Links to Andrew Thomas disciplinary hearings.

Fascinating...

-------------------

Maricopa Detectives Describe Corruption in Their Office and Under Leadership of Sheriff Arpaio and Former County Attorney Andrew Thomas -- Watch Now

Ray Stern

Phoenix New Times
October 14, 2011 

If you want to hear Maricopa County Sheriff's Office detectives describe the "blatant" corruption they saw under the leadership of Joe Arpaio, tune in now to the State Bar's disciplinary hearing for former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. (If that direct link doesn't work, click here and then click on the video for the one that's "in progress.")

Detective John Halverson, who worked in the now-disgraced Maricopa Anti-Corruption Enforcement Team, was asked moments ago by one of Thomas' attorneys, John Oberg, whether Arpaio's former chief deputy, Dave Hendershott was "competent" to conduct investigations.

Halverson seemed stunned, and paused for a moment before saying as an answer that Hendershott choose "to ignore certain facts that were presented to him."

Despite being on the force for only a year in a half in 2007, he became so critical of what he was asked by his superiors to do, he went to internal affairs to try to stop it.

His request was ignored, he testified.

Detective Brandon Luth is scheduled to testify after Halverson -- and his testimony should be even better.

Liberty and Justice for All: AZ Freedom March 2010.

Staggering into the morning from a two-week period of fevers, fatigue, and altered consciousness - punctuated by the grief of traumatized families - I found myself at the Freedom March for the Wrongfully Convicted on the State House lawn Saturday. It was organized by Camille Tilley, Courtney Bisbee's mom. As detailed by Stephen Lemons in the Phoenix New Times, Courtney was a school nurse and single mom when she was falsely accused of touching a teenaged boy and sentenced to 11 years in prison as a child molester. Sensationalized by the press, Courtney was convicted and condemned before she even went to trial.

Camille and Tom Tilley, 2008.

Now, six or seven years later, Courtney's still fighting for her child and her freedom from behind bars. The evidence exonerating her has been in the hands of the Maricopa County Attorney's office for over 4 years now. Andrew Thomas just sat on it. We're waiting to see if Rick Romley picks her file up before he goes. He had the courage to drop capital murder charges against Lisa Randall, the babysitter the county worked two years on prosecuting for the death of a child who was in her care, so we're hopeful.

Camille is an extraordinary woman. She sees the bigger picture - the contexts in which her family has been repeatedly victimized by agents of the state - and goes after every piece of it she can get her teeth into: not just abuses of prosecutorial discretion, but also minimum mandatory sentencing, police brutality, conditions of confinement and medical neglect in the prisons, racial profiling, and early release provisions for non-violent offenders. The devastating events of recent weeks, the rapid rise in the prisoner death toll, and the timing of the Freedom March this year brought a new constituency under her wing: the families of people prosecuted for the symptoms of their mental illnesses.

I've spent much of my adult life studying crime, punishment, and serious mental illness in an effort to keep my own loved one out of prison. I successfully convinced a handful of judges and prosecutors across the country to drop charges against him drawing on my research into the trans-institutionalization of the mentally ill, particularly those dually diagnosed with psychiatric and substance abuse disorders. I kept a few of my homeless clients out of jail that way, too. My experience has been that most people working in the criminal justice system agree that most of the seriously mentally ill whose lives are being chewed up there don't belong in jail or prison, they need housing, community support services and access to psychiatric hospitals. Instead, unfortunately, the seriously mentally ill are three times more likely to be incarcerated than hospitalized.

Shannon Palmer is one of the most stark examples of the damage done to a person's life by wrongful prosecution and incarceration that I've ever seen, but "justice" destroys innocent lives every day. According to Camille's research (based, I believe, on exonerations in death penalty cases), up to 10% of people in prison may be wrongfully convicted; factually innocent. If you look at prosecutions such as Shannon's, sentences of imprisonment for women like Lasasha Cherry, and Tony Lester's prosecution and sentence, then the number of people we have in prison who really shouldn't be there increases dramatically.

As of August 2010, the Arizona Department of Corrections estimates than about 9,362 of their 40,204 prisoners - about 25% - need on-going mental health treatment. Many of those individuals were too incompetent to stand trial or even to plead guilty when first arraigned - how can we then hold them fully culpable for criminal intent and send them to prison? They also estimate that 75% of offenders enter the system with major substance abuse issues. It's a serious and common error to believe that the mentally ill and addicted are getting the treatment they need in a safe environment when incarcerated. They are the most vulnerable to trauma, abuse and exploitation, which most have endured enough of already.

Most of us fail to appreciate the huge chunk we take out of people's lives when we criminalize and incarcerate them, and what lasting repercussions there are. We take it for granted that our system is just. American justice is not designed to expedite the exoneration and liberation of the innocent or even to equalize the punishment of the guilty. Once you plead guilty or are convicted, it's damn near impossible to get out through the appeals system, and no matter how innocent you are, it's all too easy to be violated on probation or parole - Arizona couldn't keep the prisons full otherwise.


There are people still trying to clear their names who have long since done their time - time they never should have had to do. Many have lost their careers, homes and families in the process of being branded a criminal. And some, like Shannon Palmer and Tony Lester, have lost their lives to our way of dealing with crime and doling out punishment.

What really astonished me - everyone, perhaps - at Saturday's Freedom March was how well one of our state legislators, Cecil Ash, articulated all that and more. Representative Ash is the chair of the House Study Committee on Sentencing Reform and Co-Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He not only spoke to the issues we've been dealing with, he sat and listened to every single story, in 100 degree heat, until 2:15 in the afternoon. He even took notes as families were talking about their experiences. And as far as I could tell, of all our state lawmakers, he was the only one to bother to come.

AZ Representative Cecil Ash,
Freedom March Phoenix, 2010.

You could tell by the way he talked about his letters from Arizona's prisoners that Representative Ash not only reads them, he's sincerely troubled by their predicaments and has been thinking about solutions. We incarcerate far too many non-violent offenders, and he wants to reduce time served before parole eligibility for some from 85% of their sentence to 65% of their sentence. He wants to rewrite some of the minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines to give judges more flexibility when they encounter defendants in exceptional circumstances.


Because of Brewer and Bill Macumber, Ash also wants a constitutional change to remove the power of clemency from the hands of the governor and invest it solely in a non-partisan board. And he wants to see prison reform so that people aren't needlessly suffering and dying while serving their time, regardless of their crime (or lack of one). Those are just a few of the changes he touched on wanting to raise the next legislative session.

Julie Acklin, Freedom March 2010, Phoenix.

