Comments on: What the…..

By: Kathy M Johnson

Kathy M Johnson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:51:30 +0000

In response to “What the..” Judge Donehue should have dealt with this matter at that time…..I believe the second deputy made a copy of the piece of paper that was handed to him. The Kansas FBI should investigate all involved with the missing paper. I am curious to learn if this is something that goes on all the time in Judge Donehue’s courtroom….the drama thickens!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:39:10 +0000

When people say “you need to be careful with privileged documents” they usually mean you shouldn’t leave them on the bus or on the table in restaurants when you go to the toilet. It really means you shouldn’t be careless with them. The idea that you need to be careful with leaving them stacked up under a cover sheet while you’re making your submissions to the judge because a deputy might take them off your table in the courtroom has never occurred to me before.

By: JJ

JJ — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:28:13 +0000

This is the daily angst of criminal defense in Nazicopa County. Outrageous conduct on the part of Arpaio goes unpunished, unless Michael Manning extracts a few million bucks in civil penalties. That money doesn’t come out of Sheriff Mussolin’s pocket, so he doesn’t care. Anyone who crosses him is instantly under investigation. The Justice Department’s year-long investigation has borne no fruit. Are they afraid too?

Perhaps Nazicopa County needs a Huey P. Newton.

By: SusanK

SusanK — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:19:15 +0000

Nice job Dave W. I was too lazy to look up Arizona law.
Mike T. (#45) is actually right – on criminal contempt of court involving an occurrence inside the presence of the court, a trial is NOT necessary. The judge could have held the deputy in contempt the moment she saw him messing with the attorney’s papers. It’s the difference between civil and criminal contempt.
Everytime I see “keyword defense”, I think Chewbacca.

By: InMD

InMD — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:07:56 +0000

At #42

Nothing wrong with taking that stuff seriously and I commend you for it. :)

By: Salvo

Salvo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:01:49 +0000

@49

Oh, I agree. There would never be indictments over this sort of action, and contempt hearings are the best way to handle this. That being said, I was making the point that this was clearly illegal, regardless of how it’s handled, and should the gov’t wish to waste their time to a single civil rights violation, they *could* do so.

That being said, it bothers me that the presiding judge didn’t start contempt hearings right away. This is….well, to me it’s sacrilege–about as bad as you can go. Maybe I just took my professional responsibility courses way too seriously.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:06:57 +0000

Judge Flores is a “Former member, Arizona Peace Officer Standards & Training Board.”

By: Foobs

Foobs — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:01:41 +0000

You people have never properly absorbed American morality. There are good guys and there are bad guys. Whatever the good guys do is good. Whatever the bad guys do is bad.

Prosecutors, police officers, soldiers, etc. are the good guys. Defendants, defense attorneys, etc are the bad guys. You’re not supposed to help the bad guys win!

By: InMD

InMD — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:53:48 +0000

At #36

I see what you’re saying but we both know there isn’t going to be an indictment over something like this. It isn’t pretty but it’s the reality of separation of powers. The AG isn’t obligated to indict because it’s within his discretion and even if he was inclined to he has an obligation to allocate resources to cases he thinks are worth the investment. As stupid, bumbling, and thuggish as this is I can’t foresee them being willing to spend money on it.

The proper (and more realistic) remedy here in my opinion is civil. I would definitely sue under whatever civil rights lawsuit scheme they have out there and would also hope that the deputy is fired or at least no longer allowed to be in a court room. I think holding him in contempt and if possible barring him from further court room assignment would also be completely appropriate.

Also be calm Jerri. While I agree that the defense attorney should’ve made a bit more of a stink keep in mind her delicate situation. Her duty is to her client first. Overdoing it may not have been in her client’s interest. She properly raised the issue so it’s at least on the record and further action can be taken based on it. Not the answer people like to hear but in practical terms that isn’t the worst positionto be in.

By: Yizmo Gizmo

Yizmo Gizmo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:31:04 +0000

I used to do that a lot as a defendant.
I’d tiptoe over to the Prosecutor’s files and
steal the most relevant stuff and stuff it in my jail-issued pants.

By: Tom Schornhorst

Tom Schornhorst — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:00:25 +0000

Seems to me there is a Fourth Amendment issue here. Does an attorney have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” with respect to a case file that, albeit open on counsel table, is not “readable” without the close approach of the deputy shown in the recording? Surely the answer to this question must be yes! Moreover the deputy seems clearly to be reading the contents of a document (a search) and then lifts it from the file (a seizure). I would infer that the other deputy to whom the document was handed made a copy and then in full view of the judge returns it to the first deputy and he in turn puts it back.

BTW, what were the prosecutors and the judge doing while this incident takes place right under their noses and in plain view?

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:34:33 +0000

#45 Mike T

I know I will be in the minority in my opinion on this, but I don’t think in cases like this a trial is even necessary for the officer.

They should at least be able (and willing) to summarily boot his ass off the job. Government seems to grant an extraordinary degree of latitude for mistakes when it comes to “their own kind”.

