Blogs

The Maricopa County Attorney's Office is no better than 70% of those they put in jail or prison. In fact many times they are worse than those they put in jail or prison.

It's never about the truth with them, only the conviction. They could care less how many live they ruin in the process of their lies, cover up's and politcal bullshit.

It's no wonder very few have any faith in the Marizopa County justice system anymore and why so many refer to it as The Injustice System.

I hope Bisbee sue's the shit out of Thomas and the Maricopa County's Office.

I'm not surprised that you imbred's condone child molestation also.

Everybody is innocent, and you all will always be victims.

Lemmons probably still dreams of that sexy Social Studies teacher he had a crush on, but Mr Stuart denied Stephens deviate sexual invites.

I do not normally like to get this personal, but aside from being immature Frank's comments were completely over the top on issue-- who's family tree does not fork. It is spelled inbred Frank, not imbred. And 2nd, an inbred's response would be "yep, if dey akscused, dey mus be gillty--lock em up and throwd away duh key. we don needs to spends no time an money on trials. jes tazers uhm to deths".

This is a case where key witnesses have recanted. If he were to hear the case now without these witnesses, the judge would almost surely rule differently. But we do not know, that is why based on the changes in evidence there should be a new trial to try to sort through what really did happen.

As an afterthought, I recently went to a death penalty forum. The discussion was lively and thought provoking from all sides. The members of the bar (despite different views) were all professional, polite, and courteous to one another and the lay members of the audience. All except one, the representative of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. He was rude to attorneys and lay people alike who questioned his points. When someone with an anti death penalty view had the floor, he would attempt to engage others with his viewpoints in side conversations. He was an embarrassment to himself, his office, and the taxpayers who pay his salary.

The title says it all! Will be voting for Gerald Richard for County Attorney, one who has actually fought a felony in a Jury Trial. It is horrifying to think that County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Tim "slim resume" Nelson have never fought a felony in front of a jury. Yet Andy Thomas has burdened the courts, jails and prisons with what he proudly describes as having issued 40,000 felonies in one year! Who pays the price? The taxpayers, the society and the future of Arizona. It's time for Arizona and Maricopa County to wake up. We understand why many have been silenced into fear. We also understand the thousands in the community who have taken plea bargains are now felons / convicts and cannot vote. Young people and professionals such as doctors, nurses, teachers and other caregivers are the most vulnerable and at risk working in Arizona. There is no protection once someone makes a false allegation. The prosecutors and police feed the media, i.e. Duke LaCrosse case -- rush to judgement and abuse of power resulting in a "conviction by media". The prosecutors have the advantage and know this. It's standard operating procedure. Convictions matter, people do not. Taxpayers keep on paying -- building prisons instead of schools.

This is not about "child molest", this is about using "high-profile" labels (selective prosecution), to inflame the public during and election year. Courtney's Swat team arrest (without an arrest warrant) took place Feb. 11, 2004, during an election year, the height of the Catholic Priest scandal / daily witchhunt, the height of the Michael Jackson case with the mother / son grifters and the longest prison riot in our nation's history in Maricopa County. She was taken in NONbondable by the Scottsdale police department for an alleged crime that took place in Phoenix. An alleged crime scene that was never investigated. Her home was searched and seized with NO search warrant, NO Miranda Rights at time of arrest, held 66 days days until a Second Grand jury made her bondable at $100,000 (fair bond??). This week a 77 year old man molested an 11 year old -- out on bail around $28,000???

It all raises questions about who was gunning for Courtney, a single mom just starting back to work to make a living for she and her daughter. All this needs serious investigation.

What happened to the First Grand jury? I heard the Scottsdale detective committed perjury called "administrative error"..... why didn't the case stop at this point? Why didn't the County Attorney prosecutor investigate?? How much experience did the first County Prosecutor have with serious cases like this with someone facing essentially a life sentence and ruined life?

There have been five different County Prosecutors on the Courtney Bisbee case. Some have disappeared and cannot be found. One "disbarred" from practicing law in the State of Arizona. Prosecutorial misconduct on a minimum of two that needs investigation, affidavits recorded in the courthouse records.

The State Bar of Arizona has NO files on any of these County prosecutors, but does have files on three of Courtney's high-profile" defense attorneys, who have been taken before the Bar on serious complaints resulting in probation and censure. The County Prosecutors and Courtney's attorneys also needs harsh investigation by the State Bar of Arizona. They remain dormant. The Teaching and Nursing Boards do not hesitate to remove a teacher or nurse at the first sign of a complaint. But the Bar allows the lawyers to remain on, continuing to damage more lives. Lawyers need to be held to the same standards as a medical professional or teacher -- they handle people's and family's lives every day, yet the AZ Bar protects the attorneys first and makes it difficult for the people to get any action or results from complaints. It's time for investigation and change.

N.C. Bar Files Amended Ethics Complaint Against D.A.
Who Prosecuted Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Allegations
North Carolina State Bar v. Michael B. Nifong
January 24, 2007
Email This
Page 1 of 33

Lawyers
Douglas Brocker, Lawyer for N.C. Bar
D.A. Michael Nifong
Criminal Defense Lawyers

Related Links:
Ethics & Prof. Responsibility
Criminal Law Center
Search Warrants in the Duke Case
The amended ethics complaint filed against Durham County, N.C. District Attorney Michael Nifong, whose office filed charges against members of Duke’s Lacrosse team. The new charges allege that made approximately 150 statements to the media that he “knew or reasonably should have known… had a substantial likelihood of prejudicing the criminal adjudicative proceeding.”

The charges also allege that Nifong and Dr. Brian Meehan, the president and director of a DNA analysis company, discussed and “agreed that the final [DNA analysis] report would not include all of the results of the tests and examinations performed by [the DNA lab] but would be limited only to the ‘positive’ results.” The complaint alleges that these actions meant that “potentialy exculpatory DNA evidence and test results…would not be provided to the Duke Defendants,“their lawyers, and other player suspects.

According to the North Carolina Bar, this resulted in Nifong failing to comply with mandated discovery requirements, and him making “misrepresentations and false statements of material fact to the court.”

The Courtney Bisbee case should be a required Case Study for Law Students in the failure of the Arizona criminal justice from the bottom to the top. Her case crosses all courts, family custody / divorce; criminal, and civil. It's a wrongful conviction in a state that has no remedy for those who are innocent and sitting in prison. Innocence legislation is needed that many states have been enacting for years. Hundreds of cases with DNA have proven to be wrongful convictions.

Using Child molest charges and lawyers as a weapon for financial gain or to get rid of child support and take over the children are commonly used in the Family Court system. Those who file false allegations face only a misdemeanor, less than "dog barking", while the accused face long harsh mandatory minimum sentencing in the State of Arizona. The taxpayers pay and pay, and society loses -- those devious enough to know how to use the system get away with it and "move on" to keep on doing whatever it is they do. They have the blessing of the Prosecutors who run the courtroom and the judge who takes what the prosecutors feed them.

And there's more -- Courtney Bisbee's case also crosses the jails and prisons in the State of Arizona -- that alone is a Case Study in itself. More like Abu Ghraib than anything one might imagine existing in America.

