Dec
19

Closing arguments and proposed findings filed in Thomas case

By

Proposed findings submitted by Bar Counsel included assertions that Thomas and Aubuchon could not have reasonably believed there was probable cause to charge Judge Donahoe with crimes. Based on the facts set forth above, there was no evidence Judge Donahoe committed any acts that corresponded with any elements of the crimes charged. To the extent Thomas and Aubuchon claim they did believe there was probable cause, that claim is either incredible or is so unreasonable that no ordinarily prudent person could possibly have come to the same conclusion. … [T]he purpose of charging Judge Donahoe was to retaliate against him for actions he had taken earlier, in particular the removal of MCAO from the investigation of Court Tower matters in February 2009. Judge Donahoe’s ruling on the Court Tower matter was the subject of a special action that Thomas and Aubuchon filed, review of which was denied for the final time on December 1, 2009, eight days before they charged Judge Donahoe with felonies. … Thomas and Aubuchon engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit when they knowingly brought charges against Judge Donahoe that were false and made without any investigation or evidence.

In other areas of the proposed findings, Bar Counsel asserted: Aubuchon signed the direct complaint that she and Thomas filed against Judge Donahoe. The direct complaint, prepared by Aubuchon, contained a signature line for a “complainant” from MCSO. Detective Gabe Almanza signed the document as “complainant” and did so under oath. Detective Almanza had not conducted any investigation into alleged criminal conduct by Judge Donahoe. Thomas and Aubuchon knew that the criminal charges they brought against Judge Donahoe were false, that Detective Almanza swore to a false complaint, and that a complaint is a sworn document as defined by A.R.S. § 13-1701. Therefore Thomas and Aubuchon are criminally accountable for the conduct of Detective Almanza because they knowingly caused him to sign and file a false sworn document and/or they ratified his conduct after he had signed the complaint. Thomas and Aubuchon committed perjury because they acted with the culpable mental state to engage in perjury and did so through the acts of another. Accordingly, they are criminally responsible under A.R.S. § 13-303 for the acts of another. By committing perjury, Thomas and Aubuchon violated ER 8.4(b).

For more information on Andrew Thomas, I’d encourage you to visit the website of author Daniel Horne and check out his book, Accidental Felons.

Categories : Uncategorized

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer

The Arizona Defense Law Blog is published by Phoenix DUI and criminal defense attorney Joshua S. Davidson. Nothing on this website is intended to create an Attorney-Client relationship and the information provided herein is for general information purposes only.

Admin

Contact Us

Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson, PLC (480) 248-7022