Elizabeth Johnson's Court Hearings & Charges

[The_Flashlight]

She really NEEDS TO PAY FOR HER OWN ATTY!!!!!

 

[Gma Kat]

It sounds to me like this little girl (EJ) <modsnip>.......has the court, LE and everyone playing HER game.......its disgraceful......

 

[saba]

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/12/2011- REQ- Party (001)
State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery


1/6/2011- SUA Subpoena and Affidavit of Service-Party (001)
Duces Tecum/ Served 12/30/2010
(there were two of these)

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Help me out here, what do those mean, Saba???

 

[saba]

Help me out here, what do those mean, Saba???

Hi YS. Lucky for us we have a pro who can help us out. Hopefully, AZLAWYER will swing by and explain everything.

 

[jessicat]

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/12/2011- REQ- Party (001)
State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery


1/6/2011- SUA Subpoena and Affidavit of Service-Party (001)
Duces Tecum/ Served 12/30/2010
(there were two of these)

Well the first I know is the state requesting discovery from the defense..they want what the defense has....documents etc..they may be asking the defense to answer questions and produce the evidence with it.

The Duces Tecum is a subpoena for production of evidence.

Now OT we are embroiled in a legal mess with my hubby's ex and we rec'd papers for production of discovery and basically they wanted check stubs, any emails, journals etc we had in our possession, that kind of stuff. It was pages and pages of questions that we either answered or had to produce paperwork for (check stubs etc)..we did the same to her..requested discovery from her. HTH..but I am in no way an atty so yes AZ lawyer..take it away!!!

 

[AZlawyer]

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/12/2011- REQ- Party (001)
State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery


1/6/2011- SUA Subpoena and Affidavit of Service-Party (001)
Duces Tecum/ Served 12/30/2010
(there were two of these)

Help me out here, what do those mean, Saba???

Well the first I know is the state requesting discovery from the defense..they want what the defense has....documents etc..they may be asking the defense to answer questions and produce the evidence with it.

The Duces Tecum is a subpoena for production of evidence.

Now OT we are embroiled in a legal mess with my hubby's ex and we rec'd papers for production of discovery and basically they wanted check stubs, any emails, journals etc we had in our possession, that kind of stuff. It was pages and pages of questions that we either answered or had to produce paperwork for (check stubs etc)..we did the same to her..requested discovery from her. HTH..but I am in no way an atty so yes AZ lawyer..take it away!!!

Sorry I haven't stopped by here in a few days.

The Subpoenas Duces Tecum are indeed subpoenas to third parties for production of documents. We don't know who the third parties are or what they were requested to produce.

The "State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery" means that the defense requested that the state disclose something under Rule 15.1, and the state now wants to know the basis for the defense's request.

 

[jessicat]

Sorry I haven't stopped by here in a few days.

The Subpoenas Duces Tecum are indeed subpoenas to third parties for production of documents. We don't know who the third parties are or what they were requested to produce.

The "State's Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1-Request for Discovery" means that the defense requested that the state disclose something under Rule 15.1, and the state now wants to know the basis for the defense's request.

Thank you as usual AZlawyer!

Could that third party be Det. Salame and those tapes?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you as usual AZlawyer!

Could that third party be Det. Salame and those tapes?

I doubt it. First of all, this looks like it's a subpoena from the State, which probably could get Det. Salame to turn over the tapes without a subpoena. Second, the procedure to get things from out of state would look different on the docket.

 

[saba]

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012011/m4555223.pdf


Oral Argument on the Motion to Dismiss has been reset to 8:30 a.m. on 1/30/2011 due to a calendar conflict.


eta: The main docket shows this reset to 1/31/2011 which makes sense since 1/30 is a Sunday.

 

[saba]

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/20/2011

Response to States Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1 Request for Discovery Party(001)


1/20/2011

Motion to have Investigator Appointed Party(001)

 

[debloree]

Does EJ have court tomorrow? TIA

 

[kappy50]

yes she does...8:30 I think ??? Az time that is..I'm CST...

 

[The_Flashlight]

10:30am EST

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Haven't found any updates yet, but, yes ej & ts were due in court this AM - an hour ago from now.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

So, I'm assuming this means the hearing was postponed again?

Or, did she have her hearing today and this is a different one?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Court date: 3/1/2011 @ 8:30 Case #: CR2010-101760
Case event: Status Conference
Camera ruling: Pool Camera approved
Judge: Paul McMurdie
Prosecutor: Belle Whitney
Defendant: Elizabeth Joanne Johnson (001)
Defense attorney: Vanessa Smith/Nicholas Alcock

Case notes: Charged with child abuse, kidnapping, attempted custodial interference and custodial interference in the case of her missing 8-month-old son Gabriel. Johnson and the baby's father, Logan Scott McQueary were involved in a family court case (FC2009-007470). She also has another criminal case for Custodial Interference (CR2009-008392).


ETA: Just checked the court calender again -- an hour ago they were still on for today and now it doesn't show them . . . .

 

[debloree]

Seems like the media has totally forgotten about Gabriel. :banghead:

 

[kappy50]

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (Elizabeth Johnson or CR2010-101760)


1/20/2011

Response to States Request for Defense Particular Bases for Rule 15.1 Request for Discovery Party(001)


1/20/2011

Motion to have Investigator Appointed Party(001)

Just went to this docket...shows a filing on Friday 1/28...Report-Party 001...Joint Case Management Plan...wonder what that means and if it has anything to do with today ???

 

[saba]

http://www.kpho.com/news/26679631/detail.html

Did Prosecutors Bungle Case of Missing Baby Gabriel?

Raynak goes after the prosecutors and EJ writes another letter to the judge.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

PHOENIX -- Could a mistake by prosecutors set baby Gabriel's mother free? The 8-month-old boy has been missing for more than a year, and his mother, Elizabeth Johnson, sits in jail charged in his kidnapping. But her attorney is banking on botched prosecution to set Johnson loose

Raynak thinks this interview alone is enough to set Johnson free, but Salame refuses to be deposed. And Raynak argued the prosecution is also responsible.

You know, I understand defense atty's have a job to do, but it's just unfathomable that Raynak can sleep at night knowing ej could go free and the world will NEVER know the whereabouts or well-being of a little baby! He's taking a peson who has done Lord knows what with her baby and trying to get her free on a technicality. Seriously, how can he sleep at night?!? I swear, if he gets ej off on this, I'll write him every day telling him just want I think of his poor-excuse-for-a-man butt for allowing baby Gabe to be left who knows where subjected to who knows what. There has GOT to be some sort of law enacted that puts the rights of an innocent baby above those of the criminal! I'm so disgusted, I just want to vomit.


Although, I did enjoy reading this part:

But Raynak has enough trouble controlling his own client, Johnson, who wrote a letter to the judge without her attorney's knowledge. The judge announced it in court Monday, and then allowed Raynak and the prosecution team time to read it.