PDA

View Full Version : Charge & Hearing - EJ & TPS - Conspiracy to Commit Custodial Interference


BeanE
04-27-2010, 02:52 PM
We have a thread for Elizabeth's charges and hearings, and a thread for Tammi's charges & hearing, but we don't have a thread for the charge they are both a party to, Conspiracy to Commit Custodial Interference. So I'm starting this one for it.

In prep for the upcoming hearings and trial for this charge, I thought we could bring in the info from both of their charging documents (in the Important Links thread) that shows them engaging together in this crime.

I'd imagine the prosecutor also has additional evidence for this charge that he/she will bring up at trial, so if you know of, or come across, actions they engaged in together that look like evidence of conspiracy to commit custodial interference, let's bring them in too so we can take a look at them and get familiar with them prior to the hearings and trial.

We should probably also bring in the AZ statute that covers this charge too.

Thanks,
BeanE

BeanE
04-27-2010, 04:12 PM
Custodial interference statute for AZ

Arizona Revised Statutes §13-1302 Custodial interference

http://law.justia.com/arizona/codes/title13/01302.html

BeanE
04-27-2010, 04:14 PM
Elizabeth's charging document:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/01/27/elizabeth.johnson.criminal.complaint.pdf


Tammi's charging document:
http://www.kpho.com/download/2010/0203/22416309.pdf

BeanE
04-27-2010, 04:43 PM
Elizabeth Johnson's lawyers waived her right to appear in court for a status conference.

snip

Also appearing in court this morning in front of the same judge was Tammi Smith. She had hoped to adopt Gabriel before he disappeared.

Smith has been charged with forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference. She's not charged in the baby's disappearance.

Amy Nguyen, Smith's attorney, asked the judge for more time to go over evidence in the case.

"I think I lost count; it's boxes. A lot of it is disclosed on CDs so it's numerous documents, and I think we are in excess of 50 CDs at this point," Nguyen said in reference to the amount of evidence.

http://www.kpho.com/news/23280642/detail.html

kissdegirl
04-27-2010, 04:54 PM
Elizabeth Johnson's lawyers waived her right to appear in court for a status conference.

snip

Also appearing in court this morning in front of the same judge was Tammi Smith. She had hoped to adopt Gabriel before he disappeared.

Smith has been charged with forgery and conspiracy to commit custodial interference. She's not charged in the baby's disappearance.

Amy Nguyen, Smith's attorney, asked the judge for more time to go over evidence in the case.

"I think I lost count; it's boxes. A lot of it is disclosed on CDs so it's numerous documents, and I think we are in excess of 50 CDs at this point," Nguyen said in reference to the amount of evidence.

http://www.kpho.com/news/23280642/detail.html

I have not followed a case before, but that sounds like a lot of evidence. I wonder if it is a lot, or average, or what?! I would really like to know what's in those boxes! Seems like a lot more than a few snippets of messages :)

BeanE
04-27-2010, 05:04 PM
I have not followed a case before, but that sounds like a lot of evidence. I wonder if it is a lot, or average, or what?! I would really like to know what's in those boxes! Seems like a lot more than a few snippets of messages :)

Caylee's case has more than 14,000 pages in documents last time I saw a count and more has been released since then. There are a metric ton of CDs of audio and video. The CD count doesn't include the documents - that's usually given in number of pages.

50 CDs doesn't tell me anything. That could be 50 1-page documents. And some could be duplicates. I need the page count of documents not including duplicates, and the number of audio and video files. That would tell me something.

Even then, going back to Caylee's case, the number of pages won't tell you everything. It depends on pages of what exactly. There were pages and pages and pages of graphs that are completely unreadable in that case.

BeanE
04-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Court Date For 2 Key Figures In Missing Baby Case

Attorneys for a Valley mother accused in the disappareance of her infant son were in court in Phoenix. on Tuesday.

Video: http://www.kpho.com/video/index.html

BeanE
04-29-2010, 01:28 PM
Update to Court Case:

4/29/2010 028 - ME: Status Conference Set - Party (002) 4/29/2010
4/29/2010 120 - ME: Hrg/Motion/Rule 11 Exam - Party (001) 4/29/2010


4/27/2010 8:30 Complex / Capital Case
6/7/2010 8:30 Status Conference

BeanE
04-29-2010, 01:47 PM
TAMMI PETERS SMITH (002)

Defense counsel orally moves for a Motion for Extension of Time to Remand.

IT IS ORDERED granting the motion until June 7, 2010.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on June 7, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in this division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042010/m4200821.pdf


ELIZABETH JOANNE JOHNSON (001)

IT IS ORDERED transferring this case to the Rule 11 Commissioner's Court for all further proceedings relating to Defendant's competency.

All time pursuant to Rule 8.4, Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall be excluded by the Judge/Judge Pro Tem at the time the Defendant's competency is determined.

IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on June 7, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in this
division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042010/m4200694.pdf

kissdegirl
08-08-2010, 10:37 AM
I'm not entirely sure if this link will work, but, on the high profile list you can search Johnson or Smith. EJ's Rule 11 result looks to be heard on Aug 12 at 1:30pm.
TPS' Forgery and Conspiracy case is scheduled for Aug 16 at 8:30am...I am assuming this will happen only when EJ is found to have been restored to competency...hopefully Thursday!
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/MediaRelationsAndCommunityOutreach/HighProfileList/Index.asp

jessicat
08-08-2010, 11:58 AM
I'm not entirely sure if this link will work, but, on the high profile list you can search Johnson or Smith. EJ's Rule 11 result looks to be heard on Aug 12 at 1:30pm.
TPS' Forgery and Conspiracy case is scheduled for Aug 16 at 8:30am...I am assuming this will happen only when EJ is found to have been restored to competency...hopefully Thursday!
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/MediaRelationsAndCommunityOutreach/HighProfileList/Index.asp

According to that link you posted EJ will not be present and also it appears TPS court date is a pretrial conference. I so want these cases to be heard so maybe it will lead to baby Gabriel. I hope EJ has been found "restored".

BeanE
08-10-2010, 08:06 PM
So they're going to be tried separately for the conspiracy?

kissdegirl
08-10-2010, 08:34 PM
So they're going to be tried separately for the conspiracy?

I was under the impression their cases were tied together, so they were to be in court together? Maybe we should get some clarification from AZLawyer on this. I thought the reason TPS' trial was pushed back was because EJ's was. ?

BeanE
08-11-2010, 06:38 AM
I was under the impression their cases were tied together, so they were to be in court together? Maybe we should get some clarification from AZLawyer on this. I thought the reason TPS' trial was pushed back was because EJ's was. ?

That's what I thought - that Tammi was delayed because of EJ. Let's see if AZlawyer can figure it out. :)

kissdegirl
08-11-2010, 12:12 PM
That's what I thought - that Tammi was delayed because of EJ. Let's see if AZlawyer can figure it out. :)

I can't wait to hear the results tomorrow. These 2 need to get in court together...that's a must see IMO!

If you enter their names here, and scroll to the very bottom, you will see the Rule 11 Hearing is listed on both their cases for tomorrow, and on the 16th, they are both scheduled for a "Status Conference"

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

artsy1
08-11-2010, 05:08 PM
Maybe AZlawyer can correct me on this, but isn't "Motion to Extend Time to File Rule 12 9 Motion to Remand" filed by TPS's attorney on June 3 a challenge to the charges filed against her? If so, since that doesn't involve EJ, I would think that TPS would have her own status conference appearance regarding the motion. JMHO - of course, the heat could be getting to me, and I may be totally wrong.

artsy1
08-11-2010, 05:12 PM
Ok, I think I was right.

snip
The Court has received Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time in which to file Rule 12.9
Motion to Remand.
IT IS ORDERED granting the motion and extending the time until August 16, 2010.
IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on August 16, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in this
division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062010/m4255709.pdf


ETA: According to court minutes, it looks like the actual trial is set for November 15, 2010.

tmiles
08-12-2010, 02:11 AM
I thought tomorrow's hearing was to review EJ's competency. However, I Googled Rule 11 hearing and it says a Rule 11 hearing is called when a person intends to change their plea? So, I'm confused about what will actually happen tomorrow.

BeanE
08-12-2010, 05:19 AM
I thought tomorrow's hearing was to review EJ's competency. However, I Googled Rule 11 hearing and it says a Rule 11 hearing is called when a person intends to change their plea? So, I'm confused about what will actually happen tomorrow.

Rule 11 is competency.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/SuperiorCourt/ProbateAndMentalHealth/rule11.asp

BeanE
08-12-2010, 05:24 AM
Maybe AZlawyer can correct me on this, but isn't "Motion to Extend Time to File Rule 12 9 Motion to Remand" filed by TPS's attorney on June 3 a challenge to the charges filed against her? If so, since that doesn't involve EJ, I would think that TPS would have her own status conference appearance regarding the motion. JMHO - of course, the heat could be getting to me, and I may be totally wrong.

Ok, I think I was right.

snip
The Court has received Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time in which to file Rule 12.9
Motion to Remand.
IT IS ORDERED granting the motion and extending the time until August 16, 2010.
IT IS ORDERED setting a Status Conference on August 16, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. in this
division.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062010/m4255709.pdf


ETA: According to court minutes, it looks like the actual trial is set for November 15, 2010.

Rule 12.9. Challenge to grand jury proceedings

a. Grounds. The grand jury proceedings may be challenged only by motion for a new finding of probable cause alleging that the defendant was denied a substantial procedural right, or that an insufficient number of qualified grand jurors concurred in the finding of the indictment.


b. Timeliness. A motion under Rule 12.9(a) may be filed only after an indictment is returned and no later than 25 days after the certified transcript and minutes of the grand jury proceedings have been filed or 25 days after the arraignment is held, whichever is later.

http://www.arizonacrimelaws.com/12_9.htm

BeanE
08-12-2010, 05:27 AM
That's what I thought - that Tammi was delayed because of EJ. Let's see if AZlawyer can figure it out. :)

AZlawyer has answered:

I don't see any rulings or motions about that on the docket--did you guys find one? They are listed as co-defendants, so the trial should be together unless one of them files a motion and explains how her case will be unfairly tainted by the evidence being presented against the other defendant.

jessicat
08-12-2010, 10:54 AM
Ok please help me out here...I'm a little slow this week;)..is there a hearing today? If I look at the court docket I don't see anything until the 16th and thats with both of them. Am I right?

jessicat
08-12-2010, 11:02 AM
Nevermind I think I just found the answer to my own question. I hope today brings us something positive.

BeanE
10-01-2010, 02:38 PM
Bump.

This thread is for the charge Elizabeth and Tammi face together, the conspiracy to commit custodial interference.

The Tammi charges thread is for her charge of forgery.

The Elizabeth charges thread is for her charges of child abuse and custodial interference.

Thanks -
BeanE

saba
10-02-2010, 05:40 AM
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Are both defendants having lawyer issues?

On 9/30 there is a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel. (party 001) I took that to be TPS.

On 10/1 there is a Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel. (party002) Is this EJ? I don't think TPS qualifies for appointed counsel because she has $$.

artsy1
10-02-2010, 12:10 PM
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Are both defendants having lawyer issues?

On 9/30 there is a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel. (party 001) I took that to be TPS.

On 10/1 there is a Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel. (party002) Is this EJ? I don't think TPS qualifies for appointed counsel because she has $$.



If I am reading the case history correctly, since the mental health issues were listed as being for "party (001)" then I think that has to be EJ, and TPS has to be "party (002)".

Having said that, I think that someone entered the info incorrectly into the case history about party (001) filing the motion for change of attorney, and that is why there is a notation to the side that it is for defendant (2).

I am assuming that once something is entered into the case history, it can't be deleted - only additions made to correct an entry.

Then the motion showing for "party (002)" was the correction for the entry. Which would mean that it is indeed TPS requesting the appointment of counsel.

BeanE
10-02-2010, 12:11 PM
I asked AZlawyer to stop by and take a peek when she has a chance.

