FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].




Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

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. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION OR COMMENT.  OTHERWISE, YOUR SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED AND WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHY. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 01 Jun 2021 08:32 PM by  bcrmember
R-21-0020 Petition to Amend Rules 18.4 and 18.5 of Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 47(e) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
 22 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
Yolanda Fox
Basic Member
Posts:194 Basic Member

--
11 Jan 2021 06:53 PM
    Hon. Peter B. Swann, 014671
    Chief Judge
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 1
    1501 W. Washington
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-6780
    [email protected]

    Hon. Paul J. McMurdie, 010386
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 1
    1501 W. Washington
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-6735
    [email protected]

    Would amend Ariz. R. Crim. P. 18.4 and 18.5, and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 47(e) by eliminating peremptory challenges in jury selection.

    Filed: January 11, 2021

    Comments must be submitted on or before Monday, May 3, 2021.

    Replies must be submitted on or before Tuesday, June 1, 2021.
    Attachments
    Brian Snyder
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    04 Feb 2021 12:10 PM
    Brian Snyder
    2200 E Camelback Rd
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    (602) 224-0005

    With all due respect, this rule change would have chilling consequences for litigants' rights to fair jury trials. Judges are already hamstrung when it comes to dismissing jurors for cause because of the fear of needing to call up a new panel of prospective jurors. As it stands now, if a juror should be dismissed, but is not, the parties can elect to use one of their peremptory challenges on the juror to ensure a fair and impartial panel. With this rule change, a party will be left with no recourse. This is a "solution" in search of a problem. The ultimate goal should be a fair jury trial for each side; not to save a few minutes during jury selection or to prevent the need for more jurors to be called. This unnecessary rule change will also likely result in more appeals, as the parties will simply be left with the judge's decision on whether to strike a juror for cause, with no
    ability to remedy the situation with a peremptory.
    Tim Casey
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    04 Feb 2021 04:36 PM
    I respectfully oppose the Petition to Amend Rule 47(e) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

    First, for civil trials, Batson and its progeny provide a proper, efficient, and effective framework to challenge an opponent's suspected intentional or unintentional use of race or other improper factors in the exercise of a peremptory challenge. I have personally witnessed Batson's effective use in two civil cases in an effort to safeguard the jury selection process and the rights of litigants and prospective jurors. It works.

    Second, for civil trials, the elimination of peremptory challenges likely will result in unfair prejudice to litigants and impair the public's perception about fairness in the civil system given the current practice of greatly restricting the time allowed for attorney conducted non-repetitive, non-duplicative, non-argumentative, and non-conditioning voir dire.

    As a practical matter, some superior court judges in civil trials allow very limited time for attorney conducted voir dire (i.e., less that 15 minutes per side). Absent sufficient time for lawyers to conduct their own voir dire (separate from that conducted by the trial court itself), trial counsel are unable to develop sufficient facts to intelligently exercise challenges for cause. Without facts from the prospective jurors, the availability of challenges for cause is largely illusory. In most instances with jurors reluctant to speak in a public setting, it takes time for prospective jurors to become comfortable enough to answer questions about issues that may reveal a bias rendering them unable to sit as a fair and impartial juror. A combination of no-peremptory challenges and limited attorney conducted voir dire would undermine each litigant's right to have his/her civil case decided by a jury composed of fair and impartial jurors.

    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

    Tim Casey
    BEUS GILBERT McGRODER PLLC
    701 N., 44th Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85008
    480-429-3005 Office Direct
    602-538-6450 Cell
    James Schoppmann
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    23 Feb 2021 10:32 AM
    James Schoppmann
    Chief Deputy Mohave County Attorney-ELE
    315 N. 4th Street
    Kingman, AZ 86401
    [email protected]
    (928) 753-0753

