Not that there hasn’t been enough about Phoenix lawyers around here lately, but when Nick Martin of Heat City posted a video of a detention officer Adam Stoddard, during a sentence in Maricopa County Superior Court, rifle through defense lawyer Joanne Cuccia’s file behind her back, quietly lift a paper out of the file and hand it off to fellow officer Francisco Campillo, who then spirited the paper away, it can’t be ignored.
Radley Balko opened the bidding first, asking
Radley Balko opened the bidding first, asking
….so any attorneys want to explain to me what happened in this video? Is this as blatant, outrageous (and, I’d hope, illegal) as it looks? I mean, it is Maricopa County. But damn.
What happened is exactly what he thinks happened, as blatant, outrageous and yes, illegal, as it looks. But the problems run far deeper than the surface of this video, and the video presents the perfect opportunity to expose what went wrong, and what remains wrong, in Maricopa County.
Court officers provide security for the courtroom. As such, they are entitled to check everything that comes in for any dangerous objects and contraband, and that includes a defense lawyer’s file. That means that they may properly scan the file to do their job, but reading the contents of papers within a file is entirely outside the scope of their authority. A staple may be considered a weapon. The words on paper is none of their business.
So, the officer violated confidentiality of the defense lawyer’s file, then stole a document from that file. The first is a constitutional violation. The second is a crime.
But these egregious wrongs are just the surface of what’s revealed by the video. What happened in this courtroom, both during and afterward, reflects a deeper problem. First, this happened in full view of the judge, Lisa Flores, who appears not to have noticed. Later, when confronted with what happened, her first reaction is that her court officers are entitled to “leeway.” Her second reaction is to seize upon a statement by Cuccia that this isn’t the time to deal with the situation. Her third is that she’s got a busy calender and this isn’t worthy of her scarce time.
None of this is particularly surprising, given that judges are typically protective of their officers. These are the people assigned to protect her, and with whom she works on a daily basis. A certain camaraderie develops, and the normal inclination to smooth over problems with friends is hardly surprising. The judge does so deftly. Had she not, an incident like this might well have caused enormous problems with her working relationships with detention officers, undermining her position in the courthouse and possibly putting her at personal risk. You can be that all the other detention officers will support their brother, and find her lack of support inexcusable.
On Cuccia’s side, she fails to notice, despite a few backward glances as the officer is touching her papers, that something is seriously awry. Once informed of the problem by her client, she asserts herself, but allows herself to be told to “calm down” by the judge, and follows instructions well. Rather than go nuts, inform the court that this is outrageous, far more significant than anything else she has to do that day, and demand that the court address it immediately, loudly and clearly, she demurely allows the matter to be put off to another day.
Whether Judge Flores’ conduct was guided by corruption, fear of repercussions from the officer’s Boss, Joe Arpaio, personal concern or gutlessnes is unclear. That she watched a crime committed in front of her in her courtroom and reacted as she did is unacceptable no matter what her motive.
Cuccia’s willingness to be cowed in the face of being both the victim of the crime and the protector of a client is sad. It’s understandable that she might be confused at how best to respond, or fear what might happen if she become overly agitated or aggressive. But if ever there was a moment in a criminal defense lawyer’s life to fly off the handle, to stare down a judge and court officer, to take an immediate and forceful stand, this was it. There are some things worth taking a risk for. This was such a thing.
Of course, the lack of bold reaction to the wrong doesn’t shift responsibility from Adam Stoddard to anyone else. Stoddard, and his cohort Campillo, broke the rules, and broke the law. For this, they are wholly responsible. The bigger picture, however, is how and why the staff of Sheriff Joe Arpaio are so emboldened to engage in such flagrant wrongs, as this is one of a constant stream of wrongs that emanates from that office for, what, decades?
A hearing was subsequently held before Judge Gary Donahoe on whether to hold Stoddard in contempt. Nick Martin of Heat City was the only media outlet in attendance. He wrote:
Court officers provide security for the courtroom. As such, they are entitled to check everything that comes in for any dangerous objects and contraband, and that includes a defense lawyer’s file. That means that they may properly scan the file to do their job, but reading the contents of papers within a file is entirely outside the scope of their authority. A staple may be considered a weapon. The words on paper is none of their business.
