Wasting Tax Dollars
I currently represent a client charged with possession of marijuana. By itself, that’s not unusual. What is unusual, however, is that the state claims he had weed in prison. He just finished serving his 18th year, and he’s got a little over 56 years left to go. He’s middle-aged. Why would the state choose to prosecute such a case? What else can they do to him? He’s going to enjoy his field trips to court. If he goes to trial, it’s going to feel good to wear street clothes and take the restraints off, even if it’s just for a little while. What kind of plea is a “lifer” going to want to take? The prosecutor knows all of this because I told him. … Read entire article »
Filed under: Courts, Prosecutors
A Tricky Situation
Article 2, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution says that “[a]ll persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except . . . [f]or felony offenses committed when the person charged is already admitted to bail on a separate felony charge and where the proof is evident or the presumption great as to the present charge.” Knowing that, what do you say when you know your client’s new offense was allegedly committed while he was out on bond for another felony offense and the judge asks, “counsel, do you have any recommendations regarding bond?” Does it matter if the same judge is assigned to the client’s other case and presumably knows that the client was out on bail when he or she supposedly committed the new offense? … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Constitution, Clients, Courts, Ethics, Practice in General, Professionalism, Prosecutors
Mandatory Minimums, Maximums
Arizona’s sentencing statutes contain ranges of permissible prison sentences for different classes of felonies. Defendants with historical prior felony convictions face ranges with longer minimum and maximum sentences. If a defendant has more than two historical priors, the additional priors may be considered aggravating factors which merit a longer sentence within the statutory range, but there aren’t any special statutory sentencing ranges for people with three, four, or five historical priors. Usually, the most a judge can give someone with two historical priors will be the same as what the judge can give someone with three or more historical priors. Prosecutors regularly get that wrong. I recently had a prosecutor argue that my client, who had a ton of historical priors and was charged with a class two felony, … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Statutes, Practice in General, Prosecutors
Discovery Fees
Some Arizona prosecuting agencies charge defense attorneys for copies of police reports and other discovery. For instance, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office charges $0.25 per page. They have you sign an invoice when you pick up the discovery, then they send you a bill. Most Maricopa County defense attorneys I know have at least one delinquent discovery bill from the county attorney sitting around their office. There’s not much point in writing a check for a dollar or two. A friend of mine told me about a defense attorney who was 90 days delinquent on a bill for $1.50 and wanted to go to the county attorney with $0.55 and ask to be put on a payment plan for the remainder. I don’t like the county … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Constitution, Procedural Rules, Prosecutors
Dear Bad Prosecutor:
Your job is not to argue with everything I say. The interests of justice do not always require that my client receives the maximum fine or prison sentence. Many of my clients deserve bail or commutation. You are allowed to concede points when you do not have a good reason to disagree. I promise. Believe it or not, I am not going to lie and cheat in order to gain some kind of advantage. My goal in this pretrial is not to trick you. Although you are just covering, I am not a high school student, and I do not view you as a substitute teacher. I do not intend to do anything to jeopardize my bar license, now or ever. You have looked over … Read entire article »
Filed under: Government Rants, Prosecutors
Worst. Plea. Ever.
Until last September, if you were convicted of extreme DUI in Arizona, you would have to do thirty days in jail, all but ten of which could be suspended. Now, you must do the full thirty days. On top of that, if you’ve had another DUI within the past seven years, you are looking at a whopping 120 days of jail. None of it can be suspended. I recently had a client who got a DUI just before the law changed and had a prior DUI slightly over seven years old. By “slightly” I mean a matter of days. Because of the date of the offense, hers was a typical extreme DUI. No special enhancements applied, and neither did the crazy new law. Based … Read entire article »
Filed under: Arizona Statutes, DUI, Prosecutors
Trusting Prosecutors
In Arizona, victims can choose whether or not to be interviewed by a defendant or his attorney. In pretty much every case, I send the prosecutor a letter asking whether the victim would be willing to submit to an interview. Victims almost never want to speak with me, so I’m forced to trust that the prosecutor actually asked them about consenting to an interview. I’m not a very trusting person, and I’m especially suspicious when there’s no way to verify what someone tells me. That’s the case with victim interviews. I bet a lot of prosecutors never bother asking victims, but in most instances, I have no way of proving it. I can’t later seek out the victim and find out. That would be a … Read entire article »
Filed under: Professionalism, Prosecutors, Trial, Victim's Rights
Terrible Policies
I won’t name names here, but there is one prosecutor’s office in Arizona that has particularly rigid and often ridiculous office policies regarding plea bargains and a number of other important things that, in my opinion, should be left to the sound judgment of individual prosecutors. Some of the office’s policies are so draconian and inflexible that they are known by pretty much anyone who is even minimally involved with Arizona’s criminal justice system. I imagine 99% of people reading this post instantly knew which office I meant after reading the first sentence. Anyway, in two cases this year where I wrote the assigned prosecutors letters presenting overwhelming exculpatory evidence and requesting the cases be dismissed, I had conversations like this: Me: Have you looked over what I gave you? Them: … Read entire article »
Filed under: Practice in General, Professionalism, Prosecutors
Precluding the State's Objections to a Motion
Rule 16 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure governs Pretrial Motion Practice. Rule 16.1, which is entitled “General Provisions,” includes the time periods in which motions and responses must be filed. The rule provides in relevant part that “[a]ll motions shall be made no later than 20 days prior to trial” and “[t]he opposing party shall have 10 days within which to file a response.” As a remedy for untimely filing, the rule provides that “[a]ny motion, defense, objection, or request not timely raised . . . shall be precluded, unless the basis therefor was not then known, and by the exercise of reasonable diligence could not then have been known, and the party raises it promptly upon learning of it.” It seems clear enough. If … Read entire article »
Filed under: Procedural Rules, Prosecutors
Recent Comments