AACJ collaborated with the Arizona Capital Representation Project on an amicus brief authored by Professor Elizabeth Bentley in Minnesota. The issue in this case is whether the Arizona Supreme Court purposefully ignored binding SCOTUS law on the right of a defendant to inform a capital jury that the defendant is ineligible for parole – a fact which is proven to influence juries when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. Once SCOTUS decided Lynch v. Arizona in 2016, however, it became obvious that Arizona had been disregarding the law. The Arizona Supreme Court responded by continuing to deny post-conviction relief to defendants, now claiming that Lynch did not change the law but merely how the law was applied. In oral argument yesterday, several SCOTUS justices called this sophistry what it was: Justice Barrett called it “hair-splitting,” and Justice Kagan said “I think Kafka would have loved this.”
Most fulfilling was hearing Justice Sotomayor specifically cite our brief in the argument! Her question begins at 35:35 of the recording. You can hear the recording at:
Following a report from the Task Force on Search Warrants, AOC filed a petition to create a new Criminal Rule 2.6 that would create additional procedural hurdles for law enforcement when seeking an unannounced or nighttime warrant, as well as create reporting requirements for courts to keep statistics on the number of such warrants requested and issued. AACJ’s comment endorsed the rule as a first step but stated that more reforms would be needed in the future to prevent the abuse of such warrants. The Arizona Supreme Court adopted the new rule but made changes that incorporated AACJ’s suggestions.
Following a report from the Task Force on Search Warrants, AOC filed a petition to create a new Criminal Rule 2.6 that would create additional procedural hurdles for law enforcement when seeking an unannounced or nighttime warrant, as well as create reporting requirements for courts to keep statistics on the number of such warrants requested and issued. AACJ’s comment endorsed the rule as a first step but stated that more reforms would be needed in the future to prevent the abuse of such warrants. The Arizona Supreme Court adopted the new rule but made changes that incorporated AACJ’s suggestions.
AOC proposed modifications to various criminal rules as part of the continuing effort to reform bail procedures and encourage pretrial release. AACJ’s comment supported most of the changes but pointed out one proposed change that needed to be fixed. The Arizona Supreme Court adopted the changes suggested in the petition.
AACJ filed a petition seeking to amend Rule 15.8 so that it would 1) apply to misdemeanors as well as felonies, and 2) require the State to make available disclosures to the defense so they can make a reasoned decision whether to accept a plea. The Arizona Supreme Court denied this petition.
AACJ collaborated with the Arizona Capital Representation Project on an amicus brief authored by Professor Elizabeth Bentley in Minnesota. The issue in this case is whether the Arizona Supreme Court purposefully ignored binding SCOTUS law on the right of a defendant to inform a capital jury that the defendant is ineligible for parole – a fact which is proven to influence juries when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. Once SCOTUS decided Lynch v. Arizona in 2016, however, it became obvious that Arizona had been disregarding the law. The Arizona Supreme Court responded by continuing to deny post-conviction relief to defendants, now claiming that Lynch did not change the law but merely how the law was applied. In oral argument yesterday, several SCOTUS justices called this sophistry what it was: Justice Barrett called it “hair-splitting,” and Justice Kagan said “I think Kafka would have loved this.”
A statewide not-for-profit membership organization of criminal defense lawyers, law students and associated professionals dedicated to protecting the rights of the accused in the courts and in the legislature, promoting excellence in the practice of criminal law through education, training and mutual assistance, and fostering public awareness of citizens’ rights, the criminal justice system and the role of the defense lawyer.