So, the officer violated confidentiality of the defense lawyer’s file, then stole a document from that file. The first is a constitutional violation. The second is a crime.
But these egregious wrongs are just the surface of what’s revealed by the video. What happened in this courtroom, both during and afterward, reflects a deeper problem. First, this happened in full view of the judge, Lisa Flores, who appears not to have noticed. Later, when confronted with what happened, her first reaction is that her court officers are entitled to “leeway.” Her second reaction is to seize upon a statement by Cuccia that this isn’t the time to deal with the situation. Her third is that she’s got a busy calender and this isn’t worthy of her scarce time.
None of this is particularly surprising, given that judges are typically protective of their officers. These are the people assigned to protect her, and with whom she works on a daily basis. A certain camaraderie develops, and the normal inclination to smooth over problems with friends is hardly surprising. The judge does so deftly. Had she not, an incident like this might well have caused enormous problems with her working relationships with detention officers, undermining her position in the courthouse and possibly putting her at personal risk. You can be that all the other detention officers will support their brother, and find her lack of support inexcusable.
On Cuccia’s side, she fails to notice, despite a few backward glances as the officer is touching her papers, that something is seriously awry. Once informed of the problem by her client, she asserts herself, but allows herself to be told to “calm down” by the judge, and follows instructions well. Rather than go nuts, inform the court that this is outrageous, far more significant than anything else she has to do that day, and demand that the court address it immediately, loudly and clearly, she demurely allows the matter to be put off to another day.
Whether Judge Flores’ conduct was guided by corruption, fear of repercussions from the officer’s Boss, Joe Arpaio, personal concern or gutlessnes is unclear. That she watched a crime committed in front of her in her courtroom and reacted as she did is unacceptable no matter what her motive.
Cuccia’s willingness to be cowed in the face of being both the victim of the crime and the protector of a client is sad. It’s understandable that she might be confused at how best to respond, or fear what might happen if she become overly agitated or aggressive. But if ever there was a moment in a criminal defense lawyer’s life to fly off the handle, to stare down a judge and court officer, to take an immediate and forceful stand, this was it. There are some things worth taking a risk for. This was such a thing.
Of course, the lack of bold reaction to the wrong doesn’t shift responsibility from Adam Stoddard to anyone else. Stoddard, and his cohort Campillo, broke the rules, and broke the law. For this, they are wholly responsible. The bigger picture, however, is how and why the staff of Sheriff Joe Arpaio are so emboldened to engage in such flagrant wrongs, as this is one of a constant stream of wrongs that emanates from that office for, what, decades?
A hearing was subsequently held before Judge Gary Donahoe on whether to hold Stoddard in contempt. Nick Martin of Heat City was the only media outlet in attendance. He wrote:
Under state law, an officer can seize evidence or make an arrest if he sees a crime taking place. Essentially, that’s what Stoddard said he saw — or at least what he thought he saw — at the sentencing of Antonio Lozano on that day.
The detention officer, however, had a hard time sticking to his story.At first, Stoddard testified that the document he yanked from the file — a handwritten letter — contained “keywords” that led him to believe Lozano was some sort of security risk. Later, however, the detention officer admitted the document had been reviewed by court or sheriff’s officials beforehand and was quite literally given a stamp of approval.
“I guess, yeah, he would be legally entitled to have whatever he had on him,” Stoddard said, adding that the letter had been “date stamped by a notoriety [sic notary] or the sheriff’s office.”
Stoddard’s testimony didn’t improve from there. No reason for Stoddard’s conduct could be discerned from the testimony, no less an acceptable justification. And the judge’s reaction? Outrage? Immediate incarceration? Condemnation? Not exactly.
One of the complication’s of the hearing was Donahoe’s decision that the handwritten letter falls under attorney-client privilege. Because of that, no one was allowed to talk about the contents of the letter, including the supposed “keywords” that possibly provoked the seizure.
