Archive for Police

Jun
02

Sheriff’s grudge against presiding criminal judge recounted

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Sheriff’s grudge against presiding criminal judge recounted

Superior Court Judge Donahoe’s attorney discussed the conflict between the Judge and Sheriff in his recently filed notice of claim:

The  Sheriff had  other,  more  personal  reasons  for  waging war  against  Judge Donahoe.  Some months earlier, a violent sex offender in court for a hearing escaped from  the Sheriffs custody during a lunch recess.  To  date,  he  remains at  large.  Soon after,  the  Sheriff  allegedly  implemented  new  security  procedures,  but  failed  to provide adequate  staff to  carry out  these procedures  in a timely  fashion.  The upshot was  that  criminal  defendants  in  the  Sheriffs  custody were  either perpetually  being brought  to  court late  for  various hearings or were not appearing  at  all.  These delays affected  attorneys,  judges,  jurors  and  defendants.  When  the  judges  with  criminal calendars  complained,  they  were  told  there  was  no  one  available  to  bring  the defendant to  the courtroom.  It fell to Judge Donahoe, as Presiding Criminal Judge,  to try to  resolve the problem.

Judge  Donahoe  met  repeatedly  with  MCSO  personnel  in  an  attempt  to improve  the  inmate  delivery  system.  The  court  administration  made  significant operational  changes:  consolidating  divisions,  reducing  courtrooms,  and  limiting hearings  to  only  certain days – all  in  an  effort to  assist  the  Sheriff in getting  inmates to  court on  time.  Nothing worked.  The  Sheriff continued  to  bring  them  late,  if he brought them at all.

The Sheriff has  a statutory  obligation  to  “attend all  courts”  and  “obey  lawful orders and directions  issued by  the judge.”  A.R.S.  § 11-441 (A)(4).  The Sheriff was directly  ordered  by  Judge Anna Baca  to  adhere  to  the  requirements  of that  statute. When  the  Sheriff failed  to  improve  his  inmate  delivery  performance,  the  criminal judges began  issuing Orders  to  Show Cause why  the  Sheriff should  not  be  held  in contempt  for  his  repeated  refusals  to  bring  the  inmates  to  court  on  time.  Judge Donahoe  held  a  hearing  on  the  various  OSCs  and  entered a  contempt order against MCSO  Deputy  Chief Trombi  (who  admitted  responsibility  for  getting  inmates  to court),  along with monetary  sanctions,  for  the  repeated  failures  to  deliver  inmates  to court.  Judge  Donahoe’s  Order  was  an  affront  to  Sheriff  Arpaio.  He  is  not comfortable abiding by any rule of  law that is not his own.

Finally,  Judge Donahoe handled  the  contempt charge brought against MCSO Deputy  Stoddard  – a  courtroom  deputy  who  sneakily  and  unethically  read  and removed  papers  from  a  defense  attorney’s  file  in  open  court  and  had  them  copied.  Judge Donahoe  found  him  in  contempt and ordered him  to  apologize  to  the  defense attorney.  Both the Trombi  and  Stoddard  contempt  findings were  upheld  on  appeal, though some of  the  sanctions were  overturned.  But these  actions of Judge Donahoe added  fuel  to  the  fire  of  enmity that had been raging between and among the Sheriff, County Attorney,  the BOS, and now  the  Superior Court.  It wasn’t long before Judge Donahoe was burned by these flames.

If you have been wrongfully accused of a crime, contact Phoenix Criminal Lawyer Joshua S. Davidson today for a confidential consultation.

Categories : Criminal Law
Comments Comments Off on Sheriff’s grudge against presiding criminal judge recounted

In 2002, officer Lovelace fatally shot a woman who was suspected of illegal obtaining prescription drugs at a drive-thru pharmacy in Chandler.  Lovelace was thereafter charged with murder by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.  A jury found Lovelace not guilty of the charge during a criminal trial that ended in the summer of 2004.

Lovelace was terminated from the department and the city had to pay several million dollars to settle legal claims arising from his conduct.  According to news reports, Lovelace will now be working as a detention officer with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.

