KSwisher
Posts:
| 02 Nov 2011 01:26 AM |
|
R-11-0033 PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8, RULE 42, ARIZONA RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT Would incorporate the ABA's amendment to Model Rule 3.8, which provides ethical guidance to prosecutors in situations in which an innocent person may have been convicted. Petitioners: Larry Hammond, 4049 ARIZONA JUSTICE PROJECT c/o Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law PO Box 875920 Tempe, Arizona 85287-5920 Phone: 602.640.9361 Email: [email protected] Keith Swisher, 23493 PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW 4041 North Central Avenue Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: 602.432.8464 Email: [email protected] Karen Wilkinson, 14095 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 850 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2730 Phone: 602.382.2700 Email: [email protected] Filed November 2, 2011. CONTINUED. On August 28, 2013, the Court issued the following Order: IT IS ORDERED that the attached amendments to Rule 42, ER 3.8 and 3.10, Rules of the Supreme Court, be reopened for comment until October 25, 2013. [SEE FIRST ATTACHMENT BELOW] COMMENTS DUE October 25, 2013. DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHMENTS (BELOW) Attachment 1: Supreme Court Order dated August 28, 2013 reopening this matter for comment on the attachment to order Attachment 2: Supreme Court Order dated August 30, 2012, reopening petition for comment on staff draft Attachment 3: Original Petition to Amend ER 3.8, Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2014. |
|
|
|
MHarrison
Posts:
| 04 May 2012 05:53 PM |
|
R-11-0033 COMMENT OF LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. Commenters: Mark I. Harrison, Esq. Terry Goddard, Esq. Grant Woods, Esq. Chief Justice Stanley G. Feldman (ret.) Chief Justice Charles E. "Bud" Jones (ret.) Hon. Robert D. Myers (ret.) Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket (ret.) c/o Mark I. Harrison, No. 001226 Osborn Maledon, PA 2929 N Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-640-9324 Fax: 602-640-9050 [email protected] Filed: May 4, 2012 |
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 19 May 2012 02:46 PM |
|
John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356 General Counsel STATE BAR OF ARIZONA 4201 North 24th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-6266 Telephone: (602) 252-4804 [email protected] Attachment 1: Comment of the State Bar of Arizona Attachment 2: Appendices A and B to Comment |
|
|
|
Posts:
| 20 May 2012 06:14 PM |
|
COMMENTS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ER 3.8 Ann Birmingham Scheel Arizona Bar No. 011399 Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona 40 N. Central Avenue Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Tel: (602) 514-7518 [email protected] John R. Evans Arizona Bar No. 05797 Chief, Tucson Criminal Division District of Arizona 405 W. Congress Street Tucson, Arizona Tel: (520) 620-7514 [email protected] Gary M. Restaino Arizona Bar No. 017450 Chief, Phoenix Criminal Division District of Arizona 40 N. Central Avenue Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Tel: (602) 514-7756 [email protected] |
|
|
|
John Canby
Posts:
| 21 May 2012 12:18 PM |
|
ARIZONA ATTORNEYS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2340 W. Ray Road, Suite 1 Chandler, Ariz. 85224 (480) 812-1700 JOHN A. CANBY, SB#010574 [email protected] |
|
|
|
domanico
Posts:
| 21 May 2012 12:25 PM |
|
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 00032000) MARK C. FAULL CHIEF DEPUTY 301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800 (STATE BAR NUMBER 011474 [email protected] |
|
|
|
kmac1411
Posts:
| 21 May 2012 01:39 PM |
|
Sheila S. Polk, Chair, ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS' ADVISORY COUNCIL; Elizabeth Ortiz, APAAC Executive Director Mailing Address: APAAC, 1951 W. Camelback Road, Suite 202, Phoenix, AZ, 85015 Phone Number: 602-542-7222 FAX Number: 602-274-4215 Email Address: [email protected] Bar Number: Sheila S. Polk, Bar Number 007514 Elizabeth Ortiz, Bar Number 012838 |
|
|
|
jlines
Posts:
| 21 May 2012 06:35 PM |
|
BARBARA LAWALL 32 N. Stone, 14th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520)740-5600 (520)791-3946 [email protected] 004906 |
|
|
|
KSwisher
Posts:
| 03 Jul 2012 04:23 PM |
|
PETITIONERS' REPLY TO PROSECUTORS' COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO ADOPTING ABA'S AMENDMENTS TO MODEL RULE 3.8. Petitioners: Larry Hammond, 4049 ARIZONA JUSTICE PROJECT c/o Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law PO Box 875920 Tempe, Arizona 85287-5920 Phone: 602.640.9361 Email: [email protected] Keith Swisher, 23493 PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW* One North Central Avenue Suite 1400 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: 602.432.8464 Email: [email protected] Karen Wilkinson, 14095 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER* 850 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2730 Phone: 602.382.2700 Email: [email protected] |
