long weekend break: discuss the latest here #114

Status
Not open for further replies.
And more on DS. I wonder how many times DS has been an expert for Nurmi since he's into sex crimes?


County billed for molester’s psychiatric services
Attorney’s Office did not budget for expert witnesses

By Shar Porier
Wick News Service
Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:18 PM MST

BISBEE — A convicted child molester who is appealing a court ruling that determined he was a sexually violent person in need of mental health care to stop recidivism could end up costing Cochise County a large sum in psychiatric fees.

Steven C. Jasper, who is from Sierra Vista, has numerous convictions for child molestation across three states including Arizona. He has appealed a July ruling and has requested a jury trial to determine if he is a sexually violent person and needs to be committed.

According to the case file, Jasper was convicted in 2001 of sexually molesting a 7-year-old and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. At the time, Jasper claimed he did nothing wrong and denied he had committed the offense or any of the past five offenses that led to convictions in Iowa and in California. He claimed he did not remember committing the offenses or to serving jail time. He has faced charges that include battery, theft, grand larceny, possession of drugs, vandalism and malicious mischief.

Jasper was found to be a sexually violent person during a bench trial by Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt and was ordered to be detained within the Arizona State Hospital system based in part by the testimony of Sergio Martinez, a Department of Corrections contracted licensed forensic psychologist. The doctor’s opinion was based on Jasper’s history, lack of remorse and the use of a rating system for such criminals.

Jasper appealed the ruling on the grounds he did not receive notice of the hearing so he could not attend. His attorney was notified of the pending trial.

“Under Arizona state law, sexual offenders may be committed if found to be mentally ill. But, one must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds him to be a sexually violent person, he will be committed to state care and remain there until such time as a determination can be made that they are no longer mentally ill or likely to re-offend,” said Britt Hanson, chief deputy county attorney in a phone interview last week.

Jasper’s attorney, who is funded through the depleted indigent defense budget, hired an expert psychiatrist from Phoenix who charges $250 per hour and $150 per hour, plus expenses for travel. Dr. Richard Samuels could be paid up to $8,000 for his services — the dollar figure approved by Superior Court Judge James Conlogue. Samuels is close to that limit and will probably be an expert witness at Jasper’s jury trial again at taxpayers’ expense.

To prevent reaching for the red pen as the county attorney’s budget is balanced due to these new expenses for expert witness in the field of mental health, Hanson asked for guidance from the county Board of Supervisors.

Hanson recently met with the supervisors to get approval on a $10,000 possible expenditure for the prosecution’s expert psychiatric witnesses for the Jasper case and one other, but was looking to fund it out of county contingency fund monies. The Herald/Review was unable to review the second case linked to the expenditure.

Supervisors Richard Searle and Pat Call were reluctant to approve any expenditure that would come out of the county’s contingency fund, which has already been raided to meet budgetary needs. They preferred that Hanson use the criminal justice enhancement funds or other department budget lines to pay for the experts.

The County Attorney’s Office had two kind of funds in the past that have been drawn from for special things — Criminal Justice Enhancement fund and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, fund. Criminal justice enhancement funds also are used for salaries and other functions of the County Attorney’s Office. Hanson said it was important that the those funds not be depleted in case there was an emergency.

Criminal justice enhancement funds were recently used in the Nicholas Corbett trial prosecuted by an outside attorney, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. Though the County Attorney’s Office had built up a considerable sum in criminal justice enhancement funds over the years, Woods and all the prosecution’s experts and witnesses reduced the bottom line. Hanson did not know how much remained in the fund.

“We might have the money in the CJE fund, but I suspect we have drawn it down quite a bit,” he said. “We have salaries that are paid out of that. We don’t know if revenues from that fund are going to be as high as anticipated. We could wind up being fairly low on it. Is there money in there to take out now? Yes. Will that mean we have to come back to the board later to replenish it? Yes.”

Hanson emphasized that the County Attorney’s Office has not budgeted for expert witnesses in previous budget cycles.

The three supervisors agreed to allow the expenditure of $10,000 for psychiatric witnesses but stipulated the sum be paid for with the enhancement fund or other department sources. If funding problems arise, they agreed to another meeting to determine alternate funding through the county contingency fund.
 
Look at it this way. Everything that's argued and ruled on in this stage is one less appeal in the Death appeals process.

Oh, there will still be all the appeals and all of these issues will probably be cited as error -- but they will be unsuccessful.

