Deputy Steals Defense Lawyers File

[Hotdoger]

I know of a few cases in Marion Co. where defendants have taken photos into court. Such photos are evidence, and must follow the rules of evidence. The one case I know, a guy claimed he had photos. The judge asked the officer if he would allow those photos/submit to them being introduced as evidence. Since the officer had no idea what/where/when/why/how the photos were obtained, the officer objected and the judge refused to accept the photos as evidence. In another case, the defendant took in photos. I don't know if the officers or the state were asked if they were OK with them, but I know the photos were entered into evidence....and they ended up convicting the driver...as they clearly showed the signs in which the driver violated.

I think in your daughter's case, the prosecutor makes a valid claim about the time the photos were taken. If you can get a time stamp on them, or bring in the camera with a laptop and use that to show the photo information, then why should a judge take that into consideration? Even if the photos were admitted, they could mean nothing unless this was the _first_ time your daughter drove to through this school zone on that road, or the school just opened that day and the sign was put up the day before, etc. etc.. Any admission by your daughter that despite the tree branches, she still knew there was a school there, and that there had be unobstructed signs in the past is likely going to get her found guilty. Think of it this way, if a speed limit sign on the interstate falls off, does that mean the speed limit is now 150MPH, or whatever the driver decides, until the driver hits the next sign that is still standing?

It was her first time to drive down the street.
In her series of photos the only sign was up in the tress, obscured by the leaves. She even had street signs in the pictures.
She did get the speeding in a school zone charge dropped.
But still got the 38 in a 35 charge.
I don't know if the police officer was there or not.
But to hear her tell it the lady prosecutor turned into a demon from hell when she got to her case.
She didn't tell me about going and I am really unhappy about it.

 

[Indy317]

But still got the 38 in a 35 charge.
She didn't tell me about going and I am really unhappy about it.

Are you unhappy about the whole thing, or by just the actions from the prosecutor?

 

[Hotdoger]

Are you unhappy about the whole thing, or by just the actions from the prosecutor?

She did not tell me about going. I am unhappy about that.
I wanted to go to court with her.

 

[mrjarrell]

There's a moderate update. The deputy has apparently gotten together with the county lawyers and come up with a slightly different story. Imagine.
From Simple Justice

The continuation of the contempt hearing for Adam Stoddard, Maricopa County's finest, was held yesterday before Judge Gary Donahoe, although much of it happened without prying eyes after he closed the courtroom at the insistence of Tom Liddy, with the County Attorney's office.

To my great disappointment, Nick Martin was unable to attend yesterday's hearing, leaving us with only the Arizona Republic version of events. Given its anemic coverage of the last hearing date, it's a rather sorry substitute.

"Going to," "steal" and "money."


Those four words, grouped in the same sentence, prompted a Maricopa County sheriff's detention officer to remove documents from a defense attorney's file last month, according to court testimony Thursday.

Officer Adam Stoddard testified that a handful of factors contributed to his decision to position himself behind the defendant, Antonio Solis Lozano, during Lozano's Oct. 19 sentencing hearing. And while Stoddard was there, his eyes "glazed over" a document with the four words that caught his attention.
​

And why did Stoddard mosey up behind the defense attorney so that he might happen to "glaze over" the open papers on the table?

Stoddard said the fact that Lozano had numerous papers that court security had not searched concerned him. People in the back of the courtroom who were there to see Lozano also made Stoddard suspicious, according to his testimony.​

And sun was in his eyes, and there was a hole in his racket. So aside from the discrepancies between the video and this testimony, not to mention that the file he was "glazing over" was the attorney's and not the defendants, and the lack of any logical connection between people being in a courtroom, where they are entitled to be unless Donahoe's on the bench, and papers on table, Stoddard's doing a bang up job on his second try to come up with an explanation.

The problem posed is that Stoddard, after being widely ridiculed for his ridiculous attempt to justify his wholly improper invasion into the defense lawyer Joanne Cuccia's file, had a few days with the county lawyers to come up with a better story. Despite this gift, he still can't offer any rationale for his conduct.

It would seem impossible for Judge Gary Donahoe to be unaware of the fact that his decision will be the subject of intense interest and scrutiny across the country. This is not just a little Maricopa thing.