This, Donahoe said, made it impossible for Stoddard or Campillo to mount a defense against a possible contempt of court charge. Donahoe said he would not even consider holding the sheriff’s employees in contempt for the seizure unless Lozano waived his attorney-client privilege.
“Unless you’re going to let these gentlemen fully defend against it, I’m not going to hold them in contempt,” Donahoe said.
This is utter nonsense. The content of the document is wholly irrelevant to what Stoddard and Campillo did. Whether it was a full confession or the lyrics to Inagodadavita matters not a whit. That it was in Cuccia’s file, that it was observed, that it was stolen, is all that matters.
What reaction came from the attorneys representing Cuccia and her client at this hearing, Craig Mehrens and Maricopa County legal defender Maria Schaffer?
What reaction came from the attorneys representing Cuccia and her client at this hearing, Craig Mehrens and Maricopa County legal defender Maria Schaffer?
Mehrens and Schaffer discussed it, but did not come to a decision. The waiver appeared unlikely.
No mention of forceful, perhaps even angry argument at Judge Donahue’s ridiculous statement. Instead, they considered the unthinkable, acquiescing in this absurd challenge that the choice was limited to waiver of confidentiality or just forgetting about the whole thing. It may be that Nick Martin omitted a vigorous challenge by the lawyers to Judge Donahue, and certainly he wasn’t privy to their private discussion. One can only hope that if no challenge was mounted, then they were discussing appellate opportunities or the applicability of Section 1983.
So, in response to Radley Balko’s question, this is every bit as outrageous as it appears, and more. That Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s people are out of control shocks no one. That’s how things are in Maricopa County, and have been for a long time. But what’s being done about it? Where are the civil rights suits in federal court? Where is the outrage by the criminal defense bar? Who are these gutless judges who skirt fact and law to avoid whatever they fear will happen to them for doing their job?
Cops, and sheriff’s detention officers, get out of control. There are others involved in this system to serve as a check on out of control cops. It doesn’t excuse the officers for doing wrong, but who is there to stand up and stop them?
Something is very, very wrong down there in Maricopa County, and it appears that everyone in the criminal justice system has a part in it. It appears that the primary motivation for all the players who aren’t on the sheriff’s payroll is fear. Fear of prosecution. Fear of retaliation. Fear of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. As if Arpaio poisoned the water of Maricopa County.
It won’t stop until people stop drinking the water, arrive at an effective strategy to address the stream of outrages perpetrated by this one man constitutional wrecking crew and decide to take the risk of taking a stand. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias, had this to say :
Update: Radley Balko linked back to this post, and got a few comments over at The Agitator. While it’s heartwarming to read how so many non-lawyers are inclined to invent excuses for the defense lawyer’s “reaction”, they fail to comprehend that dealing with surprises, shocking conduct, outrages, is what criminal defense lawyers do for a living.
It’s not an easy job, and it isn’t supposed to be. It’s not a job for someone who wants to get along with everybody and make lots of friends. It’s a job for someone who is capable of dealing with unknown, effectively and immediately, even if it means going toe to toe with the judge. That happens to any good defense lawyer from time to time, for far less cause than this.
More significantly, excuses help no one and nothing. As kind as it may be to rationalize Cuccia’s reaction, she is a criminal defense lawyer. Dealing with shocking situations like this, no matter how unusual, is her job, as it is for every defense lawyer. This is what we do. No excuses.
So, in response to Radley Balko’s question, this is every bit as outrageous as it appears, and more. That Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s people are out of control shocks no one. That’s how things are in Maricopa County, and have been for a long time. But what’s being done about it? Where are the civil rights suits in federal court? Where is the outrage by the criminal defense bar? Who are these gutless judges who skirt fact and law to avoid whatever they fear will happen to them for doing their job?
Cops, and sheriff’s detention officers, get out of control. There are others involved in this system to serve as a check on out of control cops. It doesn’t excuse the officers for doing wrong, but who is there to stand up and stop them?
Something is very, very wrong down there in Maricopa County, and it appears that everyone in the criminal justice system has a part in it. It appears that the primary motivation for all the players who aren’t on the sheriff’s payroll is fear. Fear of prosecution. Fear of retaliation. Fear of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. As if Arpaio poisoned the water of Maricopa County.
