GUILTY AZ - Madeline 'Maddie' Jones, 19 & William Jones-Gouchenour, 9 mos, found safe, Mesa, 15 Jun 2017

New Posts

I see your point. I guess maybe they are handling the whole case the same because its intertwined, or maybe don't know how to separate it? baffling.

Jethro4WS said:
The motions I was talking about - and are still on-going - concerned Madeline trying to get Christmas visitation. These are family court issues not criminal court issues. Regardless, I find it odd that the Victim's attorney is initiating motions. How could this possibly work without causing a mistrial should the Victim's counsel initiate something or say something in front of a jury when this comes to trial? I have never seen anything like this. I think the prosecutor should be able to handle this case for the criminal matter. The family stuff belongs in Family Court. Allowing this to continue is only going to cause the defendants attorneys to attempt to re-litigate Family Court matters that already were deemed false, or otherwise ruled against - and in front of a jury causing either a mistrial or an acquittal.

Can a criminal court judge actually rule on visitation in Arizona? Because I can't see how the initial motion should not have been quashed at the outset for being out of the bounds of the criminal court. I know that judges can, and in this case did, issue rules about contact and such as a condition of bond but something like visitation seems like it belongs in family court.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, all! This is my first post, so I hope it comes out okay, LoL. Just wanted to clarify a few points.

First, as I understood the three minute entries (links provided below) concerning modification of terms of release, the Criminal Court judge didn't rule on visitation with Baby William. His ruling was to permit Cassandra and Roland Jones to have visitation with their three minor children for at least five hours on Christmas Day. Following their arrest, the three co-defendants had been previously barred from having any contact with one another, so it is still relevant to the criminal case. Additionally, prior to Christmas Day, Roland wasn't allowed to have any contact at all with the minor children. Madeline was also permitted to have contact with her family just for that one day, but no mention at all was made of the baby. So there really was no overreaching on that issue.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122017/m8124427.pdf

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122017/m8122795.pdf

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122017/m8122796.pdf

Secondly, as far as victims advocacy attorneys go, sometimes they are appointed in criminal matters to insure that the rights of the victims of crime are protected. Plus, victims can also seek compensation for all of their out-of-pocket expenses incurred which is an added benefit. In the end, the judge has the discretion to decide whether or not their services are really necessary, or an unnecessary burden to the taxpayer, which is likely the basis for defense counsel's motion.

Third, from my reading of the court docket (link provided below), the Motion to Compel Discovery, Motion to Remove Victim's Counsel and for Sanctions, etc. were all initiated by Maddie's public defender, not by victim's rights attorney. In fact, it sounds like he is refusing to cooperate with the discovery process in not producing the documents that were previously requested of him, which is what necessitated all these motions in the first place. However, I fear he may be causing unnecessary delays in the case for which he may be sanctioned, if the judge sees fit.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...rtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR2017-002869
 
The Criminal Court Judge has ruled against Defendants' Motion to Allow Family Contact for Easter.

This part is very interesting:

"The Court has been asked for clarification regarding current release conditions (whether it would be a violation for defense counsel and their clients to meet regarding discussion of plea offers). The State objects to such a meeting. Prior release conditions prohibiting contact are affirmed."

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032018/m8240291.pdf
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032018/m8240292.pdf
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032018/m8240293.pdf
 
cvaldez1975 said:
dude. the judge has placed destinee mack (now former owner of the justice for William fb group) under gag order because cassie is sniveling about "ppl are talking about me!" she was questioned in court and issued a public defender. first amendment anyone?

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042018/m8263555.pdf
Click to expand...
Without a transcript we don't know what was alleged or what the discussion or basis for such actions by the judge. We only know from the minutes a synopsis. My concern is much of the same circus in Family Court spilled into Criminal Court and I was quite surprised that the Family Court case was ended or largely ended rather than running in parallel. Honestly, without the transcripts for the activity leading up to this we can't know what has the Judge torqued off.
 