Raises questions about who is driving the Witchhunts? What is the role of the prosecutors using technology as bait and to solidify their conviction? A study for the Law students.

See Cyber Witchhunt link www.justice4courtney.com

After reading this article written in 1996
Think about “trials by media”?

“Cyber McCarthyism: Witch Hunts in the Living Room”

by Richard Ling
Telenor Research and Development
1996

April 15, 2008
U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR CASE THAT COULD DESTROY PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY
Justices Accept Question of Prosecutors as Lawyers or Managers

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: April 15, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court accepted an appeal on Monday that could help define the boundaries of prosecutorial immunity in an era when the officials who head big prosecutors’ offices function as managers as much as they act as hands-on lawyers.

Under longstanding legal doctrine, prosecutors are absolutely immune for their judgments in handling cases, even if a faulty judgment results in a wrongful conviction.

In this instance, a man wrongfully convicted of murder on the basis of false testimony by a jailhouse informant sued the top two officials of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office on the ground that they had failed to set up a proper management system that could have flagged the problematic nature of the informant’s testimony.

In rejecting the officials’ claim of absolute prosecutorial immunity, the federal appeals court in San Francisco held that the suit was related not to the men’s role as prosecutors, but as office managers.

The officials’ Supreme Court appeal argues that this decision circumvented a rule that has shielded prosecutors from second guessing by the courts and warns that it would “encourage a flood of lawsuits” that would make it difficult for prosecutors to do their work.

The plaintiff, Thomas L. Goldstein, served 24 years in prison before the Federal District Court in Los Angeles granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 2005 he filed a civil rights suit seeking damages from John K. Van de Kamp, who at the time of his trial in 1980 was the Los Angeles district attorney, and Curt Livesay, who was Mr. Van de Kamp’s chief deputy.

The suit said that because of inadequate record keeping, the deputy prosecutors who handled the case were unaware that their star witness, a jailhouse informant, Edward Floyd Fink, not only falsely testified that Mr. Goldstein confessed to him, but also lied when he said on the stand that he was not receiving, and had never received, any benefits for testifying on behalf of the state.

In fact, Mr. Fink had been an informant for the Long Beach for years and had in turn received reductions in his prison sentence for testifying in earlier trials, as well as in Mr. Goldstein’s case.

Prosecutors are required to inform the defense of information that could serve to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and the prosecutors would have had to turn over the information on Mr. Fink to Mr. Goldstein’s lawyers, had they known about it.

Mr. Goldstein’s suit argues that under a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Giglio v. United States, a prosecutor’s office has an affirmative obligation to maintain a record-keeping system ensuring that all lawyers in the office have access to information about promises to witnesses.

Mr. Van de Kamp and Mr. Livesay argued unsuccessfully in the lower federal courts that the suit should be dismissed on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity. In their Supreme Court appeal, Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, No. 07-854, they argue that “the dissemination of exculpatory information to the defense” is a “core prosecutorial function,” distinct from administrative functions like “hiring procedures and compensation schedules.” The lower courts were mistaken in viewing their failure to have a proper record-keeping system as administrative rather than prosecutorial, they maintain.

Mr. Goldstein’s lawyer argues that “entering information into and retrieving information from a data-indexing system” are “transparently administrative activities” and that no “floodgates” will open, because most prosecutors’ offices, including Los Angeles, now have the systems to avoid future mistakes.

Continue reading "U.S. SUPREME COURT WILL HEAR CASE THAT COULD DESTROY PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Bad Cop - No Donut , Civil Rights , In The News , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:
March 19, 2008
PROSECUTORS ON TRIAL - IT'S ABOUT TIME
A Burst of Prosecutors on Trial

Prosecutors are normally the predators of the legal world, stalking and taking down the bad guys who break the rules of society.

But in an unusual twist, three Northern California prosecutors are now the prey — of State Bar prosecutors who want them punished for allegedly abusing their authority or violating the very rules of law they were sworn to uphold.

Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Benjamin Field, Santa Cruz County Deputy DA George Dunlap Jr., and retired Sacramento County Deputy DA Christopher Cleland face trial in the State Bar Court within the next couple of months. A fourth, former Sonoma County Deputy DA Brooke Halsey Jr., was suspended in January.

Field is accused, in part, of concealing evidence, misleading a judge, and ignoring a judicial order; Dunlap of improperly intervening in a case involving his then-girlfriend and lying to authorities; and Cleland — whose case was the subject of a story in The Recorder last month — of withholding exculpatory evidence in a murder trial.

Halsey, meanwhile, was suspended for four years for intentionally withholding documents that could have helped Petaluma physician Louis Pelfini defend against charges he murdered his wife in 1999. A judge dismissed the case based on the Tiburon attorney’s misconduct.

Some attorneys who defend lawyers facing discipline believe state bars around the country, including California’s, have begun scrutinizing prosecutors more closely following the North Carolina State Bar’s decision last year to disbar Michael Nifong. The Durham County district attorney was behind the disastrous prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape.

“Lots of prosecutors are getting caught in the crosshairs,” Los Angeles attorney Diane Karpman said, because the public senses some “aren’t playing by the rules.”

But State Bar Supervising Deputy Trial Counsel Donald Steedman, who is handling the case against Field, said that while it’s “fairly rare” to have so many cases against prosecutors under way at once, there really is no rhyme or reason.

“It’s luck, karma,” he said. “It’s just that these have come in at about the same time.”

Steedman said the State Bar doesn’t keep figures on the number of prosecutorial misconduct cases that go through the State Bar Court each year. And, he added, few cases of any type make it to trial.

“They happen only when we’re unable to reach a settlement,” he said.

Cleland is up first, with his trial beginning on April 1. Dunlap is next, facing prosecutors for three days on April 22, after an earlier day of trial in December. Field’s trial is set for May 20-23 and June 17-20. (Dates are based on the availability of judges.)

Of the three, Field has gotten the most publicity. His alleged wrongdoings — including reportedly suppressing evidence that could have cleared two accused rapists — were widely covered in the press, particularly as part of a scathing five-part series in the San Jose Mercury News two years ago. State Bar prosecutors accuse Field, a 15-year veteran of the Santa Clara County DA’s office, of abusing his authority in three separate cases.

The most egregious charges stem from the 1998 rape convictions of Damon Auguste and Kamani Hendricks. Six years after Auguste was sentenced to nearly 19 years in prison and Hendricks to more than 37 years, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Emerson overturned their convictions in 2004 based on alleged misconduct by Field.

The judge found Field hadn’t disclosed important DNA laboratory notes or strong evidence that the supposed victim — a 15-year-old girl identified only as Monique —had fabricated the assault for fear her parents would punish her for being out after curfew. The judge also said Field had no authority to serve search warrants on the defendants, their families and witnesses during habeas corpus proceedings.

In an unrelated case, the State Bar accuses Field of concealing evidence that could have been used to repudiate witnesses who fingered a man for the murder of a San Jose drug dealer. And in a third case, Field is accused of ordering a supposed 13-year-old male to undergo a dental exam — over a judge’s objections — to determine if he was really an adult so Field could file tougher charges.