AZlawyer
10-02-2010, 03:30 PM
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

Are both defendants having lawyer issues?

On 9/30 there is a Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel. (party 001) I took that to be TPS.

On 10/1 there is a Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel. (party002) Is this EJ? I don't think TPS qualifies for appointed counsel because she has $$.

BeanE asked me to take a look at this docket. This is the court in which I practice every day, so I'm pretty used to their docket system. :)

My interpretation is: On Sept. 27, Elizabeth's attorney filed a "Motion to Change Counsel." On September 30, he realized that wasn't exactly the right motion to file, and withdrew the motion. On October 1, he filed the correct motion: a "Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel."

I haven't been keeping up on this case, but I assume Nick Alcock is her privately retained (or pro bono) counsel? (I don't think he's on the court-appointed counsel list.) If so, it looks like he wants to get out and have her represented by court-appointed counsel.

There was a status conference on Sept. 27 (you all probably knew that already), and the minute entry for the status conference indicates that counsel met in chambers with the judge off the record prior to the status conference. So something might have been said at that time that triggered the attempt to withdraw.

AZlawyer
10-02-2010, 03:36 PM
If I am reading the case history correctly, since the mental health issues were listed as being for "party (001)" then I think that has to be EJ, and TPS has to be "party (002)".

Having said that, I think that someone entered the info incorrectly into the case history about party (001) filing the motion for change of attorney, and that is why there is a notation to the side that it is for defendant (2).

I am assuming that once something is entered into the case history, it can't be deleted - only additions made to correct an entry.

Then the motion showing for "party (002)" was the correction for the entry. Which would mean that it is indeed TPS requesting the appointment of counsel.

Party 1 is the State of Arizona. Party 2 is Elizabeth. Party 3 is TPS. You can see these numbers at the top of the docket under "Party Name-Number." The clerk is supposed to fill in the column for "filing party" but hardly ever does. BUT if and when they DO fill it in, it's usually right. ;) The notations right next to the motion titles that say "Party (001)", "Party (002)," etc., on the other hand, are almost always filled in but often wrong. :waitasec:

ETA: Also, quite often the party numbers listed in the motion titles ("Party (001)," etc.) are different from the filing party numbers (1, 2, 3...). That seems to be the case here. Generally, it looks like 001 is Elizabeth and 002 is TPS. If you go to the high-profile case list http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/MediaRelationsAndCommunityOutreach/HighProfileList/Index.asp and search for their names, you can see the (001) and (002) numbers next to their names.

ETA2: So I suppose an alternative interpretation of the docket, if you assume the clerk did not mess up ANY of the entries, is that Elizabeth's counsel filed a Motion for Change of Counsel, then withdrew that motion, and then the next day TPS's counsel requested to withdraw from the case and have court-appointed counsel assigned to TPS. But could she qualify financially??

saba
10-02-2010, 03:55 PM
BeanE asked me to take a look at this docket. This is the court in which I practice every day, so I'm pretty used to their docket system. :)

My interpretation is: On Sept. 27, Elizabeth's attorney filed a "Motion to Change Counsel." On September 30, he realized that wasn't exactly the right motion to file, and withdrew the motion. On October 1, he filed the correct motion: a "Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel."

I haven't been keeping up on this case, but I assume Nick Alcock is her privately retained (or pro bono) counsel? (I don't think he's on the court-appointed counsel list.) If so, it looks like he wants to get out and have her represented by court-appointed counsel.

There was a status conference on Sept. 27 (you all probably knew that already), and the minute entry for the status conference indicates that counsel met in chambers with the judge off the record prior to the status conference. So something might have been said at that time that triggered the attempt to withdraw.

Thanks so much AZ. Wow.

The_Flashlight
10-02-2010, 04:28 PM
The way I understood it, the motion to change counsel was from TPS.

artsy1
10-03-2010, 11:50 AM
The way I understood it, the motion to change counsel was from TPS.