|
|
|
lhammond
Posts:
| 30 Jul 2012 04:11 PM |
|
R-11-0033 PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Petitioners: Larry Hammond, 4049 ARIZONA JUSTICE PROJECT c/o Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law PO Box 875920 Tempe, Arizona 85287-5920 Phone: 602.640.9361 Email: [email protected] Keith Swisher, 23493 PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW 4041 North Central Avenue Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: 602.432.8464 Email: [email protected] Karen Wilkinson, 14095 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 850 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2730 Phone: 602.382.2700 Email: [email protected] Filed July 30, 2012. |
|
|
|
JAH1970
Posts:
| 25 Apr 2013 03:06 PM |
|
Thomas M. Fitzpatrick, Chair Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Committee [email protected] The American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility Policy Implementation Committee recommends that the Arizona Supreme Court amend Rule 42, ER 3.8, Rules of the Supreme Court, to identify prosecutors’ obligations when they know of new evidence establishing a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit the offense of which he was convicted and to address the circumstances in which a prosecutor has a disclosure obligation, a duty to investigate, and a duty to take steps to remedy the conviction of an innocent individual. In February 2008, the American Bar Association adopted amendments to Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The amendments added two provisions in order to strengthen the responsibility of prosecutors to take action when confronted with evidence of innocence. The provisions build upon the ABA’s historic commitment to developing policies and standards designed to give concrete meaning to the “duty of prosecutors to seek justice, not merely to convict” (ABA Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, Standard 3-1.2(c)); and, in particular, to prevent and rectify the conviction of innocent defendants. The Committee recommends the Court adopt the amendments contained in Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that to the extent that any rule amendment that brings Arizona closer to the Model Rules is beneficial. The Committee advocates the desirability of having lawyer ethics case law develop uniformly throughout the country: uniform states’ rules of professional conduct have traditionally facilitated consistent and predictable interpretations and applications of fundamental lawyer ethics concepts. |
|
|
|
domanico
Posts:
| 17 May 2013 06:31 PM |
|
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 00032000) MARK C. FAULL CHIEF DEPUTY 301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800 (STATE BAR NUMBER 011474) [email protected]. |
|
|
|
Gideon
Posts:
| 18 May 2013 07:03 PM |
|
COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD-CENTRAL ARIZONA CHAPTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD-CENTRAL ARIZONA CHAPTER P.O. Box 3436 Phoenix, AZ 85030 [email protected] Gail Gianasi Natale, SBA #010389 [email protected] Dianne Post,SBA #006141 [email protected] Kevin Heade,SBA #029909 [email protected] Telephone: (480)251-8534 |
|
|
|
Phillisc
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 10:53 AM |
|
Christina M. Phillis, Arizona Public Defender Association 777 W. Southern Ave., Ste. 101 Mesa, Arizona 85210 Telephone (602) 372-2815 Fax (602) 372-8919 Email [email protected] Arizona Bar Membership No. 014871 |
|
|
|
PLantka
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 12:25 PM |
|
COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JOHN S. LEONARDO United States Attorney District of Arizona 405 W. Congress Street Tucson, Arizona Tel: (602) 514-7500 [email protected] JOHN R. EVANS Arizona Bar. No. 05797 Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona 405 W. Congress Street Tucson, Arizona Tel: (520) 620-7514 [email protected] GARY M. RESTAINO Arizona Bar No. 017450 Chief, Phoenix Criminal Division District of Arizona 40 N. Central Avenue Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Tel: (602) 514-7500 [email protected] |
|
|
|
REllman
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 01:17 PM |
|
THOMAS C. HORNE Attorney General Firm State Bar No. 14000 Robert L. Ellman Solicitor General State Bar No. 014410 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-3333 Fax: (602) 542-8608 [email protected] |
|
|
|
MHarrison
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 01:30 PM |
|
Commenters: Mark I. Harrison, Esq. Terry Goddard, Esq. Grant Woods, Esq. Chief Justice Stanley G. Feldman (ret.) Chief Justice Charles E. "Bud" Jones (ret.) Hon. Robert D. Myers (ret.) Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket (ret.) c/o Mark I. Harrison, No. 001226 Osborn Maledon, PA 2929 N Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-640-9324 Fax: 602-640-9050 [email protected] COMMENT OF LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. |