It won’t stop until people stop drinking the water, arrive at an effective strategy to address the stream of outrages perpetrated by this one man constitutional wrecking crew and decide to take the risk of taking a stand. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias, had this to say :
“I’ve been in and around law enforcement for about 20 years — state, local and federal level (and) even some military prosecution work. I’ve never seen anything like this,” Iglesias said after he looked through 5 Investigates’ research and did some on his own [about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s conduct].Does this not give anyone any ideas? Yes, being a judge or a criminal defense lawyer can be very difficult, sometimes risky. But do something about it. As much as I would like to stroke you, make you feel better, offer sympathy for your awful situation, I just can’t. When criminal defense lawyers are faced with a challenge, with injustice, there is only one response. Deal with it. That’s what we do.
If he were handling the case, Iglesias said, “I would work very closely with the civil rights division in Washington, D.C., and based on the information I have, I would seek an indictment.”
Update: Radley Balko linked back to this post, and got a few comments over at The Agitator. While it’s heartwarming to read how so many non-lawyers are inclined to invent excuses for the defense lawyer’s “reaction”, they fail to comprehend that dealing with surprises, shocking conduct, outrages, is what criminal defense lawyers do for a living.
It’s not an easy job, and it isn’t supposed to be. It’s not a job for someone who wants to get along with everybody and make lots of friends. It’s a job for someone who is capable of dealing with unknown, effectively and immediately, even if it means going toe to toe with the judge. That happens to any good defense lawyer from time to time, for far less cause than this.
More significantly, excuses help no one and nothing. As kind as it may be to rationalize Cuccia’s reaction, she is a criminal defense lawyer. Dealing with shocking situations like this, no matter how unusual, is her job, as it is for every defense lawyer. This is what we do. No excuses.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I dunno much about it, but if ever there was a time for a lawyer to strenuously object, this looks to me like it.
Everything you said is right. But let’s add one more to the mix.
There’s another party to blame, too. The prosecutors who sat in the courtroom, not two feet (OK, it’s hard to tell distance from the video, maybe it was three feet) from the Constitutional violation and the theft, who were there when it was brought to the judge’s attention, and who never looked up.
Like the judge, it’s understandable that they don’t want to do anything to disturb their relationship with the law enforcement officers with whom they work. But of all the lawyer-types in the courtroom, they’re the only ones charged with actually pursuing wrongdoing.
You are absolutely right, and I’m ashamed of myself for having omitted the prosecutors from the mix.
The call for backup midway through is a master stroke. Especially looking at the sheer size and stealth of the co-conspirator.
I almost don’t want to blame the defender for not realising that an illegal act is occurring immediately behind her when she’s talking to a judge who’s looking at her and standing next to other qualified lawyers that have a clear view of the scene, none of whom have made any reaction. On the other hand, I live in Scotland, UK and -I- know there’s something weird about being a defence attorney where she works.
I do wonder if the prosecutors’ inaction is a result of the security climate in courthouses, that the idea is that they’re working for the safety of the court and leeway needs to be given so that we’re all safe.
I suspect Judge Flores has never represented a person in a criminal case. See her bio.
Maricopa County, never heard of it.
What is most surprising about this video is that it makes me very proud of the England and Wales Criminal Justice System. And believe me, that is very surprising.
I take it these officers are just doing as they are told… if that is right they need retraining and told not to do it again.
As for the judge and prosecutor (please tell me that wasn’t the prosecutor), as we say over here, Nil Points.
I’m sure the Sheriff’s office will soon make a statement to the effect that “officer Stoddard was acting in the best interests of protecting the courtroom and keeping illegal immigrants from conquering Maricopa County.”
It sounds a bit like they’re running show trials down there. I guess part of the reason the defense bar can’t form an effective strategy is that, as you’ve discussed, their responsibility is to each particular client, not to the collective welfare of all their clients. They can’t “take the risk of taking a stand” on the backs of their clients. Also, they don’t have an army of armed thugs.