While Representative Ash is our knight in shining armor, he wasn't the star of the show. The stars were the ordinary citizens who stood up to tell their stories and share their grief. Julie Acklin talked about her son Davon, sick in prison with Hep C and not getting treatment. She hopes his fight brings relief to all prisoners infected with HCV. We're planning to hit the lawn at CASS shelter this week to collect signature for the petition to the clemency board and educate people about Hep C.

Patti Jones brought nephew Tony Lester's daughter, just turning 1 that day, and told of his love for his family, the torment of his first psychotic break, his prosecution in the wake of a suicide attempt, and his death after being taken off his meds just a few weeks into a devastating 12-year prison term. Probably 20 of his relatives were there wearing t-shirts in his memory; they converted a table into a memorial with pictures and balloons. Patti pledged to organize with other families to push sentencing and prison reform to prevent what happened to Tony, trading numbers with Julie.

one of Tony Lester's little loved ones.

Other individuals and family members spoke eloquently and passionately about their disillusioning experiences with the criminal justice system in Arizona as well. There was considerable emphasis on mandatory minimum sentences and enhancements, abusive prosecution and the coercion involved in plea bargaining, and the non-incarceration consequences of being criminalized - including stigma, child custody issues, and the challenges that probation and parole stipulations present even to innocent people.

Allison Hicks ("Backspin") talked about her time in the Maricopa County Jail and her ordeal with wrongful prosecution, about which she has written and will soon have a movie. The Arizona Death Penalty Forum gave a brief presentation, and some of Jim Rix' books, Jingle Jangle, about AZ death row exoneree Ray Krone were on hand. Daniel Horne was with us in spirit - his books about Maricopa County corruption were distributed, and he sent an extensive handout for folks, which I hope to touch on in another post.

We also celebrated the success of our extensive efforts to get Andrew Thomas out of the Maricopa County Attorney's office and keep him from becoming AZ attorney general. He was huge obstruction of justice there. According to Camille, his office is responsible for over 200,000 convictions. If 10% of them are innocent, that's a long trail of beaten families and damaged lives he left in his wake, with no sign of remorse or concern. We will be expecting more out of Mr. Montgomery - who is reportedly sympathetic towards people with mental illness - assuming he takes office after Romley's term expires. Hopefully Arizonans will never again have to tolerate someone like Andrew Thomas in a position of such power again.

Thanks, Camille, for all you did to put together the day - and for all you do year round for prisoners and their families.

And thank you, Representative Ash. You give us hope that our government is not completely lost, and that our loved ones have not been permanently discarded.





.

Indict Arpaio.

Public pressure is growing in Phoenix for the FBI and DOJ to do their job.

...and free the 5.

Catching up to a corrupt cop: Joe Arpaio.

This is a little more encouraging; I came across this Friday after my last tirade. Interesting how he can victimize us and our communities without real consequence - even if we die as a result of his negligence or spite - but if he goes after the wrong person in power, he just might get indicted for some sort of crime.

I guess you have to admit that Romley really stepped up to challenge those guys. He should be allowed to be a write in candidate in November. I didn't realize how big the risk was that he took on Thomas and Arpaio until he lost that primary. Bill Montgomery's place on the ballot was paid for with dirty money and intimidation by a criminal syndicate operating within the Republican Party, and when the rank and file finally see the evil ends these men have in mind, I do believe they'll want to drop the candidates they sold them in a second. In the meantime, I do believe Romley's going to keep cleaning house - I sure hope he is, anyway.

It's a disappointment that MCSO deputies haven't already begun to walk off the job en masse in protest of Arpaio's continued leadership there. That tells me that both complicity and terror are widespread - no one's been untouched if none of them are talking to the press. Hopefully some of them have already stepped up to talk to the FBI and DOJ, though, and have been told to lie low until an indictment comes.

The Maricopa County Sheriff is a corrupt, fascist thug, and every additional day he remains armed and in charge, Joe Arpaio hurts people - harassing and arresting and incarcerating us does profound violence to individuals and communities - we've all been violated by this man. We better see some charges dropped and convictions thrown out once Arpaio is arrested - people shouldn't have to keep sitting in jail waiting for a successful prosecution - that could take years. The DOJ needs to get an indictment and arrest him this week so we can start cleaning up the mess. Shackle him and Andrew Thomas together in court - they're in bed with eachother anyway.

-------------from the Daily Beast (good news site)---------------

Crackdown on a Renegade Sheriff

by Terry Greene Sterling

September 3, 2010 | 10:26pm

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Joshua Lott / Getty Images)

The federal civil-rights case against notorious Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio may not be his biggest legal headache.

Terry Greene Sterling on the abuse-of-power probe that could end his career.

Arizona’s notorious “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice Thursday for not cooperating in a 17-month racial-profiling probe stemming from his immigration raids. But that isn’t the only potentially career-ending battle the lawman is having with the feds these days.

A separate Justice probe—one largely overshadowed by the racial-profiling investigation, and little-noticed outside of Arizona—could lead to the sheriff’s indictment for violating the civil rights of political foes by launching well-publicized but ultimately unsuccessful criminal investigations and, in some cases, fruitless indictments, of his perceived enemies. If indicted and found guilty of a felony, the man branded “America’s Toughest Sheriff” by the press—infamous for parading inmates in pink underwear and introducing voluntary chain gangs—could be removed from office under Arizona law.

A federal grand jury in Phoenix began investigating allegations of abuses of power in the offices of Arpaio and his political sidekick, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas, several months ago.

The feds’ investigation was bolstered in late August by a court-ordered release of grand jury documents, spearheaded by acting Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley. The 61-year-old Vietnam veteran and moderate Republican has for years been Arpaio’s nemesis, and he handed over the released records to the feds.

The records show that a Maricopa County grand jury in March chose to “end the inquiry” of a conservative Republican county supervisor, a judge, and other county officials who had opposed Arpaio and Thomas. Nevertheless, Romley reported, Thomas’ office shopped around for out-of-county prosecutors to take the case, and Arpaio’s chief deputy threatened to release “incriminating evidence” on a foe after the grand jury’s vote to end the inquiry. (Thomas says Romley is lying and Eric Dowell, who was referred to The Daily Beast by a sheriff’s spokesman for comment, did not return a phone call.)

“It is hard to know what will happen, but there could be an indictment of a number of individuals involved in this case,” says Paul Charlton, a former U.S. attorney who represented Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon—one of those who spoke out against Arpaio, only to become the target of a criminal investigation that went nowhere. Charlton also represents a county supervisor facing a criminal indictment that’s been halted pending a state bar investigation of Thomas.

There’s “something very Nixonian” about Arpaio and Thomas, who were tremendously popular for their stand on “a single monolithic issue—immigration” and yet were driven by “arrogance and a sense of impunity” to seek revenge on political foes, Charlton says.

“There could be an indictment of a number of individuals involved in this case,” says former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton.

