Again, correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t victim’s rights a key component of the law in Arizona? As to the cliche that 10 guilty should go free rather than 1 innocent be convicted: Mr. Lozano has admitted that he is guilty. Any violation of his Constitutional rights can be cured by excluding all information in the document (and any fruit from that tree).

“Contempt proceedings aside, dismissing the case against Antonio Lozano would have sent the clearest message to overzealous officers in the future. In fact, if Lozano’s case isn’t dismissed, I may lose a little bit of respect for the judiciary.”

Mr. Lozano pleaded guilty to assault. I don’t see how events that occurred after that assault or after the plea could justify dismissing the matter. What signal would such a dismissal sent to the victim of the assault? Although I don’t see this matter through the lens of a criminal defense lawyer, I am willing to speculate that the majority of people would find dismissal of the charges to be a reason to lose a little respect for the judiciary.

There’s plenty of defending to do even after a guilty plea. Just because he’s admitted to doing something doesn’t mean he needs to lay down and take whatever the state wants to give him.

A more flagrant disregard for the rule of law and the rights of the people is hard to come by. No less than the founding fathers of this great country, put together the bill of rights to protect the people from these very abuses. The 1st amendment is there to protect your professions ability put these criminal acts under the spotlight which hopefully leads to Stoddard’s day in court where a jury can sort it out and he can enjoy the desire for his rights to be protected. The rule of law applies to all and combined with freedom of the press keeps us free from tyranny.
Stoddard broke the law by violating no less than 2 amendments to the constitution when he violated the attorney’s Forth Amendment right and the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The fourth amendment is quite clear. For there to be probable cause, a person has to swear under oath that he or she saw the exact information or item that the government is in search of, and knows where it is, and is willing to swear under threat of prosecution for perjury as to the exact item and its whereabouts. In other words, fishing expeditions by government employees, AKA police is illegal and unconstitutional and definitely applies to attorney papers and effects.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

When the prosecutor is allowed to search through counsel’s papers and notes, the offense constitutes collusion and the defendant is actually being deprived of Counsel.

An attorneys notes about shortcomings, misrepresentations, lies and tactics of the prosecutions case are the tools which he uses to pick apart the prosecutions case, and to have any value must never be viewed by the prosecution unless presented to the jury.

Only evidence is to be shared, any more is illegal and constitutes a mistrial.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to encourage the defendant to provide information pertaining to their case without fear that the information will be revealed to others, namely the prosecution, this encourages full disclosure in the pursuit of justice.

If the Arizona attorney general allows this crime and contempt for the law to go unpunished it will be proof enough to the people of America that Arizona prosecutors are corrupt and their convictions not credible.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he pleaded guilty.