News
Jul 29, 2010
Arizona Supreme Court Issues Administrative Order Regarding 1070
The Arizona Supreme Court issued an Administrative Order dated July 28, 2010, regarding SB 1070. To read the order, click here: Administrative Order 2010-09
Jul 28, 2010
SB 1070 Injunction
U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction preventing several sections of Arizona's new immigration law from becoming law, at least until the courts have a chance to hear the full case.
Jun 29, 2010
The Defender is Back!
After a long absence AACJ's Quarterly Magazine, The Defender has returned in an on-line only format. The magazine is distributed by email to members and is also available here.
Jun 18, 2010
AACJ Files Amicus Brief Supporting Injunction Against SB 1070
AACJ has filed an Amicus brief in support of a preliminary injunction in Friendly House v. Wright, the ACLU's challenge to SB 1070, Arizona's new anti-immigrant law which is scheduled to go into effect on July 29. AACJ's brief asserts the unconstitutionality of the law on Fourth Amendment grounds, an argument not covered in the principal briefs.
AACJ's brief, authored by members David Euchner, Louis Fidel, Matthew Green and Adam Bleier, is available here.
May 26, 2010
Holder Restores Reason and Flexibility to Federal Charging and Sentencing Decisions
On May 19, 2010 Attorney General Eric Holder issued a memo to all federal prosecutors setting forth new Department of Justice guidelines on charging and sentencing decisions. The new memo supersedes the infamous Ashcroft Memorandum of September 22, 2003 as well as subsequent pronouncements of the previous Administration.
The Ashcroft Memorandum was an attempt to limit severely prosecutorial discretion and to micro-manage charging and sentencing decisions. The Holder memo seeks to restore a measure of flexibility in dealing with individual cases. The Ashcroft mandates and exceptions are replaced by more general guidance and policy.
Note that all charging decisions must be reviewed by a supervisor. "All but the most routine indictments should be accompanied by a prosecution memorandum that identifies the charging options supported by the evidence and the law and explains the charging decision therein." This underscores the importance of defense involvement in the preindictment stage wherever possible, and the need to provide the prosecutor with as much support as possible for a decision to charge less than the most serious offense(s) available.
The Holder Memorandum is available here.
Apr 27, 2010
AACJ Files Bar Complaint Against Andrew Thomas
Today AACJ filed a bar complain against Andrew Thomas, former Maricopa County attorney. AACJ brings this complaint at the direction of its Board of Governors on behalf of its members, the members of the Board and its officers, in discharge of a lawyer's obligation under Ethical Rule 8.3, Rule 43 of the Supreme Court of Arizona, to report to the Bar conduct of a lawyer which raises substantial question as to his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. To read the full complaint, click here.
Mar 31, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Counsel Must Inform Client Regarding Deportation Risk
Petitioner Padilla, a lawful permanent resident of the United States for over 40 years, faces deportation after pleading guilty to drug distribution charges in Kentucky. In postconviction proceedings, he claims that his counsel not only failed to advise him of this consequence before he entered the plea, but also told him not to worry about deportation since he had lived in this country so long. He alleges that he would have gone to trial had he not received this incorrect advice. The Kentucky Supreme Court denied Padilla postconviction relief on the ground that the Sixth Amendment's effective assistance-of-counsel guarantee does not protect defendants from erroneous deportation advice because deportation is merely a "collateral" consequence of a conviction.
Held: Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.
Click here to read complete opinion on Padilla v. Kentucky.
Feb 23, 2010
AACJ Honors Award Recipients
AACJ recently held its annual awards luncheon in Prescott. Isabel G. Garcia received the AACJ Vanguard Leadership Award for her years of courageous leadership and commitment to the cause of Criminal Justice. Thomas F. Jacobs and Henry L. Jacobs received the AACJ Jack Williams Appellate Achievement Award in recognition of their work in Arizona v. Gant, with landmark victories before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. Donald S. Klein was awarded the AACJ Tom Karas Indigent Defense Award in recognition of Don as a champion of indigent defense and in thanks for his leadership and dedication to indigent representation issues. Robert J. McWhirter, outgoing AACJ president, was honored with an award in grateful appreciation for his dedication and belief in AACJ. He was recognized as a leader with a strong vision, a sense of humor and a great hat!
Dec 23, 2009
Supreme Court Appoints McGregor Special Master in Maricopa Fiasco
The Arizona Supreme Court today took steps to bring a semblance of order to the chaotic situation caused by the efforts of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio to intimidate the Judiciary and punish their political enemies and critics, and their ongoing feud with the Board of Supervisors. The Court appointed retired former Chief Justice Ruth V. McGregor as Special Master to administer all cases brought among the Maricopa County Attorney, Sheriff's Office, Board of Supervisors and/or the Superior Court. McGregor will have the "power to appoint judges to hear cases, motions, and preliminary matters, and to assign, reassign, expedite, or consolidate cases, or take such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate in these matters to ensure the swift, fair, and impartial administration of justice."