    Eliminating preemptory strikes in criminal trials is a mistake that will require additional time and inconvenience to jurors, the Court and the parties. During the jury selection process, jurors, at times, offer information that could be detrimental to a fair trial for either the Defendant or the State and if ‘rehabilitated’ by simply stating the magic words “I can be fair and impartial,” despite what they pronounced earlier, will lead to bad results. For example, jurors who claim they have very strong pro or anti –law enforcement beliefs but later claim they can be “fair and impartial” are often struck by either side with preemptory strikes. Without this tool, the parties will be more inclined to take additionally time to probe potential jurors. Discovering and exploring a challenge for cause can be uncomfortable for jurors. Most criminal juries in Mohave County can be selected in ½ a day with the use of preemptory strikes. I believe the time needed under this proposal could easily increase by double and therefor require a full judicial day to select a jury. Frankly, we don’t have the time to spare given the backlog of jury trials.
    Kay L. Radwanski
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    12 Apr 2021 06:29 PM
    Honorable Charles W. Gurtler, Jr., Presiding Judge
    Superior Court in Mohave County
    2225 Trane Road
    Bullhead City, AZ. 86442
    Telephone (928) 758-0726
    Chair, Committee on Superior Court
    Staff: [email protected]

    The Committee on Superior Court (“COSC”) has authorized the Honorable Charles W. Gurtler, Jr., chair, to file a comment in support of Petition R-21-0020 on its behalf. COSC conducted a special meeting on April 2, 2021, to address various rule petitions. By a vote of eleven in support, four opposed, and three abstaining, a majority of COSC members support adoption of Petition R-21-0020. COSC files this comment, with majority and dissenting views.
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:194 Basic Member

    --
    13 Apr 2021 06:32 PM
    William H. Sandweg III
    Sandweg & Ager, P.C.
    1221 E. Osborn Rd. Suite 100
    Phoenix, Arizona 85014
    (602) 648-3201
    [email protected]

    I am opposed to the proposal to abolish peremptory challenges. I have been a civil trial lawyer for over 45 years. I have tried over 50 jury trials, many of which were multi-week trials involving serious injury or death. I am a former Regent of the American College of Trial Lawyers. I am a Certified Specialist in Injury and Wrongful Death. Along with two other professors, I have taught a class in Jury Selection at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law each year for the past nine years.

    The peremptory challenge has never been more important than it is today. Society is becoming progressively more polarized and a prospective juror’s political leanings may have a great impact on his or her ability to accept certain arguments. These biases are sometimes recognized by the prospective juror, but often are not. Those prospective jurors, who do not recognize the many implicit biases we all bring to the courtroom, are unlikely to respond to questioning in a way that will justify a challenge for cause.

    The challenge for cause is a difficult one for a number of reasons. It does not exist in a vacuum. A successful challenge for cause is what the trial judge says it is. Many of our trial judges today have had little trial experience of their own before they reach the bench. If they didn’t understand the importance of jury selection when they were trial lawyers, they certainly won’t value it highly when they take the bench. Many of them are of the opinion that jury selection is overrated and that once we get obvious biases out of the way, one prospective juror is pretty much as good as the next. With all due respect, in this I believe they are greatly mistaken.

    As I tell the law students, the trial judge has a different agenda than you. The trial judge has a calendar and has only a certain amount of time usually set aside, either explicitly or implicitly, for jury selection. The trial judge wants a fair trial but often thinks the trial lawyers are taking too much time and not really accomplishing anything. They are suspicious of trial lawyers and concerned that they are using voir dire for improper purposes. They are hostile to the idea of a lengthy questioning of the jurors, which may delay their trial schedule. Some think they are the greatest practitioners of jury selection around and that when they are done with their questioning, there can’t be very much left to cover. They are reluctant to grant challenges for cause, especially if a successful challenge might require that more panelists be summoned from the jury commissioner’s office.

    As a lawyer who primarily represents victims of medical negligence, it has been my experience that, unless I am able to thoroughly question the panel, I will end up with a panel that, even though it wants to do the right thing, is unwilling to believe doctors and hospitals negligently cause serious injury and death. Years of speeches by politicians about “tort reform” and frivolous medical malpractice suits driving doctors out of business have had their effect. These attitudes are deeply ingrained and not recognized by most prospective jurors, who will assure the judge that they can be fair.

