Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 11 Jun 2008 11:05 AM by  lkoschney
R-07-0005 Rule 8.2(a)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure
 6 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
lkoschney
Posts:

--
15 Aug 2007 12:11 PM
    R-07-0005 Petition to Amend Rule 8.2(a)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure

    Treasure VanDreumel
    SB #012392
    Law Office of Treasure VanDreumel, PLC
    2000 N 7th Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85006
    602-253-7348

    Filed August 10, 2007

    COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED AS OF MAY 20, 2008.

    Petition rejected by order dated September 16, 2008.
    Attachments
    domanico
    Posts:

    --
    19 May 2008 06:58 PM
    ANDREW P. THOMAS
    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
    (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 0003200)

    PHILIP J. MACDONNELL
    CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
    JAMES P. BEENE
    DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY
    301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003
    TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800
    (STATE BAR NUMBERS 003813 AND 014119)
    Attachments
    mlieberman003
    Posts:

    --
    20 May 2008 02:44 PM
    Martin Lieberman
    State Bar No.007442
    3443 North Central, Ste. 706
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    (602) 771-9000
    Fax (602) 771-9014
    marty.lieberman@azpcrpd.gov


    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA


    In the Matter of:

    AMENDMENT OF RULE 8.2(a)(4)
    OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    No. R-07-0005

    I am submitting a brief comment to the above captioned Petition because I was a member of the committee which drafted numerous proposed amendments to Rule 8 and Rule 15 in 2001, and, thereafter, after Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), I petitioned to amend Rule 8.2(a)(4) in light of that decision. The current petition seeks further amendment, in light of experience and practice, and the purpose of this comment is to describe how the current time limit of 18 months came about.

    On or about February 17, 2000, the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed a petition to Amend Criminal Rule 15.7 with the Court. The Court referred the Petition to a committee chaired by then Maricopa County Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge Roger Kaufman.

    Additionally, on or about June 12, 2000, the Maricopa County Superior Court petitioned to amend Rule 8 to establish a single triggering date and to establish more realistic time frames. This proposal was also referred to the Committee which became known as the “Rule 8 and Rule 15 Committee.”

    The Committee thereafter reviewed the entirety of Rule 15 and, on April 19, 2001, submitted its Combined Petition to Amend Rule 8.2 and Rule 15. On May 7, 2001, this Court ordered that the petition be circulated for comment. After comments were received, the committee reconvened and considered the comments.

    The Court issued its order revising Rule 8.2 on or about May 31, 2002, effective December 1, 2002, establishing a nine month time frame for homicide cases.

    Ring v. Arizona was decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 24, 2002. Reacting to the decision, the state legislature amended the death penalty statute. The amendment created jury sentencing immediately following a conviction. This amendment significantly lengthened the preparation time in a capital case for defense counsel.

    Based on these developments, on September 14, 2002, I filed a Petition to Amend Rule 8.2, seeking an eighteen month time frame for capital cases. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office had also filed a petition seeking numerous changes to the Rules of Criminal Procedure at about the same time; one of the proposed changes was to amend Rule 8.2 to provide for a twelve month time frame for capital cases.

    At the time these petitions were filed, there had been no experience under the new process and it was noted in the petition seeking an eighteen month time frame that there was dispute in the community about the amount of time that would be required to prepare for a capital case. The suggested eighteen month time frame was an estimate based upon a canvassing of defense attorneys involved in capital cases, although there was disagreement in the community.

    On October 1, 2002, the Court adopted the Petition, as modified, on an emergency basis, and allowed comments. Since then, the Court has maintained the eighteen month frame.

    With six years of experience, it is probably a good time to re-visit the Rule. Moreover, the Court is better able to assess an appropriate time frame as a result of the work done by the Capital Case Task Force and Oversight Committees. The Court is more aware of the resources available to the parties and the Superior Court.

    It would be imprudent to consider the current eighteen month time frame as anything but an estimate necessarily generated as a result of the statutory changes to the death penalty statutes. The Court should re-consider the eighteen month time frame, in light of six years experience, and determine whether or not eighteen months is a sufficient amount of time to allow for the preparation of a capital case.

    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of May , 2008.
    mlieberman003
    Posts:

    --
    20 May 2008 03:10 PM
    Martin Lieberman
    State Bar No.007442
    3443 North Central, Ste. 706
    Phoenix, AZ 85012
    (602) 771-9000
    Fax (602) 771-9014
    marty.lieberman@azpcrpd.gov

    The Maricopa County Attorney asserts, on pp. 8-9 of its comment, that the Capital Case Task Force "rejected the arguments advanced by Ms. VanDreumel" and that the task force concluded that 18 months was adequate for investigation and preperation. This is not accurate.

    The minutes of the June 15, 2007, meeting reveal that the proposal was rejected, largely because it did not advance the purpose of the task force -to seek ways to reduce delay. Additionally, the task force recognized that reality is better reflected with a 24 - 30 month time frame. I have reproduced the entirety of the portion of the minutes addressing the proposal:


    "3. Amending the 18-months presumptive trial date (Rule 8.2(a)(4))

    The Task Force discussed whether to recommend changing the 18-month deadline for capital trials. There was general recognition of the fact that, given available resources, a standard setting the presumptive trial date at 24-30 months better reflects current reality. Judge Baca explained that at least half the pending inventory in Maricopa County is more than 18 months old. The trial court has asked for six new judges, yet the county Office of Management and Budget is now indicating only one new judgeship will be added, despite its earlier representations that more would be made available. The Board of Supervisors has not yet been asked to vote on the issue. The court also lacks enough courtrooms to conduct the lengthy trials that will be required to keep pace with new case filings and dispose of the backlog – projections range from 20 to 30 trials per year -- assuming retired judges can be persuaded to return to help deal with the backlog. The new downtown courthouse will not be built for another several years.

    Members discussed changing the current standard to two years, or a range of 18 to 30 months, or deciding on a case-by-case basis. However, if the problem derives from a lack of resources, extending the 18-month deadline will not resolve the problem, although it could help to avoid raising unrealistic expectations on the part of victims’ families. Other counties are able to comply with the 18-month standard, albeit for a lot fewer capital cases. Justice Ryan suggested the Task Force could recommend adoption of a longer time standard applicable only in Maricopa County and only while the current situation exists rather than changing the statewide policy. However, the consensus of the Task Force was to leave the current standard of 18 months in place. Extending the time would not address the problem of delay."
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    22 May 2008 11:09 AM
    R-07-0005 Rule 8.2(a)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure


    Terry Goddard
    Arizona Attorney General
    1275 W. Washington
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    602-542-4266
    Attachments
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    22 May 2008 11:32 AM
    R-07-0005 Rule 8.2(a)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure


    Honorable Anna M. Baca
    Presiding Judge Criminal Department
    Superior Court in Maricopa County
    101 W. Jefferson
    Phoenix, AZ 85003
    602-506-1810
    Attachments
    lkoschney
    Posts:

    --
    11 Jun 2008 11:05 AM
    R-07-0005 Rule 8.2(a)(4), Rules of Criminal Procedure

    Edwin M. Cook
    SB #5402
    Executive Director
    Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council
    3001 W Indian School, Suite 307
    Phoenix, AZ 85017
    (602) 265-4779
    Attachments
    Topic is locked