While Maricopa County court detention officer Adam Stoddard awaits breakfast in bed at the Mesa Hilton, where he remains imprisoned awaiting the daily massage and poolside cocktail, Nick Martin at Heat City has posted the latest effort by G. Gordon Liddy’s pride and joy at finding a backdoor to the impending shootout on the streets of Phoenix.
Stoddard’s attorney filed a motion to unseal the letter that formed the basis of Stoddard’s “concern” and was seized from defense lawyer Joanne Cuccia’s file behind her back.
Stoddard’s attorney filed a motion to unseal the letter that formed the basis of Stoddard’s “concern” and was seized from defense lawyer Joanne Cuccia’s file behind her back.
Stoddard’s counsel needs access to the letter at issue to present a proper defense. Fairness requires that Stoddard have access to all material that may be necessary to a proper defense of the action in order to avoid a deprivation of his rights or property without due process of law.
On it’s face, the argument is nonsense. Stoddard had every opportunity to explain what caused him to rifle through the file and seize the letter, and unsealing it adds nothing whatsoever to the mix. Judge Donahoe examined the full letter and concluded that there was nothing, save the four words claimed by Stoddard, that gave rise to any arguable basis for his conduct. And, it goes without saying, that this motion comes a wee bit too late in the proceedings to make a difference.
In a response filed Thursday, public defense attorney Maria Schaffer pointed out that Donahoe reviewed the entire letter and said the four words were the only things necessary for Stoddard “to completely defend himself against this allegation of improper conduct.”
“It is noteworthy,” Schaffer wrote, “that at no point…during the remainder of the hearings did Mr. Liddy ask that the letters be unsealed in their entirety.”
Of course, waiver of a criminal defendant’s privilege isn’t dictated by the seizure of his confidential communication by a court deputy. Such a backward notion would undermine the privilege at will, since any deputy could seize anything he wanted in clear violation of the defendant’s rights, then force the defendant to chose between the vindication of his rights or the waiver of privilege. It’s would be a catch-22, if it was necessary. Fortunately, it isn’t, since the motivation for the seizure comes from the mouth of the officer, not the content of the letter.
So is Liddy throwing a Hail Mary? Not so fast. Included in Stoddard’s papers is the transcript of the October 30th hearing before Judge Gary Donahoe, which suggests that judges, like defendants, ought to be given Miranda warning before sounds emit from their mouths.
Right or wrong, once Judge Gary Donahoe announced to the defense that he would not hold Adam Stoddard in contempt in the absence of a waiver of privilege, they are entitled to rely upon his statement. It was one boneheaded thing to say, but he said it and even Adam Stoddard gets to rely on the judge’s pronouncement.
While it’s doubtful that a motion to unseal, after the fact, is the proper mechanism to raise this point, as opposed to a motion for reargument based upon the court’s misapprehension of the law, it happens to be a very good point. And it’s a very good point that exists only because Donahoe spoke these ill-conceived words. It will certainly be a valid argument to be raised on appeal.
And poor Adam Stoddard languishes in the Mesa Hilton while his brethren hold candlelight vigils in his honor. No wonder Crazy Joe Arpaio has managed to out-maneuver every attack on his hegemony over Maricopa County up to now. It’s got to be the water.
So is Liddy throwing a Hail Mary? Not so fast. Included in Stoddard’s papers is the transcript of the October 30th hearing before Judge Gary Donahoe, which suggests that judges, like defendants, ought to be given Miranda warning before sounds emit from their mouths.
So I’m still not sure I’m even going to entertain a contempt finding at this time, so I’m letting this play out to see what evidence I get. But right now, unless they’re entitled to fully defend against this contempt allegation, I’m not going to hold them in contempt.Suddenly, things appear a bit different based upon Judge Donahoe’s explicit statement that he would not hold Stoddard (them?) in contempt in the absence of a full waiver of privilege. The problem isn’t that Donahoe was right to say this (he wasn’t) or whether a waiver is truly necessary to provide due process to the defense (it isn’t). The problem is detrimental reliance.