I thought the defense lawyer made a reasonably decent fuss. Like everything else going on there, she doesn’t have much control over anything but what she says. Obviously, the “consensus” in the courtroom, other than her, was that this was a minor matter that should not intrude on the more important and routine business of trying and sentencing all the guilty criminals.
I didn’t see anything going on there in Maricopa County that I wouldn’t expect to see in any other place, other than the act of rifling through her file itself, which would be a little unusual. But if that happened, I don’t think it would be treated very seriously in this neck of the woods either, as long as the court deputy offered some kind of excuse, however lame it might be.
On one level, it’s just a natural human tendency to get along with people you work with every day. On a deeper level, of course, it is highly objectionable because it shows how that tendency seems to trump very obvious rules of law. And notice how it becomes the defense lawyer’s fault for making the fuss, as if she had done something wrong and not the deputies.
The system despises defense lawyers, unconsciously but thoroughly and pervasively.
It’s part and parcel of probably the single worst cause of ongoing Bad Cop Stuff — the folks whose business it is, normally, to arrest, prosecute, or judge people who break laws become remarkably uninterested when the folks who do that have official badges, and often divert their limited interest with shiny objects. In this case, the shiny objects are the words on the piece of paper which, as you point out, are irrelevant; the issue, which would be focused on clearly if it was somebody else (even temporarily) stealing the piece of paper is the legal prohibitions (of which there are apparently several) against the theft. (Sure, there’s Sixth Amendment issues around the stuff stolen which add to the importance of punishing the conduct, moreso than if the badged guy had riffled through her purse and stolen her change, but…)
But as shiny stuff diversions go, the bizarre notion that the Mexican Mafia guy has to waive confidentiality about a communication with his lawyer before the judge even considers whether or not to punish the thief is pretty bizarre. If a guy was accused of shoplifting a book, would the judge say, “Hey, unless you can prove that the copyright was properly registered, forget about it”?
The judge certainly doesn’t seem to be in control of her courtroom. When the attorney asks to approach, she never answers her, instead calling the officer up, who then attempts to guide the attorney up (2:12). Given there was no reason to touch the attorney even politely, this seems an assertion of control.
She also seems to be genuinely concerned about calling the officer to task. But the whole incident is surreal. When the paper is returned by the other officer, the judge and the attorney seem not to notice or be interested.
That’s why there are institutional defenders and criminal bar associations, to take action where it’s not feasible for the individual.
A close friend and classmate moved to Maricopa County to do criminal defense.
During his first court appearance, he asked for a preliminary hearing. The commissioner summoned him to the bench:
“You’re new here, so let me give you a practice tip. The deal is not going to get better than it is now.”
“I don’t understand what you mean, your honor.”
“The deal WILL only get worse after a preliminary hearing.”
My friend got the message. He also got the frack out of town.
Most of the lawyers who remain become part of the system. Indeed, look at the level of incompetency become part of the system breeds.
In the Matt Brown fiasco, Maricopa County lawyers threw a fit over a blog posting, screaming about the presumption of innocence. The same lawyers (most of whom signed their names with “Esq.”) lacked the diligence or competency (or both?) to read the police report for substantive evidence of innocence.
Sure, the presumption of innocence exists. Should one really need to tell a criminal defense lawyer: If you have exculpatory evidence, use it!
If they are from Maricopa County, it seems that one must.
I have a story similar to your friend, but with a different outcome. I came into court as an out-of-town lawyer on a CCE case. After refusing to waive speedy trial, the judge called me up to the bench and informed me that everybody waives around them parts, and if I didn’t I would never get a plea offer.
I looked around and said, “Judge, this is a big, beautiful room they gave you. I plan to use it,” and walked back to table. I didn’t make friends with the judge, but the prosecutor called a few days later with a time-served offer.
This is also captured in Amy Bach’s book, Ordinary Injustice, where the locals become so inured to their “way” that nobody notices anymore that it’s wrong. Nobody sees it. Nobody fights it. Maybe they complain, but it’s so ordinary that they believe there’s nothing they can do about it.
Most Maricopa County judges were once Maricopa County prosecutors, and all of them went to Arizona State University law school. They all know each other and cover for one another. Donahoe is one of the most corrupt of all, but it scary there are others who do worse than him.
