SALEM (AP) — In a rare dose of judicial exposure for Oregon, the United States Supreme Court is hearing three cases from the state during its current term.

The court sits from October through June and hears only about 100 cases of the 7,000 or so petitions it gets annually.

It has been a decade since Oregon originated three cases before the high court.

None of this is cheap.

Last month five lawyers from the Oregon Department of Justice defended Oregon’s assisted-suicide law against a challenge from the federal Department of Justice.

The nation’s first such law, which voters approved in 1994 and upheld in 1997, allows doctors to prescribe lethal doses of federally controlled medication to patients who request it and who have six months or less to live.

The costs aren’t in yet. “But I’m sure it will be a million,” said Kevin Neely, spokesman for Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers.

On Dec. 7, lawyers will argue for the state in a death-penalty case over whether a jury, during a sentencing proceeding, should consider doubt about a defendant’s guilt in deciding for death or life in prison.

The case is unusual in that Oregon filed the appeal, rather than defendant Randy Lee Guzek, who was convicted in a 1987 double murder in Deschutes County.

Though the Oregon Supreme Court upheld Guzek’s conviction in 1990, state justices have returned his sentence to the trial court three times, most recently in 2004.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case after the Oregon Supreme Court held that a jury should have been able to consider a sentence of life without parole at Guzek’s third sentencing hearing.

The state appealed. Guzek’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the matter last week, asserting that the high court does not have authority to hear a case unless a federal law is at issue.

In the spring, lawyers will argue about the rights of foreigners in criminal cases from Oregon and Virginia.

The Oregon case involves a Mexican national, Moises Sanchez-Llamas, convicted of attempted murder in the 1999 shooting of a Medford police officer.

The court will decide whether foreigners detained here must be told they have a right to help from consular officials and whether they can enforce that right in U.S. courts.

Beyond airfare and accommodations, Neely said, major expenses are for lawyer time and preparation for oral arguments.

“If you want to present the state’s best case, the minimum number of attorneys you would send is two,” he said.

“While one attorney is arguing the case before the Supreme Court, someone needs to find the legal citations or take notes of what the opposing legal counsel is saying.”

In appeals court oral arguments lawyers argue only on points of law based on previously submitted arguments.

To prepare they usually take part in sessions during which other lawyers ask them questions, as the justices do, and critique their answers.

Those outside lawyers are paid.

Because of the complexity and high profile of the assisted-suicide case, five state lawyers and Neely were in Washington.

The Sanchez-Llamas case has broad implications.

In March, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a 1963 international treaty applies to relationships between nations, but does not give enforceable rights to individuals.

The treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights, was signed by 166 nations including the United States.

The state court ruled against Sanchez-Llamas, who after wounding a Medford police officer, was advised of his rights to a lawyer then was questioned.

His lawyer argued later that because police did not advise him about rights to see a Mexican consular official his statements should be inadmissible.

Sanchez-Llamas was sentenced to almost 20 years in prison.

The International Court of Justice, or World Court, which the United States does not consider binding, upheld a 2003 suit by Mexico against the United States in a similar case.

———

Information from: Statesman Journal, http://www.statesmanjournal.com