Right or wrong, once Judge Gary Donahoe announced to the defense that he would not hold Adam Stoddard in contempt in the absence of a waiver of privilege, they are entitled to rely upon his statement. It was one boneheaded thing to say, but he said it and even Adam Stoddard gets to rely on the judge’s pronouncement.
While it’s doubtful that a motion to unseal, after the fact, is the proper mechanism to raise this point, as opposed to a motion for reargument based upon the court’s misapprehension of the law, it happens to be a very good point. And it’s a very good point that exists only because Donahoe spoke these ill-conceived words. It will certainly be a valid argument to be raised on appeal.
And poor Adam Stoddard languishes in the Mesa Hilton while his brethren hold candlelight vigils in his honor. No wonder Crazy Joe Arpaio has managed to out-maneuver every attack on his hegemony over Maricopa County up to now. It’s got to be the water.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Okay, I’ll bite: isn’t what Donahoe said at least arguably “harmless error”? As I understand it, the notion is that other folks don’t get to rifle through the words in the defense attorney’s briefs, no matter what those words are, or what a deputy thinks that they might be. Granted, if I’m right, the judge was distracted into taking a look at the words, but if Stoddard put himself in contempt by riffling through the defense counsel’s work product stuff looking at/for words, and it doesn’t matter what words he did find or might have found, why should it matter now?
Is it? Maybe, though plain error should never be deemed harmless. The problem here is that the defendant can argue that he was induced into not doing any number of things, arguments, presentation of evidence, etc., by Donahoe’s clear and unequivocal statement that he would not hold him in contempt so long as the letter remained confidential. In the absence of external evidence, Stoddard can claim that he sat on his rights because he relied on Donahoe’s statement.
That we speculate that Stoddard had no argument, no evidence, no defense, doesn’t alter his right to present a defense as best he can, absent a reason not to think he had to do so.
This was an abortion from the outset. The presiding judge could not but see the act. She had a duty to the defendant and the court’s integrity to immediately hold Stoddard in direct criminal contempt for merely reading the pre-vetted (for contraband) papers; regardless of content. The papers involved could be blank. But fear of her own bodyguards, and misplaced loyalty to “process”, subverted justice. Subsequently, Donahoe has exposed himself as a eunuch, implying a vile, systemic rot. The enhanced need for court security is generated by the acts of the State, itself! No wonder they want this under a rug. A Pox on both their houses.
You’re absolutely right on both counts, that Lisa Flores should have dealt with it immediately, and that it doesn’t matter what the paper said, even if it was blank. Stoddard still can’t rifle through defense counsel’s files.
If I were any of these judges (or public defenders), I’d be careful about going to Christmas parties and drinking this season. In fact, I think that I would take cabs to any I go to and not endanger friends or family who volunteer as designated drivers.
Even if the paper work demonstrates a crime is taking place? evi
Are you nuts? Absolutely. They do not get to search just in case.
I confess I don’t understand why Michelle Iafrate is feigning indignation. The detention officers had a judicial assistant not only copy the stolen document, they had her fax it to Tom Liddy at the County Attorney’s Office. Why is no one concerned about this? And why does the County Attorney want to further poke the bear, so that this too comes to light? Now I’m curious as to how often judicial assistants participate in the theft of privileged communications…
Perhaps my question was less than clear: As I read Judge Donahoe’s Order, he did consider whether or not the paperwork was evidence of a crime. Was he wrong to do so?
Judge Donahoe also ruled that no reasonable detention officer would have concluded that the paperwork was evidence of a crime. Is it your opinion that this matter could have been resolved without reference to the content of the paperwork?
If I am nuts, does that mean Judge Donahoe is also nuts? (Safe to say that most who know me would say I am.)
Well, that’s a different question. Stoddard’s position is that he “happened” as he walked past to notice four words on the paper which, in his opinion, was sufficient to seize the paper and copy it. His claim relied on his mere chance of seeing the words in plain view, not on a right to rifle through the file. Therefore, Stoddard’s justification, if any, had to be limited to what he saw when he first thought that he saw that gave rise to his justification for seizing the paper. Things he saw or found out later are wholly irrelevant, since they could not possibly have given rise to his seizing the paper. Nor did he have any inherent authority to search the file per se, but rather only found justification by his claim that his plain view observation compelled him to investigate further.