    I understand and support the principles of fairness and justice which underlie the Batson decision and its progeny. I do not believe that, in order to support these principles, we need to abolish peremptory challenges and I urge that the proposed amendments be rejected.
    John Napper
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    15 Apr 2021 04:15 PM
    John Napper
    Presiding Judge Yavapai County Superior Court
    120 South Cortez Prescott Arizona 86303
    (928) 777-7990
    [email protected]

    The Yavapai County Superior Court has authorized John Napper, the Presiding Judge for the County, to submit this comment on their behalf. By a vote of 9-1, as outlined in the comment, the Yavapai County Superior Court is in favor of R-21-0020.
    Attachments
    Kip Anderson
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    15 Apr 2021 06:51 PM
    Kip Anderson
    415 E Spring St
    Kingman, AZ 86401
    [email protected]
    (928) 753-0790

    This is Mohave County Superior Court’s response to R-21-0020. The majority of judges in the Mohave County Superior Court oppose this proposed rule change. A minority neither support nor object to the proposed rule change. The judges of Mohave County Superior Court unanimously agree that if peremptory challenges remain that they should be limited to two challenges per party.
    The following is the statement of the majority that oppose the proposed rule change:
    This proposed rule change proposes to eliminate peremptory challenges to jurors mainly on the basis that by doing so, it would eliminate issues related to Batson. The proposal ostensibly is meant to benefit minority criminal defendants. The proposal also supports the change with the argument that it would lower the number of jurors that need to be summoned for trial, thereby lowering the cost of trial and adding to efficiency in jury selection.
    The majority of Mohave County Superior Court judges disagree that eliminating peremptory challenges will eliminate attempts to discriminate based on race during the jury selection process. We also assert that the advantages of eliminating peremptory challenges in the comparatively few cases where Batson is an issue are far outweighed by the advantages peremptory challenges provide to thousands of other defendants, litigants, and courts.
    We start by noting the United State Supreme Court has stated, “[w]e have long recognized the role of the peremptory challenge in reinforcing a defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury.” United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 311, 120 S. Ct. 774, 779, 145 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2000). State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192, 195, ¶ 11, 68 P.3d 418, 421 (2003).
    One major advantage to criminal defendants in retaining peremptory challenges is that they allow defendants to remove prospective jurors who hold biases against them. Current case law (regarding striking prospective jurors for cause) allows jurors to remain on a jury who clearly favor one side of the case. For example, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that “a prospective juror is not precluded from serving on the jury simply because he favors the death penalty.” State v. Johnson, 247 Ariz. 166, 197, ¶ 109, 447 P.3d 783, 814 (2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1154, 206 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2020). If a juror claims that he or she can keep an open mind in spite of his disposition towards the death penalty, the court properly can refuse to strike that juror for cause. State v. Johnson, 247 Ariz. 166, 197, ¶ 109, 447 P.3d 783, 814 (2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1154, 206 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2020). State v. Velazquez, 216 Ariz. 300, 306, ¶ 14, 166 P.3d 91, 97 (2007). We are concerned that without peremptory challenges, criminal defendants would be required to acquiesce to jurors who have expressed views that disfavor them, but who promise to keep an open mind. Even though these prospective jurors express the intent to avoid explicit bias or prejudice, we assert that criminal defendants should be permitted to use peremptory strikes to remove these jurors because of the likelihood that implicit bias or prejudice would influence their decisions. For these reasons, promises to keep an open mind do not adequately protect the rights of defendants to a fair trial. Peremptory challenges are an important way to protect this essential right.
    All of the judges that are currently serving on the criminal bench in Mohave County Superior Court have had prior experience as trial attorneys in criminal cases. While serving in that capacity, some have experienced situations where the trial court declined to strike jurors for cause that, in our opinion, held biases in favor of the state, but who said they would keep an open mind. Peremptory challenges were successfully used on behalf of the defendants to avoid having these prospective jurors serve on those juries. Eliminating peremptory challenges would remove this valuable protection for criminal defendants.