|
|
|
AZStateBar
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 04:29 PM |
|
John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356 General Counsel State Bar of Arizona 4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016-6266 602.252.4804 [email protected] |
|
|
|
citizentaxpayer
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 05:21 PM |
|
Mary E.Osorio Public citizen and taxpayer Former Arizona resident Signer on petition: Change.org/help-an-innocent-woman P.O. Box 5791 Auburn, CA 95604 IN THE MATTER OF, PETITION TO AMEND ETHICAL RULE (ER) 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, (RULE 42 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF SUPREME COURT) Supreme Court No. R-ll-0033 REPLY TO PROSECUTORS' COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION TO AMEND ETHICAL RULE (ER) 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Thank you for the opportunity to allow public input before the Honorable Supreme Court of the State of Arizona regarding the Petition to Amend Ethical Rule (ER) 3.8 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. As a concerned citizen and taxpayer, former resident of Arizona, and a signer -together with over 39,000 others internationally and across the United States -to a petition referencing a high-profile wrongful conviction in Arizona.\1 Despite denials to the contrary, we know that there are more wrongful convictions on the horizon.\2 For informed citizenry concerned about public policy issues, such as wrongful conviction, mass encarceration, lack of due process and fair trials, lack of integrity in public offices and lack of accountability of same, we can no longer believe lofty, high-minded empty claims. It is becoming more difficult for some elected officials to continue deceiving the public. As informed and concerned citizens, we instantly communicate and share information online, with and about, the National Registry of Exonerations;\3 read yesterday's New York Times Sunday Review for the latest commentary on Brady violations;\4 or review some of the first Arizona newspapers informing the public about Ethical Rules 3.8;\5 or, read empirical studies from universities like that of John F. Pfaff, Fordham University School of Law.\6 Many of us watched the live-streaming broadcast of the Arizona Supreme Court proceedings over th twenty-six day (September 12, 2011 - November 2, 2011)) Disciplinary Hearing which led to the disbarment of former Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas and his Chief Deputy.\7 It is imperative to consider the harm to the public that 'rogue' prosecutors with absolute authority and immunity can inflict. In the case of Andrew Thomas, while campaigning for the state office of Attorney General in 2010, boasting publicly in an interview with the The Arizona Republic, that while he was Maricopa County Attorney he "...oversaw the prosecution of approximately 200,000 felony cases."\8 Considering that statement, in view of the facts revealed by through the disbarment proceedings against Thomas, the public has a very graphic picture of where unchecked power csn lead. The following are excerpts taken from the Hearing Panel's detailed and expansive findings dated April 10, 2010:\9 * "[I]t appears he [Thomas]lavishly spent millions over his budget demanding to retain the right to hire the special lawyers he chose." * "[H]e [Thomas] believed he was right. Clearly, the startling absence of any evidence in these prosecutions did not hinder the flex of that power." * "they [Respondents] prosecuted innocent people, without evidence, and did not blink." * "This case is regrettable proof that the absence of ethical behavior fuels uncontrollable actions." * "The harm they [Respondents] caused is incalculable." * "...a story of public trust dishonored, desecrated snd defiled." If Thomas' legacy were the last the public would hear about corruption in public office, we might all feel a sense of relief, but another tidal wave of condemnation is heading toward the very same Maricopa County Attorney's Office in the form of a scathing criticism coming from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an Opinion of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski dated March 14, 2013, regarding the suppression of evidence in the Habeas Corpus/ Death Penalty case of Debra Jean Milke.