Legal scholars and lawyers say the feds have to show a pattern of abuse of power, and the grand jury documents add to the pattern. There was “nothing to the allegations” and that’s why the grand jury ended the inquiry, says Lee Stein, a former assistant U.S. attorney who represented Gary Donahoe, a county judge who ruled against Arpaio and Thomas in a case and was subsequently indicted and charged with bribery, hindering prosecution, and obstructing a criminal investigation. (The charges were later dismissed.)

Romley contended in August that Arpaio and Thomas engaged in “improper, unethical, and corrupt” behavior, and added that “it may be judges and elected officials who are targeted today, but tomorrow it could be any of us.” Romley himself was the next target—of pre-primary TV ads and mailed flyers depicting Romley as “too risky for Arizona families” and a “dangerous” foe of Sheriff Joe’s immigration enforcement policies. Those ads may have resulted in Romley’s loss of the Republican primary for county attorney to an Arpaio ally, Bill Montgomery.

The ads, which cost about $400,000, were bankrolled by Arpaio’s 2012 reelection committee, which has amassed more than $1 million in campaign contributions from donors across the country. The TV ads were deemed legal by a deputy county attorney, but the flyers were not. A legal battle looms. “We’ll fight it tooth and nail,” says Chad Willems, who is managing Arpaio’s campaign for reelection to a sixth term as sheriff in 2012. Romley, who had served as county attorney from 1980 to 2004, has long clashed with Arpaio, first over jail conditions and over zealous searches, then over immigration enforcement policies.

He was appointed interim county attorney in April to replace Thomas, who had stepped down in what turned out to be a failed bid to win the Republican primary for attorney general.

Arpaio, who became a national celebrity with publicity stunts that include bunking convicted inmates in outdoor “Tent City” jails, forcing them to wear pink skivvies, initiating a voluntary chain gang, and raiding heavily Latino neighborhoods in the Phoenix area, might also be declining in popularity. Once seen as the most viable Republican candidate for governor, his popularity in Arizona has waned even as he strengthened his populist illegal-immigration-fighting persona outside of Arizona. In the federal lawsuit filed Thursday, the Justice Department says the sheriff and his employer, Maricopa County, failed to cooperate in a 17-month civil-rights investigation “of alleged national origin discrimination” in “police practices and jail operations.” In that suit, the Justice Department seeks court-ordered access to Arpaio’s employees, jails, and relevant documents to investigate alleged racial profiling and other violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act related to the sheriff’s immigration-enforcement.

Arpaio portrayed himself as the victim of federal harassment in a press release put out Thursday afternoon. “The Obama administration intended to sue us all along, no matter what we did to try to avert it,” Sheriff Joe wrote. “Washington isn't playing fair and it's time Americans everywhere wake up and see this administration for what it really is.” At a press conference Thursday, the sheriff said the Justice Department had “no proof” that “alleged racial profiling” occurred in the streets of Phoenix. The sheriff’s former chief deputy, state Sen. Russell Pearce, who has spearheaded Arizona’s increasingly harsh immigration laws that the sheriff has enthusiastically enforced, stood by his side and called the suit a “witch hunt.”

Given the nature of the abuse-of-power allegations in the other investigation of Arpaio, it was an interesting choice of words.

Fascists, White Supremacists dominate AZ Republican Primaries.

The Fascists all but swept the Republican Primaries here last night, and in most of their strongholds the Democrats won't have much chance come November. We're still holding out hope that the corrupt Andrew Thomas loses to the incompetent Tom Horne, but overall, it's a bleak Wednesday morning in Phoenix.


Having no tv is a good excuse to get out and about on a night like last night, so I brought my "Bury Hep C..." signs with me to the AZ GOP Party HQ to witness the tragedy unfold. It was far worse than I expected. It looks like many of my friends took one step closer to spending the next few years in an Arizona state prison, all for the love of Food Not Bombs, music under the bridge, and sidewalk chalk. Freedom of expression and human rights will soon be tossed out of the back seat by Thomas' Law and Arpaio's disorder.


I was pleading more than protesting with my signs to fight Hep C , standing quietly across the street. When I saw what was happening on their big screen - and in the audience of small people - I thought it would be foolish to be caught disrupting the occasion without my own witnesses. The media was out in full force, of course, but seemed to be thoroughly co-opted. With the exception of a few words of encouragement from parting celebrants, I was virtually ignored.

from Monday morning's demonstration,
the message I brought to the Republicans Tuesday night.

The scene at the Republican's party - ringed by MCSO deputies - was truly disturbing. I had to close my eyes and imagine that it was just a bloodbath between klansmen and skinheads, as whomever was left standing would likely still go on to try to destroy the rest of us.


Huppenthal - chair of the Senate Education Committee that brutalized teachers and children last year - may be the next State Superintendent. They're moving in for the kill with the kids.


Unless there's a Libertarian coup in November, the Maricopa County Attorney's office is actually losing Romley to Arpaio's buddy, Bill Montgomery. I never thought I'd be sorry to see that guy go so quickly, but I think darker days are ahead.


Whoever went up against Russ Pearce didn't stand a chance in hell, of course - I haven't even trolled the internet to find out if there was some miraculous upset in his race. He wasn't to be seen in Phoenix, as far as I could tell - I suspected he was celebrating in Mesa with Tea Partiers, Neo-Nazis, and the other white supremacists out there.


Most troubling, perhaps, is that last nights winners didn't come out of far right field without a lot of help from the "center". These people were the official nominees of their party. The crowd unabashedly cheered Arpaio and Thomas (whose race remains too close to call) as they slapped each other's backs and smiled for the cameras without another protester in sight.


The list goes on and will be verified and complete to be pondered over by pundits soon enough. Suffice it to say, it looks like it's about to get a whole lot worse in this state before it gets better, so watch each other's backs out there, my friends. SB 1070 is what brought these people their victories last night. This may have been the Summer of Human Rights, but this fall will undoubtedly see some ethnic and political cleansing in a Season of Hate as this Republican slate solidifies their base by doing what they do best: demonizing unions and immigrants, incarcerating the poor for profit, and dismembering the traitors in their own ranks.


We can certainly hope that the legions of registered Republicans who voted for the lesser of their many evils will join the Democrats and the independent voters in an upset in November - it would suggest that we finally have a more progressive electorate, if nothing else.


For my part, though, even with a Democratic sweep I don't expect the oppressed to be liberated by any part of this political machine. Instead, I pray for revolution. Perhaps this blatant horror will be precisely what we need in order to unshackle our own feet, free our own neighbors, and take back both the land and the resources for the people and other living beings whose ancestors long pre-dated the Anglo invasion.


Until the next time we meet dancing in the streets, comrades - be strong, and remember the power of song. There remains a hell of a battle ahead, which will come to us if we don't go out and meet it full on.