    Peremptory challenges are also advantageous to criminal defendants because they allow defendants to remove prospective jurors who would not be struck for cause, but who would be just as unfavorable to these defendants. Characteristics such as facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, dress and grooming are not verbally expressed by prospective jurors and are rarely reflected in the record. However, they often indicate that these jurors would not favor the defendant. None of these characteristics are likely to be the basis for a successful challenge for cause. This is another reason why eliminating peremptory challenges would unfairly hamper a criminal defendant’s ability to remove prospective jurors whose predisposition is unfavorable.
    We note that since the number of peremptory challenges available to the parties was decreased at the beginning of the pandemic, several motions have been filed objecting to the reduction of peremptory challenges. Each of the motions has been filed by a criminal defendant. These motions have cited the defendant’s due process right to a fair and impartial jury. Other criminal defendants have asked to continue their jury trials until the number of peremptory challenges can be increased to its pre-pandemic level. This position taken by these defendants expresses a belief that the elimination of peremptory strikes would be harmful to them. We cite these motions to show that it is the defendants in criminal cases, for whom the proposed rule change is ostensibly meant to benefit, that oppose the reduction of peremptory challenges.
    While the focus of our response is that criminal defendants are disadvantaged by the elimination of peremptory challenges, all parties are entitled to a fair trial. It appears that at most a small minority of prosecuting attorneys abuse peremptory challenges in violation of Batson – at least in Mohave County. The mere fact that a small minority of prosecuting attorneys have abused peremptory challenges in violation of Batson should not mean that the remaining prosecuting attorneys should be precluded from using peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors that hold opinions unfavorable to the state. Likewise, civil litigants should not be penalized because of those who abuse peremptory challenges in criminal cases.
    Another advantage to retaining peremptory challenges is that if a judge does err by not striking a prospective juror for cause, and if either the State or Defendant exercises their peremptory strike to remove a juror, reversal of any conviction is not required. State v. Hickman, 205 Ariz. 192, 198, ¶ 28, 68 P.3d 418, 424 (2003). Additionally, if a Defendant has peremptory challenges available and chooses not to remove a juror that should have been struck for cause, the defendant has waived any error (State v. Rubio, 219 Ariz. 177, 181, ¶¶ 13-14, 195 P.3d 214, 218 (App. 2008)) at least if the number of jurors that could have been struck for cause did not exceed the number of peremptory challenges available. State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197, 209, ¶ 23, 426 P.3d 1176, 1188 (2018). For these reasons, one of the advantages to continuing to allow parties to exercise peremptory challenges is that it allows parties to remove jurors that should have been struck for cause, but who erroneously were not. Thus, peremptory challenges allow any such convictions to be affirmed when they would otherwise need to be reversed.
    We are aware that the decision on whether to strike a juror for cause is reviewed for abuse of discretion (State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390, 814 P.2d 333 (1991). State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197, 209, ¶ 21, 426 P.3d 1176, 1188 (2018)) and that appellate courts have repeatedly stated that the trial judge is “in the best position to ‘assess the demeanor of the venire, and of the individuals who compose it.” State v. Naranjo, 234 Ariz. 233, 239 ¶ 12, 321 P.3d 398 (2014) (quoting Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1, 9, 127 S.Ct. 2218, 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2007)). State v. Acuna Valenzuela, 245 Ariz. 197, 209, ¶ 24, 426 P.3d 1176, 1188 (2018). However, the decision as to whether to grant a challenge to a prospective juror for cause must be made quickly and it may not be clear to a trial judge what the ruling should be. United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 316, 120 S. Ct. 774, 782, 145 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2000). In contrast, the decisions by appellate courts are made with transcripts and with ample time for reflection on whether the challenge should have been granted. Peremptory challenges create a safe harbor for erroneous decisions on motions to strike jurors for cause. Consequently, peremptory challenges play an important role in safeguarding otherwise properly reached jury verdicts.
