ecrowley
Posts:
| 06 Oct 2006 05:24 PM |
|
|
R-06-0016
Petition to Amend Rule 1.6, ARCrP
To provide for appearances by defendants via videoconferencing for initial appearances, arraignments, and some other hearings.
Petitioner:
Barbara LaWall
Pima County Attorney
32 N. Stone Avenue, Suite 1900
Tucson, AZ 85701-1403
(520)740-5750
Filed September 25, 2006
PETITION CONTINUED ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2007.
PETITION CONTINUED ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2008.
Motion to Reopen Proposed Rule Matter (Expedited Ruling Requested) =
GRANTED June 1, 2009.
COMMENTS DUE JULY 17, 2009.
COMMENT IS REQUESTED on:
(1) the Report of the Criminal Rules Videoconferencing Committee and the Committee's proposal for amendments to Rule 1.6, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and
(2) the Minority Report and accompanying Minority proposal for amendments to Rule 1.6,
all as set forth in the attachments below.
Attachment 1: Original rule change petition
Attachment 2: Report of the Criminal Rules Videoconferencing Committee, without appendices
Attachment 3: Amendments to Rule 1.6 proposed by the Committee
Attachment 4: Minority Report of the Criminal Rules Videoconferencing Committee
Attachment 5: Amendments to Rule 1.6 proposed by Minority
Attachment 6: Proposed Section of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration
ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2010.
|
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 06 Apr 2007 12:35 PM |
|
Hon. Margarita Bernal City of Tucson Municipal Court Judge P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Ariz. 85726-7210 520-791-3261 [email protected] |
|
|
|
domanico
Posts:
| 18 May 2007 07:05 PM |
|
R-06-0016 Rule 1.6, Rules of Criminal Procedure ANDREW P. THOMAS MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY (FIRM STATE BAR NO. 0003200) PHILIP J. MACDONNELL CHIEF DEPUTY 301 WEST JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 800 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 FAX NUMBER: (602) 506-8102 TELEPHONE: (602) 506-3800 EMAIL: [email protected] (STATE BAR NUMBER 003813) MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY’S RESPONSE TO PETITION TO AMEND RULE 1.6 OF THE ARIZONA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE |
|
|
|
Robert Hooker
Posts:
| 21 May 2007 05:25 PM |
|
R-06-0016 Rule 1.6, Rules of Criminal Procedure Robert Hooker Pima County Public Defender 32 N Stone 4th Floor Tucson AZ 85701 520-740-5453 520-243-4920 [email protected] SB# 003335 |
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 22 May 2007 12:07 PM |
|
|
R-06-0016, Rule 1.6, Rules of Criminal Procedure
Petition to Amend Rule 1.6, ARCrP
to Provide For Appearances By
Defendants Via Videoconfrencing For
Initial Appearances and Arraignments
And Some Other Hearings
Robert B. Van Wyck, Chief Bar Counsel
Bar No. 007800
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th St., Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-6288
(602) 340-7241
|
|
|
|
sjones
Posts:
| 22 May 2007 03:27 PM |
|
|
R-06-0016, Rule 1.6, Rules of Criminal Procedure
Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
125 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 506-6130
|
|
|
|
JMussman
Posts:
| 01 Aug 2007 06:18 PM |
|
|
R-06-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 1.6, Rules of Criminal Procedure
Jeremy D. Mussman
Maricopa Public Defender
11 W Jefferson, Suite 5
Phoenix, AZ 85003-2302
602-506-8200
The Arizona Public Defender Association discussed, encouraged and joins the comment filed by the Pima County Public Defender's Office opposing this proposed rule change. The opposition to this proposed rule change is even more compelling in light of the Court's recent rule changes implementing new procedures for handling Proposition 100 issues at the Initial Appearance stage. As stated by the APDA at page 6, footnote 1, of its June 14, 2007 Comment opposing R07-0003: "As a corollary to this contemplated expanded role of initial appearance courts, R06-0016...should be rejected." The need for initial appearance courts to be expanded to full courts of record with counsel ordered to be present by the court is underscored by the Maricopa County Superior Court's recent implementation of the new rules. As will be discussed in greater detail in a comment to be filed by the APDA opposing these new rule changes,the Maricopa County Superior Court has interpreted Rule 7.4(b) to preclude defendants from having a subsequent review of nonbondable findings unless they can make a specific showing of new information that was not provided at the initial appearance. The court is denying many of these motions, even though there is no formal record memorializing what happened at the initial appearance. Clearly, the initial appearance is a critical event in the court process. If these new rules remain in place, the courts, prosecution and defense all have a heightened need for providing these initial appearance courts with more formalized proceedings that will enable the judicial officers at the initial appearance to make informed decisions about nonbondability issues and to allow subsequent courts to accurately review this initial determination when ruling on Rule 7.4(b) motions. A rule change that would allow video appearances by defendants at these critical proceedings will further erode the sparse review that is currently occurring at the initial appearances and should therefore be rejected.