Stoddard's decision to remove the documents from the file of Joanne Cuccia, Lozano's former attorney, led to an outcry from defense attorneys, an avalanche of media attention once video footage of Stoddard's move was released, and a packed house in Donahoe's courtroom Thursday.​

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, a judge in Maricopa County has found the officer in question in contempt. He either has to apologise or go to jail. Wow. What a sentence. Maybe more criminals should be given the choice of saying, "I'm sorry" or going to jail.

From Digital Journal

A Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputy caught on camera removing documents from a courtroom has been found in contempt of court by a Superior Court judge.
The ruling came Wednesday morning as Judge Donahoe concluded officer Adam Stoddard of the Sheriff’s Dept. was in contempt when he removed the two hand-written documents from a file belonging to attorney Joanne Cuccia. Cuccia was representing a defendant at a sentencing hearing at the time. It is only the latest scandal to blemish controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department. Arpaio, who bills himself as America’s toughest Sheriff, has found himself at the center of countless disputes in recent months. Arpaio had defended Stoddard’s actions. This latest incident unfolded when officer Stoddard was spotted by defendant Antonio Lozano removing the documents from the file. Lozano quickly notified his attorney, who in turn, brought it to the attention of Judge Donahoe. Officer Stoddard had maintained he removed the documents because he believed Lozano posed a security threat. Donahoe disagreed with the Sheriff's Department, concluding Stoddard acted unreasonably by removing the documents. The Superior Court judge has given Officer Stoddard until November 30th to publicly apologize to Cuccia and Lozano, or report to jail on December 1st.

Wonder which he'll choose?

Well, if loudmouth sheriff Arpaio has his way, it'll be jail. The judge should issue another citation for contempt and throw Arpaio into his own jail.
From AZ Central

The officer was ordered by a judge to hold a press conference to apologize for his actions - an order that Arpaio immediately said would be defied.
“My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation,” Arpaio said in a press release. He further said, "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff’s Office.”

More at the link

If this is America's sheriff then we are a sad place, indeed.

 

[Redskinsfan]

pathetic response

The judge in the court room video is very, very weak. There is no situation where a court deputy can seize defense paper eivdence claiming that it is a danger to people in the court room. I am familiar with a similar event and the deputy involved was seriously punished. Asked to apologize or else? What a ridiculous response!

Terry

 

[mrjarrell]

Update:
Looks like the deputy has decided to tell the judge to go jump in the lake. He held a press conference and refused the judges order. Now all we have to do is wait for the judge to find someone to take the putz into custody and put him in a jail somewhere. We might even get to see his boss, Sheriff Joe go to jail, too if he decides to buck the judge. That'd certainly be a good day. While I normally dislike contempt charges and their open ended sentences, I'll make an exception this time. We are supposedly a nation of laws, not men and no-one is above the law.

From Heat Cityhttp://www.theagitator.com/2009/12/01/the-drama-builds-in-marakafka-county/:

He did almost everything he was supposed to do. He gathered the area’s media. He prepared a statement. He read it aloud.
But detention officer Adam Stoddard did not apologize on Monday night. Instead, he defied the order issued by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe, which required him to say he was sorry for taking an attorney’s confidential documents six weeks ago or else go to jail today.
“Judge Donahoe has ordered me to feel something I do not” Stoddard said. “He has ordered me to say something I cannot.”
The young detention officer, dressed in his brown duty uniform and wearing a badge, told the pack of journalists and other observers in front of the county’s main courthouse in downtown Phoenix that the judge had essentially “put me in a position where I must lie or go to jail.”
“I will not lie,” he said.