    We also assert that if peremptory challenges are eliminated, attorneys who might be inclined to discriminate will, during voir dire, be more aggressive in questioning prospective jurors they want to eliminate based on their race. Any such attorneys are also more likely to aggressively challenge these prospective jurors for cause. We recognize the standards for deciding challenges for cause and deciding Batson challenges are different. However, similar issues would have to be decided by the trial court and any subsequent reviewing courts. We also acknowledge that eliminating peremptory challenges may stop one method of discriminating during jury selection. Unfortunately, it will not resolve the issue. Instead, any such discrimination will simply take a different form.
    Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, jury selection in most felony criminal cases in the Mohave County Superior Court typically lasted half a day. In more serious cases, jury selection sometimes took longer. The Mohave County Superior Court has held several jury trials after the pandemic began with the reduced number of peremptory challenges allowed. We agree that fewer prospective jurors have been needed for jury selection. However, the time needed for jury selection has not been significantly less. In fact, for most divisions, it has continued to take about half a day to conduct jury selection even with the reduced number of peremptory challenges available. For this reason, greater efficiency has not been realized by the reduction of peremptory challenges available to the parties.
    As explained above, we also assert that if peremptory challenges are eliminated, the parties are likely to challenge more jurors for cause because that will be the only means to eliminate prospective jurors who they realize will not be favorable to their position. This will create additional time needed during jury selection in order to hear challenges for cause. We assert that this will minimize the efficiency benefits of eliminating peremptory challenges.
    In a recent opinion by the Court of Appeals, it was calculated that in the 35 years since Batson was decided, nearly 80 Batson-related opinions have been issued in Arizona. State v. Ross, --- P.3d---, 1 CA-CR 19-0214, 2021 WL 869049, at *3 (App. Mar. 9, 2021). A recent Westlaw search shows that just over 150 unreported decisions have been made involving Batson issues. We cannot calculate how many Batson challenges were raised at the trial court level, but which were successfully resolved in a way that no one challenged the trial court’s decision on appeal. While it may not be possible to calculate how many jury trials have taken place in Arizona in the last 35 years, we estimate that it must be at least several thousand. By this calculation, we estimate that thousands of jury trials have taken place in the State of Arizona where peremptory challenges were successfully used in a way that Batson was not a basis to challenge the jury’s verdict. In this way, the number of cases where Batson was an issue is a very small percentage of the total number of jury trials that have occurred in the last 35 years. For these reasons, the criminal defendants and other litigants who have been able to utilize peremptory challenges to remove unfavorable prospective jurors far outweigh the number of those who have been unfairly discriminated against in violation of Batson.
    We do not condone purposeful discrimination based on race. Likewise, we do not minimize the effects that such discrimination can create. However, we disagree that it is appropriate that the great majority of defendants and litigants should have this valuable resource eliminated in an effort to rectify this injustice perpetuated on a smaller proportion of litigants. Instead, we assert that other means should be used to address the challenges created by purposeful discrimination in jury selection. In short, the position of the majority of Mohave County Superior Court judges is that the benefits that peremptory challenges provide to thousands of criminal defendants (and to the state and other litigants) should not be taken away because of the few attorneys and parties that abuse these challenges.
    Victor Aronow
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    23 Apr 2021 07:32 PM
    Victor Aronow
    Central Arizona Chapter, National Lawyers Guild
    P.O. Box 27617
    Tempe, AZ 85285-7617
    (480) 829-5746
    [email protected]
    Arizona Bar No. 002764
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:194 Basic Member