With my utmost respect to the Resistance -


In solidarity, forever.


Peg

Thomas' Law and Arpaio's Disorder: Romley's Turn.

I wouldn't have ever expected the Maricopa County Attorney's office to recover any measure of public respect after Thomas' reign of terror, but Romley's kicking ass and taking names. I really need to meet this man - there are some people I know who need someone with integrity to take a second look at their cases.

Here's the AZ Republic's coverage of the press conference (twittered by the AZ ACLU). Everyone still needs to be careful out there - we have more racist and corrupt lawmen in town than just these two - but hopefully Thomas and Arpaio are well on their way out the door. Maybe we should start staging protests at a federal building to get the DOJ to hurry things along...

--------------------------

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigations detailed in grand jury documents released Thursday

Probes targeted court tower project, sweep for wiretaps

by Yvonne Wingett and Michael Kiefer - Aug. 12, 2010 11:50 AM
The Arizona Republic

Interim Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley on Thursday released hundreds of pages of grand-jury testimony and other documents showing failed attempts by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas to obtain criminal charges against county officials.

Grand-jury proceedings are secret, but a Superior Court judge unsealed the records "in the furtherance of justice."

Hendershott letter to county risk manager
Thomas' draft indictment against county officials
Request to unseal Grand Jury records
January 4, 2010, Grand Jury transcript
January 6, 2010, Grand Jury transcript
March 3, 2010, Grand Jury transcript

The documents say that the grand jury and an out-of-county prosecutor told Maricopa County prosecutors that prosecutors had no case against the county officials involving a sweep for illegal wiretaps and the construction of a downtown Phoenix court tower. Another prosecutor refused to hear the case.

Although they were turned away or denied several times, sheriff's top officials and Thomas still say publicly that criminal investigations continue. They allege serious misconduct by county officials.

Romley said he released the documents because the "abuse has to stop."

"These allegations of criminal misconduct have to stop if there's no evidence," Romley told The Republic. "Reputations should not be soiled and be able to be laid out there, inferring that people have committed certain types of crimes. When there's such a miscarriage of justice, the public has the right to know."

(Finish article here)

JT Ready at the border.

An update on fans of "border security":

-----------------------------

Man with neo-Nazi ties leading patrols in Ariz.

by Michelle Price - Jul. 17, 2010 09:35 AM
Associated Press

Printed in AZ Republic

Minutemen groups, a surge in Border Patrol agents, and a tough new immigration law aren't enough for a reputed neo-Nazi who's now leading a militia in the Arizona desert.

Jason "J.T." Ready is taking matters into his own hands, declaring war on "narco-terrorists" and keeping an eye out for illegal immigrants. So far, he says his patrols have only found a few border crossers who were given water and handed over to the Border Patrol. Once, they also found a decaying body in a wash, and alerted authorities.

But local law enforcement are nervous given that Ready's group is heavily armed and identifies with the National Socialist Movement, an organization that believes only non-Jewish, White heterosexuals should be American citizens and that everyone who isn't White should leave the country "peacefully or by force."

"We're not going to sit around and wait for the government anymore," Ready said. "This is what our founding fathers did."

An escalation of civilian border watches have taken root in Arizona in recent years, including the Minutemen movement. Various groups patrol the desert on foot, horseback and in airplanes and report suspicious activity to the Border Patrol, and generally, they have not caused problems for law enforcement.

But Ready, a 37-year-old ex-Marine, is different. He and his friends are outfitted with military fatigues, body armor and gas masks, and carry assault rifles. Ready takes offense at the term "neo-Nazi," but admits he identifies with the National Socialist Movement.

"These are explicit Nazis," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. "These are people who wear swastikas on their sleeves."

Ready is a reflection of the anger over illegal immigration in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial new immigration law in April, which requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

But Brewer hasn't done enough, Ready said, and he's not satisfied with President Barack Obama's decision to beef up security at the border.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said there haven't been any incidents with the group as they patrol his jurisdiction, which includes several busy immigrant smuggling corridors. But Babeu is concerned because an untrained group acting without the authority of the law could cause "extreme problems," and put themselves and others in danger.

"I'm not inviting them. And in fact, I'd rather they not come," Babeu said. "Especially those who espouse hatred or bigotry such as his."

Law enforcement officials said patrols like Ready's could undercut the work of the thousands of officers on duty every day across the border, especially if they try to enforce the law themselves in carrying out vigilante justice.

Ready said his group has been patrolling in the desert about 50 miles south of Phoenix, in an area where a Pinal County Sheriff's deputy reported he was shot by drug smugglers in April.

Bureau of Land Management rangers met Ready's group during one patrol, and they weren't violating any laws or looking for a confrontation, said spokesman Dennis Godfrey.

The patrols have been occurring on public land, and militia members have no real restrictions on their weaponry because of Arizona's loose gun laws.

The militia is an outgrowth of border watch groups that have been part of the immigration debate in Arizona. Patrols in the Arizona desert by Minutemen organizations brought national attention to illegal immigration in 2004 and 2005.

Such groups continue to operate in Arizona, and law enforcement officials generally don't take issue with them as long as they don't take matters into their own hands.

Border Patrol spokesman Omar Candelaria said the agency appreciates the extra eyes and ears but they would prefer actual law enforcement be left to professionals.

Former Minutemen leader Al Garza recently created the Patriot's Coalition, which uses scouts and search-and-rescue teams to alert the Border Patrol and provide first aid to illegal immigrants.

Depending on the availability of volunteers and the scouts' evidence of border crossers, patrols can vary from several times a week to once a month, Garza said. The operation is about 500 people, and includes a neighborhood watch program, legislative advisers and a horseback patrol, he said.

Technology, rather than manpower, is the focus of Glenn Spencer's American Border Patrol. The group is based at his ranch near the border. The five-man operation flies three small airplanes to ensure that the Border Patrol is present and visible along the international line.

Spencer also uses Internet-controlled cameras and works with a group called Border Invasion Pics, which posts photos of people they suspect are crossing illegally.

"Sitting out there with a bunch of volunteers looking for people is generally a tremendous waste of people and time," Spencer said. "And it's also dangerous."

Ready said he's planning patrols throughout the summer.

"If they don't want my people out there, then there's an easy way to send us home: Secure the border," he said. "We'll put our guns back on the shelf, and that'll be the end of that."

Arpaio the Vexatious Litigant.

Vexatious litigation: A legal action or proceeding initiated maliciously and without Probable Cause by an individual who is not acting in Good Faith for the purpose of annoying or embarrassing an opponent.

When perpetrated by those in public office, it's a huge waste of tax dollars, too...