Lovelace’s criminal case was extensively litigated by his criminal defense attorney  before the trial commenced.  In fact, the case was actually dismissed at one point after the court ruled that prosecution did not present the evidence to the grand jury in a full and fair manner.  After the court’s ruling, the prosecution presenting the case to another grand jury and obtained another indictment.  In remanding the case back to the grand jury, the court held:

 Arizona law has never required the grand jury to receive or consider all potentially exculpatory evidence. In State v. Superior Court (Mauro), 139 Ariz. 422, 678 P.2d 1386 (1984), the Court held that the prosecutor’s duty to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury extended only to “clearly exculpatory evidence”, defined as “evidence of such weight that it would deter the grand jury from finding the existence of probable cause.” Mauro, Id. at 425, 678 P.2d at 1390. However, an accused is entitled to due process during grand jury proceedings. State v. Emery, 131 Ariz. 493, 506, 642 P.d 838, 851 (1982). Due process requires the use of an unbiased grand jury and a fair and impartial presentation of the evidence. Id. State v Emery. The duties of fair play and impartiality imposed on those who attend and serve the grand jury are meant to insure that the determinations made by that body are informed, objective, and just. Crimmins v. Superior Court in and for Maricopa County, 137 Ariz. 39, 668 P.d 882 (1983). Arizona case law has specifically mandated that false, misleading or inaccurate evidence may not be presented to the grand jury, and, if it is, a remand is warranted. Maretick v. Jarrett, 391 Ariz. Adv.Rep. 9, 63 P.3d 120 (En Banc 2003); Escobar v. Superior Court 155 Ariz. 298, 746 P.2d 39 (App.1987). It appears to the Court that several errors occurred in Detective Kieffer’s testimony before the grand jury. First, Detective Kieffer testified that Defendant said when he shot Ms. Nelson he remembers looking at her and seeing: “….. that her arms were up on the steering wheel at about 10:00 o’clock and 2:00 o’clock” (GJT p.19) That was not the way Defendant described it in his taped interview dated October 11, 2002. Defendant, in fact, stated: “I know that I was facing her at a slight angle, not directly perpendicular. Less than perpendicular when I shot. So where I was exactly all I know is the car was coming at me…. It’s at a slight angle and she’s….. has her left arm still up. So she’s slightly turned and she’s making….. So she’s leaning slightly to her right and she’s looking right at me as she’s turning.

There is nothing in the transcript of Defendant’s interview that confirms that he said that Ms. Nelson’s arms were up on the steering wheel at about 10:00 and 2:00 o’clock. Second, the Affidavits of Attorney Dale Norris and Chandler Police Officer Daryle Palmer, both of whom witnessed the interview of Defendant, state that Defendant never stated or demonstrated that when he shot Ms. Nelson her left hand was at the 10:00 o’clock position. Daryle Palmer stated that Defendant indicated he first saw Ms. Nelson turning her steering wheel with her right hand in a counter-clockwise motion, turning the vehicle towards him. Defendant further indicated that just before he discharged his weapon, Ms. Nelson had her left arm up and was leaning slightly to her right. Officer Palmer stated that, as Defendant demonstrated this movement, the left side of Ms. Nelson’s body was more forward than her right side, her left hand was not on the steering wheel, her left forearm was raised and moved toward the passenger side, which caused her left upper arm, which was close to her body, to be rotated slightly clockwise. Dale Norris stated that Defendant said and demonstrated that Ms. Nelson was turning hard to the left and her right hand was high on the steering wheel. He said that Defendant stated and demonstrated that Ms. Nelson’s left arm was held high and visible above the door while turning the vehicle. Defendant indicated and demonstrated that Ms. Nelson was leaning to the right away from Defendant before he discharged his weapon. Finally, Mr. Norris stated that Defendant demonstrated that when turning her body to the right, Ms. Nelson was exposing the rear of her left shoulder to Defendant. The Court FINDS it noteworthy that the State has not offered an affidavit from Detective Kaminsky, who conducted Defendant’s interview, controverting the Palmer and Norris affidavits. These descriptions of what Officer Palmer and Mr. Norris heard and observed during Defendant’s interview become even more important since the following questions were asked by the prosecutor and the following answers were given by Detective Kieffer during the grand jury proceeding.

