contempt of court for arpaio?

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1233512
A Maricopa County Sheriff's detention officer has been ordered to apologize to a public defender for taking a document from files on her desk during a sentencing in Superior Court.

Judge Gary Donahoe said Officer Adam Stoddard must issue his apology at a news conference on the north plaza of the Central Court Building on or before Nov. 30 or face jail for contempt of court.

Stoddard was pictured on courtroom video Oct. 19 taking a piece of paper from the courtroom desk of Public Defense Joanne Cuccia.

Stoddard later told the judge he took the paper and made copies after seeing some suspicious words on it.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Wednesday that he stands behind Stoddard and does not expect him to apologize at a news conference.

"Superior Court judges do not order my officers to hold press conferences," Arpaio said in a statement. "I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held regarding this Sheriff's Office."

Arpaio added, "My officer was doing his job and I will not stand by and allow him to be thrown to the wolves by the courts because they feel pressure from the media on this situation."
Click to expand...
sorry joe, your officers job is not to rifle through a PDs closed files and then make up an excuse for your illegal actions.

I hope the officer in question refuses the press conference and apology and the judge imprisons them both.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yeah, it actually was.
Click to expand...


is it your position that the officer stood for over a minute "reading" the cover of a "closed file"?......it seems to me that the officer heard something stated by the defense attorney that was inconsistent with what he knew to be true....you can see when his ears 'perk' up while she is talking....he then goes over to read the file open on her desk....he calls another officer over and asks him to make a photocopy of the document.......
 
Last edited:
pmp....is your position that the officer can pull/extend a paper out of a closed file from defense counsel's work product on defense counsel's desk and then lift open the folder and take the paper to be copied?

are you actually claiming that the information in that folder is not privileged and that officers can rifle through and read defense counsel's files?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
is it your position that the officer stood for over a minute "reading" the cover of a "closed file"?
Click to expand...
yes. If you watched the video, you see where the officer had to open the cover of the file to extract the sheet of paper(s).

PostmodernProphet said:
......it seems to me that the officer heard something stated by the defense attorney that was inconsistent with what he knew to be true
Click to expand...
In a courtroom, unless he's on the witness stand, it is not his position to make any sort of determination of whats true and whats not.

PostmodernProphet said:
....you can see when his ears 'perk' up while she is talking....he then goes over to read the file open on her desk....he calls another officer over and asks him to make a photocopy of the document.......
Click to expand...
again, if you watched the video, you had to have seen the officer open the file cover. The bottom couple of inches may have been visible to the officer, but that in no way, shape, or form authorizes that officer to rummage through the files of an attorney. You're turning out to be a cop apologist on this one.

This officer should be severely reprimanded and fined for his illegal conduct.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yes. If you watched the video, you see where the officer had to open the cover of the file to extract the sheet of paper(s).

In a courtroom, unless he's on the witness stand, it is not his position to make any sort of determination of whats true and whats not.

again, if you watched the video, you had to have seen the officer open the file cover. The bottom couple of inches may have been visible to the officer, but that in no way, shape, or form authorizes that officer to rummage through the files of an attorney. You're turning out to be a cop apologist on this one.

This officer should be severely reprimanded and fined for his illegal conduct.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
Yurt said:
pmp....is your position that the officer can pull/extend a paper out of a closed file from defense counsel's work product on defense counsel's desk and then lift open the folder and take the paper to be copied?

are you actually claiming that the information in that folder is not privileged and that officers can rifle through and read defense counsel's files?
Click to expand...

Yurt, even lawyers for the defense are considered to be "officers of the court".....there are things a defense lawyer can do which are a violation of that office and which are crimes....the bailiff is not a representative of the prosecution, the bailiff has the responsibility to investigate crimes that occur or are occurring in the the courtroom......if he heard something that gave him cause to walk over to her desk (for example hearing her make a statement which was obviously a lie when compared to something he had heard her refer to from her notes out of the judge's presence) and look at a document that he could obviously read without opening any files (he stood there doing so) that could extend to being able to seize evidence of such a crime.....intentionally misleading the court is grounds for removal......
 
SmarterThanYou said:
yes. If you watched the video, you see where the officer had to open the cover of the file to extract the sheet of paper(s).

In a courtroom, unless he's on the witness stand, it is not his position to make any sort of determination of whats true and whats not.

again, if you watched the video, you had to have seen the officer open the file cover. The bottom couple of inches may have been visible to the officer, but that in no way, shape, or form authorizes that officer to rummage through the files of an attorney. You're turning out to be a cop apologist on this one.

This officer should be severely reprimanded and fined for his illegal conduct.
Click to expand...

first, he didn't 'rummage' through the files....he picked up the document that had been sticking out a couple inches...

second, you seem to be characterizing the bailiff's actions as being related to the trial of the defendant.....that is unlikely....as I said, the bailiff is not an arm of the prosecution, the bailiff is an arm of the judge.....it was more likely related to the conduct of the defense attorney.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Yurt, even lawyers for the defense are considered to be "officers of the court".....there are things a defense lawyer can do which are a violation of that office and which are crimes....the bailiff is not a representative of the prosecution, the bailiff has the responsibility to investigate crimes that occur or are occurring in the the courtroom......if he heard something that gave him cause to walk over to her desk (for example hearing her make a statement which was obviously a lie when compared to something he had heard her refer to from her notes out of the judge's presence) and look at a document that he could obviously read without opening any files (he stood there doing so) that could extend to being able to seize evidence of such a crime.....intentionally misleading the court is grounds for removal......
Click to expand...
That is for the judge to decide. A bailiff has no such power. It has never been a bailiffs responsibility to either point out to a judge/jury that a witness is lying UNLESS SAID BAILIFF IS ON THE STAND.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1233512

sorry joe, your officers job is not to rifle through a PDs closed files and then make up an excuse for your illegal actions.

I hope the officer in question refuses the press conference and apology and the judge imprisons them both.
Click to expand...
There's a simple solution to that. He could tell Arapio he's correct and either charge the officer with an offense or hold him in contempt of court.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
do you know what the term 'comprehension' means? did you read the article? the sheriffs remarks about the judges order?
Click to expand...

It is the Officer who runs the risk of being in contempt.
Arpaio can say what ever he wants, the Officer still has the ability to make a choice.

I assume you want this conversation to denigrate into something other then an exchange of opinions, what with your condenscending "comprehension" remark.

I'll wait to see what direction you desire this go.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It is the Officer who runs the risk of being in contempt.
Arpaio can say what ever he wants, the Officer still has the ability to make a choice.

I assume you want this conversation to denigrate into something other then an exchange of opinions, what with your condenscending "comprehension" remark.

I'll wait to see what direction you desire this go.
Click to expand...

you have my apologies for the condescending remark.

It's important to note, though, that the court officer is one of the sheriffs deputies under his command. That is why I reference the contempt charge if arpaio orders his deputy not to comply.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The officer involved was ordered to apologize by the court. Sherif Arapio refused to allow said officer to apologize. That means Sheriff Arapio is in contempt of court.
Click to expand...

He can tell the Deputy what ever he wants.
It is still the Deputies choice if he does or doesn't.
The Deputy works for him, he doesn't own him.

Arpaio is in no danger of any contempt charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top