-----------------------from Courthouse News Service-------------------

Arpaio's War on his Bosses Continues

By JAMIE ROSS
June 28, 2010

PHOENIX (CN) - Sheriff Joe Arpaio has sued his bosses again, claiming the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a conflict of interest in choosing his lawyers. It's at least the ninth time the self-described "America's toughest sheriff" has sued his bosses in the past 3 years.

The board established its own "in-house law firms" in December 2008 after it decided that "then-County Attorney Andrew P. Thomas allegedly had ethical conflicts of interest with the board that prevented him from performing his statutory duties as legal advisor," Arpaio claims in Maricopa County Court.

Arpaio claims the board has taken steps against him "to consolidate the powers of county government" and diminish his power.

The in-house attorneys "are the very people choosing and controlling the sheriff's lawyers," and are violating the Arizona Constitution, Arpaio says.

Board members have lodged multiple claims against Arpaio, but the in-house law firms refuse to appoint independent lawyers to defend him because they "have an obvious interest in managing the notices of claim filed by the members of the board," Arpaio says.

Supervisor Don Stapley filed a notice of claim on Arpaio in March, demanding $5 million for false arrest and emotional distress.

Arpaio's office arrested Stapley twice, for "alleged financial improprieties," in December 2008 and September 2009.

Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox also filed a claim on May 27, demanding $4.75 million, claiming Arpaio had investigated her "in retaliation for her opposition to their stance on illegal immigration."

The board "spent some $14,000 to sweep for hidden electronic devices purported to be planted by the Sheriff's Office," Arpaio says. Those sweeps were conducted in December 2008 and in March 2009.

Arpaio sued the county in February 2009, claiming it had "unlawfully encumbered and transferred funds that it did not have the authority to encumber."

He sued his bosses again in April 2009, claiming that the county had "unlawfully enacted a public records policy limiting county officers from making public records requests" and had "exerted management control over a criminal justice information system which must be under the management control of a criminal justice agency."

Arpaio seeks declaratory judgment that the Board of Supervisors has a conflict of interest preventing it from assigning him lawyers, and that he is entitled to select his own counsel.

Arpaio is represented by L. Eric Dowell and F. David Harlow with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart.

Welcome, Judge Davis. All is not well.

"Time of calm"? Those guys may have settled down some now that Andy's on the campaign trail, but things out here are going to hell pretty quickly, so I hope this guy can hit the ground running. He sounds like an efficient manager. I hope he is also a decent human being; lives are being mangled in this current system...

--------------------

New presiding judge takes job at time of calm

Michael Kiefer

Jun. 20, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

Maricopa County Superior Court has a new presiding judge, and he is thankful he is taking over after most of the painful budget-cutting and political infighting among county officials are waning.


Norman Davis took over June 7 as presiding judge, replacing Barbara Rodriguez Mundell, who retired May 31 after two decades on the bench and five years as presiding judge.


"I think I'm coming at a good time when things are calm," Davis said with typical understatement.


He takes over as severe budget cuts have ended, and criminal investigations and lawsuits by former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have been shelved - at least for now.


But around the courthouse, nerves are still frayed. Staffers remember that sheriff's deputies showed up at the homes of low-level court employees to ask questions about judges. And in recent times, a call from "Barbara" could mean that a judge and his or her staff faced imminent transfer to unfavorable assignments.


Mundell had many achievements during her tenure, key among them weathering attacks from Thomas and Arpaio and keeping the court on task through economic recession.

But her style was authoritarian and inaccessible. She often made decisions without input. Although she is gone, judges are uncomfortable speaking on the record about her.

Davis, on the other hand, is known for accessibility and unflappable calm.

"I think he will be a consensus builder," said Marcus Reinkensmeyer, the Superior Court administrator who works hand in hand with the presiding judge in running the court.

Superior Court has long been an international model of court management and a constant award-winner for innovation. It processes tens of thousands of cases per year, has an annual budget of $224 million and nearly 3,000 full-time employees - including 95 judges appointed by the governor and 59 court commissioners appointed by the presiding judge.

The presiding judge oversees a downtown Phoenix court complex and five regional court centers across the county.

Davis is considered an organizational whiz. From 2004 to 2007, when he headed the Family Court section of Superior Court, his policy reforms and technology use eliminated a backlog in divorce cases. And a recent award cites technological innovation that occurred when he headed Juvenile Court.

"Davis will do positive things," Judge Roland Steinle said. "He's a person who, if you have a good idea, doesn't mind giving you credit."

Davis calls it "synergy."

"I think that's our strength," Davis said. "I don't see myself as their supervisor."

But his is the kind of thankless job that guarantees fear and loathing.

"At the end of the five-year term, everybody's upset with you about something," said Colin Campbell, who should know. He preceded Mundell as presiding judge.

"It's like being mayor of a city. You have to make so many decisions that affect people," Campbell said.

Davis just wants to move forward.

"I don't really want to get into a lot of stuff in the past," he said. "I want to go into it with an open mind and a fair attitude to all people who use the court."

Years of tumult

Mundell, 54, who led the court through years of tumult, entered into the job optimistically. She was the first female presiding judge and the first Hispanic, and she vowed to listen to the community.

By her last year on the job, she was bunkered in her downtown office and eventually filed a $4.75 million notice of claim against the county, seeking compensation for legal fees and alleging a tarnished reputation, emotional distress, anxiety and insomnia stemming from political and legal battles with Arpaio and Thomas.

Mundell refused to be interviewed for this article.

The difficulties began in 2005, just two months after Mundell won a national award for a Spanish-language DUI probation program she created. Thomas fired his first shot at the courts, claiming the program was discriminatory because it favored Spanish-speakers. In 2006, he filed a federal lawsuit to stop it. A judge threw out the suit, but Mundell and other judges became regular political targets.

Thomas considered the judiciary an obstacle to prosecuting illegal immigrants, and he later alleged corruption and conspiracy in the long-planned construction of a criminal-court tower for the downtown court complex. In the midst of those disputes, the economy tanked, forcing Mundell and Reinkensmeyer to pare $16 million from the court budget.

Mundell also battled the Sheriff's Office over its duty to bring jail inmates to court hearings.

When the court threatened to hold deputies in contempt for not meeting the obligation, it spawned endless requests for public records and investigations into the court. The matter was settled this year.

One judge was charged criminally in relation to the court-tower investigation - the case later was dismissed - and Mundell and three other judges were named in a federal racketeering suit that also was dismissed. Last December, as rumors swirled that the Sheriff's Office was going to serve search warrants on her house and office, Mundell went to the Arizona Court of Appeals to block such incursions. Mundell also claimed that deputies staked out her Paradise Valley home.

Now, Arpaio and Thomas are under federal investigation, and those actions may come into play. In fact, Mundell testified before the federal grand jury in recent months.

Despite the rancor, Mundell's accomplishments were considerable.

