Union County Man Richard Frank Charged with Second-Degree Murder Seeks House Arrest

Richard Frank, 68, who has been in the Union County Jail without bail since his arrest on Nov. 17, 2025, asked a visiting judge on Feb. 5 to allow him to live under house arrest while he awaits trial on one count of second-degree murder. The charge stems from the November 2025 shooting death of his son, 40-year-old Tynan Frank.

Frank’s request came after defense attorney Wes Williams filed a motion on Jan. 27 asking the court to release Frank pending trial. The defense argues a legal precedent, “Collins versus Foster holds that the 60-day rule applies in murder cases.” Oregon law quoted in court filings states that “a defendant shall not remain in custody pending the start of a trial for more than 60 days following an arrest. If a trial has not started within that time period, the court must order the defendant’s release.” At the same time, filings include the statutory exception that “release shall be denied when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong that the person is guilty.”

A modified release recommendation report filed Feb. 3 by the county release team followed the defense motion and included an additional comment from a release assistance officer saying the team defers to the court whether state law applies in this case. The report also stated that, if the court determines Frank is eligible for release, “the defendant does not pose a public safety risk, victim safety is not relevant, he has no criminal history and the defendant has strong ties to the community.”

Williams proposed that, if released, Frank be placed on house arrest and that the court “prohibit him from leaving his property except to attend court.” The motion adds that “Williams will drive Frank to and from court.” The release hearing was heard before visiting Judge Matthew Shirtcliff; Frank is next scheduled to appear for a plea hearing on Feb. 24.

The filings set up a legal and policy clash that matters locally. County courts routinely balance the 60-day pretrial custody timeframe against statutory exceptions for homicide cases; how the court interprets precedent such as Collins versus Foster will affect not only this case but how Union County handles other serious charges when trials are delayed. The release team’s assessment that victim safety “is not relevant” is a stark formulation that may prompt public questions about how victim interests are weighed in pretrial evaluations.

For Union County residents, the case highlights broader institutional issues: pretrial detention practices, jail capacity and costs, and judicial discretion when statutory language appears to conflict with precedent. The Feb. 24 plea date will be the next concrete milestone; until then, the county’s handling of the 60-day rule and the court’s reasoning on eligibility for release will shape community debate about safety, fairness and the limits of pretrial confinement.