At the end of his statement, Stoddard turned and walked away, refusing to take any questions.
The whole uproar goes back to Oct. 19, when Stoddard was caught on a courthouse security video rifling through the files of defense attorney Joanne Cuccia while her back was turned and she was speaking before the court. Stoddard took a letter from Cuccia’s client out of the file and had it copied before Cuccia was any the wiser.
In a court hearing later to figure out whether his actions were legal, the detention officer testified that he saw the words “going to,” “steal” and “money” grouped together on the letter. He said he believed that gave him authority to seize it and investigate whether a crime was taking place.
But Donahoe rejected Stoddard’s story, saying there was no way he could have thought a crime was about to occur based on what he saw. He ruled on Nov. 17 that Stoddard’s actions were a blatant violation of the near-sacred attorney-client privilege and ordered the detention officer to publicly apologize to the defense attorney by Monday or else face jail time for contempt.
Before Stoddard walked off in defiance of his court-ordered deadline, Craig Mehrens, a veteran Phoenix attorney who has agreed to represent Cuccia in the case, called out to him through the crowd: “See you in jail.”
Stoddard’s lawyer, deputy county attorney Tom Liddy, stepped in to try to answer reporters’ questions. But the heckling by Mehrens continued.
Mehrens insisted several times that the detention officer had not written the prepared statement himself, implying that Stoddard was little more than a yes man for his boss, Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
“It’s his words,” Liddy shot back. “It’s what he wants to do.”
Liddy went on to repeat many of the things he has already said since the court order was issued. He called it a violation of Stoddard’s First Amendment rights and said the detention officer had not gotten his due process or been allowed to make his case before a jury.
He vowed again to appeal the judge’s ruling to a higher court, something he has failed to do since the order came out.
Asked whether Stoddard would surrender to an arrest warrant if one was issued today, Liddy refused to respond, calling the question “a hypothetical.”
After Liddy left, the defense attorney who had been wronged told reporters she was “surprised” at the whole affair.
“We came down here for an apology and we didn’t get that,” said Cuccia.
Maria Schaffer, an attorney now representing the defendant whose letter was taken by Stoddard. said she was “incredulous” about the scene that had just played out.
“Why go to all the trouble hauling us out here in the cold for their dog and pony show?” she said.
It’s up to the judge to decide what happens next.

Video at the source.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The judge in the court room video is very, very weak.

Well, maybe she just didn't see what happened. I've been there.

You're up on the bench looking at a file or the computer or whatever and suddenly something happens and you are to act like you know exactly what is going on. BTDT and got the t-shirt.

FWIW, Indiana has had a similar case but the person taking the papers was a Prosecuting Attorney in the middle of a trial. I believe the case was in Washington County. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The deputy has been ordered to jail for contempt of court.

Law of Criminal Defense

 

[CarmelHP]

FWIW, Indiana has had a similar case but the person taking the papers was a Prosecuting Attorney in the middle of a trial. I believe the case was in Washington County. I'll see if I can find it.

I remember that, but don't remember the exact outcome. Didn't a couple of DP's get a year's time out from practice? It's a much more serious violation from bar member's and much easier to impose discipline.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Carmel, found it. In Re Winkler, 834 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. 2005).

It was a deposition. The cop stole the notes from the Defendant who left the room with his attorney and gave the stolen notes to the PA.

The Defendant re-entered the conference room and noticed his notes missing. PA, CDPA and cop all go through charade of looking for notes when notes were in PA's file.

PA got 120 days suspension, CDPA got 60 days for 4.1(a), false statement.

It was in Washington County, but during a deposition, not a trial.

 

[mrjarrell]

The deputy has been ordered to jail for contempt of court.

Law of Criminal Defense

Apparently he finds that prospect ludicrous. He's at work today and hasn't bothered to report to jail.
From Heat City

He was supposed to go to jail today, but Maricopa County detention officer Adam Stoddard is on the job instead, working in a courtroom just two floors above the judge whose orders he publicly defied Monday night.
Public defender Maria Schaffer said an attorney in her office spotted Stoddard in uniform, guarding the seventh-floor courtroom of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Lisa Flores this morning. “He was there,” said Schaffer.
About 12 hours before he returned to the job, Stoddard stood outside the same courthouse and told a pack of journalists he would not obey an order by Judge Gary Donahoe to apologize for rifling through an attorney’s confidential files and seizing a letter from a defendant. The Oct. 19 incident took place in Flores’ courtroom, no less.
Stoddard told reporters he would rather go to jail than apologize.

Under the order by Donahoe, whose courtroom is on the fifth floor of the Maricopa County Superior Courthouse in downtown Phoenix, Stoddard should have reported for jail today.
Donahoe’s order said that if Stoddard did not apologize, he “shall report to the jail on December 1, 2009 and be detained until further order of this Court upon a finding that he has complied.”
But Stoddard’s attorney told Heat City today that he believes Donahoe’s order alone is not enough to put the detention officer behind bars for contempt of court.
Deputy county attorney Tom Liddy said Donahoe needs to also issue an arrest warrant or an order of confinement. He said Stoddard “cannot walk in off the street” and present himself to the jail. “It doesn’t work that way,” he said.
Meantime, Liddy said he and other attorneys still preparing to file a request with the Arizona Court of Appeals to strike down Donahoe’s ruling.

More at the source.

Looks like a big FU from Sheriff Joe.