[Ed. Note: Links deleted.]
I was a public defender for four years. If this had been my file, I’d have quite deliberately come totally unglued. There is a moment in every defense lawyer’s life for the dramatic. This was it. It would be worth the risk of a contempt citation.
This is the type of conduct that leads the PD straight to the hands of the media. Especially TV if you’ve got film. If Ms. Cuccia can’t take the heat, her boss is there. This is exactly where a CHIEF Public Defender earns his title. Not slinking around being a “good” boy. Yup, “boy” as he certainly hasn’t taken a manly step yet.
That’s how I see it.
There’s a kind of bizarre ordinariness to the whole very unordinary thing. I noticed that moment you pointed to, and it felt to me — perhaps out of ignorance — like the deputy switching gears into the (apparently) ordinary act of conducting a party up to the judge, as though he’s often summoned to the bench to do just that task.
There’s also a bit of fear in the defense attorney’s voice, particularly in when she says “…if I’m being accused of some wrongdoing…” Not entirely idly, given recent developments there, I’m wondering if she was concerned more about something — oh, say, a packet of narcotics — being or having been added into her file case.
If so, I have to admire how she quickly transitions back into focusing on the issues around her client.
I can’t imagine that when she turned around she didn’t look at the deputies, then at the bundle on her table they were fiddling with and fail to think “uh oh.”
Forget “uh oh.” What about “what the helll are you doing?”
I took the judge’s asking the bailiff up to the bench instead of giving permission to the defense lawyer to approach as an indication that the judge did indeed see him take the paper(s)…
It amuses me that Judge Donahoe is more concerned with a possible Crawford conflict for the detention officer than he is of the 5th and 6th Amendment rights of the accused. This pervasive, soul-crushing legal environment has become the norm in Maricopa County. Attorney Michael Manning has successfully sued Sheriff Arpaio half a dozen times since 2001, with verdicts in the $20 million dollar range. Arpaio doesn’t care… it isn’t his money. The Arizona Attorney General has no spine, nor does the United States Attorney. If the civil rights division of the Justice Department (which Arpaio has thrown out of his office) continues to do nothing, it will take an armed insurrection to oust the dictator of Maricopa County.
Maricopa County! Who would expect anything different? As for the sheriff there, ask yourself who keeps electing him to office, or is he also fixing the election. Its sad that this crap keeps going on and nothing is done.
I thought I had seen it all. This video is stunning. The guards are brazen, the judge a coward and defense counsel is far too calm. And those blind prosecutors. Some serious ass-kicking needs to take place in that cesspool of justice.
As a young lawyer I saw one of the big he bull defense attorneys here in Richmond go to jail on a contempt charge while representing a court appointed client. He had told the judge “Do you want to relieve me now and appoint some lawyer who will just plead him guilty”? It was the most valuable lesson in criminal defense that I ever received. I see too many potentially excellent attorneys roll over for judges and prosecutors for any number of reasons; they work in those courts almost exclusively, they have other matters pending and are attempting to curry favor by sacrificing one client over another, or fear of calling a “colleague” on the carpet. That older lawyer though (with absolutely no political connections) has had at least two judges removed from the bench (our judges are appointed by the legislature) and I have seen prosecutors take death off the table in capital cases on the condition that he not participate in the defense.
Now, who, in the long run, is a more effective attorney?
By the way, you may know this guy. He represented one of the WTC bombers in NY. Actually argued that the guy was justified in bombing the place because of being at war with the US. Talk about ballsy.
Next to the Defendant, Cuccia stood the best chance of going to jail that day; either for contempt or on a trumped-up charge like De Costa.
Judge Donahoe will rule tomorrow on the contempt charge. I’ll be the one blue in the face, holding my breath.
Great story. That says it all. Either you stand for something or you stand for nothing.
You won’t be the only one watching.
I trust that you’ve paid Mr. Greenfield’s hefty advertising fee.