Under her command, the Northeast Regional Court Center, a downtown Regional Court Center and Downtown Justice Center opened. Despite controversy, she got the court tower well on its way to a 2012 opening date.

Additionally, a new way of managing criminal cases was instituted, the number of pending death-penalty cases was whittled down from a high near 140 to a current 80 or fewer, and the court and Mundell won numerous awards.

Even a judge who complained about Mundell's autocratic style called her an effective leader.

"The point is, she did get us through that process," the judge said.

Fan of technology

Enter Norm Davis, 60, a fourth-generation Arizonan from St. Johns. After graduating from Brigham Young University with a degree in accounting, he attended law school at Arizona State University and spent 20 years with private law firms before being appointed to the bench in 1995 by then-Gov. Fife Symington.

Davis presided over the opening of the Northwest Regional Court Center in Surprise in 2002.

In 2004, when the Arizona Supreme Court ordered a cleanup of the Superior Court's Family Court, the job fell to Davis. He instituted "divorce on demand," which fast-tracked uncontested divorces so they could be finalized within 24 hours of fulfilling all requirements. Within months, a longstanding backlog was cleared. He also introduced software in the court self-service centers that used TurboTax-style programs so court customers could fill out their own divorce paperwork.

Davis moved to Juvenile Court. Last week, a national association bestowed an award on that court for a technology system that reduces costs while monitoring staff and volunteers who work as advocates for children.

As presiding judge, Davis plans to use technology in new ways: for example, to link courts statewide, providing instant access to data such as criminal warrants and pre-sentence reports.

When asked his opinions on the future of the court, Judge Pendleton Gaines waved away the question and said, "The real story is not a story, and that's how well the court is running."

AZAG debates this week.

The KAET Channel 8 schedule says that tonight are the Republicans, and tomorrow are the Democrats, but everyone else says the following, so I'm going with the AP version. Presumably, this is being held at the KAET studio tomorrow at 7pm, though none of the press releases say so. Remember to catch the Democratic candidates Wednesday, too.

If you have questions for the station, direct them here:

--------------------from KAET------------

Contact

Send your comments

We welcome your comments and suggestions. Contact Horizon

by e-mail at Eight@asu.edu

by telephone at 602-496-2308

or by mail:

Eight, Arizona PBS
Arizona State University
555 N. Central Ave.; Suite 500 (map)
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1252
ATTN: Horizon

Ask Your Questions

Do you have a question you would like to ask the Horizon guests? We may use it during the broadcast.

Email your question to Horizon@asu.edu

-------------

GOP candidates for attorney general to face off

By The Associated Press

Published: June 21, 2010 at 6:51 am

The two Republican candidates for Arizona attorney general will face off Tuesday in a debate held by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas are vying for the Republican nomination in the Aug. 24 primary election.

The Clean Elections Commission will hold a debate Wednesday with the Democrats running for attorney general.

Democrats David Lujan, Vince Rabago and Felicia Rotellini are running for their party’s nomination.

The Truth About AndrewThomas

This is an interesting website link that was forwarded to me this week by a friend in the Movement...check it out. For those of you who don't know, Andy Thomas is the vindictive former Maricopa County Attorney who is now running for the AZ Attorney General's office. He maliciously prosecutes his political enemies. That's largely what this website is about:

http://theandythomastruth.com/

Romley appointed new Maricopa County Attorney

Congratulations, Mr. Romley. We will be in touch, and look forward to working with you.


Peggy Plews

--------------------------

Phoenix New Times: County Craziness

Rick Romley to Replace Andrew Thomas as New Maricopa County Attorney

By Sarah Fenske, Friday, Apr. 16 2010 @ 2:38PM

 

Rick Romley, the old (and now new) county attorney.

We called that one.

As New Times' Paul Rubin predicted last week, former County Attorney Rick Romley got the nod from the Board of Supervisors today to replace Andrew Thomas in his old job. Thomas, of course, resigned earlier this month to run for attorney general; Romley, who held the post for 16 years before retiring in 2004, was the odds-on favorite to replace him.

And, as Rubin had predicted, the vote was 4-1, with Fulton Brock the only "no."

We heard this morning that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is threatening a lawsuit over the Romley appointment. To that, we say "Bring it on!" And, perhaps, also, "Go f*&% yourself, Joe." (Really, does anyone see any legal grounds for a lawsuit here?)
(Check out Romley's first act after he was named county attorney here. Check out Arpaio's and Thomas' reactions here and here.)
Romley is a Marine who lost both legs above the knee in the Vietnam War. A longtime Republican, he endorsed Thomas to be his successor in 2004, but quickly grew to regret that choice.

In 2008, he endorsed Thomas' opponent, Democrat Tim Nelson, saying, "I can no longer stay silent." He's worked part-time for Attorney General Terry Goddard and as a legal consultant to the Board of Supervisors during its conflicts with Thomas.

Romley was one of four finalists for the job, culled down from 11 contenders by a four-man committee. He's agreed to run for reelection in November, after which (if successful) he'll serve the remaining two years on Thomas' term.

But he'll probably face a challenger in the Republican primary. Thomas' people really wanted a prosecutor named Bill Montgomery to be chosen for the job instead; Montgomery threw his hat in the ring but wasn't recommended by the four-man advisory panel.

Montgomery already has filed papers to begin his campaign for the job. And believe us when we say Sheriff Arpaio won't be threatening any lawsuits over his candidacy.

 

 

Honoring the Public's Trust.

After all we've seen in recent months, how can we be confident that ANY of the people Thomas' office has locked away or whose innocence claims he ignores now are guilty of what they were charged with or truly deserving of the sentence they received?

----------------------

Civil-racketeering case may prove Andrew Thomas' undoing

by Michael Kiefer - Mar. 31, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

ANAYLSIS

Last fall, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced that he was thinking of running for Arizona attorney general in November's general elections.

He seemed a shoo-in.

But since then, he has become the subject of an FBI investigation into possible abuse of power, a state Bar investigation into possible unethical behavior, and two potential lawsuits related to prosecutions of county officials.

His high-profile criminal cases against two county supervisors and a sitting Superior Court judge have collapsed. And he has been indirectly rebuked by a ranking official in the U.S. Department of Justice for wrongly implying at a news conference that the federal government would take over wide-ranging investigations into allegations of county government corruption.

Those asking where it all went wrong may well find the answer in a major strategic blunder by Thomas: filing a federal civil-racketeering suit against a host of county officials and private attorneys that proved to be the undoing of everything else.

The suit named a long list of alleged conspirators, including county management, the county Board of Supervisors, four Superior Court judges and two attorneys in private practice.

