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]