I know a bunch of lawyers have better things to do than sit in a courtroom for a case they’re are not involved with but it sure would be nice if a good gaggle of criminal defense lawyers all showed up for the rest of these hearings just to stare the judges down. Call it spontaneous organization to show support for the defense attorney en masse whether you agree with what she did or not. Maybe the judge has no problem controlling her courtroom, but it might be a tad bit more interesting if she has to face 30 to 40 sets of eyes burning holes in her head.
Forget “uh oh.” What about “what the helll are you doing?”
QFT.
That’s a good point, but if the answer to “what are you doing” is “discovering planted drugs” then you’d need to be amazingly stoic to avoid a little bit of “uh oh.”
The worst thing is that it -has- happened before. (But not before this video was taken, my chronology was a bit off)
Social comments and analytics for this post
This post was mentioned on Twitter by vkan: More commentary on AZ court deputy shenanigans from Simple Justice http://bit.ly/2iUBiz
I know all the players in the court. Joanne did what she had to do under the circumstances. You have to know your audience and going ballistic would have gotten her nowhere, except perhaps a repremand (judges seem to like filing bar complaints against attorneys in these parts, and I’ve never heard of one that was not found for the complainant).
You also have to be mindful that Arizona’s courts, like the people here, require a bit of a softer touch. You make the same point, just a bit more quietly than elsewhere. I started in the Bronx, then in Manhattan, and when I moved to Phoenix it took me about 3 years to shed the East Coast from my presentation. Two word verdicts started coming in.
Give Joanne a break. She did fine. And to all that think she saw what the deputy was doing: has anyone ever heard of such crap? I haven’t, and never even imagined a deputy would think of going into my file.
I will not comment on the judges involved (we can be sanctioned for that in Arizona – so much for the marketplace of ideas). I can say that Judge Flores is very new to the criminal bench, has no criminal experience, and is a University of Arizona graduate. Donohoe is definitely the establishment here, and raised a few eyebrows when he got the presiding job over Judge Ryan.
It’s clear that laws were broken here.
Action in this case should be nothing less than prosecution.
Anything less is a gross miscarriage of justice.
The manner in which the evidence, both in court and on video, presents itself is crystal clear.
Guilty.
There is NO excuse for what took place in that court room.
I notice that you leave out any mention of the prosecutors. Oversight or intentional?
I will not comment on the judges involved (we can be sanctioned for that in Arizona – so much for the marketplace of ideas)
That is, I think, an argument in favor of anonymity, more than silence. YMMV.
From the video, I’m not sure the prosecutors saw it happen. The woman standing up is looking straight ahead at the judge. The man sitting might well have his view of the event screened by the body of the officer.
Fault lies with the judge for not demanding from the deputies right away: did you take something, what did you take and why did you take it?
Let ’em take the Fifth.
Let me add that the female prosecutor standing up is also, when not looking at the judge, reading what she has in front of her. By the time she looks at the deputies, the paper has already been taken and she appears pretty well screened.
It’s only fair to flay the prosecutors if they saw it happen, and that doesn’t appear to be clear from this video.
I think we’re working too hard on the “who saw what” part of this video. Nobody had to have a perfect view, or their complete focus, on the deputy to know that he had no business where he was, leaning over the defense table/ defense attorney’s file, for alarms to go off. And fault isn’t a limited resource. There’s plenty to go around.
You’re still seeing too small a picture. She doesn’t need to see the actual snatch to know that something is happening that shouldn’t be happening. Stoddard has no business looking at the file at all, no less taking something from it. And as far as I know, even assuming that you’ve accurately interpreted the image from the opposing angle, prosecutors have peripheral vision just like real lawyers. They can see stuff even when their head isn’t turned exactly toward it. You would have noticed if anybody went gazing at your file, even if you were happily engaged at the next table. Why assume she’s oblivious?
It was an oversight. The prosecutor, Jennifer Linn, is a true believer with a generally harsh view on my clients. I would have absolutely no expectation of her to be even alarmed at the conduct. In fairness to her, I don’t think anyone had much time to digest the enormity of what that deputy did, and all she seemed concerned with is moving on to her next case. There are many prosecutors I know who would be outraged at the conduct, and an equal number who would fail to see any problem. She falls into the latter category. I cannot imagine any prosecutors taking a stand on the issue in the current political and economic climate, and very few who would risk their relationships (both professional and sexual ;-D) by going after a cop.
