dresen was practicing "tough love" during that long, drunken, weirdo, lewd, freaky night of assault. Perhaps the parents will file a civil suit--Amanda can prove the "fool for a client" proviso.
And speaking of a namesake, what's Amanda Marshall doing these days? Would TWS care to field that LE question?

T.W.S.

Lulu - "Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?"

It's null and void with factually based observations.

You were not present at the "sex talk," you were not present at the family gathering of hers, you were not present during her meetings with her attorney, you were not present during her plea negations, and you were definitely not present at her sentencing hearing. Therefore you have no basis in fact for any of your subjectively foolish commentary.

T.W.S.

myopinion - "T.W.S = Amanda Dresen???????"

Wishful thinking. It sure would make it easier if it were true, eh? But alas, it is not true. I know of her, but I am not her. Sorry to disappoint you. ;-p

T.W.S.

Lulu - last I knew of, Amanda Marshall was defending one of the kids who was speed racing a year and a bit ago who severely injured his passenger and girlfriend, and killing a father and nearly his son in the accident. She put on a nasty, unethical and infamous defense. I have no empathy for her and what she did that got herself into professional and personal trouble. She can and will continue to reap what she sows.

anteza

I doubt the outcome would have been the same if a 38-year-old man did the same thing to a 13 or 14-year-old girl.

Mac Native 66

T.W.S. I had to go through this deputy DA's DV class, but yet she doesn't have to take the class.
>
Why are you sticking up for her. Are you also a deputy DA, cop or lawyer? They're the only ones who stick for each other.

Lulu

I really wonder if someone with a Jennifer Chapman bumper sticker should steer clear of Lincoln City.

T.W.S.

Mac Native 66 - “T.W.S. I had to go through this deputy DA's DV class, but yet she doesn't have to take the class.

Why are you sticking up for her. Are you also a deputy DA, cop or lawyer? They're the only ones who stick for each other.”

What she did wasn’t DV, so why would she need to take such a class????

I’m not sticking up for her. I’m correcting misinformation commented on by others. There is a difference!

Mac Native 66

T.W.S. It was my first offence and she's still getting a slap on the hand!

T.W.S.

Mac Native - for redundancy sake, domestic violence is not the same thing as a personal altercation between non-related (ie sposues, partners) individuals. Different punishment as well.

tagup

Seems like a pretty easy out for an officer of the court (at the time) that drunkenly assaults a minor...and won't admit to obvious guilt.

T.W.S.

tagup - “Seems like a pretty easy out for an officer of the court (at the time) that drunkenly assaults a minor...and won't admit to obvious guilt”

Are you that lazy you cannot read the article or any of the comments thoroughly!?! Or are you just as dense as lulu?

Guilt was admitted to on one charge and ‘no contest’ on the others. NC is admitting there is enough evidence for a conviction but vis plea deal takes a lesser sentence without going to trial.

Unless you have evidence of another case with a non-lawyer under the exact same circumstances to substantiate your claim, you just keep making yourself look like a fool. Do you like making a fool of yourself, tagup?

tagup

not what the article says...no contest plea to the assault and the other charges were dismissed.....
but that wasn't really my point....

T.W.S.

I stand corrected, as somewhere I thought I read she plead guilty to one charge...appears the article changed its info. Regardless, what I said about the no contest plea stands. She didn’t get away with anything. She was punished like anyone else would be under the exact same circumstances. Show me a case that proves otherwise and I’ll concede.

tagup

So..I guess the answers to your questions directed to me in your previous post would be... "no".....

T.W.S.

tagup - when the article was first posted, it did in fact state she plead guilty to the assault charge and no contest to the others. The NR changed/updated it after the fact. So I was correct to begin with based on what the NR reported. Now that they changed it, it’s no context to th assault charge and presumed dismissed other charges based on the plea agreement. Either way, a no contest plea is available to anyone and everyone. No one is forced to admit guilt, and your continued assertion that people must or be as you and others accuse them of is purely foolish fiction premised on ignorance on how the criminal justice system is designed to work.

tagup

My "continued assertion" that people must plead guilty is a figment of your imagination...

My post stated that she has an "easy out"...as she will likely walk away with a dismissal. She was an officer of the court (she was), she did drunkenly assault a 13 year old (she did), and she chose not to make a "guilty" plea....
I will not post again as it's tedious to argue about minutia and made up issues.....

T.W.S.

tagup - "My "continued assertion" that people must plead guilty is a figment of your imagination..."

Nope. You and Lulu sound so much alike that it is easy to hear each of you in the other.

tagup - "My post stated that she has an "easy out"...as she will likely walk away with a dismissal. She was an officer of the court (she was), she did drunkenly assault a 13 year old (she did), and she chose (sic) not to make a "guilty" plea...."

As is the right of any defendant to choose NOT to make a "guilty" plea. Your assertion that because she did is somehow wrong or unprofessional as "an officer of the court" is asinine, period!

tagup - "I will not post again as it's tedious to argue about minutia and made up issues..."

You won't post again because you cannot adequately defend your position with such absurd assertions.

myopinion

From actual court records:

1. Assault in the Fourth Degree - No Contest
2. Strangulation - Dismissed
3. Harassment - Dismissed

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable