Court Minutes
Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
11/13/2014 8:00 AM
11/12/2014
TRIAL MINUTE ENTRY
DAY FIFTEEN
LET THE RECORD REFLECT that on 11/6/14 all paper exhibits (Exhibits 1-11; 14-210;
251-271; 275-287; 290-294; 317-342; 347; 361-363; 366; 382-388; 390-411; 413-417; 419-427;
430-453; 455-459; 461-469; 471-474; 481; 484; 485; 488; 489; 494; 495; 499; 504-507; 510-
526; 529; 530; 532-538; 540-556; 558-603; 605-610; 612-615; 617-629; 631; 633-646; 648-665;
667-670; 676; 677; 679-732, 646 and 648-665) were released to Defense and returned on
11/12/14.
The Court has considered the Motion for Sanctions filed November 10, 2014 and Exhibit
1, a video-recording of a portion of the hearing conducted on November 4, 2014. In the motion,
Defendant Arias requests the Court sanction the media for violating its order dated May 21,
2014. Specifically, Defendant argues the media violated Rule 122 and 122.1, Arizona Supreme
Court Rules, by filming the attorney conference between the defendant and the mitigation
specialist, thereby interfering with the attorney-client relationship.
The Court authorized the media to broadcast the oral argument that occurred on
November 4, 2014.
The media placed the videotaped proceeding online. Defense counsel objected to the
broadcast of the portion of the proceeding that included the conversation between the defendant
and the mitigation specialist.
The Court advised the public information officer for the Maricopa County Superior Court
about the situation. She contacted the appropriate media representative. That representative
agreed to immediately remove the portion of the videotaped proceeding that included the
conversation between the defendant and the mitigation specialist. The camera operator was
unaware he could not film conversations between the defendant and mitigation specialist.
Exhibit 1 is marked for identification in connection with the Defense Motion for
Sanctions and admitted for the purposes of the Motion for Sanctions only.
The Court has viewed Exhibit 1. While counsel were at the bench, the pool camera
focused on the defendant who was conversing with the mitigation specialist. The vantage point
of the camera was such that nothing the defendant said was captured by the camera. Portions of
statements made by the mitigation specialist were visible but there was no audio and much of
what she said was blocked by the defense interns head.
In light of all the facts and circumstances, the Court finds no sanction is appropriate for
any violation of Supreme Court Rule 122 or 122.1 that occurred on November 4, 2014.
IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Sanctions. :gavel: :denied:
Dr. Micio Fonseca is sworn and testifies.
The Defense offers and admits Defense Exhibit 560 in evidence.
The Defense offers and admits Defense Exhibit 699 in evidence....
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...4/m6572014.pdf
--------------------------
Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
11/11/2014 RES - Response - Party (001) 11/12/2014
NOTE: RESPONSE BY NEWS ORGANIZATIONS TO DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
11/11/2014 MIL - Motion In Limine - Party (001) 11/12/2014
NOTE: MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING IMAGES ON COMPAQ PRESARIO COMPUTER
11/10/2014 MTD - Motion To Dismiss - Party (001) 11/12/2014
NOTE: ALL CHARGES WITH PREJUDICE AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS THE STATES NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY DUE TO RECENTLY DISCOVERED PURPOSEFUL AND EREGIOUS PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CR2008-031021
) - posting here just in case it could help someone else.