\10 For any public official in Maricopa County to make the bold statement that the Petitioners failed to provide even "one" example of a wrongful conviction for suppression of evidence, knowing the immediate past history of the former Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas' disgraceful disbarment just weeks prior to filing their opposition to ER 3.8, does not deserve further comment. We applaud the Texas State legislature and the Texas Governor for passing and signing the Michael Morton Act\11 which will become law this year on Septembe 1st. Arizona needs to move in the same direction. We deserve to see practical, ethicsl steps taken that will underscore the "duty of the prosecutor to seek justice, not merely to convict." ER 3.8 is an advance toward that goal; but, more must be done to remedy the conviction of innocent individuals. Respectfully submitted this 20th day of May, 2013 By: Mary E. Osorio Filed electronically Footnotes: 1 Change.org/free-an-innocent-woman 2 http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/"Death Row: Debra Milke's Convictions Overturned in Son's Murder, After Two Decades on Death Row" by Matthew Hendley (March 14, 2013) 3 National Registry of Exonerations (https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org) 4 The New York Times Sunday Review, "Open-Discovery Rules Won't Necessarily Stop Prosecutors from Cheating" (May 19, 2013) 5 Sonoran News,"Hope on the Horiaon for Wrongfully Convicted" by Linda Bentley (April 2-8, 2008); Phoenix New Times, "Andrew Thomas Ignores Evidence That Courtney Bisbee Was Wrongfully Convicted of Child Molestation as Supporters Work to Free Her" by Stephen Lemons. (October 30, 2008) [Note: this is Pulitzer Prize investigative reporting, thank you!] Phoenix New Times (blog),"Courtney Bisbee and County Pettifogger Gerald R. Grant" by Stephen Lemons (February 25, 2009) 6 John F. Pfaff, Fordham University School of Law (July 12, 2011) 7 Before the Presiding Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Arizona,"Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions" (April 10, 2012) 8 The Arizona Republic, azcentral.com (Live Talk from June 9: Andrew Thomas) (June 9, 2010)(11:00AM) 9 Id. Hearing Panel "Opinion and Order Imposing Sanctions" (April 10, 2012) 10 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,"Opinion of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski" (March 14, 2013) 11 The Texas Tribune, "Perry Signs Michael Morton Act" (March 14, 2013) |
|
|
|
KSwisher
Posts:
| 20 May 2013 06:40 PM |
|
Bruce A. Green Louis Stein Professor of Law Director, Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics FORDHAM UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW* 140 West 62nd Street
New York, NY 10023
(212) 636-6851 [email protected] Ellen C. Yaroshefsky Clinical Professor of Law Director, Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW*
55 Fifth Avenue
Room 1115 New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0386 [email protected] c/o Keith Swisher, 23493 PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW* One North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: 602.432.8464 Email: [email protected] COMMENT OF PROFESSORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
|
|
|
|
Camille Tilley
Posts:
| 21 May 2013 01:13 AM |
|
Camille Tilley Goodyear, AZ [email protected] My comment in support of Petition of Petition to Amend ER 3.8 of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct Arizona has false allegations and wrongful convictions cases that have been swept under the rug for far too many years. The prosecutors have ignored new evidence and exculpatory evidence. Brady violations that they chose to look the other way. ER 3.8 is a small and necessary step in the right direction. It's time for fair justice after the abuse of power in Maricopa County that has prevailed for years. Manifest injustice cases: Ray Krone, Macumber, Lisa Randall, Debra Milke, Courtney Bisbee, Stephen May and many more. The County Attorneys and prosecutors have the awesome power over the people with no oversight, no accountability and absolute immunity. It's time to eliminate absolute immunity for prosecutors after the reign of terror we have all lived under the former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his chief "charging" prosecutor, former Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon, who both disbarred, April 2012. They have stained the reputations of prosecutors and their credibility. Their legacy of damage has destroyed our families and many others, as we are victims of their over 200,000 felony cases, in one term in office, that Andrew Thomas bragged about (from 2005-2010). |
|
|
|
KSwisher
Posts:
| 30 Jun 2013 09:02 PM |
|
PETITIONERS' REPLY IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENTS TO ER 3.8 Larry Hammond, 4049 ARIZONA JUSTICE PROJECT c/o Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law PO Box 875920 Tempe, Arizona 85287-5920 Phone: 602.640.9361 Email: [email protected] Keith Swisher, 23493 PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW* One North Central Avenue Suite 1400 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: 602.432.8464 Email: [email protected] Karen Wilkinson, 14095 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER* 850 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2730 Phone: 602.382.2700 Email: [email protected] |
|
|
|
REllman
Posts:
| 18 Sep 2013 11:27 AM |
|
Robert L. Ellman Arizona Solicitor General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-542-8986 602-542-8308 [email protected] Bar #014410 Comment on revised draft amendments |