ETA: In fact, the reason they keep bringing motions is to preserve the issue for appeal. If they don't complain about it at the trial level, they can't raise the issue for the first time during appeals.
 
It was reported on HLN, I believe, that this person was out having ice cream on Thursday, too, after court. So either the judge didn't ask about any of the juror's sitting outside or it was decided nothing was wrong with them sitting there.

The real issue is HLN complaining about it when there doesn't seem to be a problem. HLN should not be revealing who the juror is by constantly describing this person as sitting outside the courthouse eating an ice cream. If JC had an issue with it she probably should have brought it to attention of the District Attorney's office. Going on National TV and announcing it without this person having any knowledge seems unfair to the juror. If they were out again on Thursday obviously they were still clueless or determined that they would not be denied that ice cream they deserved after sitting through ALV recitation. lol Good lord, these jurors are not under house arrest. And they wonder why juror don't want to be on juries.
How much Is the DT paying their spies to look for anything and everything? It makes them look desperate, and stoopid, and it's showing their hand.
 
Oh, there will still be all the appeals and all of these issues will probably be cited as error -- but they will be unsuccessful.

ETA: In fact, the reason they keep bringing motions is to preserve the issue for appeal. If they don't complain about it at the trial level, they can't raise the issue for the first time during appeals.

So much ado about nothing.
 
Wanna bet that DT is going to try to stop Juan from eliciting testimony from ALV that Jodi is a STALKER?

Well, then, here's an interesting little motion on today's docket (along with the one for JUROR MISCONDUCT)

NOTE: DEDEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO ELICITING TESTIMONY OR MAKING ARGUMENT RELATED TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH PROBABLE CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND

Tomorrow may be very interesting
 
How much I'd the DT paying their spies to look for anything and everything? It makes them look desperate, and stoopid.

As a juror they may not be able to see defense as "stooped" but they sure can see "desperate". It oozing from defense's pores.
 
Wow i wonder what she's gonna say. She sits w/ Beth in court and always walks in/out with her. He's really milking this isn't he? Didn't they already question the jury? What's he squawking about now?

I think Grace is Beth's producer.
 
Forensic Counseling-Evltns

Own This Business?

Edit Company Info
David Weinstock Phd
8350 E Raintree Drive # 120
Scottsdale, AZ 85260-2691 map

About Forensic Counseling-Evltns

Phone:
(480) 840-0400

|

Website:
Information not found

|
Is this your company? Claim This Profile

Top 5 Unclassified near Scottsdale, Arizona

Baby Instructions LLC
David H Colby, P C
Fit Wedding, L L C
Samuels, Richard M
Dr David Rizik

» See All Unclassified

More Details for Forensic Counseling-Evltns

Forensic Counseling-Evltns in Scottsdale, AZ is a private company categorized under Unclassified. Our records show it was established in 2007 and incorporated in Arizona. Register for free to see additional information such as annual revenue and employment figures.
 
And more on DS. I wonder how many times DS has been an expert for Nurmi since he's into sex crimes?


County billed for molester’s psychiatric services
Attorney’s Office did not budget for expert witnesses

By Shar Porier
Wick News Service
Published/Last Modified on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:18 PM MST

BISBEE — A convicted child molester who is appealing a court ruling that determined he was a sexually violent person in need of mental health care to stop recidivism could end up costing Cochise County a large sum in psychiatric fees.

Steven C. Jasper, who is from Sierra Vista, has numerous convictions for child molestation across three states including Arizona. He has appealed a July ruling and has requested a jury trial to determine if he is a sexually violent person and needs to be committed.

According to the case file, Jasper was convicted in 2001 of sexually molesting a 7-year-old and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. At the time, Jasper claimed he did nothing wrong and denied he had committed the offense or any of the past five offenses that led to convictions in Iowa and in California. He claimed he did not remember committing the offenses or to serving jail time. He has faced charges that include battery, theft, grand larceny, possession of drugs, vandalism and malicious mischief.

Jasper was found to be a sexually violent person during a bench trial by Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggatt and was ordered to be detained within the Arizona State Hospital system based in part by the testimony of Sergio Martinez, a Department of Corrections contracted licensed forensic psychologist. The doctor’s opinion was based on Jasper’s history, lack of remorse and the use of a rating system for such criminals.

Jasper appealed the ruling on the grounds he did not receive notice of the hearing so he could not attend. His attorney was notified of the pending trial.

“Under Arizona state law, sexual offenders may be committed if found to be mentally ill. But, one must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds him to be a sexually violent person, he will be committed to state care and remain there until such time as a determination can be made that they are no longer mentally ill or likely to re-offend,” said Britt Hanson, chief deputy county attorney in a phone interview last week.

Jasper’s attorney, who is funded through the depleted indigent defense budget, hired an expert psychiatrist from Phoenix who charges $250 per hour and $150 per hour, plus expenses for travel. Dr. Richard Samuels could be paid up to $8,000 for his services — the dollar figure approved by Superior Court Judge James Conlogue. Samuels is close to that limit and will probably be an expert witness at Jasper’s jury trial again at taxpayers’ expense.

To prevent reaching for the red pen as the county attorney’s budget is balanced due to these new expenses for expert witness in the field of mental health, Hanson asked for guidance from the county Board of Supervisors.

Hanson recently met with the supervisors to get approval on a $10,000 possible expenditure for the prosecution’s expert psychiatric witnesses for the Jasper case and one other, but was looking to fund it out of county contingency fund monies. The Herald/Review was unable to review the second case linked to the expenditure.

Supervisors Richard Searle and Pat Call were reluctant to approve any expenditure that would come out of the county’s contingency fund, which has already been raided to meet budgetary needs. They preferred that Hanson use the criminal justice enhancement funds or other department budget lines to pay for the experts.

The County Attorney’s Office had two kind of funds in the past that have been drawn from for special things — Criminal Justice Enhancement fund and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, fund. Criminal justice enhancement funds also are used for salaries and other functions of the County Attorney’s Office. Hanson said it was important that the those funds not be depleted in case there was an emergency.

Criminal justice enhancement funds were recently used in the Nicholas Corbett trial prosecuted by an outside attorney, former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. Though the County Attorney’s Office had built up a considerable sum in criminal justice enhancement funds over the years, Woods and all the prosecution’s experts and witnesses reduced the bottom line. Hanson did not know how much remained in the fund.

“We might have the money in the CJE fund, but I suspect we have drawn it down quite a bit,” he said. “We have salaries that are paid out of that. We don’t know if revenues from that fund are going to be as high as anticipated. We could wind up being fairly low on it. Is there money in there to take out now? Yes. Will that mean we have to come back to the board later to replenish it? Yes.”

Hanson emphasized that the County Attorney’s Office has not budgeted for expert witnesses in previous budget cycles.

The three supervisors agreed to allow the expenditure of $10,000 for psychiatric witnesses but stipulated the sum be paid for with the enhancement fund or other department sources. If funding problems arise, they agreed to another meeting to determine alternate funding through the county contingency fund.
No wonder we can't fund our schools.
 
No way I would ever make light of one sleuth's effort to photograph the hoped for reflection of Arias in Travis's eye. It was fascinating to examine that picture & I did see what the sleuth saw, a bust of Arias with the suggestion of a macabre grin on her face & her hand raised holding a knife. This image has haunted me ever since.
 
Reminded me of all the comments about motions sickness during the Anthony trial. Baez was notorious for filing tons of motions. We were all literally suffering from motion sickness.:floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh: Gosh i dont think a day went by without Baez filing. And so many poorly written
 
@Angels_Dwell: Breaking News: Jury questions in the Jodi Arias case has forced Dr Richard Samuels to shut his website down until further evaluation

I took out the informal name tweet had. Didn't want to get in trouble here.


I seen the tweet also, come here to see if anyone was talking about it.

Wow! Is it really jury questions or has the guy basically been run out of business? Since the jury is not supposed to research the case, the latter seems more likely to me.
 
Is DS a prev or just many?

SORNA Compliance: States in Compliance States w/Questionable Compliance AWA/SORNA: Adam Walsh Act (PDF) FINAL Supp. Guidelines
Federal & State-by-State Civil Commitment Centers, with Laws and Related information
Mar 16, 2013
In re Commitment of Allen

Take note, this commitment is based on "ATTEMPTED" sex crimes. This is now the third one we have found using "attempted" as the state's basis.

1-17-2013 Arizona:

In re Commitment of Allen
No. 2 CA-MH 2012-0007-SP.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Charles Allen was convicted of two counts of attempted sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to a fourteen-year prison term. Before the prison term was completed, the state filed a petition pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3704 and, after a two-day trial in May 2012, a jury found Allen a sexually violent person (SVP), see A.R.S. § 36-3701(7), and the trial court ordered him committed to the Arizona Department of Health Services for placement and treatment in a licensed facility under the control of the Arizona State Hospital. Allen filed a motion for new trial, which the court denied. This appeal challenges the trial court's denial of the motion.