By: Mike T

Mike T — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:30:06 +0000

I know I will be in the minority in my opinion on this, but I don’t think in cases like this a trial is even necessary for the officer. A higher court should be able to simply look at the video, note the illegal behavior that happened in the court and sentence the officer, without trial, to the punishment provided for by the law.

In court, **everyone** should be on trial at the same time, by law. The prosecutor, the police, the defendant, the defense attorney, the witnesses and expert testimony… everything they do in court or that is revealed by the trial should be subject to the court and jury for sentencing.

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:09:26 +0000

There may not be a criminal prosecution, but the defense attorney can and should in civil court sue for theft of trade secrets. I think the two detention officers immunity is only qualified, rather than absolute, and the civil case would lead to good publicity / precedent for the criminal defense bar.

Seems like a good pro bono case for Perkins Coie Brown & Bain or some firm like that.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:34:30 +0000

If no one prosecutes, then it doesn’t much matter if it was a crime. Remember, government isn’t constrained by law. What they do is limited only by what they can get away with (which is a lot).

By: Dave W.

Dave W. — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:24:55 +0000

ASusanK:

No. It is a at least two crimes (see Ariz Crim Code sections below). Also, the judge must allow the preservation of trade secrets (which the writing on the paper clearly is) during prosecution. perhaps most exciting, if the paper was considered to be “taken from the person” then we have a . . . . wait for it . . . eff-to-tha-ee-to-tha-el-to-tha-oe-to-tha-en-to-tha-why? Because we love you!

=====================================================
13-2810. Interfering with judicial proceedings; classification

A. A person commits interfering with judicial proceedings if such person
knowingly:

1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent behavior during the
session of a court which directly tends to interrupt its proceedings or
impairs the respect due to its authority; . . .
B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1 misdemeanor.
=====================================================
13-1801. Definitions

A. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
. . .
4. “Deprive” means to withhold the property interest of another either
permanently or for so long a time period that a substantial portion of its
economic value or usefulness or enjoyment is lost, to withhold with the
intent to restore it only upon payment of any reward or other compensation or to transfer or dispose of it so that it is unlikely to be recovered.
. . .
10. “Obtain” means to bring about or to receive the transfer of any
interest in property, whether to a defendant or to another, or to secure
the performance of a service or the possession of a trade secret.
. . .
12. “Property” means any thing of value, tangible or intangible,
including trade secrets.
=====================================================
13-1802. Theft; classification

A. A person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person
knowingly:

1. Controls property of another with the intent to deprive the other
person of such property; or

2. Converts for an unauthorized term or use services or property of
another entrusted to the defendant or placed in the defendant’s possession for a limited, authorized term or use; or

3. Obtains services or property of another by means of any material
misrepresentation with intent to deprive the other person of such property or services; or

4. Comes into control of lost, mislaid or misdelivered property of
another under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates such property to the person’s own or another’s use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner; or

5. Controls property of another knowing or having reason to know that the property was stolen; or

6. Obtains services known to the defendant to be available only for
compensation without paying or an agreement to pay the compensation or diverts another’s services to the person’s own or another’s benefit without authority to do so.

B. A person commits theft if the person knowingly takes control, title,
use or management of an incapacitated or vulnerable adult’s assets or
property through intimidation or deception, as defined in section . . .
while acting in a position of trust and confidence and with the intent to
deprive the incapacitated or vulnerable adult of the asset or property.
. . .
D. At the conclusion of any grand jury proceeding, hearing or trial, the
court shall preserve any trade secret that is admitted in evidence or any portion of a transcript that contains information relating to the trade secret pursuant to section 44-405.

E. . . . Theft of any property or services valued at less than one thousand dollars is a class 1 misdemeanor, unless the property is taken from the person of another . . . in which case the theft is a class 6 felony.
. . .

By: KBCraig

KBCraig — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:25:08 +0000

The defendant was apparently the only person in the courtroom possessed of a single fucking clue.

He was aware of the motion behind him and kept turning to keep an eye on it (a valuable jail survival skill).

When his attorney finally noticed the activity behind her and turned to ask what was going on, Stoddard said something that apparently placated her, so she sturned back to address the court. Then, after Lozano said to her, “He took that paper from the desk”, and ONLY then, did she start to develop a clue.

Even the defense attorneys are so wired to believe the police that she didn’t think anything was really wrong until then.

By: craig

craig — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:08:08 +0000

here’s the problem that I see. How can you know what is in the paperwork, illegal or otherwise, without looking? 4th amendment, works product, atty clients, and so forth generally bar looking at all.

By: Jerri Lynn Ward

Jerri Lynn Ward — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:38:13 +0000

This has made me nuts. I just called and left a message for the presiding judge about the fact that the weenie-ass judge let a crime happen before her stupid-ass face. Thank God that I am old and that no one but 3 dogs and a cat depend upon me.

By: Jerri Lynn Ward

Jerri Lynn Ward — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:49:01 +0000

Legal analysis contortions aside, this is about a person walking over to a table containing a file belonging to someone else and rifling through it and taking something from it right in front of a judge. This is about a judge who apparently has goose-poo for brains.