Steedman, who is prosecuting Field’s disciplinary case with State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Cydney Batchelor, called the charges against Field “pretty significant.”

“It’s important that prosecutors treat defendants fairly,” he said, “and when that doesn’t happen, our system of justice is threatened.”

Nonetheless, he said no decision has been made yet about whether to seek disbarment.

Field’s attorney, Allen Ruby, a partner in San Jose’s Ruby & Schofield, wouldn’t let Field talk to the press. But in 2004, after the rape convictions against Auguste and Hendricks were overturned, Field told reporters the judge’s decision was “an injustice to the victim” and insisted there was “overwhelming physical evidence” the girl had been raped.

After more allegations of wrongdoing were raised in 2006, Field told the Mercury News he had tried to play by the rules at all times. “I know in my heart that I did not intentionally engage in misconduct,” he said. “I take the ethical obligations of the office seriously.”

Ruby said last week his client’s defense strategy will be simple.

“He’s innocent,” Ruby said. “The State Bar has made a variety of allegations that we think are unsound and unproveable.” He said Field “looks forward to his trial and vindication.”

Ruby would not go into detail about his defense plans. But in court papers, Field denied all allegations.

Field, who graduated from Boalt Hall School of Law, has been with the Santa Clara County DA’s office since getting his Bar license in 1993. In May 2006, he was reassigned from homicide and gang cases to the high-technology crime unit.

Trouble for Santa Cruz Deputy DA Dunlap began in 1995 when, according to State Bar records, he crashed his truck into another vehicle while driving drunk. A prosecutor in San Joaquin County at the time, Dunlap allegedly claimed someone named John had been driving.

“This was a total lie,” State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel Tammy Albertsen-Murray wrote in her pretrial statement. “There was no one named ‘John’ involved at all; [Dunlap] was the driver.”

The more serious charge against Dunlap, however, accuses him of intervening in a hit-and-run and insurance fraud case that had been filed against his then-girlfriend Amelita Manes. State Bar prosecutors claim Dunlap entered a San Joaquin County courtroom in 2002 when Manes’ case was on calendar and talked to the judge, despite having been ordered by his bosses to keep hands off.

In court papers, Albertsen-Murray said Dunlap didn’t tell the judge he knew the defendant and that he was forbidden from having any contact with her case.

“In fact,” she wrote, “[Dunlap] — a senior homicide prosecutor at the time — acted as if he had authority to appear in the case and personally stated to the court that the district attorney’s recommended resolution of the Manes case was a six-month continuance for dismissal, which was a total fabrication.”

Albertsen-Murray is seeking Dunlap’s disbarment.

Dunlap, who was fired from the San Joaquin County DA’s office in 2002, didn’t return a telephone call seeking comment. But his attorney, San Francisco solo practitioner Jonathan Arons, said last week that Dunlap did nothing wrong.

“He wasn’t at the prosecutor’s table,” Arons said. “He was watching with all the other attorneys in the courtroom, and he answered a question asked by the judge. He didn’t say he was appearing for the people [or] appearing for Ms. Manes.”

Since joining the Santa Cruz County DA’s office, Arons said, Dunlap has tried 25 cases to verdict and is currently involved in a murder trial. If there were anything to the State Bar’s charges, Arons asked, “why’d another DA hire him on the spot?”

Arons said Dunlap — a prosecutor for the entire 20 years he’s had his Bar license — admits he got a DUI in 1995, but said the State Bar was simply “piling on” by filing charges for that incident.

Steedman said the State Bar considers misbehavior by prosecutors very serious because they are in some ways bound by stronger ethical obligations than other attorneys.

“Their client is the people and their obligation is to seek justice,” he said, “as compared to a defense attorney whose obligation is to that client — within his ethical responsibilities.”
Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: In The News , Prosecutorial Misconduct

Bookmark:
January 29, 2008
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, OR NO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT?
Why did the overworked California Supreme Court grant review on this case? it's because they just couldn't ber that the Court of APpeal reversed a convcition for Prosecutorial Misconduct. So, they granted review to protect the prosecutor.

So, here's what happened. The Cort of Appeal reversed the defendant's convcition because of prosecutorial misconduct.

The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal, meaning they affirm the conviction. They restate well-settled appellate rules governing prosecutorial misconduct.

But what important issues did this case present that they wanted to resolve? Which important issues did they in fact resolve? None. The Supremes find that the DA didn't improperly urge
the jury to convict through a guilt by association argument (the defendant is a Catholic priest, convicted of child molestation).

The Supremes find that the DA didn't ask the jurors to stand in the shoes of the victims. They do have to admit that the DA said, "I think his client is guilty." This violates the ban against expressions by the prosecutor of belief in the defendant's guilt. But the Supremes assure us that in context this referred to the evidence presented, not some evidence the DA had that
the jury didn't.

Of course, this is still misconduct, isn't it? Yes. But we must send the message to the prosecutors that the ends DO justify the means; that you CAN commit miscondcut if the case warrant it. Right?

Of course, the Supremes say that any error was waived, and the failure to object wasn't
ineffective, since there might have been valid tactical reasons not to do so.

Remind me again, why did they bother with this case? Oh right, they are so overwhelmed with work that they want to dump death cases on the Court of Appeal.

People v. Lopez; 2008 DJ DAR 1393; DJ, 1/29/08; Cal. Supremes
Continue reading "PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, OR NO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT?" »

Posted by Mary Frances Prevost | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: California Cases , Prosecutorial Misconduct

The Courtney Bisbee case is a study in the failure of all systems in the State of Arizona -- an embarrassment to the State -- and one that puts all residents at risk. The Justice system is broken under County Attorney Andy Thomas.

Courtney was in lock-down during this period of time the Nifong trial was in progress. She was not allowed to see it.

PROSECUTORS RUN AMOK
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010243

A TALE OF TWO PROSECUTORS
Mike Nifong is punished, but Patrick Fitzgerald isn't.

BY DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
Friday, June 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

This week the Duke-Nifong drama oozed to its finale, with a payout to the victims, a confidentiality agreement, the usual salutes to the healing process, and plans on the part of the principals to begin putting the case behind them. Missing from these declamations was the core reality that had brought this day to pass. No one expected participants in this peace-and-resolution ceremony to find a moment to recall the rightful fury and amazement this case engendered across the nation and outside of it--but such a moment would not have been out of place.
The story about the Duke athletes and District Attorney Nifong was not simply a riveting drama. It was in its searing way an educational event, not just about prosecutorial ambition run amok, but about a university world--reflective of many others--where faculty ideologues pursued their agendas unchecked and unabashed. Here was a nearly successful legal lynching, applauded by a significant chunk of the Duke faculty, proud to display their indifference to questions of guilt or innocence.
Duke President Richard Brodhead was doubtless disturbed by the charges and the plight of the accused athletes. But that didn't prevent him from firing the lacrosse coach, in deference to the reigning hysteria--or treating the team members as though they merited shunning. For the most part, he kept his head down while the fires raged around him. His was, it should be said, not unusual behavior. The great consuming career goal of our college and university presidents--with the exception of oddities like Harvard's Larry Summers--has for more than two decades been the same: to avoid any word or deed that might incur the wrath of their gender- and race-obsessed faculties and allied campus activists. University presidents once had higher ambitions.
It was a noteworthy week on the justice front. Even as Mr. Nifong was facing ethics hearings in North Carolina, Scooter Libby's attorneys came before trial judge Reggie Walton, in Washington, to plead for a delay in the beginning of the 30-month sentence the judge had handed down. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's project--the construction of a major case of obstruction of justice out of a perjury rap against Mr. Libby--had come to a satisfactory conclusion.


