precisa de receita para comprar ivermectina can humans take ivermectin for animals ivermectin tablets for humans scabies ivermectin philippines can you use ivermectin sheep drench on chickens does ivermectin treat pinworms

» Procedural Rules

Are They Breaking The Rule?

About two and a half years ago, I wrote about the Maricopa County Superior Court running out of judges to preside over a client’s trial. It happened again yesterday, but in a different way. At 8:00 a.m., I went to the master calendar assignment judge’s courtroom. If the system was a game show, he’d be the host. He spins his wheel of fortune and assigns your case to the judicial officer who’s next in line. Until that point, you don’t really know who you’re going to get. For all practical purposes, the case is assigned to what I like to call the “Honorable Master Calendar” on my captions. It was a huge docket, and the judge began assigning cases. Unlike the last time I wrote about … Read entire article »

Filed under: Procedural Rules, Trial

Tipping Our Hand

People who don’t practice criminal defense tend to have a number of funny misconceptions about how the process works. Sadly, some people who do practice criminal defense also tend to have a number of funny misconceptions about how the process works. One huge area where non-practitioners and even some practitioners seem to get confused is disclosure. “We’d better not tip our hand,” I hear over and over again. In Arizona state courts, far more so than in federal court, the disclosure rules are quite extensive. The state must comply with all kinds of requirements as the case proceeds. At the arraignment, it must turn over all law enforcement reports as well as the names and addresses of experts and the results of completed physical examinations, scientific … Read entire article »

Filed under: Practice in General, Procedural Rules

Self-Defense, Depublication, and Uncertainty

In Arizona, felons who haven’t had their rights restored can’t possess firearms. It’s a class 4 felony, and because alleged offenders are obviously likely to have at least one historical prior felony conviction, defendants charged with misconduct involving weapons under the prohibited possessor subsection usually face a pretty significant mandatory prison term. What if they possess the firearm in self-defense though? The self-defense statute justifies “threatening or using physical force against another.” It doesn’t necessarily justify possessing a firearm if you’re a prohibited possessor. Another statute justifies the defensive display of a firearm, again not specifically allowing a prohibited possessor to possess a firearm, and the statute governing the use of force in defense of a residential structure or occupied vehicle and the statute governing the use … Read entire article »

Filed under: Arizona Cases, Arizona Statutes, Procedural Rules

To Plead or Not to Plead?

In Arizona, mentally ill defendants tend go down one of two different paths. Neither path is very appealing, as the system simply isn’t equipped to deal with people suffering from serious mental illness. The first path involves Arizona’s defense of “guilty except insane.” I have never practiced in another state, but I can’t imagine a tougher, more restrictive approach to dealing with defendants whose actions were a result of their mental illness. To get a finding of guilty except insane, the defendant’s problem must be “severe” and prevent him from discerning right from wrong. We aren’t talking about your normal severe mental illness either. Anything that’s momentary, temporary, or arising from the pressure of the circumstances doesn’t count. Neither does moral decadence, depravity, or passion growing out … Read entire article »

Filed under: Clients, Procedural Rules

Legal Strategery in Marikafka County

Adam Stoddard is probably still in jail. If you need some background, catch up here, here, and here. Maricopa County has seen bomb threats and pepper spray incidents that may be related to his detention, as well as a law enforcement rally and vigil showing support for him. Meanwhile, deputy county attorney Tom Liddy, who still seems to be counsel for Stoddard, makes what could at best be called weak offering in his defense. Will disclosing the contents of the documents Stoddard illegally viewed and seized really help get him out any sooner? It seems Liddy, who claims to represent Stoddard and not the sheriff, is more concerned about making a joke out of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments than he is about … Read entire article »

Filed under: Arizona Cases, Procedural Rules

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

Arizona's Unusual Statute of Limitations

Although Arizona courts have on multiple occasions explained that statutes of limitations are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused and against the prosecution, in practice, that doesn’t make an awful lot of difference. According to at least one Arizona court, our criminal statute of limitations is explicit. Unlike most states’ statutes of limitations, which begin running at the time of the offense, it doesn’t begin to run until the state actually discovers or should have discovered the offense. The law allows some serious injustice to take place as long as it isn’t the state’s fault. A victim can wait as long as he or she pleases before going to authorities, and as long as there’s no reason the state should have known earlier, charges can … Read entire article »

Filed under: Arizona Cases, Arizona Statutes, Procedural Rules

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

Judge Shopping

Sometimes a judge will reject a plea because he or she feels it is too lenient. In fact, I can think of a few judges who do it frequently, and Arizona’s rules contain more than one provision that can be read to permit a change of judge in that situation. After a change of judge occurs, in most instances the plea will be changed and presented to a new judge. However, some judges are willing to accept the old plea without any changes at all. The judges who require some change to the plea are usually adamant about the fact that using the same plea again constitutes “judge shopping” and isn’t allowed. I’ve yet to figure out whether there is in fact a rule against it in … Read entire article »

Filed under: Practice in General, Procedural Rules

Rules v. Standard Practice

Recently, I amused a judge because I followed the text of a rule of criminal procedure instead of doing what everyone else in the jurisdiction does. He told me I deserved a “gold star,” and I’m not sure how I feel about that. According to the rule, which is very clear, I was responsible for editing a copy of a physicians report within 24 hours of receipt and returning it to the court so it could be made available to the State. Apparently, most attorneys just get the report, redact it at their leisure, and give it to the State a day or so before the hearing. At every step of a case, I tend to look at the governing statue or rule whenever there might be a … Read entire article »

Filed under: Practice in General, Procedural Rules, Professionalism

Articles Comments

Web Design by Actualize Solutions