Christine Mascal resigned from the board of the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center Thursday, mere weeks after her aggressive cross-examination of Erica Naito-Campbell irked current and past members of the advocacy group.

On March 22, Charles McGee and Aubre Dickson were found not guilty of sexually assaulting Naito-Campbell at McGee’s home in 2012. Mascal represented McGee in the Multnomah Circuit Court trial and her unsparing questions frequently brought Naito-Campbell to tears.

After the verdict, Naito-Campbell said she would no longer support the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center because Mascal served on its board of directors.

“You cannot be a victim’s advocate and a defense attorney engaging in heinous victim blaming at the same time,” Naito-Campbell said on Twitter. “It is a slap in the face to victims.”

I am not, however, donating to the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center, which I supported last year. It has upon its board CM’s lawyer. You cannot be a victim’s advocate and a defense attorney engaging in heinous victim blaming at the same time. It is a slap in the face to victims. — erica goode (@ScousePower8) April 5, 2019

That argument gained traction in a week in which the Law Center was celebrating 10 years of “giving victims a voice in the criminal justice system.” On Thursday morning, co-founder Steve Doell released the following statement:

“Chris Mascal has submitted her resignation to the Board of the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center. She has been a valued member of our Board, having spent the great majority of her career working tirelessly for crime victims. We understand and appreciate that her decision to resign from our Board was based on her commitment to our organization."

Doell, the board president, said the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center would have no further comment.

Mascal would not agree to answer questions about her resignation.

In mid-March, Steve Houze, the attorney for Aubre Dickson, and Mascal spent more than three hours questioning Naito-Campbell and attacking her memory, truthfulness and motives.

Mascal’s website notes that during her 20 years as a Multnomah County prosecutor, “Chris worked extensively with victims and their families. It was through these interactions that Chris gained insight into understanding how trauma affects everyone differently and how best to approach survivors’ concerns while guiding them through the legal process.”

When she approached Naito-Campbell, it was to ask how loudly she said, “No,” and to wonder, “You don’t bring up threesomes with someone you just met, or is that who you are?”

While many Oregon attorneys saw a contradiction between that zealous defense and Mascal’s obligation to the Oregon Crime Victims Law Center, only Josh Marquis was willing to be quoted.

“It was clear what the defense strategy was: burn the victim to the ground,” says Marquis, the long-time Clatsop County district attorney who retired at the end of last year. “They chose to offer no alternative facts. There was no evidence. They simply attacked the victim’s claims that she was sexually assaulted because the claim was delayed for a few years.

“There’s nothing morally reprehensible about her doing her job as a defense attorney,” Marquis adds. “But combining that with her board position? That’s like being on the local MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) Council while you routinely defend drunk drivers.”

-- Steve Duin

stephen.b.duin@gmail.com