|
|
|
MHarrison
Posts:
| 15 Oct 2013 12:15 PM |
|
Commenters: Mark I. Harrison, Esq. Terry Goddard, Esq. Grant Woods, Esq. Chief Justice Stanley G. Feldman (ret.) Chief Justice Frank X. Gordon (ret.) Chief Justice Charles E. "Bud" Jones (ret.) Hon. Robert D. Myers (ret.) Chief Justice Thomas A. Zlaket (ret.) c/o Mark I. Harrison, No. 001226 Osborn Maledon, PA 2929 N Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-640-9324 Fax: 602-640-9050 [email protected] COMMENT OF LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. |
|
|
|
tlborden
Posts:
| 20 Oct 2013 07:32 PM |
|
Terry and Patricia Borden Phoenix [email protected] We support adoption of the proposed changes to ER 3.8. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery claims there are no wrongful convictions in Arizona. He is WRONG. In their comments on 6/30/2013 (16302167654.pdf) Larry Hammond et.al. cite 4 cases where there was wrongful convictions and the prosecution had access to material exculpatory evidence. Moreover recently Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas was disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct and Bill Montgomery was admonished by a judge for failure to disclose material to the judge in the possible retrial of Debra Milke. It is clear that wrongful convictions regrettably occur. These proposed changes are needed to protect Arizona citizens. Justice will be better served if Arizona’s ethics rules clearly define the prosecutor's obligations when in presence of possible exculpatory nature. Finally, “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” (Clarence Darrow) |
|
|
|
Susan Chandler
Posts:
| 22 Oct 2013 05:02 PM |
|
Susan Chandler Multi-state public corruption victim, innocence advocate, blogger Fort Pierce, Florida [email protected]I support the proposed changes to ER 3.8, Rule 42, Arizona rules of the Supreme Court in the same manner in which I support state rule changes anywhere that will better ensure the availability and quality of justice. Part of said manner of support is this: I am aware that are fundamentally flawed U.S. Supreme Court rulings that serve to protect prosecutors and their supervisors ahead of the public at large, specifically Imbler v Pachtman, Van de Kamp v Goldstein, Brady v Maryland and Connick v Thompson. What they all boil down to is ridiculous requirements for review of darkly clouded convictions, topped by timelines so constrictive and punitive that they apply even to death sentences. Warehousing (or killing) innocents while actual criminals remain free is the most daft and dreadful misappropriation of public funds I can conceive of, aside from dropping drones on very young and very old civilians and claiming "surgical precision" in doing so. I am also aware that the American Bar Association's Government and Public Sector Lawyers Division, a "Self Regulating Organization," is laying their claim to "promoting the integrity and excellence" of public lawyers, but is instead allowing public lawyers whose misconduct is open, notorious and serial to remain lawyers, and advance their careers to have a broader range of individuals to harm. I am further aware that the American Bar Association's tax exemption is based upon equally serving its members and the public, was tasked by SCOTUS in Imbler v Pachtman with public attorney oversight in 1976, and is enjoying exemption from taxes while flouting not only the basis of exemption but the Justice's ruling. Generous Bar disbursements to innocence organizations may be agenda-laden. I am additionally aware, through direct contact over a number of years, that all of the above is known to and ignored by the Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS, the Treasury Department, Senate Intelligence Oversight, etc. ... all are apparently far more concerned about reputations remaining untarnished as regards their inexcusably poor follow-up on the FBI announcing discredited forensic analysis techniques (Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis, hair and fiber analysis) as well as their failure to announce - yet alone follow-up on - their affiliations with discredited forensics experts, including an assortment of charlatan dog handlers. As the FBI taught their discredited hair and fiber analysis techniques to law enforcement officers nationwide, it is likely that no state remains unaffected. Generous Justice Department disbursements to innocence organization may be agenda-laden. Finally, I am painfully aware that the mainstream media is all-too-willing to downplay any facet of the unavailability of justice, apparently in trade for approving nods for mergers and acquisitions and perhaps other untoward regulatory favors. I've confronted reporters over misrepresentations of fact concerning standing convictions, and haven't found one willing to make even a minor correction. A self-fettered press is worse than worthless, and that's what we have. They show up when the next exoneration occurs, exonerations that