For Mr. Fitzgerald, whose prosecutorial zeal and moral certitude are in no small way reminiscent of Mr. Nifong's, the victory was complete with those two final judgments: the severe sentence for Mr. Libby, and the judge's refusal, last week, to allow its postponement pending appeal. The prosecutor's argument for a heavy sentence emphasized Mr. Libby's alleged serious obstruction of justice--a complicated effort, considering that there was no underlying crime, or evidence thereof, and that this case, which had begun in alleged pursuit of the leak of a covert agent's identity was, as the prosecutor himself would finally contend, not about that leak at all.

Just what serious obstruction of justice Mr. Libby could have been guilty of, then, was, at the least, a heady question, though not one, clearly, that raised any doubts in the judge. Neither did Mr. Fitzgerald's charge--also in pursuit of a heavy sentence--that the defendant had caused, by his obstruction, no end of trouble and expense in government effort.

The obligation to truth, the prosecutor argued, was of the highest importance, and one in which Mr. Libby had failed by perjuring himself. It would be hard to dispute the first contention. It is no less hard to avoid the memory of Mr. Fitzgerald's own dubious relation to truth and honesty--as, for example, in his failure to disclose that he had known all along the identity of the person who had leaked the Valerie Plame story. That person, he knew, was Richard Armitage, deputy to Colin Powell. Not only had he concealed this knowledge--in what was, supposedly all that time, a quest to discover the criminals responsible for the leak of a covert agent's name--he had instructed both Mr. Armitage and his superior, Colin Powell, in whom Mr. Armitage had confided, not to reveal the truth.

Special prosecutor Fitzgerald did, of course, have a duty to keep his investigation secret during grand jury proceedings, according to the rules. He did not have the power to order witnesses at those proceedings not to disclose their testimony or tell what they knew. Instead, Mr. Fitzgerald requested Messrs. Armitage and Powell to keep quiet about the leaker's identity--a request they understandably treated as an order. Why the prosecutor sought this secrecy can be no mystery--it was the way to keep the grand jury proceedings going, on a fishing expedition, that could yield witnesses who stumbled, or were entrapped, into "obstruction" or "lying" violations. It was its own testament to the nature of this prosecution--and the prosecutor.

That prosecution was abetted by the draw of Reggie Walton, a trial judge not disposed to sympathy for the defense. Still, even for a judge with a reputation for toughness and a predilection for severe sentences, the court's behavior was--there is no other word for it--strange.

There were bouts of regularly expressed irritation when it occurred to Judge Walton that his conduct of the trial was being challenged--as when the defense, arguing for postponement of the sentence, cited the existence of grounds for a successful appeal. And Judge Walton was impelled, at frequent intervals, to hold forth on the need for the man in the street to be persuaded that he receives equal justice.

Defense lawyers must do what they must do, but at a certain point it was obvious that letters of support testifying to Mr. Libby's service to the country would avail nothing. Given a judge enamored of the image of his courtroom as an outpost in the class struggle--a judge obviously determined that this government official had to be sent to prison now--the outcome of this plea hearing was clear. It would have been the same, one understood, if Mr. Libby had been a Medal of Honor winner in a wheelchair.
At one point the judge delivered an outraged denunciation running to several paragraphs, about a footnote to an amicus brief filed on behalf of the defendant: One, he complained, in which the brief writers cited white collar cases. This indicated, the judge concluded, their indifference to the principle that blue collar criminals were entitled to the same rights as white collar ones. The writers had put the names of these white collar cases out there, the fugue continued, "solely in the hope that it would cause me to feel pressured . . ."

Finally, the judge dismissed the amicus brief filed by 12 distinguished law professors as "not something I would expect from a first-year law student." Nothing, however, quite equaled the court's flow of resentment toward the brief writers as his jeering observations about "these eminent academics" and how he trusted they might be moved in the future to "to provide like assistance" for litigants around the nation who lacked financial means.

The judge of course knew nothing about the signers of the brief or their pro bono work, nor did he have any need to, as he knew. A judge with life tenure doesn't have much to fear. Among the signers of the brief dismissed as unworthy of a first-year law student was Alan Dershowitz, more than half of whose cases are done pro bono. As to the merits of the case for allowing Mr. Libby to remain free pending appeal, Mr. Dershowitz, a liberal Democrat, notes that one of the other signers is Robert Bork: "I agree with Robert Bork on nothing--but on this we're of one mind."

The prospects for Mr. Libby's success in an appeal hinge on three points, two concerning the court's refusal to allow the defense to present certain witnesses. The other potentially powerful issue relates to Mr. Fitzgerald. The Special Prosecutor was given, on his appointment (by his long-time friend, acting Attorney General James Comey) a remarkable freedom from accountability to any higher authority or Justice Department standards. This unique freedom was made explicit in his appointment letter. Such unparalleled lack of control, the appeal will argue, is a violation of the principle of checks and balances.
However it comes out, both the case mounted against Mr. Libby, and the sentence delivered, have plenty of parallels. It is familiar stuff--the fruits of official power run amok in the name of principle and virtue--and it's an ugly harvest. Mr. Libby is another in the long line of Americans fated to face show trials and absurdly long sentences--the sort invariably required for meritless prosecutions.

There was at least one bright spot in the events of the last week, specifically, Mr. Nifong's removal from office--a case, at long last, of a prosecutor called to account. It will be some while we can guess, before any such wheels of justice grind their way to the special prosecutors.

Ms. Rabinowitz, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary on prosecutorial abuse.

THEN THERE IS MARICOPA COUNTY....

If you think this can't happen to you -- think again!

Geo Nerdboy say....
Who's family tree does not fork ???

Not mine Geo Nerd, I come from a heterosexual, pure blooded Scandinavian bloodline. Incest and child molestation is not acceptable, period.

Well Nerdboy, I'm sure your Mother Sister is very proud of you. Stick a fork in that

Knife-fong Thomas thought ignoring this case would be best ---for his election. Wrong! he could have taken the high road and came out with supporters on both sides for him but he is too arrrogant, and feels he does not have to answer to no one. I think he needs to be disbarred on this one.
He has been stealing from the county printing up brochures without permission. Hiring special prosecutors, to get "special" legislatures off DUI's, all the while putting up billboards of druck drivers. Why hasnt the prosecutors gone after him for theft? Everytime I see the billboards I think HE needs his face on them. Him and his side kick that take the law into their own hands-Joe the big blow hard on tv "I gotta gun" WHoa!!

The title and closing paragraph, hit the Bull's Eye!