The Administrative Order, authored by Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, comes as a result of the various actions, civil and criminal, filed by the County Attorney against sitting and retired judges, the Sheriff's takeover of a criminal justice computer system that processes thousands of court transactions a month, and other threatened actions. The order noted that several filed cases were assigned to judges from outside the County and that defense attorneys had filed motions alleging conflict of interest on the part of the County Attorney in prosecuting unrelated criminal cases.
"The Superior Court in Maricopa County is the fifth largest court in the United States and handles more than 28,000 criminal felony matters each year. These investigations, cases, motions, and allegations, particularly the allegations of conflicts of interest and a conspiracy among the members of the Board of Supervisors and certain judges, including the Presiding Judge, have the potential to impair that court's ability to carry out its responsibilities and threaten the perception of impartial justice. More significantly, if a true conflict is found to exist requiring the transfer of all criminal cases prosecuted by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to out-of-county judges, a public safety emergency would arise."
Justice Berch went on to say:
"In an attempt to ensure that the lawsuits and investigations do not further affect the administration of justice in the Superior Court in Maricopa County or diminish public trust and confidence in the justice system, I am appointing a Special Master with power to administer cases stemming from the various actions or investigations by the Maricopa County Attorney or the Maricopa County Sheriff against any judge of the Superior Court in Maricopa County or the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors or any of its members."
A copy of the Court's order is here.
Apr 21, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court Limits Vehicle Searches Incident to Arrest
The U.S. Supreme Court today finally ruled unconstitutional the fishing expeditions police have routinely conducted for the last 28 years by searching vehicles "incident to the arrest" of an occupant. In Arizona v. Gant the Court upheld a decision of the Arizona Supreme Court throwing out the conviction of a man whose vehicle was searched after he had been arrested on a traffic violation and secured in the back of a police car. SCOTUS held that, in the absence of some other exception to the warrant requirement, the only circumstances under which a search of a vehicle is permitted under the "incident to arrest" exception are when the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or when it is reasonable to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. There is no longer blanket justification to search a vehicle when an arrest is made.
The case is even more interesting because of the split in the Court. Stevens wrote the opinion and was joined by Scalia, Souter, Thomas and Ginsberg. Scalia filed a concurring opinion and would have gone further, eliminating the "officer safety" searches incident to arrest entirely. Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy and, in part, Breyer filed a dissent. Breyer also fined a dissent.
Oddly enough, officer safety searches are still permitted when the occupant(s) are not arrested, since they may then have access to weapons concealed in the vehicle.
Congratulations to Tom and Henry Jacobs of Tucson who represented the defendant. Amicus briefs were filed by NACDL, ACLU and AzCLU, and the National Association of Federal Defenders.
Feb 05, 2009
Nation's Crime Labs Deficient
The National Academy of Sciences is expected to release a report this month sharply criticizing the scientific practices of police forensic labs as shoddy and in need of upgrading and standardization, according to an article appearing in the New York Times. The report is said to fault poor training of technicians and testimony that exaggerates the accuracy of results. The Times says that the report will recommend the creation of a federal agency to ensure the independence of the field.
Mar 24, 2008
Justice Project moves to Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at ASU
The Arizona Justice Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to exonerating those wrongfully convicted and correcting other manifest injustices, is moving to the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. For 10 years, the Project has been housed at Osborn Maledon, P.A., where attorney Larry Hammond has served as chair.
The move is made possible by a $150,000 grant from the Arizona State Bar's non-profit Foundation, which also will allow the Project to hire its first permanent staff, including an executive director, a development director and an administrative assistant.
"The Arizona Justice Project has long set a high standard for the quality of its work in its pursuit of the rights of those who have been denied the justice our legal system has been set up to guarantee," said Dean Patricia White of the College of Law. "The quality of the legal work its volunteers have provided, and the enormous commitment to justice that they have shown, have made it a national exemplar.
"We are very proud to welcome the Project to the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and are confident that those standards will continue and that our students and faculty will benefit enormously from the opportunity presented by its being here."
Hammond praised the move.
"The Arizona law schools have been the lifeblood of this Project from the beginning, but this relocation will allow us to work at levels never before possible," Hammond said. "Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice (AACJ) and all of those who have volunteered with the Project over the last decade owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Dean White, the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, and to the Bar Foundation's leadership."
Professors Bob Bartels at Arizona State University and Andy Silverman at the University of Arizona have coordinated work at the law schools. Students from Phoenix School of Law also will participate.
"The project runs on volunteer work, and the best source is law students," Bartels said. "Moving to the law school will make it easier for the students and will forge a connection with faculty members who are experts in the area."
Bartels said it is also more feasible for the Project to conduct its research in an academic environment.
Carrie Sperling, a visiting associate clinical professor at the College of Law, has been chosen as executive director. Sperling spent five years as an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law in Norman, Okla., and has more than a decade of experience in civil rights and post-conviction relief litigation.
"You learn that mistakes can be made, innocent people convicted," Sperling said. "Someone has to hold the system accountable.
"My real excitement is the ability to bring in students to get hands-on experience in the real world. It exposes them to a side of the law they might not have thought about. And these are rewarding cases."
Also joining the Justice Project's staff is Vera Hamer-Sonn, a member of the College of Law staff since 1998.