Q…..”What we have the medical examiner finds the bullet enters the back of her left arm; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Travels from back to front?

A. Correct.

Q. And comes to rest in this right breast?

A. Correct.

Q. The officer said that he was facing her when he fires?

A. Correct.

Q. With her arms up on the steering wheel?

A. Correct.

Q. That’s inconsistent with what the medical examiner found because the

medical examiner found the left arm had to have been up against the

chest wall?

A. Yes.

Q. The arm would not have been extending?

A. Correct.

Q. It’s possible, I suppose, that at the time the shot was fired she

could have — in order to get that back to front, she could turned

very sharply to right and then exposed her left arm to where the

officer said he was?

A. Correct. Correct.

Q. That’s not how he described seeing her?

A. No, it’s not.” (GJT, pp. 40-41) (Emphasis added).A. No, it’s not.” (GJT, pp. 40-41) (Emphasis added).

Detective Kieffer’s testimony, that Defendant did not describe that Ms. Nelson turned to the right and then exposed her left arm to where the Defendant said he was positioned, was misleading. In fact, Detective Palmer and Mr. Norris, who were both present during the interview, stated that is precisely how he described it. The Court notes that neither Mr. Norris nor Officer Palmer prepared supplements to become part of the departmental report regarding this incident. Detective Kieffer was not present during Defendant’s interview and did not have the information from Officer Palmer or Mr. Norris when he testified before the grand jury. The prosecutor also did not have the benefit of any supplements prepared by Mr. Norris and/or Officer Palmer. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the prosecutor and/or the officer intentionally mislead the grand jury regarding what the Defendant described. However, in the telephonic conference between Court and counsel on May 8, 2003, Mr. Imbordino acknowledged that, if had been aware of the information provided by Palmer and Norris, he would have had to present it to the grand jury.

With regard to Detective Kieffer’s testimony as to the 10:00 o’clock and 2:00 o’clock position of Ms. Nelson’s arms, that testimony was simply a misunderstood interpretation of what Defendant stated in his interview. Regardless of the fact that there was no intentional misleading of the grand jury, the duties of fair play and impartiality imposed on those who attend and serve the grand jury require that the presentation of the evidence be a fair presentation. In this case, the incident took place in a matter of seconds. The exact position of Ms. Nelson’s body in her vehicle at the time of the shooting in relation to Defendant’s position is a crucial issue to be determined by the finder of fact. The State has the right to use Defendant’s statement in the grand jury presentation, but its use must be precise and accurate. It is important in the interests of justice that a full and fair presentation of the relevant evidence regarding the position of Ms. Nelson’s body in her vehicle be presented to the grand jury. That was not done and, accordingly, IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Remand. The matter is remanded to the grand jury for further proceedings in accordance with the ruling of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating any pending trial or trial management conference dates.

Comments (2)
May
05

Police set to crack down on Cinco de Mayo DUI offenses

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Police set to crack down on Cinco de Mayo DUI offenses

Officers of several valley agencies are participating in an announced DUI taskforce scheduled for this evening. The task force will reportedly be patrolling the areas of Tempe and Old Town Scottsdale.

Please enjoy your holiday responsibly. If you are in need of a DUI attorney, contact the Law Offices of Joshua S. Davidson today.

Categories : Criminal Law, DUI, Police
Comments Comments Off on Police set to crack down on Cinco de Mayo DUI offenses
Jan
02

Statewide Arizona DUI taskforce makes 179 New Year’s Eve DUI arrests.

Posted by: | Comments Comments Off on Statewide Arizona DUI taskforce makes 179 New Year’s Eve DUI arrests.

The Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety saturated the state’s roadways on New Year’s Eve and netted over 2,000 traffic stops, 179 of which involved charges of DUI.  Other offenses cited by the officers included speeding and seatbelt violations.  News reports indicate that 57 of the New Year’s Eve DUI arrests were for extreme DUI and over a dozen of them were for felony.  If you have been charged and need a DUI attorney in Scottsdale, Phoenix or anywhere in Maricopa County, contact Joshua S. Davidson today.

 

Categories : DUI
Comments Comments Off on Statewide Arizona DUI taskforce makes 179 New Year’s Eve DUI arrests.

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