Great work, Stephen, you show that you understand the Politicos in Maricopa... It's time for change. We're voting for Gerald Richard for County Attorney and Dan Saban for Sheriff. We've all had enough election year grandstanding in 2004 and 2006 and now 2008, that is destroying lives. Courtney Bisbee was nothing but a political pawn in the hot buzz category of the 2004 election year ... "high-profile" child molest, the hot buzz slogan for 2008 ... you guessed it "illegal immigration". Meanwhile, other very alarming issues are not even being discussed by the elected officials, like the almost ONE BILLION DOLLAR cost of the AZ Prisons. And the deplorable conditions of confinement in the jails and prisons here. Is this America or Abu Ghraib? There's no transparency, inmates are dying or getting killed.

Taxpayers foot the bill along with Arpaio's lawsuits, over $40 MILLION DOLLARS and climbing, with no end in sight.

Arpaio supporters, are supporting higher taxes and cost to the taxpayers. Plain and simple. We can no longer sustain the cost in a debt-ridden county and state.

Budget cutting suggestion: Get rid of Arpaio's luxury offices in the Wells Fargo Building for starters.

What does this have to do with Andy Thomas? Bisbee molested a 13 year old boy. Even Bisbee agrees with that. Mally had sexual intercourse with a 16 year old boy. The law is different for children 14 and under. If you don't like the law-- write the legislature. Why is this Andy's fault?

Don't count on much happening from the State Bar. They have a history of protecting their own even when the facts are un-disputable.

>>The County Prosecutors and Courtney's attorneys also needs harsh investigation by the State Bar of Arizona. They remain dormant.

What really needs to happen is a law enacted when the County Attorney brings charges against someone and loses the case, they are held immediately responsible for all the defendants attorney fee's, loss of income and any expenses in defending themselves without the need for a civil suit being filed.

Then maybe we might just see some real justice and honesty from those we are suppose to trust to uphold the law.

Until then, the County Attorney is no better than the alledged criminals they prosicute.

You cannot break the law to represent the law and call it justice.

Excerpt from above: “It’s important that prosecutors treat defendants fairly,” he said, “and when that doesn’t happen, our system of justice is threatened.”

County Attorney A. Thomas has failed to do his job and follow his oath of office and the Mission statement of County Attorney's office. Instead, he is used his over 40,000 felonies to launch a future higher office, as the expense of innocent people, such as, a successful single Mom with a young daughter, starting back to work, rebuilding her life after her husband and father of her daughter chose to walk out on them. Now Mom and young daughter, have been crushed by the power of the State and the County Prosecutors, with the help of disgruntled exspouses and their friends. The Family custody case needs serious investigation. The ex's lawyer was awarded with a Governor appointed Maricopa County Superior Court Family Judge position, which this "high-profile" "dangerous crimes against children" case would give HIM career points. Is he donating a chair to the ASU Law School yet?

Even the judges in Courtney's Criminal and Family cases need investigation. What went on behind the scene during Courtney's Bench trial with another parallel case? Plenty!!

If this happened to you, what would you do?

Courtney and her daughter need help. She has not seen or heard anything about her beloved daughter since 2005!! Simply heartbreaking. Is there even a sense of community left in Arizona? If not, then not only Courtney and her daughter have their lives shredded in Maricopa County and the State of Arizona, but many more will follow. This case is the tip of the iceberg....

Local Logic -- read the article, it's about "NEW EVIDENCE" proof of innocence that is the responsibility of Prosecutors to act. County Attorney Andrew Thomas is the voice of the county prosecutors. His face is plastered on the TV, Billboards, Special Reports, Crime Prevention" pamphlets, Channel 11 vanity station, and on and on. It is time for him to step forward and investigate the mishandling of this case between his office and the Scottsdale Police department. He needs to step forward and end this travesty of justice, where many were rewarded at the expense of Courtney and her young daughter and their family's good name and their future.

"What does this have to do with Andy Thomas? Bisbee molested a 13 year old boy. Even Bisbee agrees with that."

"Even Bisbee agrees with that"? Uh, no. That's why she plead not guilty. And that's why she's appealing her conviction.

"What does this have to do with Andy Thomas?"

Everything. Read the article, the part about the ABA saying the prosecutors have to do something if they get evidence that someone was wrongly convicted. The trial happened under Thomas' watch. So Thomas is responsible.

After following the Courtney Bisbee family custody, criminal and civil court cases, it is clear that it is bigger than Courtney Bisbee because it sheds a picture of the reality of what a young professional single Mom and her daughter face living in Maricopa County, lacking in a sense of community, in the State of Arizona built around mass industrial government complexes and corporations. Families and children are not on their agenda. We are reeling in the short-sighted vision of those who are in power. There is no mercy or compassion, but instead a culture of bullies and cowards who do not care WHO they destroy. It's all about Power, Money and the Win -- certainly not conducive to building a family and raising children. Arizona and Maricopa county have huge unsolved problems. Local Logic makes statements as fact without reading the article and the information in the blog. Local Logic is a reflection of who dominates here. So new families thinking of moving here -- think again. This is not the place for you.

Homosexuality, child molestation... no wonder you scumbags on this blog are so worried about the Sheriff and anyone who dares to enforce the laws.

Overzealous law enforcement, overzealous prosecutors -- who grandstand 24/7 at the TV podium does not give the appearance of anything but self interest, political maneuvering --- has nothing to do with Homosexuality, child molestation while the politicos use this kind of "labelling" to fearmonger -- called "selective prosecution", Hitler style. Who's going to be left to foot the bill?

Prosecutors not only abuse their power, but commit a crime in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Bribery is a serious crime and an impeachable offense for all U.S. civil officers. A plea bargain is technically "bribery."
Judge Gerber wrote, "Severe mandatory sentences effectively make the constitutional right to trial too risky to be exercised, even for an innocent defendant." This abridgment ocurs when prosecutors purposely load up a defendant with charges that carry mandatory sentences to induce a plea bargain. Then prosecutors further abuse their power by demanding a harsher sentence if a person demands their right to a jury trial rather than accepting the "bribe."
Futhermore, prosecutors should NOT be granted immunity when they fail to disclose evidence favorable to the defense; and they certainly should be held guilty of a serious crime when they knowingly have
new evidence to show innocence of a victim like in Courtney's case and fail to act on it.
The misuse of prosecutorial power in the U.S. and Arizona is rampant. The entire U.S. Dept. of Justice system is self-serving, if not actually corrupt. The system protects the wealthy and privileged while forcing injustices on those citizens most vulnerable--cases they know they can win so they can grow their bureaucracy.

Frank says:
I'm not surprised that you imbred's condone child molestation also....
Posted at: May 16, 2008 8:12 PM

To Frank, You couldn't sound more imbred! dumbass!

Frank and Local Logic, both reflect a mentality that exists among the Andy Thomas / Arpaio supporters and followers, that's why we have to vote them out. They make statements as fact when they are inaccurate and damaging. That's how they operate. It's also an example of how the prosecutors and Scottsdale police handled Ms. Bisbee and destroying her and her daughter's lives. Get what you're after first, and move-on ... skipping established guidelines and MC Disciplinary Protocol for Investigation of Child Abuse signed by Gov. Napolitano and Scottsdale Police Chief Rodbell, among many other government agencies.