would have escalated to hundreds per year were the media willing to adroitly address the issue of Bar responsibility for bad actors' actions. The media publish or broadcast the trite and untrue exoneration script, "I'm not bitter. I'm only looking forward. I'm glad that justice was finally served." How bitter a pill to recite that last sentence, knowing that those who intimidated witnesses, coached jailhouse informant testimony, deployed a knowingly discredited forensic expert and/or misrepresented evidence, etc., are not being held accountable for anything. This isn't the full extent of the media dystopia, i.e.; Edward Snowden's secure hold on four laptops was never compared and contrasted to the FBI's 160 "lost" laptops that Senate Oversight was initially so intensely interested in. Only the alternate media is willing to point out who's lying and who's not, even when our nation faces fiscal ruin. A handful of multi-billionaire moguls control most of the mainstream media, and they're as little concerned about the ruined lives of incarcerated innocents and their families as they are any other inherent rights issue; they believe that rights are something you buy as necessary, not something available to all, inherently. In this any-port-in-a-storm context, as a public corruption victim who has been denied the pursuit of happiness for the better part of 35 years and as the concerned-to-distraction advocate for incarcerated innocents, including Courtney Bisbee, I support the Amendment of ER 3.8, Rule 42, Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
KSwisher
Posts:
| 22 Oct 2013 11:16 PM |
|
Jennifer Thompson c/o Keith Swisher Phoenix School of Law One North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 [email protected] COMMENT OF VICTIM AND AUTHOR JENNIFER THOMPSON IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO AMEND ER 3.8 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT |
|
|
|
mlubas2
Posts:
| 23 Oct 2013 11:19 AM |
|
MaryAnn Lubas Pennsylvania Director of the Freedom March for the Wrongfully Convicted [email protected] I am SHOCKED that Attorney Bill Montgomery states that there are no wrongful convictions in Arizona!!! I know of at least 3 cases as I write that are wrongfully imprisoned and there have been eight exonerated in Arizona from death row alone! That is 11 too many!!!! Arizona is right in the middle for exonerations from all the states. You have had attorney's disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct. Prosecutors cannot be above the law!!!! They must have oversight and be held responsible for their errors. I strongly support the adoption of the proposed changes to ER 3.8. A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. John F. Kennedy |
|
|
|
kmac1411
Posts:
| 23 Oct 2013 05:33 PM |
|
SHEILA POLK (007514) ELIZABETH ORTIZ (012838) ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEY’S ADVISORY COUNCIL 1951 W. CAMELBACK RD. SUITE 202 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85015 TELEPHONE: (602) 542-7222 FAX: (602) 274-4215 Sheila Polk: [email protected] Elizabeth Ortiz: [email protected] |
|
|
|
Posts:
| 23 Oct 2013 06:59 PM |
|
Commenters: JOHN R. EVANS Arizona Bar. No. 05797 Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona 405 W. Congress Street Tucson, Arizona Tel: (520) 620-7514 [email protected] GARY M. RESTAINO Arizona Bar No. 017450 Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona 40 N. Central Avenue Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Tel: (602) 514-7500 [email protected] THIRD SET OF COMMENTS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA |
|
|
|
barbara.PimaCountyAttorney@pca
Posts:
| 25 Oct 2013 10:51 AM |
|
Barbara LaWall Pima County Attorney Pima County Attorney's Office 32 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 520-740-5622 520-740-5495-FAX Az State Bar No. 004906 [email protected] |
|
|
|
domanico
Posts:
| 25 Oct 2013 11:35 AM |
|
WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 00032000) MARK FAULL CHIEF DEPUTY 301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800 (STATE BAR NUMBER 011474) ( [email protected]) R-11-0033 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S COMMENTS TO SUPREME COURT ORDER AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO ER 3.8 AND 3.10. |
|
|
|
AZStateBar
Posts:
| 25 Oct 2013 02:35 PM |
|
John A. Furlong, Bar No. 018356 General Counsel Patricia A. Sallen, Bar No. 012338 Deputy General Counsel State Bar of Arizona 4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016-6266 602.252.4804 [email protected] [email protected] |
|
|
|
Phillisc
Posts:
| 25 Oct 2013 05:04 PM |
|
Christina M. Phillis, Arizona Bar Membership No. 014871 Arizona Public Defender Association 777 W. Southern Ave., Ste. 101 Mesa, Arizona 85210 Telephone (602) 372-2815 Fax (602) 372-8919 Email [email protected] |
|
|
|
KBrody
Posts:
| 25 Oct 2013 06:13 PM |
|
Commenter: Arizona Attorneys For Criminal Justice c/o Kathleen E. Brody Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-640-9387 Fax: 602-640-9050 [email protected] |