I heard the judge is no nonsense which is good, maybe he just wants everything done correctly in the first place so no shenanigans. lets hope.

Jethro4WS said:
Without a transcript we don't know what was alleged or what the discussion or basis for such actions by the judge. We only know from the minutes a synopsis. My concern is much of the same circus in Family Court spilled into Criminal Court and I was quite surprised that the Family Court case was ended or largely ended rather than running in parallel. Honestly, without the transcripts for the activity leading up to this we can't know what has the Judge torqued off.
Click to expand...
 
So now, even victim's counsel has counsel? LoL

From the minute entry of 4/13/18:

State's Attorney: Robert Beardsley
Defendant's Attorney: Jason Gronski
Defendant: Present
Victim’s counsel: Craig Raymond and Billie Tarascio
Counsel for victim’s counsel: J. Douglas McVay
Court Reporter, Hope Yeager, is present

Destinee Mack has counsel too!

The record will reflect the appointment of Carlos Brown as counsel for Destinee Mack.

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042018/m8263555.pdf

Misconduct, anyone?
 
Jethro4WS said:
The motions I was talking about - and are still on-going - concerned Madeline trying to get Christmas visitation. These are family court issues not criminal court issues. Regardless, I find it odd that the Victim's attorney is initiating motions. How could this possibly work without causing a mistrial should the Victim's counsel initiate something or say something in front of a jury when this comes to trial? I have never seen anything like this. I think the prosecutor should be able to handle this case for the criminal matter. The family stuff belongs in Family Court. Allowing this to continue is only going to cause the defendants attorneys to attempt to re-litigate Family Court matters that already were deemed false, or otherwise ruled against - and in front of a jury causing either a mistrial or an acquittal.

Can a criminal court judge actually rule on visitation in Arizona? Because I can't see how the initial motion should not have been quashed at the outset for being out of the bounds of the criminal court. I know that judges can, and in this case did, issue rules about contact and such as a condition of bond but something like visitation seems like it belongs in family court.
Click to expand...

This didn't have to do with family law visitation. It had to do with modifying the order that the defendant's not be around their kids or each other, which was issued by the criminal court.

The gag order against a third party who is not even a witness is insanely unconstitutional. I truly can't believe it. Speech is a sacred, constitutional rift that can only be prohibited in extremely narrow consequences and with the least amount of censure as is possible.

This order is extreme and baffling and insane.

I hope the judge is appealed.
 
gitana1 said:
This didn't have to do with family law visitation. It had to do with modifying the order that the defendant's not be around their kids or each other, which was issued by the criminal court.

The gag order against a third party who is not even a witness is insanely unconstitutional. I truly can't believe it. Speech is a sacred, constitutional rift that can only be prohibited in extremely narrow consequences and with the least amount of censure as is possible.

This order is extreme and baffling and insane.

I hope the judge is appealed.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the typos. Too late to edit. "Rift" should read "right" and "consequences" should read "circumstances."
 
gitana1 said:
This didn't have to do with family law visitation. It had to do with modifying the order that the defendant's not be around their kids or each other, which was issued by the criminal court.

The gag order against a third party who is not even a witness is insanely unconstitutional. I truly can't believe it. Speech is a sacred, constitutional rift that can only be prohibited in extremely narrow consequences and with the least amount of censure as is possible.

This order is extreme and baffling and insane.

I hope the judge is appealed.
Click to expand...

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Oregonmama said:
LDS members have a great support system. There was a case here in Oregon when a young woman was taken by gunpoint and killed by a guy in her complex who was obsessed with her (Whitney Heichel).LDS organized search parties very thoroughly/quickly and found her body quickly. Any theory should be considered
Click to expand...
That wasn't LDS, that was Jehovah's Witnesses
 
I saw the post stating little William has been missing. I prayed for God’s comfort for his family and that he would come home to you soon. My heart aches for you and I believe God is going to bring him home soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 60 more.
Total: 2,491 (members: 61, guests: 2,430)

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
2,430
Total visitors
2,491
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,553
Messages
17,970,895
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top