¶2 Dr. Barry Morenz, a psychiatrist, evaluated Allen and testified at trial that he had diagnosed Allen as having pedophilia and antisocial personality disorder. He based the diagnosis on his two-hour interview and evaluation of Allen in December 2011, his review of the state's petition, "a lot of records [and] documents that related to [appellant's] past," and his employment of various testing methods1 for determining the recidivism risk for sex offenders. He concluded that under the criteria established by the Arizona legislature, which he considered and addressed, Allen "did meet the criteria for" a SVP "as defined in Arizona law," and there was a high likelihood he will reoffend because he has "serious difficulty in controlling his sexually deviant impulses."

¶3 Dr. Richard Samuels, a clinical and forensic psychologist, evaluated and was called as a witness by Allen. He explained the method of his evaluation, the records he had reviewed, and the bases for his diagnoses. He, too, diagnosed Allen as having pedophilia, as well as alcohol and substance abuse (in remission likely because of his incarceration), personality disorder (not otherwise specified), with depressive and anti-social traits.

¶4 When defense counsel asked Dr. Samuels about the section of his report regarding Allen's general medical condition and the fact that at the time Samuels had written his report he did not have any information in that regard, the state objected. Counsel for the state explained to the trial court that in Samuels's addendum, he had mentioned he had received a telephone call from Allen's counsel, who had informed him Allen had "been diagnosed with several kinds of cancer." Counsel added that he had received no disclosure on the issue and that the only information about any such diagnosis came from Allen's counsel. Allen's counsel explained Allen had been diagnosed with prostate and colon cancer and was scheduled for surgery two weeks later, but counsel had no records to document this assertion. The court questioned the relevancy of such information to the "SVP diagnosis" as well as the fact that it was based on nothing more than counsel's avowals; counsel responded, "prostate cancer in and of itself reduces sexual urges significantly," and appeared to suggest radiation therapy reduces sexual function. Nevertheless, because there had been no documentation or disclosure on the issue, the court sustained the objection.

¶5 Dr. Samuels then stated Allen had pedophilia, a mental condition that predisposes a person to engage in certain kinds of behavior, "in this case sex with prepubescent children." He discussed the various tests he had utilized to determine Allen's likelihood to reoffend, explained how the scores he gave Allen differed from the scores Dr. Morenz had given him, and discussed the test designed to measure psychopathy, for which Allen had a lower, more favorable score of fifteen, compared to a score of between twenty-five and twenty-seven for the general prison population. Stevens gave Allen a moderate to high likelihood of reoffending under one test, which he explained translates into a risk of 7.7 percent, "meaning 92.3 percent will not re-offend."
 
I re-watched Juan questioning the defendant...there is so much I love about it I just had to post:

* the way the prosecutor refers to himself as the prosecutor
* the way he is pounding away when questioning her, but slips into a kind and gentle voice when asking the court reporter to read back a question
* his use of he word "sure" when he lets some of her bs slide
*his objections always sound like he knows what he is talking about unlike Nurmi who throws everything but the kitchen sink in there (objection- argumentative, asked and answered, beyond the scope...one will stick, right!?)
* his highly intelligent questioning skills...ask several questions....draw her in and then WHAM...hit her with a whopper question

He is great! Although the defense team will try anything to get their client a sentence other than DP...Juan will prevail and Justice for Travis will be served not only because the evidence proves she premeditated this heinous murder....but also because the prosecutor, Juan Martinez is amazing at what he does. MOO
 
I think it was about a year and a half!:furious:

:floorlaugh:
Seriously. I think he made $15-20,000 to lie for her.
over$20,000
Minus taxes OF COURSE! :blushing:

It makes me ill.

moo
 
Do any AZ attorneys have access to AZTurboCourt filings? I know that when you e-file in Federal Court you can view the actual pleading that was e-filed. Is it the same in AZ? If so, perhaps we can get some of our AZ lawyers with e-filing privileges to pull the filings that aren't sealed.
 
I think you might be right about the secret message being for DB. She does mention her interview and JM did get information from DB that he met with one of the producers about the interview.
And yet another reason I think it was for DB.. I didn't know that! Thanks for the info. I have always thought it was meant for DB, not MM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
2,671
Total visitors
2,771

Forum statistics

Threads
594,156
Messages
17,999,782
Members
229,324
Latest member
Websleuth0000
Back
Top