contempt of court for arpaio?

Why would you be stupid enough to memorialize such a meeting and bring it into court with you?
 
Socrtease said:
Ok, lets say that I represent Criminal A on several burglary charges. In the course of my investigation, I interview a person who can positively put my client at the scene of one of the crimes. Lets then say that I am stupid enough to memorialize this interview with a writing and I place it in my File. Do I have an obligation to turn this information over to the Prosecution if they don't know about this witness? Lets say that a sheriff's deputy knocks my file off counsel table by accident and when he picks it up he looks through it. Has he violated my clients rights? Can he come up and just look through my file on counsel table? If my file is out of my brief case and on the table is it fair game?
Click to expand...

i don't think you have an obligation, it is the state's burden to prove you're guilty, and i think only the state has a duty to turn over an exculpatory evidence to the defendant, not that the def has a duty to turn over incriminating evidence to the prosectution

if your file is out, then you don't seem to think its private, kind of the open container theory or plain view i believe....if he knocks it off on accident...good question, but i would still say that it is privileged, just like accidentally sending privileged information to the opposing counsel and then you quickly send an email asking them to disregard it and i believe no court would allow the inadvertant privileged info in....i think
 
Yurt said:
i don't think you have an obligation, it is the state's burden to prove you're guilty, and i think only the state has a duty to turn over an exculpatory evidence to the defendant, not that the def has a duty to turn over incriminating evidence to the prosectution

if your file is out, then you don't seem to think its private, kind of the open container theory or plain view i believe....if he knocks it off on accident...good question, but i would still say that it is privileged, just like accidentally sending privileged information to the opposing counsel and then you quickly send an email asking them to disregard it and i believe no court would allow the inadvertant privileged info in....i think
Click to expand...

so a closed file folder is 'in plain view', therefore all papers inside are considered 'in plain view'?
 
Yurt you are right. and that is what I meant. My file is closed but in the open. You and STY get it. I wasn't looking to catch you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I hope the little dummies keep acting up....because if they want to test the judicial system to the point where the governor will have to call in the National Guard or other Fed law officers to take over their jobs...so be it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I kind of wish Arpaio would have refused to arrest him.
 
Someone should investigate Stoddard's claims that he routinely inspects documents as he was trained to do. If true then Arpaio should put in jail.
 
I hope this cop sticks to his guns and doesn't apologize for weeks or months even. I hope he misses Christmas. Authoritarian slug.
 
It's being reported that Stoddard is likely being housed in the Mesa Hilton. The Mesa Hilton is what the locals call the air conditioned, individual cells, where detainees are permitted to bring in personal items, such as cell phone, reserved for friends of Joe. What's worse he is being paid while incarcerated. It is time for someone to step in on Joe.
 
Socrtease said:
I hope this cop sticks to his guns and doesn't apologize for weeks or months even. I hope he misses Christmas. Authoritarian slug.
Click to expand...
He probably has a tree in his "cell" and conjugal visits. Paychecks haven't stopped... I don't see him giving in too quickly.
 
Well this just keeps on getting better and better.

The case involving the deputy who read over and grabbed the defense attorney's papers gets stranger by the moment, even allowing that the county attorney up there and the sheriff are reputedly, well, nuts.

As noted earlier, the judge held the deputy in contempt. Now the county attorney has filed felony charges against the judge. On a quick read they are pretty strange. For one thing, they are quite ambiguous. The judge provided "money, transportation, weapon or disguise or other means of avoiding discovery, apprehension, prosecution of conviction" to any judges, officials, or attorneys (only two being named).

For another, look at the verification. "Subscribed and sworn upon information and belief this 9th day of December 2009" .... and there is no signature of a notary. Then it has the judge's home address.

BTW, the defendant is the chief criminal judge of the county.

At the end is the explanation. Cripes ... the judge apparently denied the county's motion to recuse himself, and county lost an appeal. Then he failed to hold someone in contempt that the county thought should be held in contempt. And he responded to claims that the sheriffs' office didn't have enough manpower to transport people to court for bail-setting hearings (meaning people remained in jail without necessity) by suggesting that if the number of inmates was reduced this would cease to be a problem.

I have trouble reading further. This suggests a remarkable assault on the judiciary by the executive branch. Rule our way or face prosecution! I hope the judge files a 1983 action and puts a few wingnuts in their place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top