    --
    26 Apr 2021 05:02 PM
    Paul McGoldrick
    State Committee Chair
    1232 E. Missouri Ave.
    Phoenix, AZ 85014
    [email protected]
    602-230-5432

    Objection to the proposed amendments on behalf of the Arizona Chapter of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:194 Basic Member

    --
    29 Apr 2021 04:03 PM
    Benjamin Taylor
    Partner Attorney
    Phone (602) 403-0212
    Taylor & Gomez, LLP
    2600 North 44th Street
    Suite B-101
    Phoenix, AZ 85008
    TaylorGomezLaw.com

    The Arizona Supreme Court is considering petitions to change Arizona’s Rules of Criminal and Civil Procedure related to peremptory challenges of prospective jurors under Batson v Kentucky. The Arizona Black Bar (ABB) supports changes to Rule 24, and takes no position regarding proposed changes to Rules 18.4/18.5 and Rule 47(e), as detailed below.

    The ABB takes no position on this rule except to register its concern that complete abolition of peremptory strikes could have unintended and undesirable consequences, including eliminating the process of validly striking biased jurors, prolonging voir dire, and increasing appeal rates, all to the substantial harm of a party.
    Diana Cooney
    New Member
    Posts:30 New Member

    --
    30 Apr 2021 02:35 PM
    ELIZABETH BURTON ORTIZ
    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
    ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS' ADVISORY COUNCIL (APAAC)
    3838 N. CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 850
    PHOENIX, AZ 85012
    PHONE: 602-542-7222
    FAX NO: 602-274-4215
    [email protected]
    (BAR NO. 012838)

    R-21-0020

    COMMENT OF THE ARIZONA PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS’ ADVISORY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF:
    PETITION TO AMEND RULES 18.4 AND 18.5 OF ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RULE 47(e) OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
    Attachments
    State Bar of Arizona
    Basic Member
    Posts:101 Basic Member

    --
    30 Apr 2021 10:36 PM
    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    (602) 340-7236
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    Mikel.Steinfeld
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    03 May 2021 11:56 AM
    MIKEL STEINFELD
    AZ Bar No. 024996
    620 West Jackson Street, Suite 4015
    Phoenix, Arizona, 85003-2423
    (602) 506-7711
    [email protected]

    Comment of Mikel Steinfeld in Support of R-21-0020.
    Attachments
    mcotton15
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    03 May 2021 12:50 PM
    Andrew M. Jacobs (Bar No. 021446)
    Marsha Cotton (Bar No. 035167)
    Snell & Wilmer, LLP
    One Arizona Center, Suite 1900
    400 East Van Buren Street
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
    Telephone: (602) 382-6000
    [email protected]
    [email protected]


    Attorneys Andrew M. Jacobs and Marsha Cotton submit this Comment for the Arizona Supreme Court’s consideration. For the reasons stated in the attached Comment, we oppose in part the adoption of R-21-0020.
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:194 Basic Member

    --
    03 May 2021 02:22 PM
    Here is my comment to the proposed changes to Petition R-21-0020 to Amend Rules 18.4 and 18.5 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 47(e) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

    Respectfully,
    Michael E. Bradford
    State Bar #1873
    1601 North 7th Street, Suite 400
    Phoenix, Arizona 85006
    602-955-0088
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    Yolanda Fox
    Basic Member
    Posts:194 Basic Member

    --
    03 May 2021 05:23 PM
    Cory E. Tyszka
    Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C.
    40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    Cell: (480) 703-1708
    Attachments
    Kent Hammond
    New Member
    Posts:3 New Member

    --
    03 May 2021 06:14 PM
    Kent Hammond
    Phoenix Chapter of ABOTA
    8689 E. San Alberto
    Scottsdale, AZ 85258
    480-951-9700
    [email protected]

    Objection to the proposed amendments on behalf of the Phoenix Chapter of American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA).
    Attachments
    Nicholas Klingerman
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    03 May 2021 06:44 PM
    MARK BRNOVICH, FIRM BAR NO. 14000
    NICHOLAS KLINGERMAN, BAR NO. 028231
    SECTION CHIEF COUNSEL
    ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE
    400 W. CONGRESS ST., SUITE 518
    TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701
    (520) 628-6707 / FAX (520) 209-4326
    [email protected]

    R-21-0020

    COMMENT OF THE ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN THE MATTER OF:
    PETITION TO AMEND RULES 18.4 AND 18.5 OF ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RULE 47(e) OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
    Attachments
    Deborah Serrata
    New Member
    Posts:12 New Member

    --
    03 May 2021 06:54 PM
    ALLISTER ADEL
    MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

    Kenneth N. Vick
    Chief Deputy
    225 West Madison Street
    Phoenix, Arizona 85003
    Telephone: (602) 506-3800
    [email protected]
    (Firm State Bar No. 00032000)
    (State Bar No. 017540)

    PETITION TO AMEND RULES 18.4 AND 18.5 OF ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND RULE 47(E) OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

    R-21-0020 MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S COMMENT IN OPPOSITION


    Attachments
    Topic is locked
    Page 1 of 212 > >>