In legal circles, it was ridiculed from its inception for its failure to meet basic legal standards like court deadlines and definitions. One opposing attorney derisively quoted "Humpty Dumpty" in a motion to dismiss the case. It had not even passed through the initial stages of court procedure when Thomas and his co-plaintiff, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, withdrew it March 11.

The racketeering case may have been flawed from the start because it runs afoul of a basic legal concept: You can't sue someone in civil court, then press criminal charges against them, without raising eyebrows.

That collision of intentions prompted a Superior Court judge hearing one of the criminal cases to rule that Thomas had a conflict of interest. The state Bar agreed and has since asked the Arizona Supreme Court to investigate Thomas' ethics.

Thomas won't say if he still plans to run for attorney general. But he has a tough decision to make in the face of all that has transpired since September.

The battle begins

Thomas has been battling with the Superior Court since early 2006 and with county management and the Board of Supervisors since late 2008.

Last Dec. 1, he and Arpaio launched their racketeering lawsuit alleging wrongdoing under the federal Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organizations Act.

"Racketeering law was originally designed and passed to go after organized crime," said Mike Piccarreta, a Tucson attorney. "Then, it has been used and abused over the years by prosecutors to cover almost every type of criminal behavior."

In their lawsuit, Thomas and Arpaio accused judges and county officials of conspiring against them by denying funding of their county budgets, thereby denying them their offices and their livelihoods. It also accused them of obstructing criminal probes into the construction of a new court tower.

The suit's accompanying narrative detailed various ongoing spats among county officers.

It even recounted a dispute over a county prosecutor's fender-bender in a county garage and how the attorneys for the county had laughed at a deputy county attorney in court. That attorney, Lisa Aubuchon, wrote the initial RICO complaint.

Thomas told The Arizona Republic he chose Aubuchon for the job because she is fearless and smart and "because our civil attorneys were terrified to try anything against the Board of Supervisors."

Thomas also said three supervisory criminal prosecutors refused to take the case for fear of retaliation by county administrators.

A week after the racketeering suit was filed, Aubuchon also became the prosecutor of record in criminal indictments against county Supervisors Don Stapley (alleging misuse of campaign funds) and Mary Rose Wilcox (alleging she did not report a loan from an organization receiving county funding). A day later, Aubuchon filed a criminal complaint against Judge Gary Donahoe alleging bribery, hindering prosecution and obstructing an investigation into a court-construction project from which Donahoe had previously disqualified Thomas because of perceived conflicts of interest.

Technically flawed

Experts theorize that Thomas filed the RICO suit to take advantage of the liberal "discovery" rules of federal civil court. Discovery is the exchange of information between plaintiff and defendant attorneys. Criminal courts strictly limit what can and cannot be divulged. Civil-court rules are broader and the level of proof required for a verdict less stringent, which, under some circumstances, might have allowed Thomas to learn more about his political opponents.

But Thomas' RICO suit was technically flawed. Racketeering statutes are precise, said Andy Hessick, an Arizona State University law professor, and "you have to show specified activities."

The suit alleged bribery and extortion, for example, but never delivered evidence that either activity took place.

"Extortion means wrongfully demanding property from someone else. It's like blackmail," Hessick said. "And bribery means to pay an official to get a result. Laughing at someone in the courtroom is neither."

James Ryan, one of the defense attorneys in the case, said the initial complaint did not identify the criminal enterprise in which the defendants supposedly engaged. And Hessick, Ryan and Piccarreta all pointed out that Thomas' claims in the RICO case vacillated between those he made as an individual and those he made as a public official.

The judges named in the case protested on the grounds that they had absolute judicial immunity in the rulings they made. Their message: You can't sue judges because you don't like their decisions.

In January, Thomas passed the RICO case to a civil attorney in his office named Rachel Alexander.

Alexander made herself something of a target for defense attorneys, occasionally running afoul of court rules and creating waves with her pro-Thomas political activities outside the office.

Those activities came into play in the racketeering case when defense attorney Ryan, in a response to one of Alexander's pleadings, attached one of her online writings in which she excoriated "cowardly federal judges" for throwing out a Thomas case for procedural errors.

Disqualified

Everything began unraveling in January.

The criminal case against Judge Donahoe was referred to a judge in Pinal County, who postponed the matter after defense attorneys pointed out Thomas' conflict: He was suing Donahoe in the civil-racketeering case.

In February, Thomas was called to testify before a Pima County judge asking why he should not be disqualified from the Wilcox case because of a potentially similar conflict. Defense attorneys argued he was engaging in political retaliation.

Thomas ultimately was disqualified and the Wilcox indictment thrown out, prompting him to dismiss the cases against Stapley and Donahoe, lest they be dismissed by court rulings as well.

Colin Campbell, Wilcox's attorney, said the RICO suit "cemented the disqualification to the point that it undid his prosecution."

Thomas nonetheless defended the racketeering suit, saying shortly after the Wilcox case was thrown out: "I don't believe, as a matter of law, that a prosecutor is prohibited from prosecuting criminal defendants who are party to a RICO suit.

"Everyone wants to mischaracterize that lawsuit as a so-called conspiracy theory, but I would challenge anyone with a sense of fairness just to read the facts."

Two weeks later, Thomas and Arpaio voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit.

Prosecuting Innocence: Resistance is Futile

Borrowed this post from our friends at Idaho Prison Watch...

The sentencing committee meeting was canceled again today, by the way - I have no idea when it's rescheduled for. I hung out at the Capitol awhile anyway, handing out copies of Tenacious to the women legislators I could find, since it was "Women's Day at the Legislature" today, and I didn't think they'd made any arrangements for state prisoners to participate or talk to their legislators. I also left one for Governor Brewer, with an article done by a woman who had cancer while at Perryville a few years back. She's now with an organization that helps women in prison. I'll post her story here when I get permission.


I hope those legislators I gave the zines to actually bother to read them. I don't know when or how they're going to hear a woman prisoner's voice address their conditions otherwise. Maybe we should try to get them to hold hearings out at the prisons themselves. Given the Arizona Republic and Lumley Vampire reports on the physical condition of the facilities alone, they should have organized an emergency oversight committee to check it out in person. The legislature is responsible, after all, for compromising the safety of state prisoners and corrections employees in the first place. They've now been duly warned that they'll be held liable for failing to follow up on it.

Anyway, the following article is very pertinent to the work of the House Sentencing Committee - and most of the issues I have with Andrew Thomas' office. In fact, this is a very good reason why we don't want that man to be Attorney General. He'll be putting ten times as many innocent people away, while letting the really guilty ones walk by making questionable deals - like the one that put the Scott Sisters away. The innocent don't have anything to fear, they think, nor do they have anything to trade. The guilty, on the other hand -  the "triggermen" - can trade them. 