 

[Scutter01]

I don't know how this works, so please enlighten me. The Sheriff's department is charged with enforcing the judicial decision, right? So if the Sheriff decides he's going to ignore the judge's lawful order (in any case, not necessarily this one), what recourse does the judge have to impose his (her) will? Call the Federal Marshalls?

 

[Fargo]

double tap, please remove. sorry

 

[Fargo]

I don't know how this works, so please enlighten me. The Sheriff's department is charged with enforcing the judicial decision, right? So if the Sheriff decides he's going to ignore the judge's lawful order (in any case, not necessarily this one), what recourse does the judge have to impose his (her) will? Call the Federal Marshalls?

It sounds to me like the county is on really thin ice on this one. While it does not appear that an arrest warrant has issued, it probably won't be long. I am not familiar with AZ law but I would be really surprised if the judge's order that he surrender and be held is insufficient.

If the sheriff refuses to comply, he probably risks a mandamus action compelling him to do his duty as well as being found in contempt. Most contempt proceedings are not appealable unless imprisonment is being imposed over 180 days so I am skeptical that the county is going to get the Ct. of Appeals to stay the judge's orders. A contempt sentence for an action committed during a session of court is REALLY hard to get out of other than by making nice with the judge. This Corrections Officer had best be prepared to do every one of those 180 days, (presuming that is the standard AZ uses.)

Deputy county attorney Tom Liddy said Donahoe needs to also issue an arrest warrant or an order of confinement. He said Stoddard “cannot walk in off the street” and present himself to the jail. “It doesn’t work that way,” he said.
Meantime, Liddy said he and other attorneys still preparing to file a request with the Arizona Court of Appeals to strike down Donahoe’s ruling.

I dunno about AZ, but in Indiana a judge certainly can order someone to surrender themself without issuing an arrest warrant. Then again, County Attorney's are usually purely civil attorneys and many have a "limited" grasp of criminal law.



Best,

Joe

 

[Scutter01]

If the sheriff refuses to comply, he probably risks a mandamus action compelling him to do his duty as well as being found in contempt. Most contempt proceedings are not appealable unless imprisonment is being imposed over 180 days so I am skeptical that the county is going to get the Ct. of Appeals to stay the judge's orders. A contempt sentence for an action committed during a session of court is REALLY hard to get out of other than by making nice with the judge. This Corrections Officer had best be prepared to do every one of those 180 days, (presuming that is the standard AZ uses.)

None of that really answered the question. The police are charged with enforcing the law (in this case, a judge's lawful order), and if they choose not to, what recourse does the court have to compel compliance from the police? Sheriff Joe has already said he has no intention of complying. Who does the Sheriff answer to (and I don't mean the voters here)?

 

[Fargo]

None of that really answered the question. The police are charged with enforcing the law (in this case, a judge's lawful order), and if they choose not to, what recourse does the court have to compel compliance from the police? Sheriff Joe has already said he has no intention of complying. Who does the Sheriff answer to (and I don't mean the voters here)?

Depends on the constitutional structure of AZ's gov't. I really don't know the mechanisms in place in AZ. My guess would be the arrest warrant issues, and if the Sheriff refuses to serve it the state police get called in. The Sheriff could be charged with official misconduct and could possibly be found in contempt as well. It really depends on what mechanisms AZ has to force an elected official to execute the duties of his office.

Joe

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Carmel, found it. In Re Winkler, 834 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. 2005).

It was a deposition. The cop stole the notes from the Defendant who left the room with his attorney and gave the stolen notes to the PA.

The Defendant re-entered the conference room and noticed his notes missing. PA, CDPA and cop all go through charade of looking for notes when notes were in PA's file.

PA got 120 days suspension, CDPA got 60 days for 4.1(a), false statement.

It was in Washington County, but during a deposition, not a trial.

I'll have to look that up - but as a citizen of Washington County - I can tell you that it doesn't shock me too much!

 

[Fargo]

Looks like Arpaio is caving:

Detention Officer Will Report to Jail in Contempt Case, Says Sheriff Arpaio; Claims Judge is Biased - Phoenix News - Valley Fever

For the sheriff to go up against a judge in a contempt proceeding is probably not a good idea. As noted above, the contempt powers of a judge are very broad and generally un-appealable.

Best,

Joe

 

[CarmelHP]

Call the Federal Marshalls?

A county judge would have no recourse to U.S. Marshals.