If Thomas and Arpaio win the election, then the Frank's and the Local Logic kind of thinking and actions threaten every decent person in the county and state. It's chilling. Arizona wake up! You can see what it looks like in this article. If you think it can't happen to you, think again!

R. Thomas comment truly exposes what the whole situation is in the Maricopa County Attorney's office, the Superior Courts and those who enable them. It could not have been better said! Thank you for your contribution in this very tragic case.

RT says: "...Prosecutors not only abuse their power, but commit a crime in violation of Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Bribery is a serious crime and an impeachable offense for all U.S. civil officers. A plea bargain is technically "bribery."

Judge Gerber wrote, "Severe mandatory sentences effectively make the constitutional right to trial too risky to be exercised, even for an innocent defendant." This abridgment ocurs when prosecutors purposely load up a defendant with charges that carry mandatory sentences to induce a plea bargain. Then prosecutors further abuse their power by demanding a harsher sentence if a person demands their right to a jury trial rather than accepting the "bribe."

Yes, I actually voted for Andrew Thomas. And when I first heard of the Courtney Bisbee case I also had some doubts about how an innocent woman could be sent to prison in Arizona. But I spent 4 hours that night reading about her case and all the evidence for her innocence. I was shocked and amazed that all this evidence is out there for the public to read for almost 2 years now and yet this woman still sits in prison.

How does our justice system protect the innocent? How does one who sits in prison, wrongly convicted and has overwhelming evidence of innocence, get fairness in our justice system?

Andrew Thomas has received all this information several times from many of Courtney's supporters and yet does nothing. He does not even respond to the letters and emails about Courtney like the other elected officials do.

He could be the hero in all this and the public would understand if the evidence was brought to light for all to see. I have yet to speak to anyone that has read the evidence for her innocence, who does not believe that she IS INNOCENT.

I have lost faith in the Arizona Justice System and needless to say, will not vote for Andrew Thomas again unless he does his duty (and show he has ethics and a conscience) and either set Courtney free or demand an investigation or a new trial.

Yes Concerned Citizen, Frank and Local Logic both reflect the views of the majority of tax paying voters.

In a Democratic society the majority always prevails, and you lazy, poor me left wingnuts (socialists and admitted Communists) will always be a very small minority. Always waving the victim flag.

Those that support "Little Joe" A-Thomas, have also support injustice for the wrongfully accused. And now a lot of people involved with the Bisbee case(particularly the prosecution team) have fled from the public light or they're just trying their best to stay below the radar.

Courtney is a pretty girl behind bars, who must be freed. But the Natavists and their support of A-Thomas and Joe Nut-Fuck only makes matters worse for Bisbee, which is why we need to educate the public about the Horrors of Joe and Thomas. And their tide of support which is obiviously turning on them that only a gaggle of retrograded Natavists and the Oldies of Sun City still supports the double douche duo.
They are not the solution but a part of the problem.

If Thomas can be reomoved then Courtney can be freed.

Anonymous--

Excerpts from Anonymous says:
"Yes Concerned Citizen, Frank and Local Logic both reflect the views of the majority of tax paying voters." REPLY: THEN THE MAJORITY ENJOY PAYING THE PRICE OF HIS FAILED LAWSUITS COSTING TAXPAYERS OVER $ 40,000,000 AND CLIMBING? THAT'S REAL LOYALTY!

"In a Democratic society the majority always prevails, and you lazy, poor me left wingnuts (socialists and admitted Communists) will always be a very small minority." REPLY: DON'T TELL US WHO WE ARE. WE ARE CONSERVATIVES WHO WILL SWITCH OUR VOTE THIS ELECTION YEAR, NOW THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED WHO THE MAJORITY IS.

THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD CONSIDER ALL THE PEOPLE NOT JUST ONE GROUP LIKE YOU ARE PART OF. THEY WERE NOT ELECTED SO THEY COULD BE ABOVE THE LAW. THAT'S WHY COUNTY ATTORNEY ANDY THOMAS IS BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE AZ BAR. THEY SHOULD DO TO HIM WHAT WAS DONE TO NIFONG -- THE CASE IS THERE FOR REFERENCE -- READ IT. ABUSE OF POWER.

"Always waving the victim flag" REPLY: "ALWAYS" DOES NOT APPLY HERE -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE WRONGFUL CONVICTION, THAT OF COURTNEY BISBEE. SINCE YOU STATED YOUREPRESENT THE MAJORITY, THEN YOU'VE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THE MENTALITY OF THOSE IN A BROKEN LEGAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. WATCH OUT YOU COULD BE NEXT IN THE GULAG EATNG FOOD LABELLED "UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION"-- CHECK YOUR CAR TAILLIGHTS!

ANONYMOUS, YOU REALLY DON'T SOUND LIKE A CONCERNED TAXPAYER BUT SOMEONE LEECHING OFF THE SYSTEM WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR.

ANON, THANK YOU FOR IDENTIFYING WHO THE REAL ARIZONA CONSERVATIVES ARE. OTHERS WILL HAVE A BETTER GUIDELINE OF WHO TO VOTE FOR.

SABAN AND GERALD RICHARD HAVE OUR VOTES! WE WANT PROFESSIONALS BACK IN OFFICE.

PENITENTARY CHANCES says:
Those that support "Little Joe" A-Thomas, have also support injustice for the wrongfully accused. And now a lot of people involved with the Bisbee case(particularly the prosecution team) have fled from the public light or they're just trying their best to stay below the radar.

If Thomas can be reomoved then Courtney can be freed.
REPLY: THE BASIS OF THE ARTICLE IS THAT COUNTY ATTORNEY THOMAS HAS A DUTY TO ACT ON THE NEW EVIDENCE - PROOF OF INNOCENCE, NOW. HIS PROSECUTORS COMMITTED PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, THAT'S WHY THERE ARE NO RECORDS IN THE ARIZONA BAR, ON THEM OTHER THAN ONE THAT CAN NO LONGER PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

WE WILL SEE HOW EFFECTIVE THE ARIZONA BAR IS ON DISCIPLINE, WHEN WE SEE THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS OF ANDREW THOMAS AND HIS LEGAL HENCHMEN. WE WOULD HOPE THEY FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION.

We want to know who the prosecutors are that committed prosecutorial misconduct. We also understand several of Ms. Bisbee's lawyers have been on probation or censured by the Arizona Bar, on other cases, wouldn't that raise questions of mishandling, ineffective defense attorneys on Ms. Bisbee's case? Stephen, keep on investigating...

We know County Attorney Thomas is responsible for those in his department but he has been busier in the advertising / marketing / graphics department with the graphic designers creating his Billboards, Crime Prevention brochures, Mug Shot series on the internet and embellishing his Wikipedia bio -- see Sarah Fenske's article below. This stuff takes time and Andy Thomas is spending his time and our money for his own personal agenda and political aspirations. That should be a crime in itself in a state like Arizona who takes great pride in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for everything and anything! No one the county and state are in huge debt! Where is the oversight here with these power hungry elected officials? This should be an embarrassment, while an innocent woman / mom sits in prison without her daughter and family. This deliberate indifference by the County Attorney should also be a crime. If it's happening to Ms. Bisbee, we wonder how many others this has happened to? Keep on investigating, Stephen, we're looking for answers....