There's nothing guaranteed to get you a more severe punishment in America than insisting that you're innocent and losing to the prosecutor at trial - and they make sure you know that when they make their offer. Their job is to prove guilt, not to find truth - don't make any mistakes about that. They're out to get convictions, by and large - not to protect the innocent. Victims are just useful tools to win their cases with, and to use to promote their own tough-on-crime image.

There are a few remarkable exceptions to that rule, of course. Some DA's have been very committed to investigating reports of wrongful prosecutions/convictions. I hope that's the beginning of a trend towards more ethical, responsible prosecutorial conduct. I have yet to see evidence of that happening in Arizona, though.

-------------

What is Wrong with the Plea Bargain System in our Courts Today?

Frontline Interview with
John H. Langbein

John Langbein is a professor of law and legal history at Yale Law School. In this interview, he describes how the plea bargain system pressures people to buckle and accept a plea-even if they are innocent-and how prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys have a role, a stake even, in seeing that this happens. He also talks about the Supreme Court's indifference to the pressures on a defendant in the plea process, and why he believes the rampant growth of pleas is rooted in the trial system's failures.

(I have condensed this interview for the sake of this forum. You can view the entire interview on the link I provided below)

Q: "What is wrong with the plea bargain system in our courts today?"

Plea bargaining is a system that is best described as one of condemnation without adjudication. It is a system that replaces trial, which is what our constitution intended, with deals.

Second, those deals are coerced. The prosecutor is basically forcing people to waive their rights to jury trial by threatening them with ever greater sanctions if they refuse to plead and instead demand the right to jury trial.
But every defendant has a right to go to trial; it's a choice they make to plead guilty.

The problem with choice arguments is that they neglect the main dynamic of plea bargan which is the pressure that the prosecutor puts on you to do it his way.

Plea bargain works by threat. What the prosecutor says to a criminal defendant in plea bargaining is, "Surrender your right to jury trial, or if you go to trial and are convicted of an offense, we will see to it that you are punished twice. Once for the offense, and once for having had the temerity to exercise your right to jury trial." THAT is a coercive system.

And the prosecutor has many devices which increase the level of coercion: multiplying the counts, threatening to recommend the most severe end of the sentence range, keeping you locked up in pretrial detention if you're poor - most people who are in the criminal justice system are poor - prosecuting your wife as well as yourself, and things of this sort. The prosecutor can pile it on if you don't play it his way. It is therefore a deeply coercive system. Yes, you have a choice, but your choice is constrained by coercion.

Q: What is the role of the defense lawyer?

Sometimes defense counsel does a very good job for people in the plea bargaining process, and gets you a good deal. But there are many other outcomes.

In the public defender system the defense counsel is representing a hundred other people; the defense counsel can not take every case to trial....

Defense counsel in some circumstances is not very competent and is delighted simply to take his money and run, so to speak."

"So there's no particular reason to think that defense counsel is any serious answer to the intrinsically coercive nature of plea bargaining."

Q: Whom does the system benefit?

The main winner in the plea bargaining process is the prosecutor. I describe plea bargaining as a system of prosecutorial tyranny..."

What has happened is that a single officer, the prosecutor, now is in charge of investigating, charging--that is, bringing formal charges--deciding whether to prosecute, evaluating that evidence, deciding whether or not in his or her judgment you're guilty or not, and then basically sentencing you.

"....what we have now is a system in which one officer, and indeed a somewhat dangerous officer, the prosecutor, has complete power over the fate of the criminal accused."

Q: You let the defense attorney off lightly.

I think defense counsel is to some extent at the mercy of a bad system. There's not a lot you can do when the other guy has all the chips. And the prosecutor has an awesome pile of chips in our plea bargaining system, because the prosecutor can threaten ever larger sanctions if you don't do what he wants.

So I believe that by far the worst failure in the plea bargaining system is the prosecutor, and I think that's in part because the prosecutor is not always as noble as he would like you to believe he is."

"It's a lot easier to coerce somebody into waiving all his defenses than to actually investigate the case thoroughly..."

But, again, the trial is there for anyone who chooses that option.

It is true that one always has the right to go to trial, but the prosecutor can make that right so costly that only a fool will exercise the right..."

Part of the reason why we in this country have criminal sentences that are so much more severe than in the rest of the civilized world, is the need that prosecutors have to threaten people with these huge sentences in order to get them to waive the right to jury trial...."

".... most people (in the system) are too poor to afford bail, and these people are particularly likely to yield to the demand that they confess whatever it is they're being charged with rather than wait for some kind of trial, because they'll be sitting in jail for months and months and months, and therefore there is a very evil interaction of prosecutorial power with poverty, with indigence."

It is very sad that the Supreme Court, which has been so anxious to protect various rights of persons who go to trial, has been so cowardly about seeing the evils of the plea bargaining process."

"...the Supreme Court has been indifferent to the pressures on accused in the plea bargaining process, as exemplified by the famous Alford case, where the fellow actually stood up and said, "I'm innocent, but I'm pleading because the disparity of outcome that they're threatening me with is too great". It's terribly sad."

"...the prosecutor is allowed to coerce people out of trial."

"...what happens is that prosecutors don't have to prove their cases; they're simply allowed to coerce people into waiving their rights. Judges are spared the difficulty of conducting trials and the danger of being found to have erred; they (plea bargains) can't be appealed from .."

"...what actually happens is you're coerced into confessing yourself guilty, whether you are or not."

"The saddest things about plea bargaining is that it is not widely understood. Most people have the television model of Perry Mason or somebody similar contesting for a verdict of a jury."

"Plea bargaining is sometimes justified on the ground that we are giving a lighter sentence to someone who is showing contrition or remorse for the offense. But that's a pack of lies. What is in fact happening is that the accused is being told by the prosecutor, "You accept guilt and confess and bear false witness against yourself and we will then see to it that it gets characterized as contrition or remorse."

The point is that the coercion, which eliminates trial, eliminates our ability to know you were in fact beyond reasonable doubt, guilty or not. And therefore it makes the remorse talk just window dressing by apologists who want to keep this existing system which is convenient for them."

Q: Do you have a solution?

I think the solution is very complex. I think it requires facing the underlying failure of this adversary criminal justice system. The idea that having one pack of lawyers and investigators saying, "You did it," and another pack saying, "We didn't," and nobody actually looking for what actually happened, nobody having an interest in investigating the truth, is a bit mistake."

"No knowledgeable student of comparative criminal justice is likely to fall victim to the notion that our is an admirable system.

It is an appalling system.

We have ten times as large a percent of our population locked up in jail by comparison with the European countries. We have sentences which are draconian. We've just had a 12 year old put in jail for life in Florida. Things of this sort are unheard of in the rest of the world.

There are many causes, but the failure of our adversary system is central, and the political nature of our prosecutorial system is also central..."

(complete interview at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/interviews/langbein.html)