|
|
|
KSwisher
Posts:
| 26 Oct 2013 12:08 AM |
|
PETITIONERS' FINAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENTS TO ER 3.8 Larry Hammond, 4049 ARIZONA JUSTICE PROJECT c/o Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law PO Box 875920 Tempe, Arizona 85287-5920 Phone: 602.640.9361 Email: [email protected] Keith Swisher, 23493 PHOENIX SCHOOL OF LAW* One North Central Avenue Suite 1400 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phone: 602.432.8464 Email: [email protected] Karen Wilkinson, 14095 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER* 850 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2730 Phone: 602.382.2700 Email: [email protected] |
|
|
|
Camille Tilley
Posts:
| 26 Oct 2013 03:51 AM |
|
Camille Tilley Goodyear Az [email protected] THIS IS MY SECOND COMMENT. First comment with attachments May 20, 2013, I support the Petition to Amend ER 3.8 and 3.10 draft, as well as the suggestions made by Kathleen E. Brody, Osborn Maledon, and Christina M. Phillis, Arizona Public Defender Assoc. see attachments. |
|
|
|
Camille Tilley
Posts:
| 27 Oct 2013 12:27 AM |
|
Camille Tilley Goodyear AZ [email protected] http://www.change.org/pet...ee-an-innocent-woman MCAO Bill Montgomery and Mark Faull, chief deputy write in their "comment" to the Arizona Supreme Court judges, that there are no wrongful convictions in Arizona, no new evidence, no exculpatory evidence (May 17, 2013. AG Horne will write there are no Brady violations in Arizona (May 20, 2013). They are wrong and are simply refusing to acknowledge the reality of Maricopa County and Arizona's history of injustice. Convictions at all cost. As we have witnessed, a politicized justice system is no justice system at all. The caseload created by the prosecutors has overwhelmed the courts, jails and prisons. In reading their comments, the prosecutors appear to care only for themselves and not innocent or the taxpayers, or they would support the Petition to Amend ER 3.8 and 3.10, a watered down version of the ABA original written back in 2008. "Righting the wrongs" of wrongful convictions by the ministers of justice would be expected of prosecutors with a sense of conscience and integrity. A few links follow, to a few wrongful convictions cases, listed to remind the prosecutors and to show the judges what the prosecutors are ignoring. Those mentioned in MCAO's comment Oct. 25, 2013, who were falsely accused and not convicted, also have their lives destroyed, like the 14 defendants arrested for "huffing", only for it to be a a costly "mistake". A Look at Exonerations in Shaken Baby Syndrome Cases - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times http://bit.ly/19IOVYO AZ: Lisa Randall, a Wrongly Charged Former Peoria Daycare Operator, Benefited Greatly From Andrew Thomas' Departure - Page 1 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times http://bit.ly/1hjIVJV AZ: "Mom freed; served 7 years for heist she didn't commit" Feb. 7, 2008 http://bit.ly/16BIEQm Example of an agency who knew and did nothing, like the detective in the Debra Milke case: "Jernigan learned of Gallegos' arrest in 2001 in a prison-yard conversation and immediately notified her attorneys. By then, FBI agents were aware of the women's similarities, Jernigan's attorneys say, but failed to inform prosecutors or Jernigan's defense team." |
|
|
|
Camille Tilley
Posts:
| 28 Oct 2013 01:03 AM |
|
Camille Tilley Goodyear AZ [email protected] http://www.change.org/pet...ee-an-innocent-woman This timely special report appeared in the Sunday edition, Oct. 27, 2013, of the Arizona Republic which should be included in the comments to the Arizona Supreme Court. Once again, this shows why we support the Petition to Amend ER 3.8 and 3.10, which should be read by all. This series was researched and written as part of a fellowship with The Guggenheim Foundation and the John jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. New PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT Special Report (cover page plus two full pages) by Michael Kiefer, Arizona Republic, Sunday edition, Oct. 27, 2013 A four-part series, Oct. 27, 28, 29, and 30th, 2013. "When Prosecutors Get Too Close to the Line: The Gray Area of Courtroom Conduct" (part 1 of 4) "Prosecutorial misconduct alleged in half of capital cases" http://bit.ly/18tmF8F --------------- New Empirical Study: PROSECUTORS, Not Police, Have Driven Prison Population Growth http://bit.ly/1gUh3OU "The United States prison population has exploded over the past 40 years. But why? Have police been making more arrests? Have prosecutors been charging more people with crimes? Have judges been issuing longer sentences? Have parole boards become stricter? (All of the above?) Since many accounts of mass incarceration collapse “the criminal justice system” into a single monolith, it can be hard to know exactly what part of the system has driven the growth in the prison population. A new empirical study by Fordham law professor John Pfaff aims to provide a more granular explanation of the causes of mass incarceration. Pfaff concludes that only one other relevant number has changed as dramatically as the prison population has: the number of felony case filings per arrest. In other words, police haven’t been arresting more people" ----------- See my other comments dated May 21, 2013, Oct. 25, 26 with supporting documents. |