As for anonymity, I did not start the post thinking it would be necessary but in hindsight may have enabled more open discussion, but do think my statements may carry a bit more weight if I keep my name on it.
Other issues aside, I have a great deal of diffculty buying in to the “time to digest” argument. The ability to recognize, analyze and react immediately is a fundamental part of our skillset; we don’t get to object to a question five minutes after it’s asked. It’s now or never. That’s what trial lawyers do.
To that end, I don’t suggest that Joanne Cuccia is a bad lawyer or evil human being. I do, however, think that she was overly compliant and could have handled it better. The ballistic description is largely hyperbolic. Effective is the point. She wasn’t. There are a wealth of options she could have employed to be more so, and this would have been a particularly good time to take a stand.
It isn’t a matter of peripheral vision. The prosecutor that was standing was engrossed in the proceedings and didn’t even look over until after the deed was done, and was then screened by two bodies.
And the seated one seems to have been screened the entire time.
Should the prosecutors have been vigilant for such an event? It’s not as if such a bizarre thing could be anticipated. I mean, how often do you hear about deputies stealing a lawyer’s file in open court in full view of the judge and a gallery?
Maybe a different camera angle would show something different as to the prosecutors, but could you imagine a jury trying to convict one of them based on the video that exists?
She was engrossed? Where the heck do you come up with what’s going on inside her head. Turk, you’re way out of your depth here. You don’t know what she could see, and there was absolutely no impediment to her seeing anything she wanted to see. This isn’t about proving her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; but it’s also not about projecting things into this video that don’t exist. You can’t tell from the video what she’s thinking or doing. She clearly can see that something is going on, whether she chooses to pay attention or not. And you can’t assume that it’s too bizarre for her to notice. I’m kinda surprised that you’ve engaged in such wild baseless speculation here, given that there is absolutely nothing preventing her from seeing, noting and acting upon what is happening right in front of her.
You can’t tell from the video what she’s thinking or doing.
While it’s certainly possible she’s thinking about dinner plans, I see a lawyer looking down at the papers in front of her and back up at the judge.
She clearly can see that something is going on
Regardless of what is going on in her head, the video shows her focused on the papers and the judge. It’s not as if she turned to look at the deputy and then turned away. Then you would have something. Look at the video again for the period when deputy #1 arrives until his buddy arrives.
And when she finally turned to look, after #2 arrives, all she would see are the backs of two officers.
I’m actually surprised that you would leap to the conclusions you did, because from the video it doesn’t appear she would have seen what happened. You say there would be no impediment to her seeing anything she wanted to see except that there is; it’s the body of the officer.
The only speculation I see is presuming that the prosecutor could see something when her view was obstructed.
Maybe you got the bootleg copy of the video? In any event, we now have 1 vote for obstructed. I guess somebody had to stand up for the prosecutor. I’m going to acquiesce in your seeing whatever you want to see, secure in the knowledge that you’re utterly insane and I’m not. Pfft.
The Judge appears to be very low on red blood cells. My son got pale just like that and he was dead fast, worst kind of leukemia there is. The judge’s delayed reaction time was very noticeable, displaying a less than normal synaptic function. As for Ms. Cuccia she was suffering a similar reaction we see in people who use their cellphone while driving, causing lack of attention accidents.
Both women were and still are in a deficient state, and it’s my strong belief the deputies saw it and took advantage of it. Deputy Stoddard was semi-obscured by Ms. Cuccia by his short height. Notice in the video how he glances (cases) the audience to make sure no one was in attendance who would understand his motions were illegal, then notice how he timed his steps in rhythm to the judge’s heartbeat.
This is an easily recognized stealth technique he was using on a sitting judge. His actions tell us he has done this many times before so I think a review of many previous court cases should be brought into the discussion. It looks like he’s very good at using his criminal abilities.
A question for all you attorneys, please: Every court official and police officer who has viewed this video has witnessed a theft. Why are they not obligated to make some sort of response?