Jeremy D. Mussman on behalf of the APDA
|
|
|
|
mbalmer
Posts:
| 15 Aug 2007 09:30 AM |
|
|
The expansion of the use of videoconferencing technology with recording capability, while it has obvious benefits and cost savings related to transport and travel, should not be an automatic substitute for record making by a certified court reporter when required by statute or requested by any party.
We share potential concerns by the defense bar and perhaps even the prosecution when the use of audiovisual devices is based solely on a financial and/or convenience basis, and may be unilaterally expanded to other hearings, and a defendant's or litigant's rights or requests are summarily dismissed or disregarded.
Respectfully submitted,
Arizona Court Reporters Association
|
|
|
|
lkoschney
Posts:
| 09 Jul 2008 10:36 AM |
|
R-06-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 1.6, ARCrP Hon. Wallace R. Hoggatt Presiding Judge, Cochise County Cochise County Courthouse 100 Quality Hill PO Box Drawer CG Bisbee, AZ 85603 Ph: (520)432-8540 Fax: (520)432-8548 [email protected] |
|
|
|
LaWall
Posts:
| 07 Jul 2009 12:15 PM |
|
Barbara LaWall Pima County Attorney 32 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 520-740-5600 [email protected] |
|
|
|
lkoschney
Posts:
| 14 Jul 2009 01:32 PM |
|
|
R-06-0016 Petition to Amend Rule 1.6, ARCrP
Honorable Barbara Rodriguez Mundell
Presiding Judge
Maricopa County Superior Court
125 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 506-6130
|
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 16 Jul 2009 05:31 PM |
|
Arizona Public Defender Association Ella Johnson, Vice President Bar #17293 1400 Kofa Avenue Parker, Arizona 85344 (928)669-9828 (928)669-2015(fax) [email protected] |
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 16 Jul 2009 05:33 PM |
|
|
Jeremy Mussman
Deputy Director, Maricopa County Public Defender 620 W. Jackson, Suite 4015, Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602)506-7711, Extension 38202
Fax: (602)506-0797
|
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 16 Jul 2009 06:42 PM |
|
Judy A. Lutgring, PCC# 66060, SB# 011914 Pima County Public Defender's Office 33 North Stone Avenue, 21st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 TEL: (520) 243-6800 FAX: (520) 243-6969 [email protected] |
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 16 Jul 2009 06:50 PM |
|
Robert J. Hirsh Pima County Public Defender 33 North Stone, 21st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701. (520)243-6800 E-Mail [email protected] Fax (520)243-6808 |
|
|
|
jkearney
Posts:
| 17 Jul 2009 05:33 PM |
|
|
Honorable Jan E. Kearney
Presiding Judge
Pima County Superior Court
110 W. Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: 520-740-8782
Fax: 520-740-8020
|
|
|
|
ecrowley
Posts:
| 22 Jul 2009 05:41 PM |
|
BARBARA LAWALL PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY 32 N. Stone Avenue, 14TH fLOOR Tucson, AZ 85701 Telephone: (520) 740-5750 [email protected] State Bar No. 004906 Law Firm No. 69000 |
|
|
|
mmeltzer
Posts:
| 03 Aug 2009 06:38 PM |
|
Mark Meltzer Staff to the Criminal Rules Video-Conference Advisory Committee c/o Administrative Office of the Courts 1501 W. Washington, Suite 410 Phoenix AZ 85007 (602) 452-3242 [email protected] The attached Notice of Erratum is submitted on behalf of the Chair of the Criminal Rules Video-Conference Advisory Committee to correct the text of proposed amendments to Rule 1.6, as set out in Appendix A of the Committee's June 17, 2009 report. |
|
|
|