The Arizona Justice Project was founded by Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and was one of the first handful of innocence projects that now number more than 40 across the country. It relies almost exclusively on the volunteer work of lawyers, investigators, experts and consultants. More than 2,500 cases have been reviewed, and about 50 are either in court or being evaluated at any one time. The cases have included actual innocence, overly harsh sentencing and ineffective assistance of counsel, among other issues.
In one case, State v. Lacy, Byron Lacy was convicted of manslaughter and aggravated assault and sentenced to a total of 17 years. The convictions stemmed from an incident outside a Phoenix "social club" in which shots were fired from several different directions and a security guard was killed and a bystander wounded. Lacy claimed he only fired warning shots into the air from his handgun after others had started shooting. A Justice Project team from the ASU College of Law showed that Lacy's trial attorney had not investigated the case adequately, and that the State's own evidence demonstrated that the fatal bullet hole in the victim's skull was too small to have been made by a bullet from Lacy's gun. Lacy's convictions eventually were reversed and the charges were dismissed because the evidence was not consistent with his guilt.
A permanent staff will help manage the numerous volunteers. Over the past decade, hundreds of students have been involved, nearly 50 at any given time, and 60 to 70 in any academic year. Private attorneys, law professors, and investigators also volunteer their time for the Project.
Students research and investigate cases, write briefs, prepare cases for court, and argue before the Board of Executive Clemency.
Laura Ciancanelli, a third-year law student, worked with the Project this year, researching the statute of limitations on a habeas corpus petition.
"I was doing research that could potentially make a difference in someone's life," Ciancanelli said. "It also allowed me to delve into a specific area of criminal law in a much deeper way than I would get in a survey course."
Bartels said the students learn a tremendous amount about the legal system by working on the cases.
"There is a lot to learn about how the system works," Bartels said. "They see what bad lawyers and good lawyers can do. In class, law students usually deal with established sets of facts, and very few ever get to investigate the facts. Through the Project, they learn how hard it is to find and deal with evidence, how to prove what really happened."
The Project also is seeking additional funding to help analyze the use of DNA evidence in Arizona.
From its beginning, the Project has been interested in forensic science and state crime laboratories.
The Project also has evaluated wrongful convictions and created training materials based on wrongful convictions like that of Ray Krone, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a young female bartender in central Phoenix more than 15 years ago. His sentence and conviction were reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, and he was tried a second time, convicted again and sentenced to life in prison. Finally, after 10 years, Krone was the 100th person in the country exonerated by DNA evidence.
Jan 16, 2008
AACJ Launches On-Line Seminar Registration
Starting today on-line registration will be available for all AACJ seminars.
On-line registrations can be done through the AACJ Store or by direct link from the particular seminar's own page.
The addition of the AACJ Store to this site will eventually allow us to make AACJ memorabilia and other items available for purchase and to make seminar materials available to those who cannot attend in person.
Aug 06, 2007
Members Only area of this website has opened!
The Members Only section of the AACJ website has opened. Members were sent an email with their permanent username and instructions for obtaining a randomly generated password. They now can login to the Members Only area and go to the My Account page to change their passwords to something of their own choosing.
Members are able to view and download documents from the Document Library and to upload documents, including court documents, appellate briefs and transcripts of expert and law enforcement witness testimony. They also can search for other members by name, firm name, private or public practice or location.
The AACJ Forum promises to be extremely useful. There members can post public or private messages to other members or the membership at large requesting or rendering assistance, or discussing matters of interest. The Forum is actually more than a dozen forums (fori?), each set up to handle a different area of intrest. While several deal with the business of the organization, most are for practice areas -- Indigent Defense, Capital Defense, DUI, Expert Witnesses, Federal Courts and so on. Within a practice area a member can create a new topic, leave a message under that topic and other members can reply to it, creating a thread of messages on the topic.
There are many ways in which you can can choose to be notified that new messages have been posted, ranging from receiving a single email each day that digests all messages that have been posted (and which contains links to the messages) to having the system "watch" particular forums or topics for new messages and notify you only of those. You can also opt to be notified by email when any message is posted to a forum in which you have posted a message.
You can even choose an RSS feed which can put a little button in your browser which, when clicked, will show the subject lines of any messages posted to the areas or topics you select, and a click on the subject line will take you right to the message.
The Forum is, in effect, a listserve that doesn't clutter your mailbox with dozens of messages you may not be interested in. It will also eliminate the emailed "Member Help Requests" that you receive from time to time, as all such requests can be posted in the Forum.
In addition to the features of the Members Only section, you may be pleased to know that henceforth you will be able to renew your membership online with a credit or debit card, or, if you are a member of PayPal, a PayPal credit. New members will be able to sign up in the same way.
We're very excited about the possibilities of these new features. Their potential will only be realized if you participate actively. If you draft a pleading or brief that may have utility beyond your immediate case, go to the Document Library Upload page and share it with other members. Do the same if you have transcripts of very good or very bad experts, or police officers or agents. And please, please, please use the Forum. We will have to overcome the inertia associated with using anything new, and the livlier the site is the more inclined folks will be to join in.
As always, we welcome your feedback. In fact, there's a forum set up just for that!