|
|
|
Thom
Posts:
| 28 Oct 2013 04:23 PM |
|
R. Thomas Sun City West, AZ [email protected] Gentlemen: I support the amendment to ER 3.8. Prosecutor and Maricopa County Attorney are falsifying information to the public when claiming that no innocent person has been convicted in Arizona. There has, no doubt, been several, but I know of one for sure--Ray Krone! Nationwide, the number is over 1,233 innocent individuals that has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in lawsuits; as well as destroying the lives of their friends and family. Just in today news, two in Washington State are declared innocent--AFTER spending 17 years in prison! Prosecutors have a 95% or more conviction rate due to "plea bargains" that is nothing more than bribery. Bribery is a violation of Article II, Sec. 4 of our U.S. Constitution. Laws that allow immunity for prosecutors who abuse their power and destroy lives is immoral and evil. Exoneration Detail List - 1,233 Exonerations; 12 exonerated in Arizona http://www.law.umich.edu/...etaillist.aspx?View={faf6eddb-5a68-4f8f-8a52-2c61f5bf9ea7}&SortField=ST&SortDir=Asc Cruz Robert 33 Hispanic AZ Murder Death 1981 1995 Y Fish Harold 57 Caucasian AZ NC Murder 10 years 2006 2009 Girdler, Jr. Ray 36 Caucasian AZ Murder Life 1982 1991 Y Y Grannis David 21 Caucasian AZ Murder Death 1991 1996 Y Krone Ray 34 Caucasian AZ Murder Death 1992 2002 Y Y Y McCrimmon Christopher 20 Black AZ Murder Death 1993 1997 Y Y Minnitt Andre 21 Black AZ Murder Death 1993 2002 Y Y Peak Carolyn June 39 Caucasian AZ F Murder Not sentenced 2000 2003 Y Prion Lemuel 30 Caucasian AZ Murder Death 1999 2003 Robison James Albert 53 Caucasian AZ CDC Murder Death 1977 1993 Y Watkins John 18 Caucasian AZ P Sexual Assault 14 years 2004 2010 Y Y Y Witt Drayton 18 Caucasian AZ NC, SBS Murder 20 years 2002 2012 ARIZONA BRADY VIOLATION CASES: Canion v. Cole, 208 Ariz. 133, 91 P.3d 355 It is true that, by its words, Rule 15.1 does not apply to PCR proceedings, but to agree with the State that this is conclusive would allow the prosecution that unlawfully failed to disclose exculpatory information in a timely manner to continue to evade that duty and thwart the due process of law to which an accused is entitled. The Arizona Supreme Court held in State v. Schreiber, 115 Ariz. 555, 556, 566 P.2d 1031, 1032 (1977), that a Rule 32 petition should be granted when the prosecution's non-disclosure of evidence denied the petitioner's right to due process, citing the United States and Arizona Constitutions. Remand was required after defendant showed good cause and made colorable allegations of newly discovered materials. Martin-Costa v. Kiger, 235 P.3d 1040 While the parent of a minor crime victim had limited standing to enforce any right guaranteed to the victim, neither the Victims' Bill of Rights under Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 2.1, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4401 et seq., nor Ariz. R. Crim. P. 39 granted a crime victim the right to seek disqualification of the trial judge or defense counsel. State v. Talmadge, 196 Ariz. 436 In criminal child abuse case, trial court's ruling preventing Scottish expert on temporary brittle bone disease from testifying as defense expert witness was an abuse of discretion, and the error was reversible. 9TH CIRCUIT COURT- BRADY VIOLATION CASES: Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290 (5th Cir. 1993) US v. Brumel - Alverez, 976 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1992) Brady doctrine requires prosecution to produce exculpatory evidence and evidence useful for impeachment when requested to do so by defendant. Bartholomew v. Wood, 34 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 1994) Prosecution's failure to disclose material and favorable evidence to defendant will violate due process under BRADY, even when defendant makes no request for such evidence. US v. Aichele, 941 F.2d 761 (9th Cir. 1991) To escape BRADY sanction, disclosure must be made at time when disclosure would be of value to accused. US v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456 (9th Cir. 1995) 1. "Brady material" is any evidence material either to guilt or punishment which is favorable to accused, irrespective of good faith or bad faith of prosecution. 2. Prosecutor's duty to reveal BRADY materials does not depend on request by defense. US v. Zuno - Arce, 44 F.3d 1420 (9th Cir. 1995) Under Brady, exculpatory evidence cannot be kept out of hands of defense just because prosecutor does not have it, where investigating agency does. Thank you, R. Thomas Sun City West, AZ [email protected] |
|
|
|