11. Fenske
Andrew Thomas, Maricopa County's top prosecutor, burnishes his . . . Wikipedia page?
By Sarah Fenske
Published: February 28, 2008
Somewhere out there in cyberspace is a guy who thinks Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is great — and he's sharing his love with Wikipedia readers. You know Wikipedia,...

Sick isn't it.....

>>Judge Gerber wrote, "Severe mandatory sentences effectively make the constitutional right to trial too risky to be exercised, even for an innocent defendant." This abridgment ocurs when prosecutors purposely load up a defendant with charges that carry mandatory sentences to induce a plea bargain. Then prosecutors further abuse their power by demanding a harsher sentence if a person demands their right to a jury trial rather than accepting the "bribe."

Don't count of it. By previous experience with the Arizona Bar, I can tell you they are worthless and will do nothing but protect their own.

>>WE WILL SEE HOW EFFECTIVE THE ARIZONA BAR IS ON DISCIPLINE, WHEN WE SEE THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATIONS OF ANDREW THOMAS AND HIS LEGAL HENCHMEN. WE WOULD HOPE THEY FOLLOW THE LEAD OF THE NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION.

The justice system is broken because it is "against justice". We can see this over and over in the courtrooms, jails and prisons. It is the sad reality, promoted by those in power.

Get rid of Thomas? Absolutely, he stinks.

But vote for Richards? No way! He was a cop. We need a new approach to criminal justice in Arizona - vote Nelson.

Nelson, the former ACLU lawyer ????? Hell No!!

This is a reminder of how it all works in the Legal system here in Maricopa County. Poor policy makes lawyers rich... with the help of Andy Thomas.

An excellent article by Jill Redhage, Tribune on County Attorney Andrew Thomas written over a year ago
February 18, 2007 -- and his cost to the taxpayers and the average person thrown into the AZ criminal justice system. There is no justice.... and the average person can no longer afford to defend themselves.

COUNTY ATTORNEY GETS TOUGH; DEFENDERS GET RICH!

Business for Valley defense attorneys is booming.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has been cracking down on criminals since 2004, and public defenders have scrambled to keep up as prison populations have swelled.

“When Thomas came in, caseloads started going up much more,” said Tempe defense attorney David Cantor.
He said the trend started with former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, but attorneys saw a distinct caseload change with Thomas.

The number of criminal cases filed in Maricopa County Superior Court has risen every year since at least 2001. County prosecutors filed more than 28,000 criminal cases in fiscal year 2000-01. In fiscal year 2005-06, that number exceeded 39,000.

In the wake, some defense attorneys are gaining clients. Others have kept their workloads constant but charge higher fees for their services.

“We charge 50 percent higher fees because we have to go to trial, and trials are expensive,” said Larry Debus, a Phoenix defense attorney.

Debus said his firm grows about 20 percent each year.
“We get more and more business all the time,” he said. “We get more today because when more cases go to trial, more defendants want private attorneys.”

TRIALS ON THE RISE

Defense attorneys blame prosecutors’ undesirable plea agreements for what they feel is a rise in the number of cases going to trial.

“They’re overcharging for felonies that should be misdemeanors,” Cantor said. “Then they plea to the lead charge, but their lead charge is too stiff. This means everything goes to trial.”

Michael Freeman, an attorney with Wolf & Associates, agreed. “Charges are more serious than they were two years ago for the same type of crimes,” he said. “For example, cases that should be charged as simple possession of drugs, or personal possession, are now being charged as possession for sale with a possible mandatory prison sentence.”

In November, Thomas said that for second offenses, he would only approve plea deals requiring a prison sentence. He estimated that would mean an additional 2,600 prison inmates each year, which would cost taxpayers an additional $53 million.

Tempe defense attorney Craig Penrod said more felony DUI cases are going to trial that should be settled with plea deals.

Penrod also said he saw prosecutors charge a man who sexually assaulted an infant the same way they charged stepsiblings who had consensual sex, because of Thomas’ “rote plea agreements.”

Another difficulty is that deadlines for plea agreements have been shorter recently, according to Mesa defense attorney Anthony Bingham.

But statistics indicate that the perceived rise in trials may be imagined.

In fiscal year 2000-01, 825 cases went to trial. That figure was 817 in fiscal year 2005-06, according to the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Prosecutors acknowledged that defendants are having to plea to harsher sentences.

“We offer plea agreements that we feel are fair, taking into account the defendant’s background, prior convictions, victim’s rights and the evidence,” said Barnett Lotstein, spokesman for the county attorney. “But we have no obligation to offer plea agreements.”

BUSY PUBLIC DEFENDERS

Freeman said he can control his caseload as a private attorney, and he hasn’t taken on more cases in recent years.

But he has had more opportunities, he said, “thanks to Mr. Thomas literally swamping all the public defender and court-appointed attorneys by the number of cases that he’s filing.”

Annual reports from the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office show its caseload rising from 36,637 cases in 2001 to 46,315 in 2005.

By 2005, the office’s caseload warranted more than 286 attorneys, according to industry standards. But the office employed fewer than 234 attorneys, the annual report showed.

“Public defenders for the most part do a great job,” Debus said. “But they have 10 times as many cases as private attorneys. Public defenders have 50 to 100 cases at any given time. I do probably 20 cases in a year.”

Maricopa County Public Defender James Haas’ office did not return calls for comment.

COST OF JUSTICE

More cases mean more prisoners.

The state’s prison population is now almost 35,000. About 60 percent are from the Valley, according to the Council of State Governments Justice System, a nonpartisan organization.

That number could grow by 52 percent to reach 56,660 by 2017, the organization reports, meaning an extra $3 billion for taxpayers.

Jim Austin, a prison system expert, said the state’s gettough attitude on all types of crime, including low-level offenses, is one cause for the rise. He also cited longer sentences.

“Criminal justice is not cost effective,” Lotstein explained. If decisions were made according to cost, he said they’d buy a new car for a victim of car theft instead of prosecute the case.

“It’s really a red herring to think that we should forgo justice to save money. The first priority of the justice system is to protect citizens. What is the cost to the public if a burglar is let back on the streets?” Lotstein asked.
Most defense attorneys don’t thank Thomas for making them richer.

“I would prefer to make less money and have more justice,” said Marc Victor, a Chandler defense attorney and criminal law specialist. Victor said he can charge $15,000 for work that his brother, a defense attorney in Massachusetts, can only charge $2,500.

“Andrew Thomas has been good for business, but bad for justice,” Victor said.

(Larry) DEBUS framed the situation differently. “I say he’s a great county attorney,” he said. “We charge higher fees and we get to go to trial more, which is what we do best.”

Hank Hill, Gerald Richard is experienced in the court and has presented felony cases before a jury trial, UNLIKE County Attorney Andy Thomas and candidate Nelson, the Governor's puppet.