That was the way I had understood it, too, from the media report on that day. It was said that TPS had requested change of counsel (and that's why she didn't show up), but I hadn't heard anything about EJ having a request, too. That's why I assumed that the case history had an error. :waitasec:

saba
10-05-2010, 11:25 AM
BeanE asked me to take a look at this docket. This is the court in which I practice every day, so I'm pretty used to their docket system. :)

My interpretation is: On Sept. 27, Elizabeth's attorney filed a "Motion to Change Counsel." On September 30, he realized that wasn't exactly the right motion to file, and withdrew the motion. On October 1, he filed the correct motion: a "Motion to Withdraw and Request for Appointment of Counsel."

I haven't been keeping up on this case, but I assume Nick Alcock is her privately retained (or pro bono) counsel? (I don't think he's on the court-appointed counsel list.) If so, it looks like he wants to get out and have her represented by court-appointed counsel.

There was a status conference on Sept. 27 (you all probably knew that already), and the minute entry for the status conference indicates that counsel met in chambers with the judge off the record prior to the status conference. So something might have been said at that time that triggered the attempt to withdraw.

hi AZ - so far, so good. Alcock's Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Counsel was granted on 10/01 and filed electronically on 10/5.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/ (type in EJ's name)

saba
10-05-2010, 07:59 PM
If I am reading the case history correctly, since the mental health issues were listed as being for "party (001)" then I think that has to be EJ, and TPS has to be "party (002)".

Having said that, I think that someone entered the info incorrectly into the case history about party (001) filing the motion for change of attorney, and that is why there is a notation to the side that it is for defendant (2).

I am assuming that once something is entered into the case history, it can't be deleted - only additions made to correct an entry.

Then the motion showing for "party (002)" was the correction for the entry. Which would mean that it is indeed TPS requesting the appointment of counsel.

hey Art- you may still be right about TPS- no order yet but Michael Kimerer has been removed from the case heading and now where the lawyer for Tammi would be listed, it says "to be determined." The Motion to Withdraw and for Appointment of Counsel is the only one left. (I think) http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp

eta: there is no prize if you are right

TXHOPE
10-05-2010, 09:32 PM
TPS can no longer afford her lawyers.

Tammi Peters Smith since February in the case of the missing boy last seen Dec. 26, filed a notice of withdraw with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Paul McMurdie on Monday to inform him they no longer would be representing Smith. The lawyers also requested that the court appoint an attorney for her.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/tempe/article_42c5892e-d0d9-11df-a59a-001cc4c03286.html

danisisa
10-07-2010, 10:25 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2010/10/06/20101006tempe-baby-gabriel-tammi-smith1006.html

New article that gives some insight.

Sniped
Elizabeth Johnson, Gabriel's mother, recently submitted a request to change her lawyers, Nicholas Alcock and Associates of Phoenix. She provided a list of reasons, including that she was unable to reach him personally but was referred to an associate. She also said he spoke to a member of her family without her permission.
In the handwritten letter from jail, Johnson asked to have her former public defenders re-appointed.

She then filed a motion to withdraw this request, and last Friday, McMurdie approved it."

BeanE
11-22-2010, 09:36 AM
Tammi and Elizabeth due in court today at 8:30 Phoenix time.

Johnson, Smith Return to Court in Missing Baby Case
Updated: Monday, 22 Nov 2010, 5:22 AM MST
Published : Monday, 22 Nov 2010, 5:22 AM MST

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/justice/missing-baby-case-court-11222010

momrockz
11-22-2010, 01:55 PM
Nothing yet? I have googled and don't see an update on the hearing. It's time for JUSTICE for Gabriel!!

TXHOPE
05-02-2011, 09:43 AM
Desperate acts of 2 in Baby Gabriel mystery
by Laurie Merrill -The Arizona Republic

The meeting in Indianapolis between the two Valley women with complementary passions would pave the way for one of the biggest unsolved Arizona crimes in recent history: the disappearance of Baby Gabriel on Dec. 27, 2009.

The case continues today in Maricopa County Superior Court, when a status conference is scheduled for Smith and Johnson.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2011/05/01/20110501baby-gabriel-mystery.html#ixzz1LCbiMpbR