I do agree we need a change, but an inexperienced Governor's puppet is more of the same. Phoenix is crime ridden and the "boys" with the ivy league backgrounds, sitting in their Ivory tower office buildings high overlooking the city, can't possibly understand gangs, street crime and the diversity of a growing Urban area. Thomas would rather take down suburban Scottsdale Moms, than hardened criminals. Nelson's experience is in "white collar" crime -- New York Governor Spitzer showed us where all that ended up... "known as the Sheriff of Wall Street"....

We do not need inexperienced elected officials in a state with harsh mandatory sentencing which result in what are essentially "life sentences." Thomas and Nelson are not qualified to handle the escalating crime and taxpayer budgets. County Attorney Andy Thomas has proven he is too biased to be fair. Justice is about fairness, Thomas is not about fair justice, just convictions at the expense of human misery and suffering.

Arpaio and Thomas distain for people and most particularly women, saying "let them eat cake" -- while the taxpayers foot the astronomical legal fees. The King and his prince hardly give a rat's ass.

We're tired of hatred, bigotry and division that Arpaio and Thomas have created under their watch. Hatred results in revenge, not unity. Things are worse than ever and Arpaio has had 16 years to clean it up.

As Conservatives we will switch and vote for Dan Saban for Sheriff and Gerald Richard for County Attorney.

This is just SOME of the evidence showing Courtney's innocence...

1. Affidavit from State witness Nikolas Valles, brother of the accuser and a witness to the alleged crime. Nik is recanting his testimony and stating that this crime never happened. He also writes, “Now, as an adult, away from my mother, I can no longer allow an innocent woman to remain in prison for a crime that she did not commit. I believe Courtney Bisbee [defendant] should be released from prison immediately and exonerated and the real criminals who enabled this tragedy should face criminal charges.”

2. Transcript of a video deposition taken from Sarah Babcock, friend and sometime girlfriend of the accuser, that states Jonathan Valles told her several times that he never did anything with the nurse and that his mom was making him say it for the money (Deposition page 60).

3. Affidavit from Samantha Strandhagen that states while Brittany Heehler was staying with her in Hawaii she overheard a conversation on speaker phone between Brittany Heehler and Courtney Bisbee where Brittany says that they (Donovan Kemp and Jonathan Valles, the accuser) were being stupid and she knew nothing happened. She also states in the affidavit that she overheard a conversation between Donovan Kemp and Brittany Heehler about how they had to help Courtney because they knew she didn’t do anything to Jonathan Valles.

4. Copy of a polygraph test taken by Courtney Bisbee. Banta Polygraph Inc. states that “Each of the charts were scored using the system of numerical scoring developed and validated at the University of Utah resulted in the finding of no deception indicated. It is this examiner’s opinion Ms. Bisbee was truthful when she answered the above relevant questions.” (Polygrapher approved by and used by the State).

5. Affidavit from Gene Valles, father of the accuser Jonathan Valles and State witness Nikolas Valles, that states his sons were used “as political pawns to ensure a wrongful conviction in Ms. Bisbee’s High-Profile Case.” He also goes on to state, “On February 10, 2004, five days after this alleged incident, my oldest son, Nikolas Valles, who was present when the alleged crime supposedly occurred, stated to Detective Christopher Kinder (Scottsdale Police Department), that “nothing happened” between his brother, the accuser, and Ms.
Bisbee. He went on to state, that his brother would in fact lie if he feared getting in trouble. (I have reviewed the police report ¬ Bates pg. 196).”

6. Affidavit from Shannon Field who attended the trial of Ms. Bisbee. She writes of her concerns regarding Ms. Bisbee’s defense council being ineffective and unprofessional. She also states, “Joel Thompson failed to investigate and attack the State’s case and the State’s primary witnesses were highly vulnerable to impeachment, yet counsel did nothing to prepare an effective cross-examination to test their credibility. In addition he failed to interview and prepare obvious defense witnesses who would have contradicted the testimony of the State's star witnesses.” She also goes on to name a list of 16 troubling items, some of which include important points the defense counsel did not challenge, important details he did not bring up at trial, or just plain unprofessional behavior exhibited by Defense Attorney Joel Thompson.

7. Affidavit from Ian Brent Tilley, a physician and brother of Courtney Bisbee. Dr. Tilley also states many troubling concerns of how Defense Attorney Joel Thompson defended Ms. Bisbee’s case. He says, “As a witness of Joel Thompson, Phillips Law Firm, during Courtney’s trial, Joel Thompson never seemed prepared to litigate her case. As the trial transcript demonstrates, he struggles with names and dates from beginning to end, despite the fact the claims involved only a very few people participating in a small number of events over a short period of time. He consistently demonstrated his ignorance of even the most basic details of my sister’s case.”

Today was the first extreme heat day of the year, 110 degrees. Courtney, an innocent woman is sitting in the Perryville Prison which does not have air conditioning in the women's cells and areas of confinement. This gives special meaning to Hell on Earth and Abu Ghraib. The men's prisons have air conditioning and it is said if they didn't, they would riot and create harm. These conditions of confinement in a desert prison certainly have to qualify as cruel and inhumane. This is how we treat women in Arizona. It's shameful.

Disease runs rampant in the heat and women died last summer during the extreme heat which lasted for months. We shouldn't put any more women into the overcrowded prison until conditions are improved.

There wasn't much justice when Romley was CA, but we can sure say now there is even less with Thomas.

Women in AZ Perryville Prison, you have no idea what you're saying.

As a former employee of Perryville, I know for a fact that all the cells have evap cooling.

There are tents on the minimum Santa Anita yard, but they have portable evap coolers also.

Wow, this Andrew Thomas guy is totally amoral.

To Anonymous:

There is no Santa Anita yard. Santa Anita is a racetrack in CA.

Explain what evap coolers are. What happens when the power goes out and the solid doors (no open bars) are shut during the prison lock-downs which are frequent.

Do the male inmates live with evap cool, whatever that is, we've never heard of.

Discuss the air quality in a closed cell in the desert.

But you bring up a good point... the public as has a right to facts, not your explanation which leaves much unanswered but now opens it up for discussion.

The jails and prisons need transparency and the taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent, with a budget approaching ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Thanks for starting the dialog...

Looking for names of those who have died in the last year and what the cause of death was. One woman died this month at Perryville and others during the extreme desert heat last summer. If they didn't die they are in a coma and there were multiple suicide attempts. The lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and legislators need to have a portion of their training or CEU's with a minimum spent in the Women's Perryville Prison and Arpaio's jail and Tent City.

Then we might finally see some reform and a lowering of the cost of this mass industrial prison complex that the state of Arizona has become -- the vending machine and food corporations are very happy, so are the phone companies who reap the benefits of profitable collect calls, shared with the jails / prisons, also the Taser, GPS, and many other high-tech corporations based in Arizona.

Women living 2 and 3 in cells built for one human. This is inhumane... add 110 degrees and portajons emptied in the dirt behind the buildings where the women sleep and eat and I'd like to see how you would handle it.

By the way, since you worked there Anon, the officers have to supply their own toilet paper. Women go days without sanitary pads and also toilet paper. Transparency in t